(Please Note: Although "Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities" (the non-profit corporation and fiscal agent through which the Progressive Catholic Voice accepts contributions) appears at the top of the donation page that you will see after clicking on this button, your contribution will go directly into CPCSM's Progressive Catholic Voice Account.)

It may be helpful to know that the Minnesota Tax Code now provides a 50% income deduction for charitable contributions over $500.

We also welcome any suggestions you might have for other funding sources.

Yours sincerely,

The Editorial Team

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

A Special Invitation

The Inclusive Catholic network of welcoming and affirming parishes and communities invites Catholics and their friends from across the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis to join its members in this year’s GLBT Pride Parade on Sunday, June 29, in downtown Minneapolis.

Inclusive Catholics believe that now, more than ever, we need to send a clear message to both the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and to the wider society that there are many Catholics who faithfully dissent from the Vatican’s teaching on homosexuality.  Furthermore, we call for open dialogue – dialogue open to the insights, experiences, and wisdom of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and their families – in the formulation of Church teaching that reflects and celebrates the presence and action of God in the lives and relationships of LGBT persons.

You may recall that on December 2, 2007, over 300 people braved sub-zero temperatures to gather on the steps of the Cathedral of St. Paul for a Vigil of Solidarity with LGBT Catholics, their families and supporters.  Inclusive Catholics envision this year’s Pride Parade as another opportunity for Catholics to stand in solidarity with their LGBT brothers and sisters.

Information about the parade route and when and where we’ll be gathering will be posted in the next week or so on the website of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (www.cpcsm.org).  We hope you can join us!

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Dialoguing with the Archbishop

By the Editorial Team

Archbishop John C. Nienstedt writes a column in The Catholic Spirit entitled “In God’s Good Time.”  We take his public statements as an opportunity to discuss his views with him.

Dear Archbishop Nienstedt:

We note that in your Catholic Spirit interview of May 6 you quote Pope Benedict XVI as calling for “a new Catholic vision of reality.” This vision of reality, you say, “had to take in a certain amount of eschatology. In other words, it had to raise our minds up to the things of heaven like St. Paul says, rather than the things of earth.”

We welcome the relativism of this statement. The Pope is acknowledging that there are differing views of reality. But we must confess we are stunned. Is it possible that the Pope is admitting that an “old” Catholic vision of reality is insufficient? What “old” vision is he moving away from? Who is he calling to articulate a “new” one? We don’t really understand what “a certain amount of eschatology” is and we don’t get the heaven/earth duality. We also note that you throw this in at the end of a long interview as an answer to a catch-all “anything else?” question. It does not inspire confidence in leadership to have new visions introduced in such a haphazard way.

But since the Pope asked, we will make some suggestions:

A new Catholic vision of reality has to be “catholic.” By that we mean it has to be articulated by voices from all over the globe. It has to be articulated over a long period of serious communication among all peoples of the earth. It will always be provisional and in process, assimilating new and challenging views.

That conversational process has been going on for thousands of years and is currently in ferment because of rapidly developing communication technology. We are all neighbors now, talking over the backyard fence of the internet.

Although the Roman Catholic institution carried the conversation in the Western world for many centuries, after the Reformation it dug its heels in against evolving visions of reality until the Second Vatican Council opened the windows. That promise of fresh breeze has yet to be fulfilled. Now the Roman Catholic Church has to enter the global cultural process as a respectful conversation partner willing to learn.

However, in order to have credibility as a conversation partner, it must first begin major reforms within its own institution. The institution has to model the kind of collaboration it advocates.

Reform means it has to dismantle its power elite by recognizing the authority within the laity to choose their own leaders. It has to begin the cultural transformation within its own institution by recognizing sexuality as an integral part of human life and diversity as necessary for growth. Governance should be decentralized so local bishops could be more responsive to their people. The Roman Catholic Church has to ordain men and women, married and celibate, straight and gay who have been presented by their communities for ordination.

That is just a start. The resources for necessary internal reform in the US church are fathomless.  All we need is a courageous bishop or two to make it happen.

You say the Pope was speaking to the US bishops when he called for a new Catholic vision of reality? Maybe he was encouraging you, his fellow bishops, to go for it.

We will help in any way we can.

Sincerely,

The Editorial Team of The Progressive Catholic Voice:

Michael Bayly
Mary Beckfeld
Susan Kramp
David McCaffrey
Mary Lynn Murphy
Rick Notch
Theresa O'Brien, CSJ
Paula Ruddy

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

The Catholic Understanding of Faithful Dissent (Part 1)

By Michael J. Bayly

The Roman Catholic Church has a problem with dissent.

More accurately, members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy have a problem dealing with faithful dissent on the part of some of their fellow Catholics.

This problem on the part of the hierarchy is, of course, not new.  Yet for many of us here in the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis, it’s been particularly evident in the clumsy handling by the chancery of a number of recent situations of faithful dissent.  Two examples: the chancery’s banning of an 82-year-old cradle Catholic and his lesbian daughter from speaking on Catholic property, and its refusal to publish material in the Archdiocesan newspaper that respectfully questions Church teaching and presents an alternative perspective.

Catholic journalist and author, Robert McClory, is somewhat of an expert on faithful dissent.  His 2000 book, Faithful Dissenters, brings together 17 compelling stories of men and women who “loved and changed the Church” at different times in its history.

On Saturday, May 3, 2008, over 125 people gathered at the Metropolitan Ballroom in Golden Valley, Minnesota, to hear McClory deliver the keynote address at the Second Annual Prayer Breakfast for Hope and Justice.

Sponsored by a coalition of progressive Catholic organizations, including the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), The Progressive Catholic Voice online journal, Pax Christi Twin Cities, Catholic Rainbow Parents, and Dignity Twin Cities, this year’s prayer breakfast was entitled “Here Comes Everybody: Democratizing Catholicism in Challenging Times.” The title was inspired, in part, by McClory's latest book, As It Was In the Beginning: The Coming Democratization of the Catholic Church.

Robert McClory

In his keynote address, McClory spoke powerfully and eloquently on how the Catholic tradition develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit, and, as the Second Vatican Council document Dei Verbum reminds us, “through the intimate understanding of spiritual things [that believers] experience.” In this way the Church “constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth.”

In outlining the history of faithful dissent in the Church, and the criteria for such responsible, conscientious dissent, McClory drew on the works of noted Catholic theologians Francis Sullivan (author of Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church), Richard A. McCormick, SJ, and Edward Schillebeeckx, OP (whom Robert and his wife Margaret met recently during a visit to the Netherlands).

He also discussed at length the situation in the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis in light of the new archbishop, John Nienstedt.

“You have a new archbishop who is here to ‘get things back in order.’” McClory told those gathered at the prayer breakfast.  He also recounted an experience he had with Nienstedt several years ago when Nienstedt was bishop of New Ulm and McClory was writing a piece for the National Catholic Reporter.

