Greetings in Christ!
The new address for the CUF blog is http://blog.cuf.org
Please visit the new blog.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
On this rock I will build my churches?
Today I had a letter published in a large, secular newspaper in which I came to the defense of the recent Vatican statement regarding the necessity of the Church for salvation. Last week the paper published a mischievous, front-page article blasting the Church and especially the Holy Father for taking a position that allegedly flies in the face of the Catholic Church’s more ecumenical, pastorally sensitive approach since Vatican II. I say “mischievous” because the article inaccurately presented the Church’s statement in order to generate controversy.
Of course the Vatican statement contains no new doctrinal teaching. And, for that matter, it wasn’t even intended for our ecumenical partners. Rather, it was directed to bishops and theologians to clarify issues that have arisen in recent decades concerning salvation through the Church and how this truth relates to other Christian communities. Certainly the Church has not reversed her “irreversible” efforts to foster the unity of all Christians—a unity rooted in both truth and charity.
I thought another published letter in the newspaper shows how much work we have left to do “in house,” as we strive to do a better job of catechizing our own flock. Here’s the letter in full, with the name omitted:
The Pope declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church ‘Only one church,’ (7/11, A-1, “Pope-approved document has Protestants wondering about ecumenism’s fate”).
The words are not new. I just haven’t heard them since childhood when I worried about the fate of Protestant friends, prayed for souls languishing in Purgatory, and saved pennies for pagan babies on hold in Limbo.
My faith formation was rooted in fear and confusion.
As a rational adult, I believe there are many roads to salvation. Otherwise, the kind-hearted Methodists, Jews and atheists who cross my path will be standing at the gates of hell along with mass murderers.
Must we return to the alienating discussion of a true church? Shouldn’t we focus on living the message of Jesus and serving others in the best way we can?
The Church might claim direct lineage to Peter, but it does not have a direct line to the mind of God.
There’s much open to comment here, such as the Chuch’s being directly linked to Peter, but not to God. I'm especially taken by the comment about her being a “rational adult.” I wonder why a “rational adult” would remain in a Church that’s not necessary for salvation.
Anyway, this reminds me of a letter I once received that began like this:
“I think your organization is an embarrassment to all thinking Catholics. . . .”
What do I make of such letters? I’m not a "thinking Catholic" on the order of a James Likoudis or Scott Hahn, but after many years of education and formation I think I can competently explain the Church’s teachings. Surely in the article to which that person was responding I did not espouse crossing a busy street without first looking both ways or some other unreasonable proposition.
Rather, the term "thinking Catholic" (or “rational adult”) is a code word to identify Catholics who consider themselves sophisticated and educated enough to choose for themselves what Church teachings they accept. As the above letter suggests, anyone who accepts all the Church’s teachings, even on such foundational matters involving personal salvation, is, in their estimation, simply not thinking. And this from someone who still claims to be Catholic!
In this letter we also see the latent universalism that has fostered tepidity and spiritual decay throughout the Church today. By this I mean the attitude that pretty much everybody is saved, that it really doesn’t matter what one believes, because we all end up in a “better place.”
We see this especially illustrated in contemporary funerals, which typically are “mini-canonizations” rather than privileged opportunities to pray for our beloved deceased.
This of course is a species of presumption, which is a defect of the supernatural virtue of hope.
It’s also strikingly similar to the Bible Christians’ theory of “once saved, always saved.” Once someone accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, the theory goes, there is no way he or she can “lose” his salvation. Personal conduct is, in the end, irrelevant, and the theological virtue of hope is superfluous.
The above letter, representative of what we might call a “washed out” Catholicism, presents a similar perspective. Once one is born (this is much less complicated than having to be “saved” or “born again”), that person will be saved. Faith, religious belief, moral conduct, relationship with God, etc.—none of that ultimately matters. Now this group is willing to carve out a very narrow exception for the occasional Hitler or mass murderer, but the rest of us have it made.
Of course, if that’s true, who needs Jesus Christ, the one savior of the world? And who needs His Church, the instrument of salvation for the entire world, built on the rock of St. Peter? Why not take a road other than the way of the cross, since after all we "rational adults" know that there are many other more comfortable roads to salvation.
The truth is, God’s grace is unlimited. It’s not absent outside the visible boundaries of the Church. God calls each one of us by name, seeking a personal relationship with us as He offers us eternal life. Yet, God will not save us without our cooperation, in keeping with our human dignity. How dare we, at the moment of our death, cry out “Lord, Lord,” yet be unwilling to do what He says in this life? (see Matthew 7:21). Are we ready to meet Him if He calls us tonight?
For more in-depth Church teaching on this subject, visit www.cuf.org. CUF members may email their follow-up questions to www.cuf.org, where they will receive personalized responses from our team of experienced apologists.
Of course the Vatican statement contains no new doctrinal teaching. And, for that matter, it wasn’t even intended for our ecumenical partners. Rather, it was directed to bishops and theologians to clarify issues that have arisen in recent decades concerning salvation through the Church and how this truth relates to other Christian communities. Certainly the Church has not reversed her “irreversible” efforts to foster the unity of all Christians—a unity rooted in both truth and charity.
I thought another published letter in the newspaper shows how much work we have left to do “in house,” as we strive to do a better job of catechizing our own flock. Here’s the letter in full, with the name omitted:
The Pope declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church ‘Only one church,’ (7/11, A-1, “Pope-approved document has Protestants wondering about ecumenism’s fate”).
The words are not new. I just haven’t heard them since childhood when I worried about the fate of Protestant friends, prayed for souls languishing in Purgatory, and saved pennies for pagan babies on hold in Limbo.
My faith formation was rooted in fear and confusion.
As a rational adult, I believe there are many roads to salvation. Otherwise, the kind-hearted Methodists, Jews and atheists who cross my path will be standing at the gates of hell along with mass murderers.
Must we return to the alienating discussion of a true church? Shouldn’t we focus on living the message of Jesus and serving others in the best way we can?
The Church might claim direct lineage to Peter, but it does not have a direct line to the mind of God.
There’s much open to comment here, such as the Chuch’s being directly linked to Peter, but not to God. I'm especially taken by the comment about her being a “rational adult.” I wonder why a “rational adult” would remain in a Church that’s not necessary for salvation.
Anyway, this reminds me of a letter I once received that began like this:
“I think your organization is an embarrassment to all thinking Catholics. . . .”
What do I make of such letters? I’m not a "thinking Catholic" on the order of a James Likoudis or Scott Hahn, but after many years of education and formation I think I can competently explain the Church’s teachings. Surely in the article to which that person was responding I did not espouse crossing a busy street without first looking both ways or some other unreasonable proposition.
Rather, the term "thinking Catholic" (or “rational adult”) is a code word to identify Catholics who consider themselves sophisticated and educated enough to choose for themselves what Church teachings they accept. As the above letter suggests, anyone who accepts all the Church’s teachings, even on such foundational matters involving personal salvation, is, in their estimation, simply not thinking. And this from someone who still claims to be Catholic!
In this letter we also see the latent universalism that has fostered tepidity and spiritual decay throughout the Church today. By this I mean the attitude that pretty much everybody is saved, that it really doesn’t matter what one believes, because we all end up in a “better place.”
We see this especially illustrated in contemporary funerals, which typically are “mini-canonizations” rather than privileged opportunities to pray for our beloved deceased.
This of course is a species of presumption, which is a defect of the supernatural virtue of hope.
It’s also strikingly similar to the Bible Christians’ theory of “once saved, always saved.” Once someone accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, the theory goes, there is no way he or she can “lose” his salvation. Personal conduct is, in the end, irrelevant, and the theological virtue of hope is superfluous.
The above letter, representative of what we might call a “washed out” Catholicism, presents a similar perspective. Once one is born (this is much less complicated than having to be “saved” or “born again”), that person will be saved. Faith, religious belief, moral conduct, relationship with God, etc.—none of that ultimately matters. Now this group is willing to carve out a very narrow exception for the occasional Hitler or mass murderer, but the rest of us have it made.
Of course, if that’s true, who needs Jesus Christ, the one savior of the world? And who needs His Church, the instrument of salvation for the entire world, built on the rock of St. Peter? Why not take a road other than the way of the cross, since after all we "rational adults" know that there are many other more comfortable roads to salvation.
The truth is, God’s grace is unlimited. It’s not absent outside the visible boundaries of the Church. God calls each one of us by name, seeking a personal relationship with us as He offers us eternal life. Yet, God will not save us without our cooperation, in keeping with our human dignity. How dare we, at the moment of our death, cry out “Lord, Lord,” yet be unwilling to do what He says in this life? (see Matthew 7:21). Are we ready to meet Him if He calls us tonight?
For more in-depth Church teaching on this subject, visit www.cuf.org. CUF members may email their follow-up questions to www.cuf.org, where they will receive personalized responses from our team of experienced apologists.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Pope's New Book a Beautiful Meditation
I just read Pope Benedict XVI's latest book, Jesus of Nazareth. This is a theological and pastoral work that has the real Jesus jumping off the pages of the Gospels. While this book is not an exercise of his papal Magisterium, Benedict the teacher and evangelist demonstrates the reliability and reasonableness of the Gospels, simultaneously showing that the Jesus of history is, indeed, the Christ of faith.
The central question around which the book is based is: What did Jesus actually bring, if not world peace and universal prosperity? The simple answer is, according to Benedict, God - and with God, the truth about our origin and destiny: faith, hope, and love.
In the foreword, Pope Benedict calls it a "most urgent priority" to present the figure and message of Jesus to help draw the faithful into a living relationship with Him. This sense of urgency is likely a response to some of the toxic consequences of a reductive Christology that has infected Catholic theology, catechesis, and activism during the past century. Rather than the incarnation of God Himself, Jesus is often seen primarily as a wise philosopher, social reformer, or political revolutionary. One need only look to certain strands of liberation theology to see these flawed models of Jesus.
When I first learned that Pope Benedict was writing a book on Jesus in the Gospels, I couldn’t wait to read it. Having now read it, I can’t wait to read it again. This book is a great read, a beautiful expounding of the Gospels, and an excellent tool for prayer and meditation. Read it prayerfully, with your Bible in hand, and you will fall in love with Jesus of Nazareth!
Look for my review of this book in the September/October issue of Lay Witness.
The central question around which the book is based is: What did Jesus actually bring, if not world peace and universal prosperity? The simple answer is, according to Benedict, God - and with God, the truth about our origin and destiny: faith, hope, and love.
In the foreword, Pope Benedict calls it a "most urgent priority" to present the figure and message of Jesus to help draw the faithful into a living relationship with Him. This sense of urgency is likely a response to some of the toxic consequences of a reductive Christology that has infected Catholic theology, catechesis, and activism during the past century. Rather than the incarnation of God Himself, Jesus is often seen primarily as a wise philosopher, social reformer, or political revolutionary. One need only look to certain strands of liberation theology to see these flawed models of Jesus.
When I first learned that Pope Benedict was writing a book on Jesus in the Gospels, I couldn’t wait to read it. Having now read it, I can’t wait to read it again. This book is a great read, a beautiful expounding of the Gospels, and an excellent tool for prayer and meditation. Read it prayerfully, with your Bible in hand, and you will fall in love with Jesus of Nazareth!
Look for my review of this book in the September/October issue of Lay Witness.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
CDF Responds to Questions on the Nature of the Catholic Church
The Congregration for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the Vatican's doctrinal office, just issued a document clarfiying the doctrine of the Church on June 29, 2007, the solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Important issues addressed in this document include the relation of Vatican II statements to prior Church teaching; the meaning of the word "subsists" in Vatican II's statement that "the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" and why "subsists in" is used instead of "is"; and why "church" is not an appropriate term for those Christian communities that arose out of the Protestant reformation. The full text and footnotes are provided below.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).
The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS
First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.
This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council1. Paul VI affirmed it2 and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation"3. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention4.
Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community"5, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.6 "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him"7.
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church8, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.9 Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.10
Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?
Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"11.
"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"12.
Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"13, they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"14, and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches15.
"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"16. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches17.
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history18.
Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery19 cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense20.