“At that time,” said McClory, “[Nienstedt] had done something newsworthy in relation to a book, entitled Revelation and the Church: Vatican II and in the Twenty-First Century.  This book had been largely written and edited by his predecessor, Bishop Raymond Lucker,” explained McClory, “and, in it, Bishop Lucker said that there were a lot of things that the Church needs to think about. He listed 37 matters of authoritative Church teaching that have undergone substantial change over time – including the Church’s approach to religious liberty, the Bible, slavery, and the Jews. Bishop Lucker’s book also contained a list of 15 teachings that could change in the future, including clerical celibacy, artificial birth control, intercommunion between Protestants and Catholics, condemnation of homosexual activity, and the ordination of women. When Bishop Nienstedt came in and saw that book he said: ‘Take that off the shelf.’”

McClory interviewed Bishop Nienstedt about his public criticism  (some have said “banning”) of Bishop Lucker’s book.  “I had a very nice chat on the phone with him,” reported McClory.  “[In defending his actions] Nienstedt said he had simply tried to impose Vatican II in the diocese.”

“He reminded me of the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium,” McClory told the prayer breakfast audience.  “Of how when the pope or bishops speak on matters of faith and morals, even when not speaking infallibly, the faithful are to accept that teaching and adhere to it with internal and external religious assent of soul.”

"Nienstedt," continued McClory," insisted that dissent from any authoritative teaching of the Church places one theologically in opposition to the Church and puts one at risk of losing eternal life.  One must accept everything the Church teaches authoritatively.  Everything."

“Archbishop Nienstedt is wrong according to the best Catholic sources,” McClory continued. “Yet what he says is widely said by bishops today.  Many insist that to be a good Catholic means, first of all, obedience – obedience to those who have been placed over you and have the truth that you don’t.  This understanding of what it means to be a good Catholic is wrong.”

The wave of relief and hope that rippled through the vast auditorium at that moment was palpable. For many present, McClory’s words were like life-giving water in the parched and hostile environment that the archdiocese has become in recent months.

In countering this misguided understanding of what it means to be “a good Catholic,” McClory went on to highlight Dei Verbum – “one of the most important statements of the Second Vatican Council.”

Commenting on this statement, McClory reminded the audience that: “Vatican II says we’re not there yet.  We don’t know everything.  The Church is growing.  It is moving and developing.  And how does it develop?  Through the contemplation and study made not just by the hierarchy, but by believers, and through the ‘intimate understanding’ of things they experience.  This is what the Church teaches.  It’s a foundational teaching.  Accordingly, the Church cannot simply say: ‘We’ve got all the answers now.  Just listen and be obedient.’”

McClory then gave a number of examples of teachings concerned with faith and/or morals that have changed.  For instance, it was once taught and believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and all the planets and stars revolved around it.  The Fathers of the Church were unanimous on this belief.  Accordingly, it was regarded as an article of faith and promoted as such.  “Nobody doubted or contradicted it,” said McClory, “until Copernicus and then Galileo, who scientifically proved that it was not true.  Nobody in Rome today says the Earth is the center of the universe.”

The Church’s changing attitudes and teaching on usury were also discussed.  McClory noted that for 1600 years the taking of interest on a loan was considered sinful because Jesus says, “Give, asking nothing in return.”  (Also, as William Hunt notes, “charging interest was seen as contrary to the very nature of money. Treating something sterile as though it were productive was going against nature.”)  For these and other reasons, usury was forbidden until the sixteenth century and the birth of capitalism, at which point the teaching began to change.  In 1850 the pope himself borrowed (at a substantial rate of interest) some fifty million francs from the Rothschild Banking House for remodeling and repairing St. Peter’s Basilica.  “And now in the Code of Canon Law (1983),” said McClory, “it is stated that every head of a Catholic religious institution is obliged to take the money left over from the activities of that organization and put it into a bank account to earn interest.”  In short, “that which was formerly deemed intrinsically evil has come to be regarded as a serious moral obligation on the part of Church management.”

And then, of course, there is the moral issue of slavery.  “The Church always opposed the abuse of slaves,” said McClory, “but at no point up through the 1800s, and even after the Civil War, did it oppose slavery itself.”

“The Church never said that slavery was evil,” McClory continued, but rather viewed it as a “peculiar institution,” a “regrettable but unavoidable condition of fallen human nature.” 

“Some Catholics, said McClory, “even understood slavery as a good way to help those ‘poor, uneducated, savage people’ to become Christian.”

McClory then drew gasps from the audience when he shared an excerpt from an 1866 document from the Holy Office: “Slavery itself is not at all contrary to natural or divine law because the sort of ownership a slaveholder has over a slave is understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of using the work of a slave for one’s own advantage.”

“This is a statement from the Holy Office that makes no sense,” said McClory.  “Just two years after this statement was issued Pope Leo XIII declared that slavery always was and always will be morally reprehensible.  It may be used for no reason or under any consideration.”

So what can be learned from such examples of change within the Church?  McClory insists that any educated Catholic knows that the Church at one time held some things to be doctrinally absolute, and that these things turned out to be wrong.  Accordingly, “one cannot be an intelligent Catholic,” he insists, “without saying that doctrine can be wrong in the future and, more to the point, can be wrong in the present.”

“To deny this and to insist that one must hold everything the Vatican teaches with absolute certainty, is, to use a theological term, ‘nuts,’” McClory remarked wryly.  “It just doesn’t make sense.”

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Does Christianity Have a Monopoly on Salvation?

By Eleazer S. Fernandez

A Note from the Editorial Team: Dr. Eleazar S. Fernandez, sheds light on the relativity of religious truth claims. We think readers who have always questioned the idea that “salvation” can be exclusive for Catholics or Christians will be particularly interested.  Our thanks to Dr. Fernandez for allowing us to publish his article and our thanks to Jim Moudry, Minneapolis, for bringing it to our attention.

Dr. Fernandez, Professor of Constructive Theology at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, New Brighton, MN, presented the following address at the Evangelical-Liberal Dialogue, November 8, 2007.

I find it a challenge to answer our question, “Does Christianity have a monopoly on salvation?” on at least two counts. First, it presupposes a shared understanding of what salvation is. This in itself is a complex and controversial topic. Our understanding of salvation will in some ways inform how we respond to the question before us. Since I do not have much time to dwell on this topic and would like to proceed as quickly as possible to the issue of the Christian monopoly on salvation, I can only offer a terse and limited account. I speak of salvation as the liberation, healing, and reconciliation of the whole creation both within history (as we know it) and beyond, which, from the Christian lens, is the work of God in Christ through, but not limited to, the particularity of Jesus. Second, it is a challenge to answer our question from a liberal or a progressive Christian perspective because there is no single voice that can fully represent the complexities and nuances of the whole liberal/progressive theological spectrum. Even Friedrich Schleiermacher who is considered the father of modern liberal theology, is, for many, not really liberal enough in relation to the issue. Schleiermacher continues to put Christianity at the peak of humanity’s religious evolution while relegating other religions to the lower rung. (1)  Moreover, from the point of view of postcolonial discourse, his hierarchy of religions is infected by the virus of Euro-centrism. (2) Nonetheless, there are main tenets that characterize the liberal theological position that we can name and articulate.