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
William Cardinal Levada Prefect
+ Angelo Amato, S.D.B.Titular Archbishop of Sila Secretary
_______________________
1 JOHN XXIII, Address of 11 October 1962: "…The Council…wishes to transmit Catholic doctrine, whole and entire, without alteration or deviation…But in the circumstances of our times it is necessary that Christian doctrine in its entirety, and with nothing taken away from it, is accepted with renewed enthusiasm, and serene and tranquil adherence… it is necessary that the very same doctrine be understood more widely and more profoundly as all those who sincerely adhere to the Christian, Catholic and Apostolic faith strongly desire …it is necessary that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which is owed the obedience of faith, be explored and expounded in the manner required by our times. The deposit of faith itself and the truths contained in our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are annunciated is another, provided that the same fundamental sense and meaning is maintained" : AAS 54 [1962] 791-792.
2 Cf. PAUL VI, Address of 29 September 1963: AAS 55 [1963] 847-852.
3 PAUL VI, Address of 21 November 1964: AAS 56 [1964] 1009-1010.
4 The Council wished to express the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. This is clear from the discussions on the decree Unitatis redintegratio. The Schema of the Decree was proposed on the floor of the Council on 23.9.1964 with a Relatio (Act Syn III/II 296-344). The Secretariat for the Unity of Christians responded on 10.11.1964 to the suggestions sent by Bishops in the months that followed (Act Syn III/VII 11-49). Herewith are quoted four texts from this Expensio modorum concerning this first response.
A) [In Nr. 1 (Prooemium) Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 296, 3-6]
"Pag. 5, lin. 3-6: Videtur etiam Ecclesiam catholicam inter illas Communiones comprehendi, quod falsum esset.
R(espondetur): Hic tantum factum, prout ab omnibus conspicitur, describendum est. Postea clare affirmatur solam Ecclesiam catholicam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi" (Act Syn III/VII 12).
B) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 297-301]
"4 - Expressius dicatur unam solam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi; hanc esse Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam; omnes debere inquirere, ut eam cognoscant et ingrediantur ad salutem obtinendam...
R(espondetur): In toto textu sufficienter effertur, quod postulatur. Ex altera parte non est tacendum etiam in aliis communitatibus christianis inveniri veritates revelatas et elementa ecclesialia"(Act Syn III/VII 15). Cf. also ibid pt. 5.
C) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 296s]
"5 - Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam...
R(espondetur): Textus supponit doctrinam in constitutione ‘De Ecclesia’ expositam, ut pag. 5, lin. 24-25 affirmatur" (Act Syn III/VII 15). Thus the commission whose task it was to evaluate the responses to the Decree Unitatis redintegratio clearly expressed the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and its unicity, and understood this doctrine to be founded in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium.
D) [In Nr. 2 Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 297s]
"Pag. 6, lin. 1- 24: Clarius exprimatur unicitas Ecclesiae. Non sufficit inculcare, ut in textu fit, unitatem Ecclesiae.
R(espondetur): a) Ex toto textu clare apparet identificatio Ecclesiae Christi cum Ecclesia catholica, quamvis, ut oportet, efferantur elementa ecclesialia aliarum communitatum".
"Pag. 7, lin. 5: Ecclesia a successoribus Apostolorum cum Petri successore capite gubernata (cf. novum textum ad pag. 6, lin.33-34) explicite dicitur ‘unicus Dei grex’ et lin. 13 ‘una et unica Dei Ecclesia’ " (Act Syn III/VII).
The two expressions quoted are those of Unitatis redintegratio 2.5 e 3.1.
5 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.1.
6 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.2; 3.4; 3.5; 4.6.
7 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen gentium, 8.2.
8 Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.1: AAS 65 [1973] 397; Declaration Dominus Iesus, 16.3: AAS 92 [2000-II] 757-758; Notification on the Book of Leonardo Boff, OFM, "Church: Charism and Power": AAS 77 [1985] 758-759.
9 Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928.
10 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
11 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
12 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4.
13 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.3; cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, 17.2: AAS, 85 [1993-II] 848.
14 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1.
15 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1; JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 56 f: AAS 87 [1995-II] 954 ff.
16 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.1.
17 Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, 17.3: AAS 85 [1993-II] 849.
18 Ibid.
19 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.3.
20 Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 17.2: AAS 92 [2000-II] 758.
Important issues addressed in this document include the relation of Vatican II statements to prior Church teaching; the meaning of the word "subsists" in Vatican II's statement that "the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" and why "subsists in" is used instead of "is"; and why "church" is not an appropriate term for those Christian communities that arose out of the Protestant reformation. The full text and footnotes are provided below.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).
The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS
First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.
This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council1. Paul VI affirmed it2 and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation"3. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention4.
Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community"5, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.6 "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him"7.
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church8, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.9 Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.10
Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?
Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"11.
"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"12.
Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"13, they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"14, and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches15.
"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"16. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches17.
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history18.
Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery19 cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense20.
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
William Cardinal Levada Prefect
+ Angelo Amato, S.D.B.Titular Archbishop of Sila Secretary
_______________________
1 JOHN XXIII, Address of 11 October 1962: "…The Council…wishes to transmit Catholic doctrine, whole and entire, without alteration or deviation…But in the circumstances of our times it is necessary that Christian doctrine in its entirety, and with nothing taken away from it, is accepted with renewed enthusiasm, and serene and tranquil adherence… it is necessary that the very same doctrine be understood more widely and more profoundly as all those who sincerely adhere to the Christian, Catholic and Apostolic faith strongly desire …it is necessary that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which is owed the obedience of faith, be explored and expounded in the manner required by our times. The deposit of faith itself and the truths contained in our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are annunciated is another, provided that the same fundamental sense and meaning is maintained" : AAS 54 [1962] 791-792.
2 Cf. PAUL VI, Address of 29 September 1963: AAS 55 [1963] 847-852.
3 PAUL VI, Address of 21 November 1964: AAS 56 [1964] 1009-1010.
4 The Council wished to express the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. This is clear from the discussions on the decree Unitatis redintegratio. The Schema of the Decree was proposed on the floor of the Council on 23.9.1964 with a Relatio (Act Syn III/II 296-344). The Secretariat for the Unity of Christians responded on 10.11.1964 to the suggestions sent by Bishops in the months that followed (Act Syn III/VII 11-49). Herewith are quoted four texts from this Expensio modorum concerning this first response.
A) [In Nr. 1 (Prooemium) Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 296, 3-6]
"Pag. 5, lin. 3-6: Videtur etiam Ecclesiam catholicam inter illas Communiones comprehendi, quod falsum esset.
R(espondetur): Hic tantum factum, prout ab omnibus conspicitur, describendum est. Postea clare affirmatur solam Ecclesiam catholicam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi" (Act Syn III/VII 12).
B) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 297-301]
"4 - Expressius dicatur unam solam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi; hanc esse Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam; omnes debere inquirere, ut eam cognoscant et ingrediantur ad salutem obtinendam...
R(espondetur): In toto textu sufficienter effertur, quod postulatur. Ex altera parte non est tacendum etiam in aliis communitatibus christianis inveniri veritates revelatas et elementa ecclesialia"(Act Syn III/VII 15). Cf. also ibid pt. 5.
C) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 296s]
"5 - Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam...
R(espondetur): Textus supponit doctrinam in constitutione ‘De Ecclesia’ expositam, ut pag. 5, lin. 24-25 affirmatur" (Act Syn III/VII 15). Thus the commission whose task it was to evaluate the responses to the Decree Unitatis redintegratio clearly expressed the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and its unicity, and understood this doctrine to be founded in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium.
D) [In Nr. 2 Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 297s]
"Pag. 6, lin. 1- 24: Clarius exprimatur unicitas Ecclesiae. Non sufficit inculcare, ut in textu fit, unitatem Ecclesiae.
R(espondetur): a) Ex toto textu clare apparet identificatio Ecclesiae Christi cum Ecclesia catholica, quamvis, ut oportet, efferantur elementa ecclesialia aliarum communitatum".
"Pag. 7, lin. 5: Ecclesia a successoribus Apostolorum cum Petri successore capite gubernata (cf. novum textum ad pag. 6, lin.33-34) explicite dicitur ‘unicus Dei grex’ et lin. 13 ‘una et unica Dei Ecclesia’ " (Act Syn III/VII).
The two expressions quoted are those of Unitatis redintegratio 2.5 e 3.1.
5 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.1.
6 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.2; 3.4; 3.5; 4.6.
7 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen gentium, 8.2.
8 Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.1: AAS 65 [1973] 397; Declaration Dominus Iesus, 16.3: AAS 92 [2000-II] 757-758; Notification on the Book of Leonardo Boff, OFM, "Church: Charism and Power": AAS 77 [1985] 758-759.
9 Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928.
10 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
11 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
12 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4.
13 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.3; cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, 17.2: AAS, 85 [1993-II] 848.
14 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1.
15 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1; JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 56 f: AAS 87 [1995-II] 954 ff.
16 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.1.
17 Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, 17.3: AAS 85 [1993-II] 849.
18 Ibid.
19 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.3.
20 Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 17.2: AAS 92 [2000-II] 758.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Pope Benedict XVI and the "Tridentine" Mass
Well, it’s finally official. Pope Benedict XVI has provided for a wider use of the older form of the Latin rite approved by Pope John XXIII in 1962, commonly known as the Tridentine Mass.
The first thing we need to do as faithful Catholics is to hear what the Holy Father is saying to the Church. For this reason, I encourage CUF members and all readers of this blog to read the current issue of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy’s newsletter, which is posted at http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/bclnewsletterjune07.pdf .
This newsletter has an English translation of Pope Benedict’s apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum on the use of the preconciliar liturgical forms. After the apostolic letter is a letter from the Holy Father to all bishops providing some further explanation and context regarding the apostolic letter. Then the committee provides a helpful series of questions and answers on the apostolic letter and on the “ordinary” and “extraordinary” forms of the Roman Missal.
I consider CUF president emeritus James Likoudis one of the leading experts in the country on the liturgical changes brought about by Vatican II. He is the coauthor, along with Ken Whitehead, of the critically acclaimed book The Pope, the Council, and the Mass. The revised edition of this book is available at http://www.emmausroad.org/The-Pope-the-Council-and-the-Mass-P6945C483.aspx. Here’s what Mr. Likoudis has to say about Summorum Pontificum:
“Like liturgically concerned Catholics in many countries, I welcome Summorum Pontificum by Pope Benedict XVI, which allows any priest of the Latin rite to celebrate Mass according to the Missal of 1962 (the so-called Tridentine Latin Mass) in a far more generous manner than was previously allowed. As the Pope explained, the Church has ‘two usages of the one Roman rite,’ the ordinary form promulgated by Paul VI in accordance with the desires of Vatican II, and the older extraordinary form cherished by those Catholics having ‘a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier form of liturgical celebration.’
“In the revised 2006 edition of The Pope, the Council and the Mass, in which Kenneth Whitehead and I defend the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, we took care to observe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had written books and articles indicating that ‘the sacred liturgy has long been one of his abiding interests and concerns.’ We also noted his view that ‘the liturgical reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council have not been an unqualified success in all respects.’ We wrote that it was expected that as Pope he would take measures toward an authentic ‘reform of the reform in accordance with the true mind of Vatican II’ (concerning which no one was better informed than that eminent theologian, Joseph Ratzinger). Pope Benedict has now done so in a striking and sensitive manner not only to assure the Church's preservation of its rich Latin liturgical heritage, but also to reach out to those who have been alienated from the Church by liturgical abuses that have gone uncorrected. It is fair to say that those who have expressed criticisms of the Holy Father's motu proprio, especially those on certain liturgical commissions, are the same who bear direct responsibility for failure to assure fidelity to the prescribed norms of the Mass--norms guaranteeing its sacrality, that is to say, its celebration with beauty, reverence, dignity, and solemnity. Pope Benedict XVI's action is calculated to further ‘reconcilation and unity’ in the Church, and as such should receive the support of all Catholics who care to see the end to senseless factionalism and divisions.”
Clearly, Pope Benedict desires to heal divisions within the Church, particularly as they relate to the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which, after all, is meant to be a sacrament of communion, not disunion.
In working toward this union, the Pope gives both” sides” of this issue some food for thought.
He reminds those bishops, priests, and liturgists who oppose the “Tridentine” Mass that this older form has never been abrogated. Moreover, he cites “deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear” as one of the reasons for the desire for the older form. Such “deformations” of course were not required or even allowed by the newer form, but were the result of unauthorized liturgical engineering done in a false “spirit” of Vatican II.
In addition, the Pope mentions the attempts in the 1980s to provide greater opportunities for the older form of the Mass, based on the “legitimate aspirations” of the faithful. However, these efforts were met in some places with resistance rather than the openness that Pope John Paul II envisioned. Rather than meet the pastoral needs of the faithful who desired the Tridentine Mass, some Church leaders took a more dismissive approach that marginalized those who expressed these “legitimate aspirations.” Pope Benedict makes a point of saying that those who are attracted to the older form are not a small handful of aging extremists. Rather, he cites the vitality and size of the Latin Mass movement in his noble attempt to provide for their pastoral care.
If more local Church leaders had demonstrated similar pastoral sensitivity, this motu proprio would not have been considered necessary.
As for the Traditionalists, Pope Benedict makes it abundantly clear that we’re not talking about two different rites. There is only one Latin rite, and its ordinary form or expression--both in theory and in practice--is the Missal of Pope Paul VI, or what is often called the “Novus Ordo” or “new Mass.” The greater access to the Tridentine Mass does not signal a retreat from Vatican II. Traditionalists are bound to accept the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council as an authentic expression of the living Tradition of the Church. Vatican II did not bring about a “rupture” with the past, such that the conciliar teaching may be rejected by faithful Catholics. Those Traditionalists, such as adherents of the Society of St. Pius X, who have broken communion with the Holy See still need to be reconciled.
Time will tell how all this will play out on the diocesan and parish level, and whether this will bring about a healthy diversity of expression and “cross-pollination” of forms as the Holy Father fervently desires. Surely there will be situations and indeed controversies that will need to be addressed on an ad hoc basis, and Pope Benedict wisely called for Church leaders to report to him in three years so that the Church may continue to monitor the situation.
In the meantime, I encourage CUF members (if you’re not a member, sign up at www.cuf.org) to let us know how things are going in their own parish and diocese, and we will attempt to counsel and assist you in making your legitimate liturgical aspirations known to your pastor in a way that builds up the unity and peace of the Church. Such information will also help us to provide a unified voice for lay Catholics on this issue in our dealings with Church officials.
The first thing we need to do as faithful Catholics is to hear what the Holy Father is saying to the Church. For this reason, I encourage CUF members and all readers of this blog to read the current issue of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy’s newsletter, which is posted at http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/bclnewsletterjune07.pdf .
This newsletter has an English translation of Pope Benedict’s apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum on the use of the preconciliar liturgical forms. After the apostolic letter is a letter from the Holy Father to all bishops providing some further explanation and context regarding the apostolic letter. Then the committee provides a helpful series of questions and answers on the apostolic letter and on the “ordinary” and “extraordinary” forms of the Roman Missal.
I consider CUF president emeritus James Likoudis one of the leading experts in the country on the liturgical changes brought about by Vatican II. He is the coauthor, along with Ken Whitehead, of the critically acclaimed book The Pope, the Council, and the Mass. The revised edition of this book is available at http://www.emmausroad.org/The-Pope-the-Council-and-the-Mass-P6945C483.aspx. Here’s what Mr. Likoudis has to say about Summorum Pontificum:
“Like liturgically concerned Catholics in many countries, I welcome Summorum Pontificum by Pope Benedict XVI, which allows any priest of the Latin rite to celebrate Mass according to the Missal of 1962 (the so-called Tridentine Latin Mass) in a far more generous manner than was previously allowed. As the Pope explained, the Church has ‘two usages of the one Roman rite,’ the ordinary form promulgated by Paul VI in accordance with the desires of Vatican II, and the older extraordinary form cherished by those Catholics having ‘a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier form of liturgical celebration.’
“In the revised 2006 edition of The Pope, the Council and the Mass, in which Kenneth Whitehead and I defend the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, we took care to observe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had written books and articles indicating that ‘the sacred liturgy has long been one of his abiding interests and concerns.’ We also noted his view that ‘the liturgical reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council have not been an unqualified success in all respects.’ We wrote that it was expected that as Pope he would take measures toward an authentic ‘reform of the reform in accordance with the true mind of Vatican II’ (concerning which no one was better informed than that eminent theologian, Joseph Ratzinger). Pope Benedict has now done so in a striking and sensitive manner not only to assure the Church's preservation of its rich Latin liturgical heritage, but also to reach out to those who have been alienated from the Church by liturgical abuses that have gone uncorrected. It is fair to say that those who have expressed criticisms of the Holy Father's motu proprio, especially those on certain liturgical commissions, are the same who bear direct responsibility for failure to assure fidelity to the prescribed norms of the Mass--norms guaranteeing its sacrality, that is to say, its celebration with beauty, reverence, dignity, and solemnity. Pope Benedict XVI's action is calculated to further ‘reconcilation and unity’ in the Church, and as such should receive the support of all Catholics who care to see the end to senseless factionalism and divisions.”
Clearly, Pope Benedict desires to heal divisions within the Church, particularly as they relate to the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which, after all, is meant to be a sacrament of communion, not disunion.
In working toward this union, the Pope gives both” sides” of this issue some food for thought.
He reminds those bishops, priests, and liturgists who oppose the “Tridentine” Mass that this older form has never been abrogated. Moreover, he cites “deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear” as one of the reasons for the desire for the older form. Such “deformations” of course were not required or even allowed by the newer form, but were the result of unauthorized liturgical engineering done in a false “spirit” of Vatican II.
In addition, the Pope mentions the attempts in the 1980s to provide greater opportunities for the older form of the Mass, based on the “legitimate aspirations” of the faithful. However, these efforts were met in some places with resistance rather than the openness that Pope John Paul II envisioned. Rather than meet the pastoral needs of the faithful who desired the Tridentine Mass, some Church leaders took a more dismissive approach that marginalized those who expressed these “legitimate aspirations.” Pope Benedict makes a point of saying that those who are attracted to the older form are not a small handful of aging extremists. Rather, he cites the vitality and size of the Latin Mass movement in his noble attempt to provide for their pastoral care.
If more local Church leaders had demonstrated similar pastoral sensitivity, this motu proprio would not have been considered necessary.
As for the Traditionalists, Pope Benedict makes it abundantly clear that we’re not talking about two different rites. There is only one Latin rite, and its ordinary form or expression--both in theory and in practice--is the Missal of Pope Paul VI, or what is often called the “Novus Ordo” or “new Mass.” The greater access to the Tridentine Mass does not signal a retreat from Vatican II. Traditionalists are bound to accept the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council as an authentic expression of the living Tradition of the Church. Vatican II did not bring about a “rupture” with the past, such that the conciliar teaching may be rejected by faithful Catholics. Those Traditionalists, such as adherents of the Society of St. Pius X, who have broken communion with the Holy See still need to be reconciled.
Time will tell how all this will play out on the diocesan and parish level, and whether this will bring about a healthy diversity of expression and “cross-pollination” of forms as the Holy Father fervently desires. Surely there will be situations and indeed controversies that will need to be addressed on an ad hoc basis, and Pope Benedict wisely called for Church leaders to report to him in three years so that the Church may continue to monitor the situation.
In the meantime, I encourage CUF members (if you’re not a member, sign up at www.cuf.org) to let us know how things are going in their own parish and diocese, and we will attempt to counsel and assist you in making your legitimate liturgical aspirations known to your pastor in a way that builds up the unity and peace of the Church. Such information will also help us to provide a unified voice for lay Catholics on this issue in our dealings with Church officials.
Friday, July 6, 2007
St. Maria Goretti, Chastity, and Modern Living
Today the Church celebrates the feast of St. Maria Goretti, a young girl who was stabbed to death, preferring to die rather than be raped. I thought I would offer five comments on today’s saint.
(1) She is considered a “martyr” by the Church. That’s not a big deal at first blush, but think about it. She wasn’t asked to deny an article of the Creed. She wasn’t told by her assailant (who incidentally underwent a conversion in prison and was present at her canonization) to “reject Christ or die.”
Rather, she adamantly refused to cooperate in any form of sexual impurity. She accepted death rather than sacrifice her chaste virginity. She was a devout young lady who knew the seriousness of sins against the sixth and ninth commandment, how they are more than capable of severing our relationship with Christ. She died rather than compromise her relationship with Christ, and so is honored as a martyr.
From this it is easy to see why St. Maria Goretti is a fitting patron saint for today’s youth, whose faith is undermined not only by poor religious instruction and secularist ideologies, but often in more concrete fashion by the pervasive sexual immorality of our culture.
Yes, virtue still matters!
(2) It follows from this that it’s extremely important to instill the virtue of chastity in our youth. Of course this has given rise in recent decades to classroom programs that provide “sex education” or “chastity education.” Some of these programs have thinly veiled anti-natalist, secularist, and/or pro-homosexual agendas, among others. Elements of these poisons on occasion have found their way into” Catholic” programs, to the consternation of many parents.
CUF has been a leader in upholding the Church’s teaching and pedagogy in this crucial area for decades. For more general information, check out these two “Faith Facts” available online at www.cuf.org:
Pure Biology? Effective Chastity Education (http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=34)
Chastity Begins At Home: Parental Rights and Chastity Education (http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=35)
CUF members are encouraged to contact us with further specific questions or concerns in this delicate area.
(3) Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that classroom programs too often turn into a “how to” class rather than a “now not to until marriage” class. The former is the providing of information, in other words “sex education,” while the latter is “chastity education,” or training in virtue. But even “chastity education” programs at times overstep parental authority and provide graphic, private information at inappropriate times and in inappropriate ways.
When learning to drive a car or ski, the first thing we must learn is “How do I stop?” We are sexual beings. We are already oriented toward sexual activity. What we need is instruction and formation as to how to harness these natural urges in appropriate ways. Mere sexual instruction is simply throwing a child on skis down the mountain, often providing the very basis for a child’s becoming sexual active.
(4) This is an area where the “culture of death” is shown to be hypocritical and illogical. We constantly hear about the woman’s “right to choose” abortion. Society tells us that we must defer to the decision of the mother, who must be accorded unbridled freedom.
Yet, proponents of classroom sex education, who frequently are also Planned Parenthood supporters, tell us that young people can’t control themselves. They can’t be chaste, so at least we can help them be "safe" through extensive sex education. In other words, they tell us we’re only animals, that we're biologically incapable of self control. They thereby encourage promiscuity, and then they introduce girls and young women into the horrors of abortion as a rational exercise of the “right to choose.”
Christ has much more to offer young women than that.
(5) The development of the virtue of chastity in our children is vitally important, and this does require a certain amount of teaching on the part of parents and those duly authorized to assist them. But even more, it’s all about our lived witness. We need Dads to avoid pornography. We need Moms to avoid soap operas and immodest dress. We need to be diligent in our own recreation and activities and habits as well as those of our children.
Growing in virtue is difficult work, but it’s also a work of grace. Let us today ask for St. Maria Goretti’s assistance:
Father,
source of innocence and lover of chastity,
you gave St. Maria Goretti the privilege
of offering her life in witness to Christ.
As you gave her the crown of martyrdom,
let her prayers keep us faithful to Your teaching.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ Your Son, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen
(1) She is considered a “martyr” by the Church. That’s not a big deal at first blush, but think about it. She wasn’t asked to deny an article of the Creed. She wasn’t told by her assailant (who incidentally underwent a conversion in prison and was present at her canonization) to “reject Christ or die.”
Rather, she adamantly refused to cooperate in any form of sexual impurity. She accepted death rather than sacrifice her chaste virginity. She was a devout young lady who knew the seriousness of sins against the sixth and ninth commandment, how they are more than capable of severing our relationship with Christ. She died rather than compromise her relationship with Christ, and so is honored as a martyr.
From this it is easy to see why St. Maria Goretti is a fitting patron saint for today’s youth, whose faith is undermined not only by poor religious instruction and secularist ideologies, but often in more concrete fashion by the pervasive sexual immorality of our culture.
Yes, virtue still matters!
(2) It follows from this that it’s extremely important to instill the virtue of chastity in our youth. Of course this has given rise in recent decades to classroom programs that provide “sex education” or “chastity education.” Some of these programs have thinly veiled anti-natalist, secularist, and/or pro-homosexual agendas, among others. Elements of these poisons on occasion have found their way into” Catholic” programs, to the consternation of many parents.