At the heart of the liberal tradition is a protest against an external authority that claims to be the sole possessor of a divinely-mandated truth and which imposes this truth claim to the rest of humanity. Failure to accept this truth, it is argued, is not only to go against the divinely ordained earthly authority but also to go against God, the consequence of which is eternal damnation in hell where the damned will damned will be weeping and gnashing their teeth. “How about those who do not have teeth,” I jokingly asked a friend. His answer was quick and swift: “Don’t worry brother, God will provide.” The liberal theological tradition exposes the historical character of the external authority’s truth-claim, particularly its alliance with oppressive power. It subverts heteronomous discourse by locating its historical origin and pointing to human beings as active interpreting subjects. With human beings as active interpreting subjects, truth is not only historicized, it is also pluralized.

What does this critique of religious truth-claim mean in relation to how liberal or progressive Christians take account of the Christian claim vis-à-vis the claim of other religions? What does this mean in relation to Christ’s saving act in Jesus? Does Christianity have a monopoly on salvation?

First, from a historical and hermeneutical point of view, liberal or progressive Christianity affirms that as historical creatures we do not see reality from the point of view of eternity (sub specie aeternitatis), but only through our limited socio-historical and geographical location. Historical beings that we are, what we see is a part and not the totality of reality. If our perception is limited by our historicity and circumscribed by our relationship with the world around us, then we should not close ourselves to other dimensions of the total reality or to other expressions of truth that our neighbors may see and experience. We should not be threatened when our neighbors affirm something as true, because his or her truth affirmation does not necessarily cancel out what we deeply hold as true. The Nobel Prize physicist Neils Bohr puts it well: “The opposite of a true statement is a false statement, but the opposite of a profound truth can be another profound truth. (3)

When we apply this insight to Christianity and the question of salvation, I say that what we know of God and God’s salvific acts in the world is limited to our historical window—the Christian window. This is not bad in itself. In fact, we see only because we see through a particular window. Not only is it impossible for a single human being to see through all the windows: there is no way of seeing apart from our particular window. This Christian window may become our Christian box--our prison cell--if we do not embrace it consciously and take account of it critically. When we are conscious and critical of our Christian window, we know that even the way we have framed our topic--“Does Christianity have a monopoly on salvation?”--is already set within the Christian framework. Believers from other religious traditions may not even want to play our Christian game—the game of salvation.

Second, from the theological-mystical point of view, not only is our knowledge of God limited and historically conditioned, but God is also the Ultimate Mystery. Moreover, the Ultimate Mystery is not only ineluctably ineffable; at the heart of the Ultimate Mystery is plurality. We can discern the Ultimate Mystery’s ontological plurality in the manifold particularities. To confine the Ultimate Mystery to one particular expression is to misunderstand what is at the heart of the Ultimate Mystery: the mystery of plurality—a plurality that at the same time does not deny the mystery of unity. (4) I have underscored ontological plurality as central to the Ultimate Mystery to counter embedded habits of thinking that reduce, swallow or melt the many into one. (5) In a society with a long history of devouring and melting the many into one, there is more reason to worry that the discourse on oneness with regard to the Ultimate Mystery maybe a religious projection of political hegemony. Instead of thinking in numbers and starting to count (In matters of Ultimate Mystery, he or she “who begins to count, begins to err,” says Augustine), we must see the other side of plurality not in terms of oneness (mono) but of the unity and the connection of the many. (6)

Third, from an ethical and practical point of view, liberal or progressive Christianity not only affirms that our knowledge is limited and that plurality is at the heart of the Ultimate Reality. It also affirms that the building of a just, humane, and sustainable world demands openness to the claims of other religious believers and to what their religious praxis can contribute into our common life, particularly to our shared well-being. Openness to the truth-claims of others and testing them in light of their contribution to greater well-being reminds me of Aristotle’s notion of phronesis (practical wisdom). Practical wisdom knows that something is “true” because of its “good” effects. If the “true” is the “good,” then the true is discernible in the “good” that a person does or what a “good person” does. (7)  In short, a particular religious expression that claims monopoly of the absolute truth is, I believe, violating that truth-claim when it undermines mutual respect and when it harms the other. Monopolistic claims and imposition of truth claims are contrary to the nature of truth. Such actions devour people in the name of the sacred truth.

Where does this openness to the salvific claims of other religions lead to? Does it relativize or water down the Christian claim? How does it take account of the particular and decisive claim of the Christian faith? What is it going to say about the mandate to evangelize the whole world of the good news of Jesus Christ? Are liberal or progressive Christians destined to a wishy-washy or mushy kind of relativism and non-engaging niceness or tolerance, which fits very well into our individualistic-privatistic culture? My answer is a resounding No.

The best liberal or progressive Christian theological position overcomes religious schizophrenia and integrates the insights of scientific, historical, cultural, and literary studies as well as the nature and language of religious commitment. The liberal or progressive Christian does not crucify his or her intellect even as she or he continues to be a committed Christian. The de-absolutizing and relativizing perspective of historical studies and comparative religion is affirmed and valued by a liberal or progressive Christian. Relativity is the nature of all historical and religious institutions. One cannot escape from it. But an astute liberal or progressive Christian interpreter of religious traditions does not confuse or equate historical relativity with relativism. In fact, relativism is a contradiction to the spirit of the liberal tradition, because relativism is absolutism in disguise. In its subtle form, it is repressive tolerance.

What I affirm as a Christian who is an inheritor of the liberal or progressive tradition is not relativism but relationality. Relativity does not only mean being “limited” but also of being “potentially relatable”  to other truth claims. (8)  Relationality does not ask us to abdicate faith commitment through one religious medium, such as Christianity, but affirms it in the context of relationship with other claims. In fact, our day-to-day lives call us to make commitments in the context in which what we see is only through a mirror dimly—only through the relative and the particular and amidst competing claims. When the particular presents to us in the form of competing claims that demand our wholehearted commitment, we know that we are confronted to make a choice that is beyond the trivial, such as a choice between different kinds of doughnuts (old fashioned, honey glazed, cream and strawberry doughnuts, etc.), but a serious one. I cannot deny that there are other claims, but in committing myself to a particular claim it has made a claim on my life and it demands my total commitment. This is particularly true of the claim of Christ in Jesus.

As a Christian, the Christ who calls and demands my total commitment has become fully particular in Jesus. It is through this particularity that Christ’s saving work in Jesus has become a reality. If I may pair the word “only” with the word “salvation,” I say that it is “only” through the particular that we are “saved.” To use the syntax of the famous exclusivist dictum, “outside of the particular there is no salvation.” God loves particularities, lots of them. Yes, God saves through the particularity of Christ in Jesus, but God’s saving act in Christ is not limited to this particularity, and this particularity does not exhaust God’s saving acts through other particularities. This is at the core of what we call the incarnation. Incarnation means that the Divine has assumed the fullness of humanity, not that a particular humanity has taken on the totality of the Divine. (9)  To make a particular assume the totality of the Divine is not an expression of Christian faithfulness but an act of betrayal. It is to fall into what the Christian tradition calls idolatry. Idolatry makes God a prisoner of a particular. To limit God’s saving act in Christ through Jesus is to imprison God, which is often done in the name of Christian faithfulness.