CUF has been a leader in upholding the Church’s teaching and pedagogy in this crucial area for decades. For more general information, check out these two “Faith Facts” available online at www.cuf.org:
Pure Biology? Effective Chastity Education (http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=34)
Chastity Begins At Home: Parental Rights and Chastity Education (http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=35)
CUF members are encouraged to contact us with further specific questions or concerns in this delicate area.
(3) Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that classroom programs too often turn into a “how to” class rather than a “now not to until marriage” class. The former is the providing of information, in other words “sex education,” while the latter is “chastity education,” or training in virtue. But even “chastity education” programs at times overstep parental authority and provide graphic, private information at inappropriate times and in inappropriate ways.
When learning to drive a car or ski, the first thing we must learn is “How do I stop?” We are sexual beings. We are already oriented toward sexual activity. What we need is instruction and formation as to how to harness these natural urges in appropriate ways. Mere sexual instruction is simply throwing a child on skis down the mountain, often providing the very basis for a child’s becoming sexual active.
(4) This is an area where the “culture of death” is shown to be hypocritical and illogical. We constantly hear about the woman’s “right to choose” abortion. Society tells us that we must defer to the decision of the mother, who must be accorded unbridled freedom.
Yet, proponents of classroom sex education, who frequently are also Planned Parenthood supporters, tell us that young people can’t control themselves. They can’t be chaste, so at least we can help them be "safe" through extensive sex education. In other words, they tell us we’re only animals, that we're biologically incapable of self control. They thereby encourage promiscuity, and then they introduce girls and young women into the horrors of abortion as a rational exercise of the “right to choose.”
Christ has much more to offer young women than that.
(5) The development of the virtue of chastity in our children is vitally important, and this does require a certain amount of teaching on the part of parents and those duly authorized to assist them. But even more, it’s all about our lived witness. We need Dads to avoid pornography. We need Moms to avoid soap operas and immodest dress. We need to be diligent in our own recreation and activities and habits as well as those of our children.
Growing in virtue is difficult work, but it’s also a work of grace. Let us today ask for St. Maria Goretti’s assistance:
Father,
source of innocence and lover of chastity,
you gave St. Maria Goretti the privilege
of offering her life in witness to Christ.
As you gave her the crown of martyrdom,
let her prayers keep us faithful to Your teaching.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ Your Son, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Straight Talk
I am truly blessed with many fond childhood memories. I had a loving father and mother and many other family members who cared deeply about me.
Even so, my dominant reality, at least during my school years, was that I was a fat kid. I was relentlessly teased, pushed around, and called names, and I felt powerless to do anything about it. By the time I hit adolescence, I was filled with rage, rebellion, and negative feelings about myself. In my late teens I finally started to get a handle on my weight, but for the past quarter century I’ve considered myself in “recovery,” always in need of vigilance lest I return to the nightmarish girth of my youth.
I realize that homosexuality and obesity are two very different conditions, but there are some important points of similarity. For one thing, I know from experience how bullies on the playground (some of whom don’t change their stripes as adults) prey on kids who are different, so I can sympathize with those who have been mercilessly persecuted because of their not-so-hidden sexual identity struggles.
Leaving aside the bullies, there are several typical responses to the fat kid. Some disdainfully point out the obvious (“you’re fat”) and what should happen (“you need to lose 50 lbs.”), but through word and attitude communicate indifference (or worse) to the poor guy’s situation. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who want to offer an easy way, who want to make the child feel good about being fat.
While my built-up defenses might have suggested otherwise, and I didn’t always respond favorably to constructive weight-loss suggestions, deep down I wanted to change. I appreciated efforts—even seemingly unsuccessful ones—to reach out to me. The people who cared most about me offered diets, changes in lifestyle, and fitness regimens to help me escape an unwanted condition. They offered a plan which typically involved hard work and discipline. Even more, they offered hope.
Homosexual persons need a similar message.
Bible Basics
We all know about the dissent that has plagued the Church in recent decades, contributing mightily to the contemporary “crisis of faith.” Some point to problems in the revised liturgy—both in itself and, more credibly, in the way it’s been implemented. Others point to problems in moral theology ushered in by Fr. Charles Curran and his colleagues. But I think underneath this is a crisis in Scripture scholarship, which today has led to a certain agnosticism and skepticism about God’s inspired Word.
This is true when it comes to the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexual activity. One frequently hears, for example, that contrary to Church teaching (cf. Catechism, no. 2357), the sin of Sodom was not homosexual activity but inhospitality. Of course, we also hear that Our Lord’s multiplication of loaves was not a miracle, but an important lesson on sharing.
Let’s look at just one of the several passages on homosexuality in the Bible:
“Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
First, note that there are actually two words in the Greek that are combined to form the word “homosexuals” in the above translation: malakoi (literally, “effeminate males who play the sexual role of females”) and arsenokoitai (literally, “males who take other males to bed”). Despite persistent attempts to relativize or explain away this passage, what St. Paul is saying here is beyond reasonable dispute, and it’s entirely consistent with other biblical passages on the subject and two millennia of Church teaching.
Second, St. Paul is writing here to baptized Christians, some of whom used to engage in one or more of these serious sins. Even though they have now been washed, they are still prone to commit these sins and, if they want to inherit the kingdom, they must not return to such sinful ways. (By the way, this is one of a host of passages that dispels the “once saved, always saved” error we often encounter today.)
So, those who engage in homosexual acts are expected to walk away from that lifestyle, and in fact people even in St. Paul’s time were apparently able to do it, with God’s grace. Surely it can be a long, difficult road that can at times involve relapse, but contrary to the modern line that some people are born that way and unable to restrain themselves, it is indeed possible and necessary to decisively turn away from such a lifestyle.
Finally, there are many sins listed in this passage. While we might not experience predominant same-sex attractions ourselves, we are inclined to a host of other sins, and for ourselves eliminating those sinful areas of our lives has to be the first priority.
Still, there is good reason to single out homosexuality for special mention. While many forms of immoral conduct are rampant today, they are nonetheless considered wrong and utterly to be avoided. We don’t celebrate “drunk driving month.” We’re not required to give our employees sensitivity training so that they can be more understanding of the internal conflicts of adulterers. When we condemn corporate crime we’re not called “greedophobes.” We don’t congratulate sneak thieves who “come out of the closet.”
When it comes to homosexuality, though, we are getting bullied and tricked into moving from decriminalization to societal recognition and institutional legitimacy.
Uncommon Valor
Fundamentalism is a significant problem today, but for the most part, fundamentalists stand outside the Church waiting to pounce on the unwary. Contemporary apologists such as Karl Keating and Pat Madrid have done a terrific job of arming the faithful against such attacks and transforming them into fruitful opportunities for dialogue and evangelization.
Homosexuality poses a more internal threat. It has effectively scaled the ramparts of the Church castle. If we deny the deleterious effects of homosexuality on the institutional Church, we have stuck our heads in the sand. We need repentance, purification, and grace, and we need heroic leaders— clerical and lay—who are willing to take on this beast.
Sexual impurity, even among seemingly devout, practicing Catholics, has weakened our defenses and compromised our witness when it comes to any sexual morality issue. In particular, Internet pornography has made substantial inroads in our culture and is destroying families. I urge men who struggle in the area of sexual addiction to seek assistance today.
The National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People has reported, to no one’s surprise, that over 80 percent of the victims of clerical sex abuse were male, and of these the vast majority were postpubescent. While all categories and types of abuse are deplorable and tragic, the significant increase of homosexual activity involving young boys (and the accompanying episcopal misgovernance) beginning in the 1960s is what really turned this situation into a full-blown, front-page crisis.
It’s beyond the scope of this article to examine the complex causes of the scandal and offer possible remedies, though one obvious part of the solution would be not to accept seminary applicants who openly identify themselves as homosexual. Rather, the point is that the entire Church, beginning at the top, more than ever needs to be spiritually ready to proclaim the truth about human sexuality in the face of the ungodly push for same-sex unions.
Getting Personal
The Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and thus possesses the fullness of the truth. So, while other Christian communities have part of the truth (and often do more good with their portion of the truth than we do with the fullness), the strength of the Catholic perspective is that it’s inclusive; it captures the big picture. In the area of homosexuality, the Church doggedly insists upon a both-and: absolutely love the sinner, and absolutely hate the sin. One without the other misses the mark.
The vast majority of Christians surely affirm the need to love the sinner and the need for a compassionate approach. Without all the pastoral resources of the Church (especially Confession), however, the message can be a little strong on hating the sin, which is right, but incomplete. I think that’s an especially important consideration today. Try criticizing somebody’s work, or cooking, or opinion, without that person taking it, well, personally.
Homosexuals often define themselves—selling themselves short in the process—in terms of their sexual preference, so telling them that their conduct is objectively disordered and sinful, without all the pastoral charity the Church can muster, predictably isn’t going to go over well.
On the other hand, a significant segment of the Catholic Church (though not in her official teaching) has softened on the “hating the sin” part, buying into modern scholarship and rampant secularism and relativism that call into question the longstanding biblical and traditional condemnation of homosexual activity. Without that key aspect of the truth, loving the sinner loses its authentic, salvific meaning and degenerates into a spineless gospel of tolerance.
I remember a time as a young adult when I casually referred to myself as being fat. At the time I was a starving law student and the thinnest I’d ever been in my life. The person I was addressing said, “Leon, what are you talking about? You’re not fat.” It struck me then how deeply I associated myself with my tendency toward obesity, as though it would always define who I am.
Our society has largely lost its sense of the intrinsic worth of the human person, so we tend to define ourselves through external, secondary characteristics. That is never good, but it’s especially tragic when those with same-sex attractions define themselves as “gay.” Once they are so defined, they give up hope of ever being anything else, and so through force and illusion they strive to change their environment—including the laws of society—to accommodate their lifestyle.
In the face of this, we must be ambassadors of hope and mercy, not wimpy enablers. Woe to us if out of silence or misplaced tolerance we allow homosexual relationships to take further steps toward becoming the legal equivalent of marriage. As St. Paul urges, "do not be deceived" (1 Cor. 6:9).
The above is taken from an article published in the May-June 2004 issue of Lay Witness magazine. Old issues are archived at http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/index.asp.
CUF members automatically receive a subscription to Lay Witness. To become a member of CUF, visit http://www.cuf.org/Member/index.asp.
Even so, my dominant reality, at least during my school years, was that I was a fat kid. I was relentlessly teased, pushed around, and called names, and I felt powerless to do anything about it. By the time I hit adolescence, I was filled with rage, rebellion, and negative feelings about myself. In my late teens I finally started to get a handle on my weight, but for the past quarter century I’ve considered myself in “recovery,” always in need of vigilance lest I return to the nightmarish girth of my youth.
I realize that homosexuality and obesity are two very different conditions, but there are some important points of similarity. For one thing, I know from experience how bullies on the playground (some of whom don’t change their stripes as adults) prey on kids who are different, so I can sympathize with those who have been mercilessly persecuted because of their not-so-hidden sexual identity struggles.
Leaving aside the bullies, there are several typical responses to the fat kid. Some disdainfully point out the obvious (“you’re fat”) and what should happen (“you need to lose 50 lbs.”), but through word and attitude communicate indifference (or worse) to the poor guy’s situation. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who want to offer an easy way, who want to make the child feel good about being fat.
While my built-up defenses might have suggested otherwise, and I didn’t always respond favorably to constructive weight-loss suggestions, deep down I wanted to change. I appreciated efforts—even seemingly unsuccessful ones—to reach out to me. The people who cared most about me offered diets, changes in lifestyle, and fitness regimens to help me escape an unwanted condition. They offered a plan which typically involved hard work and discipline. Even more, they offered hope.
Homosexual persons need a similar message.
Bible Basics
We all know about the dissent that has plagued the Church in recent decades, contributing mightily to the contemporary “crisis of faith.” Some point to problems in the revised liturgy—both in itself and, more credibly, in the way it’s been implemented. Others point to problems in moral theology ushered in by Fr. Charles Curran and his colleagues. But I think underneath this is a crisis in Scripture scholarship, which today has led to a certain agnosticism and skepticism about God’s inspired Word.
This is true when it comes to the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexual activity. One frequently hears, for example, that contrary to Church teaching (cf. Catechism, no. 2357), the sin of Sodom was not homosexual activity but inhospitality. Of course, we also hear that Our Lord’s multiplication of loaves was not a miracle, but an important lesson on sharing.
Let’s look at just one of the several passages on homosexuality in the Bible:
“Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
First, note that there are actually two words in the Greek that are combined to form the word “homosexuals” in the above translation: malakoi (literally, “effeminate males who play the sexual role of females”) and arsenokoitai (literally, “males who take other males to bed”). Despite persistent attempts to relativize or explain away this passage, what St. Paul is saying here is beyond reasonable dispute, and it’s entirely consistent with other biblical passages on the subject and two millennia of Church teaching.
Second, St. Paul is writing here to baptized Christians, some of whom used to engage in one or more of these serious sins. Even though they have now been washed, they are still prone to commit these sins and, if they want to inherit the kingdom, they must not return to such sinful ways. (By the way, this is one of a host of passages that dispels the “once saved, always saved” error we often encounter today.)
So, those who engage in homosexual acts are expected to walk away from that lifestyle, and in fact people even in St. Paul’s time were apparently able to do it, with God’s grace. Surely it can be a long, difficult road that can at times involve relapse, but contrary to the modern line that some people are born that way and unable to restrain themselves, it is indeed possible and necessary to decisively turn away from such a lifestyle.
Finally, there are many sins listed in this passage. While we might not experience predominant same-sex attractions ourselves, we are inclined to a host of other sins, and for ourselves eliminating those sinful areas of our lives has to be the first priority.
Still, there is good reason to single out homosexuality for special mention. While many forms of immoral conduct are rampant today, they are nonetheless considered wrong and utterly to be avoided. We don’t celebrate “drunk driving month.” We’re not required to give our employees sensitivity training so that they can be more understanding of the internal conflicts of adulterers. When we condemn corporate crime we’re not called “greedophobes.” We don’t congratulate sneak thieves who “come out of the closet.”
When it comes to homosexuality, though, we are getting bullied and tricked into moving from decriminalization to societal recognition and institutional legitimacy.
Uncommon Valor
Fundamentalism is a significant problem today, but for the most part, fundamentalists stand outside the Church waiting to pounce on the unwary. Contemporary apologists such as Karl Keating and Pat Madrid have done a terrific job of arming the faithful against such attacks and transforming them into fruitful opportunities for dialogue and evangelization.
Homosexuality poses a more internal threat. It has effectively scaled the ramparts of the Church castle. If we deny the deleterious effects of homosexuality on the institutional Church, we have stuck our heads in the sand. We need repentance, purification, and grace, and we need heroic leaders— clerical and lay—who are willing to take on this beast.
Sexual impurity, even among seemingly devout, practicing Catholics, has weakened our defenses and compromised our witness when it comes to any sexual morality issue. In particular, Internet pornography has made substantial inroads in our culture and is destroying families. I urge men who struggle in the area of sexual addiction to seek assistance today.
The National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People has reported, to no one’s surprise, that over 80 percent of the victims of clerical sex abuse were male, and of these the vast majority were postpubescent. While all categories and types of abuse are deplorable and tragic, the significant increase of homosexual activity involving young boys (and the accompanying episcopal misgovernance) beginning in the 1960s is what really turned this situation into a full-blown, front-page crisis.
It’s beyond the scope of this article to examine the complex causes of the scandal and offer possible remedies, though one obvious part of the solution would be not to accept seminary applicants who openly identify themselves as homosexual. Rather, the point is that the entire Church, beginning at the top, more than ever needs to be spiritually ready to proclaim the truth about human sexuality in the face of the ungodly push for same-sex unions.
Getting Personal
The Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and thus possesses the fullness of the truth. So, while other Christian communities have part of the truth (and often do more good with their portion of the truth than we do with the fullness), the strength of the Catholic perspective is that it’s inclusive; it captures the big picture. In the area of homosexuality, the Church doggedly insists upon a both-and: absolutely love the sinner, and absolutely hate the sin. One without the other misses the mark.
The vast majority of Christians surely affirm the need to love the sinner and the need for a compassionate approach. Without all the pastoral resources of the Church (especially Confession), however, the message can be a little strong on hating the sin, which is right, but incomplete. I think that’s an especially important consideration today. Try criticizing somebody’s work, or cooking, or opinion, without that person taking it, well, personally.
Homosexuals often define themselves—selling themselves short in the process—in terms of their sexual preference, so telling them that their conduct is objectively disordered and sinful, without all the pastoral charity the Church can muster, predictably isn’t going to go over well.
On the other hand, a significant segment of the Catholic Church (though not in her official teaching) has softened on the “hating the sin” part, buying into modern scholarship and rampant secularism and relativism that call into question the longstanding biblical and traditional condemnation of homosexual activity. Without that key aspect of the truth, loving the sinner loses its authentic, salvific meaning and degenerates into a spineless gospel of tolerance.
I remember a time as a young adult when I casually referred to myself as being fat. At the time I was a starving law student and the thinnest I’d ever been in my life. The person I was addressing said, “Leon, what are you talking about? You’re not fat.” It struck me then how deeply I associated myself with my tendency toward obesity, as though it would always define who I am.
Our society has largely lost its sense of the intrinsic worth of the human person, so we tend to define ourselves through external, secondary characteristics. That is never good, but it’s especially tragic when those with same-sex attractions define themselves as “gay.” Once they are so defined, they give up hope of ever being anything else, and so through force and illusion they strive to change their environment—including the laws of society—to accommodate their lifestyle.
In the face of this, we must be ambassadors of hope and mercy, not wimpy enablers. Woe to us if out of silence or misplaced tolerance we allow homosexual relationships to take further steps toward becoming the legal equivalent of marriage. As St. Paul urges, "do not be deceived" (1 Cor. 6:9).
The above is taken from an article published in the May-June 2004 issue of Lay Witness magazine. Old issues are archived at http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/index.asp.
CUF members automatically receive a subscription to Lay Witness. To become a member of CUF, visit http://www.cuf.org/Member/index.asp.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Bishop Bruskewitz is not the problem
Yesterday at www.cuf.org , I received this question from a deacon in Southern California:
“I notice that the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska is on your advisory board. As I understand it, he has declined to cooperate with the audit concerning the steps being taken to protect our children. Could you explain his refusal and why he remains on your advisory board?”
After some initial pleasantries concerning Southern California, which for many years was my home, I gave the deacon the following reply:
Yes, we do have a sizable episcopal advisory council (btw, it’s a council, not a board with juridical authority, in case that matters to anyone), and in fact we just welcomed three more bishops to this council: Bishops Finn (KC), Yanta (Amarillo), and Jugis (Charlotte). If we were so inclined, we could probably add dozens more, as most bishops are genuinely appreciative and supportive of our efforts.
In fact, I received over forty letters from bishops thanking me for publishing Fr. Thomas Acklin’s The Unchanging Heart of the Priesthood, which sets forth a compelling, positive image of the priesthood despite contemporary challenges and scandals. Here’s a link to our book publishing arm: http://www.emmausroad.org/The-Unchanging-Heart-of-the-Priesthood-P3396C483.aspx
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz is generally considered an exemplary prelate. Just one indication as to how highly he’s thought of by the universal Church is the fact that despite the relative insignificance of Lincoln, Nebraska, several of his priests have gone on to serve as fine bishops elsewhere (e.g., Bishops Vasa and Jackels spring immediately to mind) and others fill important posts in the Vatican Curia.
More specifically, in relation to the scandals, note that there hasn't been a priest scandal in Lincoln. Rather, there has been an explosion of wonderful vocations to the priesthood and religious life under his watch and under the watch of his predecessor, Bishop Flavin. The main reason, in my estimation, is that Bishop Bruskewitz through word and example has had the courage to teach the faith and encourage young men and women to be saints. I also know that he will not admit a young man with same-sex attractions to the priesthood. Of course, in doing that, he is simply following the commonsense wisdom and practice of the Church. Yet, in recent decades, though not so much now, there has been some fudging on this in some other dioceses and seminaries, with unhappy if not scandalous results.
Should Bishop Bruskewitz have been more “polite” in his lack of cooperation with the Review Board’s audit? Maybe. Could he have managed all this with more political correctness? Probably. But he wasn't legally or canonically bound to cooperate, and he legitimately thinks that the whole process is at best a waste of time.
By way of example, the “safe environment” programs called for by the Review Board by their very nature infringe upon parental rights and violate the Church's pedagogy in the area of chastity education, as set forth most recently in The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (Pontifical Council for the Family, 1996). And not only that, the way they operate suggests that parents, not predatory homosexual priests, are the problem here.
I don't mean to come off unduly harsh here, but that's the point isn't it? Bishop Bruskewitz is a straight shooter who, because of his heroic fidelity, is often made a target in more “liberal” Catholic publications and associations. Yet, the faithful in Lincoln in overwhelming numbers love and support their bishop. For my part, I’ve interacted with him many times over the years, and I have always found him to be a very fine and holy bishop who, as Vatican II emphasizes, makes teaching the faith in its fullness a top priority (see e.g., Lumen Gentium, no. 25, Christus Dominus, nos. 11-14).
We are proud to number him among the friends and advisors of this apostolate.
It’s fitting that this question should come up on the feast of the Apostle Thomas who, despite his initial doubt, became one of the great apostolic witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
The first Eucharistic Prayer refers to “all who hold and teach the Catholic faith that comes to us through the Apostles.” Bishop Bruskewitz is a worthy successor of the Apostles who has been nothing less than a champion of the Catholic faith in his fruitful, dedicated service to the teaching Church.
“I notice that the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska is on your advisory board. As I understand it, he has declined to cooperate with the audit concerning the steps being taken to protect our children. Could you explain his refusal and why he remains on your advisory board?”
After some initial pleasantries concerning Southern California, which for many years was my home, I gave the deacon the following reply:
Yes, we do have a sizable episcopal advisory council (btw, it’s a council, not a board with juridical authority, in case that matters to anyone), and in fact we just welcomed three more bishops to this council: Bishops Finn (KC), Yanta (Amarillo), and Jugis (Charlotte). If we were so inclined, we could probably add dozens more, as most bishops are genuinely appreciative and supportive of our efforts.
In fact, I received over forty letters from bishops thanking me for publishing Fr. Thomas Acklin’s The Unchanging Heart of the Priesthood, which sets forth a compelling, positive image of the priesthood despite contemporary challenges and scandals. Here’s a link to our book publishing arm: http://www.emmausroad.org/The-Unchanging-Heart-of-the-Priesthood-P3396C483.aspx
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz is generally considered an exemplary prelate. Just one indication as to how highly he’s thought of by the universal Church is the fact that despite the relative insignificance of Lincoln, Nebraska, several of his priests have gone on to serve as fine bishops elsewhere (e.g., Bishops Vasa and Jackels spring immediately to mind) and others fill important posts in the Vatican Curia.
More specifically, in relation to the scandals, note that there hasn't been a priest scandal in Lincoln. Rather, there has been an explosion of wonderful vocations to the priesthood and religious life under his watch and under the watch of his predecessor, Bishop Flavin. The main reason, in my estimation, is that Bishop Bruskewitz through word and example has had the courage to teach the faith and encourage young men and women to be saints. I also know that he will not admit a young man with same-sex attractions to the priesthood. Of course, in doing that, he is simply following the commonsense wisdom and practice of the Church. Yet, in recent decades, though not so much now, there has been some fudging on this in some other dioceses and seminaries, with unhappy if not scandalous results.
Should Bishop Bruskewitz have been more “polite” in his lack of cooperation with the Review Board’s audit? Maybe. Could he have managed all this with more political correctness? Probably. But he wasn't legally or canonically bound to cooperate, and he legitimately thinks that the whole process is at best a waste of time.
By way of example, the “safe environment” programs called for by the Review Board by their very nature infringe upon parental rights and violate the Church's pedagogy in the area of chastity education, as set forth most recently in The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (Pontifical Council for the Family, 1996). And not only that, the way they operate suggests that parents, not predatory homosexual priests, are the problem here.
I don't mean to come off unduly harsh here, but that's the point isn't it? Bishop Bruskewitz is a straight shooter who, because of his heroic fidelity, is often made a target in more “liberal” Catholic publications and associations. Yet, the faithful in Lincoln in overwhelming numbers love and support their bishop. For my part, I’ve interacted with him many times over the years, and I have always found him to be a very fine and holy bishop who, as Vatican II emphasizes, makes teaching the faith in its fullness a top priority (see e.g., Lumen Gentium, no. 25, Christus Dominus, nos. 11-14).