This may help us understand the creative tension between the particularity and decisiveness of the Christian claim in relation to Christian openness. I suggest that we see Christ in Jesus as a prototype (breakthrough figure) and not as an archetype figure. Unfortunately, the prevailing mindset of many well-intentioned Christians is that of Jesus as an archetype. If I may use a more mundane language, to construe Jesus as an archetype is to image Jesus like a cookie-cutter or a pasta-maker, which is to assume a cookie-cutter or pasta-maker mentality. In the pasta-maker mentality, the present as well as the future are strangulated and cut to fit the past. Similarly, threatened by the freedom of the Holy Spirit, the pasta-maker mindset abducts and imprisons the Spirit. The guardians of the pasta-maker mindset have the Spirit (Sophia) controlled and subordinated by the Son. The filioque controversy is an account of the history of the subordination of the Spirit. The subordination of the Spirit by the Son has been disastrous. The Son, through the Church, has imprisoned the Spirit and has limited its creative saving work by making the Christian container the only correct container of God’s grace.

It is, however, a different matter when we think of Jesus as a prototype. While archetype thinking equates Christ’s particularity in Jesus with exclusivity (a way of thinking among fundamentalist Christians), prototype thinking sees Christ’s particularity in Jesus as openness to other particularities. While archetype thinking confuses Christian faithfulness with exclusivity, prototype thinking holds in creative balance faithfulness and openness. Jesus the prototype allows freedom of movement of the Spirit, and it does not call Christians to live in the past; rather, it calls Christians to live creatively in the present. Jesus the prototype--God’s breakthrough figure--is not threatened by the freedom of the Spirit, but celebrates the novel and creative work of the Spirit to bring about salvation both within the confines of Christianity as well as beyond its walls and even beyond the work of Christ in Jesus. This does not mean that the Spirit contradicts the work of Christ in Jesus, but this does not confine the Spirit either. The Spirit’s freedom is in line with the work of Christ in Jesus. Put differently, we are open to others and to the work of the Spirit in others because we are faithful to the work of Christ in Jesus. John Cobb, Jr. puts it this way: “We must show that we are open to the other because we are truly faithful to our heritage.” (10)

Christian faithfulness is not a contradiction to Christian openness. Jesus construed as a prototype – God’s breakthrough figure – offers that possibility for liberal Christians. Liberal Christians can and must affirm that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), but in affirming this they affirm the way who is open to other ways. Put differently, to affirm that Jesus is the way is to be led to the way that is open to other ways and other paths. The way of Jesus is the way that is open to the presence of the Spirit who is doing its creative and saving work even beyond the historical deeds of Jesus. The way of the open Jesus is the way of the one who is truly but not the only nor the totality of the incarnation of the Divine.

Liberal or progressive Christian faithfulness walks in light of this understanding. Wholehearted commitment to the way of Jesus does not require that he be the only and the totality but that he be truly and fully an embodiment of God’s saving work. Truly is indispensable or essential to experiencing the saving work of Christ in Jesus and to faithful discipleship, but this is not the case with solely or only. Throughout the ages, faithful Christians have committed themselves to Jesus not because of their belief that he is the only or the exclusive manifestation of God’s saving grace, but because they have experienced him as the true, indispensable, universal and decisive manifestation of the Divine. (11)  Yes, true religious experience—an experience that strikes at the core of one’s being—cannot be true only for me; it has to be true for others as well. (12)  But the truth and universality of the Christian truth-claim does not demand the elimination of other truth-claims; neither does the recognition of other truth-claims require that one must water down the universal validity of the Christian truth-claim.

Wholehearted commitment may express in words that demand absolute devotion, but it should not be confused with arrogant exclusivism. The absolute language that comes from an experience of God’s saving power and which calls us to witness is not the language of comparison, but the language of commitment and devotion. Words and phrases such as “one and only” and “no other name” belong to the language of devotion (love language) and what scholars call performative or call to action language. (13)  In the transformation of a common language to a language of devotion a slippage from a to the happens or that a has become the. (14)  When something at stake is of ultimate significance, there is no other language short of the absolute language of commitment. No other language can make people leave what they have and make great sacrifices short of the absolute language of commitment. The absolute language of commitment and devotion is not, however, synonymous with exclusivism, which fundamentalist Christians confuse. Rather, it is a language of commitment in the face of other claims, and it is a language that finds a creative balance between faithfulness and openness.

Indeed, one can be both faithful and open to the claims of others and to the saving work of God in other religious faiths. Rather than be sad, we should be feasting and dancing that God is at work not only in us and through us but also beyond us Christians. The central point of the Christian Story is not God’s exclusivity but God’s radical love and hospitality. Liberal or progressive Christians must proclaim God’s radical saving hospitality whenever and wherever Christian exclusivism is present; liberal Christians must witness to God’s radical comma where exclusivism has put a period. Moreover, liberal or progressive Christians must proclaim God’s radical openness with the passion and excitement of an exclamation point!  Thanks to God’s liberality, we have a God in Christ who saves through the many particularities!

Notes

1 Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, ed. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1989).

2 See Kwok Pui-Lan, Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 186-208.

3 Neils Bohr, cited in Parker Palmer, The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998), 62.

4 Raimundo Panikkar, “The Jordan, the Tiber, and the Ganges: Three Kairological Moments of Christic Self-Consciousness,” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. John Hick and Paul Knitter (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Press, 1987), 109.

5 Cf. S. Mark Heim, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1995); also see, Paul Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2002), 192-202.

6 Panikkar, “The Jordan, the Tiber, and the Ganges: Three Kairological Moments of Christic Self-Consciousness, in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, 111.

7 Paul Knitter, One Earth, Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1995), 82.

8 John B. Cobb, Jr., Transforming Christianity and the World: A Way Beyond Absolutism and Relativism, edited and introduced by Paul Knitter (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999), 6.

9 See Paul Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Press, 1996), 73; also Edward Schillebeckx, The Church: The Human Story of God (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 164-168.

10 Cobb, Jr., Transforming Christianity and the World: A Way beyond Absolutism and Relativism, 60.

11 Marcus Borg, “Jesus and Buddhism: A Christian View,” in Buddhists Talk about Jesus, Christians Talk About Buddha, ed. Rita Gross and Terry Muck (New York and London: Continuum, 2000), 80. Also, Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility, 72.

12 Michael Polanyi cited in Daniel Maguire, The Moral Core of Judaism and Christianity: Reclaiming the Revolution (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1993), 63.

13 Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility, 70.

14 John Dominic Crossan, “Exclusivity and Particularity,” in Buddhists Talk about Jesus, Christians Talk about the Buddha, 86.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Living Lives of Principle

By Vanessa Sheridan

I’m convinced that living ethically is something most of us try to do as a matter of course.  Most of us want to do the right thing by living lives of honor and truth.  I truly believe that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people – like the vast majority of Americans, straight, gay, or whatever – strive to be people of conscience who want to make a difference in the world through our actions and character.

However, and mostly by default, we have a more difficult and intense row to hoe than straight people.  The reality is that LGBT persons will achieve the kind of life that everyone seeks – a life marked by acceptance, personal dignity, equality and genuine respect throughout society – in only one way: principled living over time.

Oh, there are other things we can do -- such as coming out to family, friends, and coworkers; taking political action; educating the public about sexual and gender issues; striving to achieve visible and influential positions of leadership within the business, political, academic, and religious communities; etc.  Those are all good and worthy endeavors.  But none of these efforts will generate a lasting impact if we don’t back them up by living lives of principle, demonstrating our integrity as human beings over extended periods of time.  Nothing in the world influences other people more than witnessing someone else live a life of honor and quiet nobility every day.

As socially misunderstood minority group members, we have a responsibility to demonstrate the truth of our lives to those who don’t know or understand us.  In this culture we are obligated to take the initiative and prove ourselves, for that is how we will gain the trust and respect of straight people.  We can’t expect them to come to us or to know intuitively what it’s like to be “different.”  Instead we have to show them that, while we may be “different,” we’re also quality human beings in our ethical approaches to life’s complex situations.

Admittedly, that’s not a fair situation.  In a just world LGBT people shouldn’t have to be above reproach or concern ourselves with exhibiting exceptional ethical behavior at all times.  We could simply live our lives and not worry too much about what straight society thinks one way or the other.  But the world is not a fair or just place.  Consequently, we have to make our own justice through influencing public opinion about us as human beings.  And the only way to positively influence public opinion is to be magnificently uncompromising in terms of our demonstrated ethical behavior.

It’s a big load, one that isn’t easy to carry.  Sometimes it can be downright infuriating and frustrating, as you undoubtedly know.  I wish we weren’t forced into that unwarranted situation, but the reality is that we will be perpetually doomed to second-class status unless we take the high road in everything we do.  Whether we like it or not, we have to continuously prove ourselves to society so we can achieve and maintain the equal rights and civil liberties that should automatically be ours.

We have centuries of cultural bigotry and prejudice to overcome.  Even more, we have to overcome society’s fear of the unknown and the “different.”  People are always afraid of what they don’t understand, which is why the radical right finds it so easy to use LGBT people as scapegoats for society’s fears.  When people don’t see the truth of our lives for themselves, it’s a relatively simple thing to whip up fear and accompanying antagonism toward us.  The far right has been doing that successfully for a long time.

So what’s the antidote to fear and ignorance about us, who are perceived as “other?”  Education and positive experience.  When people are personally exposed to the truth about a topic, ignorance tends to dissipate.  When people have positive individual or collective experiences in conjunction with the “other,” fear melts away.  It’s hard to hate someone once you’ve heard and/or been a witness to their story.  When the life of that “other” person is filled with ethical behavior and principled living, their story takes on a power that is inescapable.  Truth, character and integrity are always the most potent counters to the lies of those who would deny us our rights.

Please understand: I’m not trying to moralize or tell anyone how to live or what to do.  (Moralists are “shouldists.”  They tell others that “You should do this” and “You shouldn’t do that.”  I don’t operate that way, and I dislike those who do.)  Instead, these are individual decisions that each of us must make for ourselves.  All I hope to do here is encourage you to consider how, like it or not, your daily actions can and do automatically influence society’s opinions toward all GLBT persons.

Vanessa Sheridan is a leading transgender educator and author.  On Monday, June 23, she will be the keynote speaker at the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities’ Annual Community Meeting.  For more information about this event, see the Upcoming Events calendar.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

2008 Legislative Finals:
Winners: Churches; Losers: Sex Abuse Victims

By Paula Ruddy

The House and Senate wrapped up the 2008 legislative session, once again leaving reform of the statute of limitations on sex abuse of children for another year.

I am not an unbiased reporter here. We at The Progressive Catholic Voice were among the advocates for the protection of children who had high hopes that the 14-year battle to clarify the statute would end in victory this year. The veteran advocates — Bob Schwiderski, Executive Director of the Minnesota chapter of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP-Minnesota) and Region 8 Representative for the national Voice of the Faithful (VOTF); Ted Thompson and Julie Perrus of National Association to Prevent Sex Abuse of Children (NAPSAC); as well as Stop It Now-Minnesota, Prevent Child Abuse-Minnesota, and the Jacob Wetterling Foundation — all were disappointed in the outcome.

But the Minnesota Religious Council’s lobbyists, reporting to the Reverend Kevin McDonough for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, maneuvered well. Under current law, if the victim of childhood sex abuse is not ready to bring suit by the age of 24, the institution that negligently hired the predator is off the hook.  It is in the churches’ interest to stall reform of the statute.  The odds are in their favor that a victim of childhood sex abuse will be too emotionally damaged to file suit against the perpetrator and the hiring institution before the age of 24.  The institutions, or their insurance carriers, are then not obliged to pay the costs incurred by the victims in the long process of healing.  (See our January 2008 issue for the complete story on the legislation.)

What was the problem?  Why couldn’t the abuse victims and child protection advocates push their bills through?  Chief authors, Representative Steve Simon, DFL, District 44A, St. Louis Park, and Senator Gary Kubly, DFL, .District 20, Granite Falls, thought they had the votes on the floor. Many representatives and senators had signed on as co-authors and others had promised support.  What happened?

The House bill and the Senate bill have different stories.  From the 2007 session the House bill was buried in the Public Safety and Civil Law Committee, chaired by Representative Joe Mullery, DFL, District 58A, Minneapolis.  Despite pressure to do so and his own promise to do so, Mullery refused to give the original bill a hearing and bring it to a vote in committee. A committee chair can do that.

The Senate bill, in the Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Mee Moua, DFL, District 67, St Paul, was brought up for hearing and vote on a cold day in March, 2008.  Julie Perrus of NAPSAC said they were told Senator Moua would not hear their bill unless they negotiated a compromise with the lobbyists of the Minnesota Religious Council.  Senator Mary Olson, DFL, District 4, Bemidji, was managing the compromise. It was late on a Friday afternoon.  The committee had already been in session for hours hearing Senator Linda Berglin’s health access bill.

Outside the hearing room, discussion went on till the last moment before the bill was called. It wasn’t exactly a negotiation. The Minnesota Religious Council came to the table with a bill they could live with and didn’t move off it.  NAPSAC could not agree to it.  When the two sides could not agree, Senator Don Betzold, DFL, District 51, Fridley, stepped into the hearing with the Minnesota Religious Council’s version of the bill.  Senator Julianne Ortmann, Republican, District 34, Chanhassan, moved for its adoption.  It carried the day.  Institutions would not be liable after the victim turned 35.  No window for the people who had been barred by the statute for years. No limitations on suits against perpetrators.