We are proud to number him among the friends and advisors of this apostolate.
It’s fitting that this question should come up on the feast of the Apostle Thomas who, despite his initial doubt, became one of the great apostolic witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
The first Eucharistic Prayer refers to “all who hold and teach the Catholic faith that comes to us through the Apostles.” Bishop Bruskewitz is a worthy successor of the Apostles who has been nothing less than a champion of the Catholic faith in his fruitful, dedicated service to the teaching Church.
Solid, Catholic Responses to Tough Questions
Eric Stoutz was recently featured on Relevant Radio's Searching the Word with Chuck Neff. The hour-long show gave Eric an opportunity to showcase his ten years of experience answering the toughest questions you can imagine.
What makes a good catechetical program? What is the Church's teaching on tattoos? What happens if I refuse to forgive someone? These are just a few of the delicate questions Eric addressed on the show.
Click here to listen.
Members of Catholics United for the Faith have access to our Catholic Responses department and may email or call Eric with questions on the Faith. For more information, visit CUF's membership page.
Let us know what you think!
Monday, July 2, 2007
Seatbelts and Abortion
This past weekend my family and I drove through four states to attend the wedding of a family friend. As we entered one state, we encountered a huge sign that read “Seatbelts Save Lives: Buckle up—It’s the Law!” Then underneath in smaller print we saw the fashionable cliché: “Click it or Ticket.”
I think in general a law that requires all passengers in motor vehicles to wear seatbelts is a no-brainer. Most people consider this a commonsense safety practice and don’t need a billboard and the threat of criminal prosecution to compel compliance with the law.
It’s not so much the law that caught my attention, so much as its inner logic, which often seems to be missing in discussions pertaining to abortion “rights.”
Let’s start with the premise that seatbelts save lives. This premise far outweighs the 101 reasons why one might not want to wear a seatbelt. Yet, wearing a seatbelt doesn’t make me a safer driver. People who are not in my car are not in any way threatened by my not wearing a seatbelt. As my Mom used to say, “it’s your own funeral,” meaning I’m only hurting myself by not wearing a seatbelt.
If that’s the case, isn’t wearing a seatbelt a personal decision. Shouldn’t I be able to personally weigh the pros and cons and come up with my own decision without threat of legal repercussion?
Or, does the state have a vested interest in my well-being and that of my passengers—especially those who are too young to make their own decisions? Should the state protect this interest even when I am too foolish or ignorant or reckless to do so myself?
Clearly society’s answer—at least when it comes to seatbelts—is yes.
But where is my choice in the matter? Shouldn’t I have a certain autonomy to decide how I will protect myself and my passengers without outside interference? I’m not saying that seatbelts aren’t right for most people. I’m not even saying that seatbelts most of the time aren’t right for me. But doesn’t the Constitution respect my freedom to make choices that concern my own body?
Apparently when it comes to seatbelts, no.
And lastly, doesn’t it seem legitimate for the state to make the judgment that its citizens should wear seatbelts? Yes, there is a value judgment or moral judgment implied in all this. While some people probably disagree with the law, the state is free to make the law if most of the people think it’s going to promote the common good. Those who back the law see this as an important public safety issue, and not as the unwarranted imposition of the “values” of the majority on the minority.
After all, don’t all laws reflect the values of those who enact them? I mean, it seems silly to think one way, but legislate another, doesn’t it?
And wouldn’t it seem to be an undue and in fact odd impostition of the federal government to strike down seatbelt laws because they violate the privacy and autonomy of individual motorists and their passengers? Further still, wouldn’t it be strange if the Supreme Court were to find somwhere in the Constitution a “fundamental right to choose” to not wear seatbelts?
Of course it would. Maybe we should use more common sense when it comes to abortion. Seatbelts do save lives. Abortion doesn’t.
I think in general a law that requires all passengers in motor vehicles to wear seatbelts is a no-brainer. Most people consider this a commonsense safety practice and don’t need a billboard and the threat of criminal prosecution to compel compliance with the law.
It’s not so much the law that caught my attention, so much as its inner logic, which often seems to be missing in discussions pertaining to abortion “rights.”
Let’s start with the premise that seatbelts save lives. This premise far outweighs the 101 reasons why one might not want to wear a seatbelt. Yet, wearing a seatbelt doesn’t make me a safer driver. People who are not in my car are not in any way threatened by my not wearing a seatbelt. As my Mom used to say, “it’s your own funeral,” meaning I’m only hurting myself by not wearing a seatbelt.
If that’s the case, isn’t wearing a seatbelt a personal decision. Shouldn’t I be able to personally weigh the pros and cons and come up with my own decision without threat of legal repercussion?
Or, does the state have a vested interest in my well-being and that of my passengers—especially those who are too young to make their own decisions? Should the state protect this interest even when I am too foolish or ignorant or reckless to do so myself?
Clearly society’s answer—at least when it comes to seatbelts—is yes.
But where is my choice in the matter? Shouldn’t I have a certain autonomy to decide how I will protect myself and my passengers without outside interference? I’m not saying that seatbelts aren’t right for most people. I’m not even saying that seatbelts most of the time aren’t right for me. But doesn’t the Constitution respect my freedom to make choices that concern my own body?
Apparently when it comes to seatbelts, no.
And lastly, doesn’t it seem legitimate for the state to make the judgment that its citizens should wear seatbelts? Yes, there is a value judgment or moral judgment implied in all this. While some people probably disagree with the law, the state is free to make the law if most of the people think it’s going to promote the common good. Those who back the law see this as an important public safety issue, and not as the unwarranted imposition of the “values” of the majority on the minority.
After all, don’t all laws reflect the values of those who enact them? I mean, it seems silly to think one way, but legislate another, doesn’t it?
And wouldn’t it seem to be an undue and in fact odd impostition of the federal government to strike down seatbelt laws because they violate the privacy and autonomy of individual motorists and their passengers? Further still, wouldn’t it be strange if the Supreme Court were to find somwhere in the Constitution a “fundamental right to choose” to not wear seatbelts?
Of course it would. Maybe we should use more common sense when it comes to abortion. Seatbelts do save lives. Abortion doesn’t.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Welcome to the official blog of Catholics United for the Faith!
June 29, 2007
Saints Peter and Paul
“Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church . . .’”
--Matthew 16:16-18
“Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!”
--1 Corinthians 9:16
In this inaugural posting on CUF's blog, I want to provide visitors with some basic information about our organization, as well as some idea as to what can be expected in future postings.
Grab a cup of coffee and start scrolling down!
Saints Peter and Paul
“Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church . . .’”
--Matthew 16:16-18
“Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!”
--1 Corinthians 9:16
In this inaugural posting on CUF's blog, I want to provide visitors with some basic information about our organization, as well as some idea as to what can be expected in future postings.
Grab a cup of coffee and start scrolling down!
Why CUF?
Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) is an international lay organization dedicated to proclaiming and teaching the Catholic faith. Since 1968, CUF has offered much-needed doctrinal and spiritual assistance to those who have turned to us for reliable information as to what the Church really teaches. CUF has also provided a courageous, unified voice for lay Catholics who are committed to the person and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Tens of thousands of CUF members, individually and organized as chapters, have been leaders in evangelization and sound catechesis—at home, in schools and parishes, and in the public square—providing a much-needed leaven in today’s society.
Faithful to the direction and authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, CUF members have no agenda other than to “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.” Following the rich teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and the blueprint for lay organizations provided by Pope John Paul II , CUF emphasizes the following principles:
(1) The first and fundamental call of every Christian to holiness.
(2) The responsibility of professing the Catholic faith as loyal sons and daughters of the Church.
(3) The witness to a strong and authentic communion with the Pope—the Vicar of Christ on earth—and with the local bishop.
(4) Conforming to and participating in the Church’s apostolic goals, especially the “new evangelization.”
(5) The commitment to authentic human development in keeping with the God-given dignity of every human person, especially those who are most vulnerable.
Now more than ever, those of us who love Christ and His Church, those of us who want to evangelize our culture, those of us who want to live the teachings of Vatican II—particularly the call to holiness—need to stand together and be counted. CUF gives corporate expression to these godly aspirations of Catholic men and women throughout the world.
For more information on CUF, including how to become a member of CUF and more specific information regarding our various outreaches and materials, visit www.cuf.org.
Of particular interest might be the following exchange between CUF’s founder, H. Lyman Stebbins (1911-89), and C.S. Lewis, prior to Mr. Stebbins’ conversion to the Catholic Church: http://www.cuf.org/news/newsdetail.asp?newID=83
Lyman Stebbins aptly sums up what CUF is all about in CUF original “Declaration of Purpose,” published in September 1968:
“We . . . wish to affirm our unshakable loyalty to the Pope, and thus to the Church, and thus to Christ. We are convinced, moreover, that this affirmation can and should be heard from many voices, that it must ring through the Church and the world.”
Tens of thousands of CUF members, individually and organized as chapters, have been leaders in evangelization and sound catechesis—at home, in schools and parishes, and in the public square—providing a much-needed leaven in today’s society.
Faithful to the direction and authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, CUF members have no agenda other than to “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.” Following the rich teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and the blueprint for lay organizations provided by Pope John Paul II , CUF emphasizes the following principles:
(1) The first and fundamental call of every Christian to holiness.
(2) The responsibility of professing the Catholic faith as loyal sons and daughters of the Church.
(3) The witness to a strong and authentic communion with the Pope—the Vicar of Christ on earth—and with the local bishop.
(4) Conforming to and participating in the Church’s apostolic goals, especially the “new evangelization.”
(5) The commitment to authentic human development in keeping with the God-given dignity of every human person, especially those who are most vulnerable.
Now more than ever, those of us who love Christ and His Church, those of us who want to evangelize our culture, those of us who want to live the teachings of Vatican II—particularly the call to holiness—need to stand together and be counted. CUF gives corporate expression to these godly aspirations of Catholic men and women throughout the world.
For more information on CUF, including how to become a member of CUF and more specific information regarding our various outreaches and materials, visit www.cuf.org.
Of particular interest might be the following exchange between CUF’s founder, H. Lyman Stebbins (1911-89), and C.S. Lewis, prior to Mr. Stebbins’ conversion to the Catholic Church: http://www.cuf.org/news/newsdetail.asp?newID=83
Lyman Stebbins aptly sums up what CUF is all about in CUF original “Declaration of Purpose,” published in September 1968:
“We . . . wish to affirm our unshakable loyalty to the Pope, and thus to the Church, and thus to Christ. We are convinced, moreover, that this affirmation can and should be heard from many voices, that it must ring through the Church and the world.”
Why a blog?
For the past 39 years, CUF has used all the available means of social communication to communicate the truth of the Gospel—from magazines, tracts, and newspapers, to radio and television, to toll-free helplines and websites, to books and audios.
Of special note would be our award-winning magazine for today’s Catholic men and women Lay Witness (http://www.cuf.org/LayWitness/index.asp); our critically acclaimed Faith and Life elementary catechism series (http://www.cuf.org/faithandlife.asp); our “Faith Facts” tract service, question and answer service, and toll-free membership helpline (http://www.cuf.org/InfoServices/index.asp); and Emmaus Road Publishing, through which we publish life-changing Bible studies and other dynamic Catholic books (www.emmausroad.org).
Through these and other services we have reached, and continue to reach, tens of thousands of people each year with the life-changing teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church. Even so, we recognize that we will miss more people than we reach if we don’t make it a point to go where the people are. And today more people than ever look to the Internet as their principal source of information, a source that is quick and interactive.
And so now, while maintaining our other outreaches, we’re making a special effort to reach out to a new, Internet-savvy generation (that means you!) with the timely and timeless truths of the Catholic faith. We see this blog, as well as the ongoing improvements of www.cuf.org and www.emmausroad.org, as just the first baby steps we need to take in this effort.
Of special note would be our award-winning magazine for today’s Catholic men and women Lay Witness (http://www.cuf.org/LayWitness/index.asp); our critically acclaimed Faith and Life elementary catechism series (http://www.cuf.org/faithandlife.asp); our “Faith Facts” tract service, question and answer service, and toll-free membership helpline (http://www.cuf.org/InfoServices/index.asp); and Emmaus Road Publishing, through which we publish life-changing Bible studies and other dynamic Catholic books (www.emmausroad.org).
Through these and other services we have reached, and continue to reach, tens of thousands of people each year with the life-changing teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church. Even so, we recognize that we will miss more people than we reach if we don’t make it a point to go where the people are. And today more people than ever look to the Internet as their principal source of information, a source that is quick and interactive.
And so now, while maintaining our other outreaches, we’re making a special effort to reach out to a new, Internet-savvy generation (that means you!) with the timely and timeless truths of the Catholic faith. We see this blog, as well as the ongoing improvements of www.cuf.org and www.emmausroad.org, as just the first baby steps we need to take in this effort.
What can we expect on CUF’s blog?
We will invite daily discussion on the broadest range of faith-related topics. We will not only call upon our staff, but also upon our distinguished board members, advisors (bishops, priests, religious, and lay), and “friends in the field” to contribute to this effort. As is the case with our other outreaches, CUF’s blog will be a “go to” place for those wanting the authentic teaching of the Church in its fullness.
I will be a regular contributor to this blog. On almost a daily basis I will post answers to some of the questions from CUF members that we receive at http://www.cuf.org/InfoServices/help.asp. Some of you may not be familiar with me (yet), but I will soon post my personal testimony and background to introduce myself. But as I alluded to above, this blog isn’t about me and what my opinion happens to be, but rather it’s a place where Church teaching is allowed to shine and thereby bring light to our lives, our families, and our culture.
I suspect most of our visitors will be Catholic, and for those of you in that category I pray this blog will help you expand and deepen your understanding of our faith, and that you will find this blog a welcoming environment where you can share the joys and sufferings of our pilgrimage of faith with like-minded people.
I also want to extend a special word of welcome to those visitors who are not Catholic, but who are sincere in their pursuit of the truth and who have honest questions about Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. I personally assure you that you will be treated with respect, and I will try to avoid unnecessary “Church-speak” in answering your questions. Obviously this blog is unabashedly Catholic. However, I take very seriously this statement issued by the Church at the Second Vatican Council:
“Truth can impose itself on the mind of man only in virtue of its own truth, which wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.”
So, it’s not a question of anyone trying to impose a certain doctrine or agenda on someone else, but I see us all on a journey to find and embrace the truth, which Christians believe became enfleshed in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
I assure all visitors that we will build on points of agreement, and express opinions and points of disagreement in ways that are ordered to build rather than further divide.
I will be a regular contributor to this blog. On almost a daily basis I will post answers to some of the questions from CUF members that we receive at http://www.cuf.org/InfoServices/help.asp. Some of you may not be familiar with me (yet), but I will soon post my personal testimony and background to introduce myself. But as I alluded to above, this blog isn’t about me and what my opinion happens to be, but rather it’s a place where Church teaching is allowed to shine and thereby bring light to our lives, our families, and our culture.
I suspect most of our visitors will be Catholic, and for those of you in that category I pray this blog will help you expand and deepen your understanding of our faith, and that you will find this blog a welcoming environment where you can share the joys and sufferings of our pilgrimage of faith with like-minded people.
I also want to extend a special word of welcome to those visitors who are not Catholic, but who are sincere in their pursuit of the truth and who have honest questions about Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. I personally assure you that you will be treated with respect, and I will try to avoid unnecessary “Church-speak” in answering your questions. Obviously this blog is unabashedly Catholic. However, I take very seriously this statement issued by the Church at the Second Vatican Council:
“Truth can impose itself on the mind of man only in virtue of its own truth, which wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.”
So, it’s not a question of anyone trying to impose a certain doctrine or agenda on someone else, but I see us all on a journey to find and embrace the truth, which Christians believe became enfleshed in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
I assure all visitors that we will build on points of agreement, and express opinions and points of disagreement in ways that are ordered to build rather than further divide.
Why launch today?
It is no accident that we have chosen June 29th, the feast (or in Church-speak “solemnity,” which means it is a feast of the highest rank) of the Apostles Peter and Paul, to launch this blog. Clearly these great Apostles were pillars of the infant Church, and that fact alone would justify the selection of this date. Yet, their connection to CUF runs even deeper than that.
Let me explain.
In 1967 Pope Paul VI called a “Year of Faith” to bear witness to the Church’s steadfast will to “guard what has been entrusted to [her]” (1 Tim. 6:20)—in other words, to manifest the Church’s commitment to defend Church teaching from attack or distortion.
But that’s not all. The Holy Father also called the Year of Faith to focus our efforts on bringing this faith to life in a rapidly changing world that brings with it new challenges to embracing and living the Gospel.
Hmmm. Defending the faith but also advancing the faith that has been taught by the Apostles and their successors for two millennia. Sounds strikingly close to CUF’s mission to “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.”
At the conclusion of the Year of Faith, on June 29, 1968, the solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul as well as the 1900th anniversary of their martyrdom, Pope Paul VI issued the Credo of the People of God, which courageously sets forth for today’s men and women the faith of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ.
This remarkable document was an attempt to counteract the crisis of faith in our culture, as Pope Paul VI was painfully aware of the various agendas and currents of thought that were undermining Christian belief.
Here’s how Pope Paul VI himself described it:
“On this day which is chosen to close the Year of Faith, on this feast of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, we have wished to offer to the living God the homage of a Profession of Faith. And as once at Caesarea Philippi the Apostle Peter spoke on behalf of the Twelve to make a true confession, beyond human opinions, of Christ as Son of the living God, so today his humble Successor, Pastor of the universal Church, raises his voice to give, on behalf of all the People of God, a firm witness to the divine truth entrusted to the Church to be announced to all nations.”
For the entire text of the Credo, see http://www.vatican.net/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo_en.html
Only months after the issuance of the Credo, Lyman Stebbins announced the formation of Catholics United for the Faith as a means for lay people to visibly unite with the Holy Father in his efforts to defend and proclaim the faith of the Apostles, the faith in Jesus Christ, the one Savior of the world.
Pope John Paul II deliberately chose his name to build upon the work of Blessed John XXIII and Pope Paul VI in implementing the authentic renewal of Christian faith in the modern world which the Second Vatican Council sought to bring about. Taking their work to its logical conclusion, Pope John Paul II prophetically called for a “new evangelization,” which is all about defending and proclaiming the apostolic faith in today’s world.
And just yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI announced a “Year of St. Paul” at St. Paul outside the Walls Basilica in Rome. He did so to mark the 2,000th anniversary of St. Paul’s birth, as he is generally believed to have been born between the years 6 and 8 A.D. In choosing to focus on the “Apostle to the Gentiles” during the coming year, Pope Benedict is building upon the evangelistic and catechetical priorities of his immediate predecessors.
Sts. Peter and Paul have always been special patron saints of CUF. We ask their intercession for this new blog, and even more, for the missionary efforts of the entire Church during this new springtime of faith.
Let me explain.
In 1967 Pope Paul VI called a “Year of Faith” to bear witness to the Church’s steadfast will to “guard what has been entrusted to [her]” (1 Tim. 6:20)—in other words, to manifest the Church’s commitment to defend Church teaching from attack or distortion.
But that’s not all. The Holy Father also called the Year of Faith to focus our efforts on bringing this faith to life in a rapidly changing world that brings with it new challenges to embracing and living the Gospel.
Hmmm. Defending the faith but also advancing the faith that has been taught by the Apostles and their successors for two millennia. Sounds strikingly close to CUF’s mission to “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.”
At the conclusion of the Year of Faith, on June 29, 1968, the solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul as well as the 1900th anniversary of their martyrdom, Pope Paul VI issued the Credo of the People of God, which courageously sets forth for today’s men and women the faith of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ.
This remarkable document was an attempt to counteract the crisis of faith in our culture, as Pope Paul VI was painfully aware of the various agendas and currents of thought that were undermining Christian belief.
Here’s how Pope Paul VI himself described it:
“On this day which is chosen to close the Year of Faith, on this feast of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, we have wished to offer to the living God the homage of a Profession of Faith. And as once at Caesarea Philippi the Apostle Peter spoke on behalf of the Twelve to make a true confession, beyond human opinions, of Christ as Son of the living God, so today his humble Successor, Pastor of the universal Church, raises his voice to give, on behalf of all the People of God, a firm witness to the divine truth entrusted to the Church to be announced to all nations.”
For the entire text of the Credo, see http://www.vatican.net/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo_en.html
Only months after the issuance of the Credo, Lyman Stebbins announced the formation of Catholics United for the Faith as a means for lay people to visibly unite with the Holy Father in his efforts to defend and proclaim the faith of the Apostles, the faith in Jesus Christ, the one Savior of the world.
Pope John Paul II deliberately chose his name to build upon the work of Blessed John XXIII and Pope Paul VI in implementing the authentic renewal of Christian faith in the modern world which the Second Vatican Council sought to bring about. Taking their work to its logical conclusion, Pope John Paul II prophetically called for a “new evangelization,” which is all about defending and proclaiming the apostolic faith in today’s world.
And just yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI announced a “Year of St. Paul” at St. Paul outside the Walls Basilica in Rome. He did so to mark the 2,000th anniversary of St. Paul’s birth, as he is generally believed to have been born between the years 6 and 8 A.D. In choosing to focus on the “Apostle to the Gentiles” during the coming year, Pope Benedict is building upon the evangelistic and catechetical priorities of his immediate predecessors.
Sts. Peter and Paul have always been special patron saints of CUF. We ask their intercession for this new blog, and even more, for the missionary efforts of the entire Church during this new springtime of faith.
Why united for the faith?
After all, there are many important causes to rally around right now. Why not Catholics United for the Right to Life? Catholics United for Social Justice? Catholics United for Clean Air? Catholics United for Peace? Catholics United for Liturgical Reverence?
These and many other causes are eminently worthwhile, but CUF’s mission is even more fundamental, more radical. It’s a mission that goes to the heart of the matter, as our faith in the person and teachings of Jesus Christ is what gives these other causes their ultimate meaning and context.
Or to put it more bluntly in Clintonesque terms: “It’s the faith, stupid!”
When faced with divurging opinions we might talk about finding “common ground.” As the late Cardinal Hickey once noted, our true common ground as Catholics is the deposit of faith—what the Lord has revealed to us through His Church for our salvation. Our faith is Catholic—it’s meant for all peoples and cultures. But diversity without this “common ground” is Babel, not Pentecost.
The faith is a reality that’s not dependent on my accepting it or rejecting it. Jesus is either the Son of God, or He isn’t. There is one God in three persons, or there isn’t. Jesus gave authority in His Church to His Apostles and their successors, or He didn’t. And so on. Objective truth is not affected by my own personal views. After all, I'm not God. And neither are you.
The Credo, or Creed (and not just the one of Pope Paul VI, but also other creeds, such as the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed we say at Mass) reflects the objective, perennial faith of the Church. We believe that the Church has been given the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide successive generations of believers into all truth.
And so the faith is not something we make up, as though the Creed were some sort of spiritual salad bar. Rather, it’s about our acceptance through the Church of God’s revelation in Christ.
But faith is also a personal, subjective reality. I can legitimately refer to my faith. Jesus Christ truly is my—and your—Lord and Savior with whom we are called to a very personal relationship.
Yet, as Christians we enter into the reality of eternity, not create it. Christ came to change us with His saving truth, not to be changed according to our own natural inclinations.
Each one of us is called to appropriate the faith and make it my faith. It begins with the new life we receive at Baptism, but doesn’t end until the Lord calls us home. But to the extent my faith doesn’t correspond with the faith, my faith needs to change, not the faith.
I went on a little longer than I originally intended on “the faith.” But that’s what we’re about here, and what ultimately is more important to talk about than our Christian faith?
By the way, we just published a wonderful book that’s relevant to this discussion by the great Newman scholar Fr. Ian Ker. It’s called Mere Catholicism and it’s available now through Emmaus Road: (http://www.emmausroad.org/Mere-Catholicism-P7440C0.aspx).
These and many other causes are eminently worthwhile, but CUF’s mission is even more fundamental, more radical. It’s a mission that goes to the heart of the matter, as our faith in the person and teachings of Jesus Christ is what gives these other causes their ultimate meaning and context.
Or to put it more bluntly in Clintonesque terms: “It’s the faith, stupid!”
When faced with divurging opinions we might talk about finding “common ground.” As the late Cardinal Hickey once noted, our true common ground as Catholics is the deposit of faith—what the Lord has revealed to us through His Church for our salvation. Our faith is Catholic—it’s meant for all peoples and cultures. But diversity without this “common ground” is Babel, not Pentecost.