The removal of a statute of limitation for perpetrators might seem like an improvement over the current law.  The problem is that in civil law, the remedy is money damages and few perpetrators have estates big enough to compensate victims.  The institutions that hired the perpetrators have the resources, and they would not be liable after the victim turned 35. There would be no exception for repressed memory.  For many victims the current law would be more advantageous, according to Julie Perrus.  The Judiciary Committee’s action was a bitter disappointment to victims’ advocates.  It would still leave the majority of victims without recourse to justice and leave sex offenders unidentified, putting children at risk.

Chairman Joe Mullery then said he would hear the bill in the House Committee if it read the same as the bill that passed the Senate Committee.  Committee member Representative Mary Liz Holberg, Republican, District 36 A, Lakeville, moved an amendment identical to the Senate amendment. The voice vote was challenged with a call for division; the amendment passed 9 to 8.

The authors and advocates, realizing that they could not get a satisfactory law this session, pulled their bills.

There are some factors that make the legislation difficult for lawmakers. Though there are states with no limitation at all on time to file suit in childhood sex abuse cases, Minnesota has always limited time for suit to protect defendants from having to search for buried evidence to defend themselves.

In addition lawmakers may be concerned about making the cut-off date for suits easy to determine for plaintiffs, attorneys, and courts. Minnesota’s current statute has been held by the State Supreme Court to provide a bright line test – 6 years from the plaintiff’s 18th birthday.  It is easy to know by looking at a calendar who is within the limit and who is not.  However, the bills introduced in the 2007-2008 sessions had a more nuanced element to them, more realistic for victims of abuse in childhood, but unfamiliar to lawmakers.  The bills called for a fact finder--judge or jury – to determine from the testimony of physical and mental health experts when the plaintiff was capable of making the “causal connection” between the injuries and the abuse.  The limitation period of 6 years to file suit would begin from that date and it would apply to both perpetrator and hiring institution.

The reason advocates want the fact-finder to determine the timing issue is that childhood sexual abuse victims have emotional defenses to “knowing” when they were injured.  It isn’t like an adult’s knowing he has been mugged and had his arm broken.  Typically, for victims of sexual abuse in childhood, it isn’t until their late 30’s or 40’s that they begin to face what happened to them and how it is related to their current problems.  Their realizations come as a result of dealing with alcohol, drugs, domestic conflicts, or their own children’s stages of development.  An example: Bob Schwiderski did not realize until he was 42 that his emotional melt-down was a result of his having been molested from the ages of 7 to 12 by the parish priest.

So what do we do now?  Heads up,  All you political strategists out there!  Having read this story, can you tell what has to happen to get the job done next year?  Tell us what you think by emailing progressivecatholicvoice@gmail.com.  We will pass your ideas on to the lobbyists.  Better yet, pick one of the things you can see needs to happen and make it happen.  Get your friends to help.  Then tell us about it.  With enough changes or changes of mind in the legislature, the bills could be introduced again next session.

Paula Ruddy is a founding member of The Progressive Catholic Voice editorial team.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Reflections on the Indwelling Spirit

By Florence Steichen, CSJ

Editor’s Note: The following is the text of a homily delivered by Florence Steichen, CSJ, at Bethany Convent on Sunday, May 11, 2008.

Happy Pentecost and Mother's Day!

As we come to the same feasts year after year, we are different. We bring new experiences and insights. What is especially striking to me this year is the answer to the simple question: Where is God? God is everywhere. The psalmist asks: Where can I go from your Spirit, O God?

I add: when does God act? At all times.

The Spirit is God acting in the world everywhere and at all times.

In Genesis, we read: In the beginning, the Spirit of God swept over the waters. Now we might say at the instant of the Big Bang, God’s creative spirit burst forth.

Listen to Hildegard of Bingen: “I, the highest and fiery power, have kindled every living spark and I have breathed out nothing that can die . . . I flame above the beauty of the fields; I shine in the waters; in the sun, the moon and the stars, I burn. And by means of the airy wind, I stir everything into quickness with a certain invisible life which sustains all . . . I, the fiery power, lie hidden in these things and they blaze from me.”

Consider the dramatic event of Pentecost as recorded in the Book of Acts: did the Holy Spirit come to them at that time? I don’t think so. Rather, they came to the realization that the Spirit dwelt within them, and they got the courage to act accordingly.

Bishop Ken Untener, who died in 2004, published annual “Little Books” for the Liturgical seasons.  His friends continue the tradition based on his writings. April 22, 2008 is apropos: “The Spirit truly dwells within us. This presence is not temporary; it lasts forever. To get hold of this truth and let its implications sink in is a grand moment in the life of a Christian.” That’s what I think happened to the disciples on Pentecost.

Elizabeth Johnson and other contemporary theologians help us to appreciate that the Spirit of God is and has always been active in other religious traditions. We can honor and celebrate diverse faith traditions as part of the mystery of God’s action in the world.

In She Who Is, Elizabeth Johnson writes: “But since the mystery of God undergirds the whole world, the wide range of what is considered secular or just plain ordinary human life can be grist for the mill of experience of Sprit-Sophia. . .”

I don’t think it is too far-fetched to connect this with Mother's Day.  You  may know that Mother's Day began as a holiday that celebrated women’s public activism. It started after the Civil War as a protest to the carnage of that war by women who had lost their sons.

The Spirit of God was certainly acting in Julia Ward Howe in her Mother's Day Proclamation, given in Boston 1870: “Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We women of one country will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. . . . Let women meet and solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each bearing after their own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God.”

I see a parallel with the Council of Jerusalem.  The outcome, however, did not last.  In 1872 Julia Ward Howe proposed an annual Mother's Day for Peace, and for 30 years, Mother's Day for Peace was celebrated on June 2.  Then in 1913 Congress declared the second Sunday in May to be Mother's Day – period. Sadly, our consumer culture took over.

I like the timing that our 11th day Prayer for Peace this month is on Mother's Day. It could serve as a way to honor the original aim of women meeting to promote the alliance of different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.

Let the people say: Amen.

Florence Steichen, CSJ, is a member of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, St. Paul Province, and a long-time peace and justice advocate, with a special interest in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Parish Life: St. Mary’s of Mapleton
Scenes of Church People Caught in Conflict

Selected from Waiting for Mozart by Charles Pilon

First in a Four-Part Series

Editor’s Note: In last month’s issue of The Progressive Catholic Voice, William Coughlin Hunt reviewed Waiting for Mozart, a novel by local writer, Charles Pilon.Topical and entertaining, Waiting for Mozart explores current conflicts within Roman Catholicism by focusing on a fictitious parish, St. Mary’s, and, in particular, the escalating conflict between Joe Burns, the long-time pastor, and members of his parish council headed by Jim Jensen.

Following is the first installment of a four-part series featuring excerpts from Charles Pilon’s novel.  Each installment will begin with a brief introduction, followed by a scene from Waiting for Mozart depicting the members of St. Mary’s in conflict.  Each installment will conclude with a retrospective reflection, also written by Charles, by one of the characters involved in the scene just highlighted.

Introduction

If you are a member of a parish, on its staff or its parish council, you will recognize the characters in this story. You may find yourself there, too.

Father Joe Burns is the pastor at St. Mary’s in Mapleton, Minnesota, a first ring suburb of St. Paul. It is late 1989, twenty-five years after the Second Vatican Council, and Father Joe has been finding himself under increasing pressure as the years have passed. He has coaxed and at times steamrolled his parishioners into creating a new kind of Catholic parish envisioned by Vatican II. He has a lay staff and an active parish council.

Together, through good times and bad, they have implemented many of the changes called for by Vatican II. Somehow, however, he has created a monster. Or so he believes. Parishioners have the idea that their baptism makes them the Church – that they are the People of God.

The pastor asked the parish council to prepare a report on how St. Mary’s staff salaries and wages compare to those in comparable parishes. They collect and study the available data, then work on the report for six months before they are ready to present it. At the meeting, the pastor arbitrarily refuses to consider or even receive the report. It’s a waste of time, he says. “There. Is. No. Money.” This indignity is a last straw for the council; and their fury becomes the last straw for the pastor, putting him over the edge. The volcanic parish council meeting changes lives – and life at St. Mary’s – for good.

Scene One: An Explosive Meeting

(Excerpted from Chapter Two of Waiting for Mozart)

Jim pulled at his collar again and stood up, fighting to hold himself together. “The pastor can reject a report just because he wants to?” he muttered, half to himself. Sure! Refuse the work you asked for! Go ahead! Do the obscenity! He glared out the window, then back at the table. No, not this time. Not tonight. . . . “A boundary’s been crossed here and as the chairman I, for one, will not permit it. A pastor may not refuse to review a report and thereby change the agenda for a meeting just because he wants to. I know most of you here agree with me and there are hundreds in the parish who would, as well.” He looked straight at Ted before he sat down. “We cannot permit this.” He pulled off his glasses and slid them onto the table with a jerk.

“Permit? Cannot permit?” the pastor shouted. “What’s this about cannot permit? Tell me, Jim,” he taunted. “What’s to permit? You don’t run this place, Jim Jensen. It’s not your show, sir.”

“I’m telling you, Joe, this won’t work anymore. It’s too late now. You’ve run out of time.”

“Too late? What’s too late?” the pastor mocked. “A priest is responsible in every parish, Mr. Jensen. And it’s to the bishop that he’s responsible, I might add. Not to the Jim Jensens of the world. Stand down, Jim. You have nothing to say about boundaries. The Church sets the boundaries, and they are very clear here. This council is advisory. I don’t care what you say. The pastor is in charge.”

Megan twisted in her chair, stewing and squinting acridly. I’d hoped to make a difference here, but so far this priest’s been the same every meeting. Predictable. Arrogant. Making unilateral decisions and repeating trite speeches. Try as he may, the man never comes up with what’s needed. Jim is right—time’s up.

Joe Burns continued, pontificating now. “Your priest was here yesterday, he’s here today and he’ll be here tomorrow. Can’t say that about laypeople, now, can you? So let’s stop wasting time,” he demanded, his face lined with anger. “As I said, I’ve got more work left today than most of you have done since you got up this morning. I’m sorry. There’s no money to increase staff salaries and that’s all there is to it. I’d like to. You know that. We can’t, however, and you know that, too. Move on.”

“Okay, Father Joe, you’re the pastor,” Ted volunteered. Sitting tall, he ran large weathered hands up and down over the leather vest he wore with a checkered shirt and a new pair of Levis. “As I said, I would wait some if I were you, but if that’s what you want, it’s good enough for me.”

Megan pushed the sleeves of her brown corduroy jacket up tight on her forearms. Lips drawn tightly over her teeth, she fired back. “It’s not good enough for me. No, sir! That just won’t do around here any longer. We’ve talked about this habit of yours, so evident this evening, ever since I came on to this council. You agreed to stop it.” She fought to control the tone in her voice, but the tightness there trumpeted the rage in her belly. “There are a couple of important things here,” she declared, pointing at the pastor. “First of all, you owe it to us to...”

“Owe?” the pastor echoed, his face twisted. “Owe?” he chided. “Tell me about owing, Miss Roberts. Don’t you ever, ever, say that I owe you or anyone else in this parish anything.” He exploded. “I have given all there is to give. Find me a priest who has given more. This really steams me.”

“Steam all night if you want to,” Megan snarled. “Priests like you no longer scare me. I am going to finish what I was saying. You owe it to us to...”

“Megan, I’m warning you.”

“You owe it to us to give this report every consideration.”

The pastor got to his feet.

She waved him off. “We went into this with your specific approval—at your request, in fact. Secondly, I know firsthand that some people on staff are excited about this review of parish compensation and are expecting the study to be completed and reported on. Soon.”

“Staff, you say? Who, for cripessake?” the pastor demanded. “Who’s been talking to you about this? Staff members have no right to be talking with parish council people about this or any other matter—not without prior clearance from me. Until the Church decides to do things differently, that’s the rule,” he scolded.

“What rule?” Megan demanded.

“The rule here. In this parish. In any parish.”

Jim fingered the gavel. “That used to be the rule.”

“The person in charge is the pastor of the parish,” Joe snapped, spitting p’s on Ted to his left as he sat down.

“The person in charge has to be a leader,” Jim rebutted.

“That’s crap, Jim, and that’ll be enough of this, thank you. Staff can’t go around the pastor to talk with any fool council. That’s the rule, here.”

Ted nodded, approving the points the pastor was making.

Sheila studied the pastor in the silence that followed, then leaned into the table, reaching toward him with both hands. Her jacket lifted on her shoulders. “In business, Father Joe, we have to do things better than we sometimes do them here at St. Mary’s.”

“What things?” the pastor scowled.

“Things like listening. And teamwork and planning and follow-through. I know you don’t like business ideas and standards applied to the Church, but it fits here.”

Joe Burns rocked from side to side, then pulled his chair closer to the table. Can’t let her do this. There are moments of absolute principle, after all. This is one of them and not even Sheila can cross that line with me.

He tried not to stab when he pointed at her, but the moment carried him away. “That’s right, Sheila. I don’t like parish affairs referred to as business.” He cracked his knuckles. “This is the Church. You can have all the marketing theory and business crap you want in your real estate empire, but in the Church it doesn’t count for anything. Nothing at all. That’s the trouble with people today. That stuff may work...”

Sheila cut in, meeting the burn in the pastor’s eyes. “Father, you’ve said that you want a Church for modern times. You want a council to help you insure good management and up-to-date business practices and...”

“Sheila, that’s enough. Let’s move on.” Red-faced, Joe pushed his fingernails along his scalp several times, blotted the sweat onto his pants and stroked his scalp again.

14 Years Later . . . A Reflection by Jim Jensen, Chairman of St. Mary’s Parish Council

In those days, soon after Vatican II, I suppose some would say we were trying to claim too perfect a vision for the Church. In some cases they might have been right, but they forget that often it felt like we were in the heat of battle, a big battle. You struggled for understanding and fought for a new vision of Church, bobbing left and right, rubbing your eyes, trying to see more, and see more clearly. The struggle was filled with awful pain, often with tears and rage. The time for change had come, however, pain or no. There was no turning back.