The faith is a reality that’s not dependent on my accepting it or rejecting it. Jesus is either the Son of God, or He isn’t. There is one God in three persons, or there isn’t. Jesus gave authority in His Church to His Apostles and their successors, or He didn’t. And so on. Objective truth is not affected by my own personal views. After all, I'm not God. And neither are you.
The Credo, or Creed (and not just the one of Pope Paul VI, but also other creeds, such as the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed we say at Mass) reflects the objective, perennial faith of the Church. We believe that the Church has been given the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide successive generations of believers into all truth.
And so the faith is not something we make up, as though the Creed were some sort of spiritual salad bar. Rather, it’s about our acceptance through the Church of God’s revelation in Christ.
But faith is also a personal, subjective reality. I can legitimately refer to my faith. Jesus Christ truly is my—and your—Lord and Savior with whom we are called to a very personal relationship.
Yet, as Christians we enter into the reality of eternity, not create it. Christ came to change us with His saving truth, not to be changed according to our own natural inclinations.
Each one of us is called to appropriate the faith and make it my faith. It begins with the new life we receive at Baptism, but doesn’t end until the Lord calls us home. But to the extent my faith doesn’t correspond with the faith, my faith needs to change, not the faith.
I went on a little longer than I originally intended on “the faith.” But that’s what we’re about here, and what ultimately is more important to talk about than our Christian faith?
By the way, we just published a wonderful book that’s relevant to this discussion by the great Newman scholar Fr. Ian Ker. It’s called Mere Catholicism and it’s available now through Emmaus Road: (http://www.emmausroad.org/Mere-Catholicism-P7440C0.aspx).
Is CUF an activist organization?
Yes and no. We’ve been known as a leading orthodox voice in the Church for nearly four decades. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa, one of our episcopal advisors, put it this way a couple years ago:
“Proclaiming Christ to every generation is what CUF has been doing for the past 35 years. Loyal to the teachings of the Church and courageous in the face of opposition, CUF has been consistent in its witness to the unchanging truth of the Gospel and to her members’ steadfast belief that the fullness of that truth is to be found in the Church.”
This staunch fidelity has led to CUF’s active opposition to evils such as serious liturgical abuse, doctrinal dissent by those with the responsibility of teaching the faith, poor catechesis, and the agenda of the “culture of death.”
We are always clear, by the way, that we’re not Catholics against the Faithless, but Catholics for the Faith, so any such activism has as its goal the salvation of souls.
Are we activists? Well, those who advocate the above evils would certainly call us activists (and probably a few other things besides!). Those who want a quick fix, on the other hand, would not consider us activists. So I suppose to some extent it’s a matter of perception. Here’s the reality, though, as expressed by CUF founder Lyman Stebbins in CUF’s original membership brochure:
“Catholics United for the Faith believes so strongly in the primacy of the spiritual and the power of the supernatural that it is convinced it could do an enormous work even if its members’ only activities were study, prayer, fasting, and works of mercy and love toward our neighbor. We believe that these are, necessarily and objectively, prerequisites for the effectiveness of any Christian work. Thus, they are in no way opposed to action in itself; they are opposed only to impatient, self-assertive, or quarrelsome action. CUF is strongly in favor of any action which will really serve . . . to repair the dissent and disunity within the Church.”
This blog will become a place where people can voice their concerns about the Church, and even more it will be a place to come to find support as well as constructive suggestions for addressing such concerns as faithful sons and daughters of the Church.
At least as often, it will likely provide a setting to “cool off” lest we respond immediately to our concerns out of the passion of the moment without sufficient time for prayer and recollection. This site will relentlessly remind visitors that the first order of business is the renewal of our own hearts.
In addition to this blogsite, I’d also recommend joining or starting a CUF chapter as a means for faithful Catholics to join for prayer, formation in the faith, fellowship, and apostolic outreach. For more information on our chapter program, see http://www.cuf.org/Member/Chapters/index.asp
Consider this analogy. Imagine there’s a mishap on an airplane and the craft begins losing cabin pressure. In the face of such a calamity, most of us would want to be courageous and help as many of our fellow passengers as possible. Yet, if we don’t use our own air mask first, in a matter of seconds we’ll be of no use to anybody. We would be among the first casualties.
Similarly, our first responsibility as Christians is to open our own hearts to Christ each day, allowing Him to change us and work through us.
“Proclaiming Christ to every generation is what CUF has been doing for the past 35 years. Loyal to the teachings of the Church and courageous in the face of opposition, CUF has been consistent in its witness to the unchanging truth of the Gospel and to her members’ steadfast belief that the fullness of that truth is to be found in the Church.”
This staunch fidelity has led to CUF’s active opposition to evils such as serious liturgical abuse, doctrinal dissent by those with the responsibility of teaching the faith, poor catechesis, and the agenda of the “culture of death.”
We are always clear, by the way, that we’re not Catholics against the Faithless, but Catholics for the Faith, so any such activism has as its goal the salvation of souls.
Are we activists? Well, those who advocate the above evils would certainly call us activists (and probably a few other things besides!). Those who want a quick fix, on the other hand, would not consider us activists. So I suppose to some extent it’s a matter of perception. Here’s the reality, though, as expressed by CUF founder Lyman Stebbins in CUF’s original membership brochure:
“Catholics United for the Faith believes so strongly in the primacy of the spiritual and the power of the supernatural that it is convinced it could do an enormous work even if its members’ only activities were study, prayer, fasting, and works of mercy and love toward our neighbor. We believe that these are, necessarily and objectively, prerequisites for the effectiveness of any Christian work. Thus, they are in no way opposed to action in itself; they are opposed only to impatient, self-assertive, or quarrelsome action. CUF is strongly in favor of any action which will really serve . . . to repair the dissent and disunity within the Church.”
This blog will become a place where people can voice their concerns about the Church, and even more it will be a place to come to find support as well as constructive suggestions for addressing such concerns as faithful sons and daughters of the Church.
At least as often, it will likely provide a setting to “cool off” lest we respond immediately to our concerns out of the passion of the moment without sufficient time for prayer and recollection. This site will relentlessly remind visitors that the first order of business is the renewal of our own hearts.
In addition to this blogsite, I’d also recommend joining or starting a CUF chapter as a means for faithful Catholics to join for prayer, formation in the faith, fellowship, and apostolic outreach. For more information on our chapter program, see http://www.cuf.org/Member/Chapters/index.asp
Consider this analogy. Imagine there’s a mishap on an airplane and the craft begins losing cabin pressure. In the face of such a calamity, most of us would want to be courageous and help as many of our fellow passengers as possible. Yet, if we don’t use our own air mask first, in a matter of seconds we’ll be of no use to anybody. We would be among the first casualties.
Similarly, our first responsibility as Christians is to open our own hearts to Christ each day, allowing Him to change us and work through us.
What about the bishops?
CUF has been a leader in defending the office of the bishop. The bishops’ role as legitimate successors of the Apostles is a basic point of Catholic teaching. This surely needs to be explained patiently and carefully to all, especially to those who accept Christ in some fashion, but who do not accept a visible, hierarchical Church.
But there’s much more to it. How do we live this teaching, especially in the midst of scandals, when we think our bishop or pastor is part of the problem or perhaps isn’t doing as much to “clean up the Church” as we might think he should?
That’s where CUF’s wisdom and experience comes into play. We have published extensive articles and tracts on this subject through the years. Here are links to a sampling of these resources:
http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=25
http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=176
http://www.cuf.org/LayWitness/Online_view.asp?lwID=939
http://www.cuf.org/news/newsdetail.asp?newID=133
http://www.cuf.org/news/newsdetail.asp?newID=139
In addition, a few years ago we published the book Servants of the Gospel, a collection of essays by prominent U.S. bishops such as Cardinal George, Archbishops Chaput, Myers, and Burke, and Bishops Bruskewitz, Carlson, and Tobin on various aspects of the episcopal office. http://www.emmausroad.org/Servants-of-the-Gospel-Essays-by-American-Bishops-on-Their-Role-as-Shepherds-of-the-Church-P3244C483.aspx This book was used as a resource by the Synod of Bishops in Rome as it deliberated upon the role of the bishop in the Church today.
I realize that all the teaching and articles in the world is one thing, and applying it in real-life situations is another. We strive to practice what we preach, manifesting this positive, respectful approach in our extensive interactions with Church leaders in the U.S. and the Vatican.
But even more, especially through our Catholic Responses department, we provide practical, pastoral assistance to members in appropriately addressing their concerns. http://www.cuf.org/InfoServices/index.asp
But there’s much more to it. How do we live this teaching, especially in the midst of scandals, when we think our bishop or pastor is part of the problem or perhaps isn’t doing as much to “clean up the Church” as we might think he should?
That’s where CUF’s wisdom and experience comes into play. We have published extensive articles and tracts on this subject through the years. Here are links to a sampling of these resources:
http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=25
http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=176
http://www.cuf.org/LayWitness/Online_view.asp?lwID=939
http://www.cuf.org/news/newsdetail.asp?newID=133
http://www.cuf.org/news/newsdetail.asp?newID=139
In addition, a few years ago we published the book Servants of the Gospel, a collection of essays by prominent U.S. bishops such as Cardinal George, Archbishops Chaput, Myers, and Burke, and Bishops Bruskewitz, Carlson, and Tobin on various aspects of the episcopal office. http://www.emmausroad.org/Servants-of-the-Gospel-Essays-by-American-Bishops-on-Their-Role-as-Shepherds-of-the-Church-P3244C483.aspx This book was used as a resource by the Synod of Bishops in Rome as it deliberated upon the role of the bishop in the Church today.
I realize that all the teaching and articles in the world is one thing, and applying it in real-life situations is another. We strive to practice what we preach, manifesting this positive, respectful approach in our extensive interactions with Church leaders in the U.S. and the Vatican.
But even more, especially through our Catholic Responses department, we provide practical, pastoral assistance to members in appropriately addressing their concerns. http://www.cuf.org/InfoServices/index.asp
What are CUF’s weapons?
I want to conclude here with a remarkable excerpt from Lyman Stebbins, offered in an article in which he exhorted the lay faithful to pray the Liturgy of the Hours as an aid to following Jesus Christ to eternal glory. This excerpt shows what I consider to be the source of our apostolate’s strength in battle:
"It is essential for all of us in CUF to learn—and to keep remembering—that in the eyes of God meekness is not weakness [http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/Online_view.asp?lwID=1598 ], the exercise of patience is not unmanly, the willingness to suffer for love is not cowardice, submission to constituted authority is not a cop-out."
"Our God is a warrior. He is Lord of the angelic hosts, the great Lion of Judah, the Son of God who ever goes forth to war with His blood-red banner streaming. He appointed St. Peter as His deputy and champion in the great battle. Yet, when St. Peter wielded his sword, Jesus reacted immediately and decisively, commanding him to put the earthly weapon back into its scabbord. Later on, at St. Peter’s formal investiture, the Lord taught him the mysterious and heavenly weapons of the saints: 'Love Me!' and 'Feed My sheep!'
"We of CUF simply must learn and use His weapons; not our own."
May this new blog use well the spiritual weapons of Christ, as we address faith issues honestly and candidly, but always with charity and respect, as together we “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.”
"It is essential for all of us in CUF to learn—and to keep remembering—that in the eyes of God meekness is not weakness [http://www.cuf.org/Laywitness/Online_view.asp?lwID=1598 ], the exercise of patience is not unmanly, the willingness to suffer for love is not cowardice, submission to constituted authority is not a cop-out."
"Our God is a warrior. He is Lord of the angelic hosts, the great Lion of Judah, the Son of God who ever goes forth to war with His blood-red banner streaming. He appointed St. Peter as His deputy and champion in the great battle. Yet, when St. Peter wielded his sword, Jesus reacted immediately and decisively, commanding him to put the earthly weapon back into its scabbord. Later on, at St. Peter’s formal investiture, the Lord taught him the mysterious and heavenly weapons of the saints: 'Love Me!' and 'Feed My sheep!'
"We of CUF simply must learn and use His weapons; not our own."
May this new blog use well the spiritual weapons of Christ, as we address faith issues honestly and candidly, but always with charity and respect, as together we “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)