If I remember correctly it was Clarice who first called the pastor what he was – a dinosaur. You had a dysfunctional parish priest, driven by paranoia and power and anger – anger that some said was good, however, because he felt many bishops and the powers in Rome were so reluctant to learn and change and get into step with what had been called for by the Vatican Council.

You had a parish community that for the most part had learned to get out of the pastor’s way – just accept him and live and love in the parish, powerless. The parish was essentially co-dependent, enabling the priest’s behavior by their own fear of God and the habit of believing father must be right because, they believed, he speaks for God.

You had a parish staff struggling with the dysfunction of the pastor and the co-dependence of the parish as a whole. Some members of the staff fought the pastor. Others humored him, fearing for their jobs, saying and doing little to resist, often thereby enabling the pastor to continue his abuse.

However, some members of the parish and some on staff held on to shreds of their dignity and integrity. They did so by doing quality church work, when possible making small gains against dysfunctional leadership, whether by clerics or other members. They believed and trusted in a larger purpose, a bigger story, and knew that the jig was up for the institutional Church, personified, at least in this case, by Joe Burns.

I was one of them. It was not about condemning and roasting the priest or the Church. That wouldn’t help, and on the occasions we did so, it didn’t help. Those like me, however, sang songs for justice and a new vision for the Church, outlined by Vatican II. And while we may have sounded off key to some, it was a battle that had to be fought, because at stake were our very souls, our integrity and what it meant to be baptized into Jesus of Nazareth.

Charles Pilon lives with his wife Ana in Roseville, Minnesota, where they raised their three children. Chuck was ordained a Catholic priest in 1962 and left the priesthood in 1970. He did not leave the Church, however, and has remained an active member from the people’s side of the altar.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Growing Up Catholic

"Regret"

By Mary Lynn Murphy

Looking back, Jimmy Clemens was at the bottom of the food chain in my Catholic grade school class in the mid-50s.  Jimmy was small and non-descript.  He was the youngest of four children.  Three older and very protective sisters preceded him.  The Clemens girls were good looking and small themselves, with the bluest eyes, and perfect bubble hair-dos.  The boys loved them.  The youngest sister, Susan, had a lazy eye, which on anyone else might be considered a flaw.  One eye looked right at you, the other was all over the map.  But on Susan, it looked kind of cool.  Could be that her sensuousness and easy personality made it that way.  Nobody could figure out how the cool Clemens sisters got saddled with a brother like Jimmy.  But for sure, the Clemens girls were devoted to that boy.  Lucky for him because no one else was, including the teachers.

Jimmy was painfully self-conscious.  I spent nine years with him in grade school, and never knew much more about him than that . . . except that he made me, and probably every other kid in the class, uncomfortable because he just couldn’t seem to get the hang of school.  For the first five years he cried almost every day about one thing or another.  We learned to ignore his misery, though I’m not sure why I remember it so clearly if it meant so little to me then.  When called on by the nuns for even the simplest answers, Jimmy drew a total blank . . . or at least seemed to.  It was always the same routine.  Lacking any kind of expected response to the sister’s questions, like: “Jimmy, what is one plus one?”, he would cower, eyes glued to the floor.  Then on cue, he would raise a tiny fist to one eye, chin tucked in and hidden, tears dribbling down his fist to his arm.  Simultaneously, the students and the sisters would groan and shake their heads.  "Would you KNOCK it OFF Clemens!”

By 8th grade the tears were gradually replaced by a seedy grin and glassy-eyed vagueness.  Jimmy never looked you in the eye, always the befuddled loner until he hooked up with an unfortunate new best friend, Jay McGuire.  Where Jimmy seemed harmless, Jay was headed for trouble from day one, and Jimmy eventually followed him there.

Their most notorious escapade was lighting matches in the boys’ bathroom.  Father Driscoll’s wrath was unimaginable.  We could hear his bawling outrage as he thundered down the hall, orthopedic shoes unleashing seismic tremors – a full ten on the Richter scale!  I almost assumed the air raid crouch, as he blasted through the classroom door, his voice in full sonic boom: “All right you two, get up here!  Now take these matches and light them one after the other until they are gone!”

Fingers trembling, whimpering in pain, the boys pressed on until the matchbook was empty and their finger tips blackened.

“Now apologize to each of these students for endangering their lives!”

In rows of two, we filed by the sobbing, hunched over 12-year-olds.  By 3:00 p.m., the exhausted pair had paraded through every classroom in the school, their humiliation complete.  Susan Clemens, who had graduated, would have shriveled up and died.

Years later, as expected, Jay landed in jail.  But Jimmy remained a mystery, listed as “deceased” at our class reunion 20 years later.

I still resist the urge to track down Susan, because what could I possibly say? . . . “What happened to Jimmy?  I’m so sorry he died”?  If I had ever cared . . . at all . . . I suppose I could have smiled at him just once, or softened my glances, or turned my head away from a little boy crying tears that now wrench my gut 50 years later.

Mary Lynn Murphy is the president of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), the coordinator of Catholic Rainbow Parents, and a co-founder of The Progressive Catholic Voice.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

A Reflection for Father's Day, June 15, 2008

By Rev. Martin Shanahan

TWS

Eleventh Sunday Ordinary Time Year A
Exodus 19: 2-6a
Ps 100
Rom 5: 6-11
Matt 9:36-10:13

The words that Jesus spoke were evidently quite radical, and in fact even too radical for the religious and civil leaders of his day.  That fact is evidenced by his condemnation by the prevailing religious authorities and his crucifixion by the civil authorities.  Yet I wonder if the Gospel isn’t still “too radical” for us today?  I find often that we translate the stories of the Gospel in terms and in ways that make it palatable enough for us to digest, especially when the words can challenge our closely held beliefs.

The Gospel today is a very familiar story, the naming of the twelve apostles, and the beginning of the instruction for their mission.  The interpretation many will hear is that this Gospel is the establishment of the early Church and its leadership.  Many will even go so far as to use the text to defend the position of mandatory clerical celibacy and a male only clergy.  Yet I wonder if we aren’t doing a grave injustice to the Gospel by using it to legitimize historical practice and historical systems of governance?  Maybe, just maybe many will use this text in a “proof texting” fashion, trying to substantiate current disciplines and structures, rather than allowing the extremely challenging message of the Gospel to be spoken and heard.

I wonder if we still today are not “troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd.”  I wonder if we really believe that “the harvest is abundant” and that each and every one of us is sent to “go, make this proclamation: The kingdom of heaven is at hand!”   I wonder what our world would look like if we really believed that “The kingdom of heaven is at hand”?  I wonder if we would be spending our lives dedicated to making the world a better place, a more just and honest society and a human family whose entire purpose was to help one another realize that we all are “a holy nation!”  So what motivates our lives?  Is it fear of losing our traditions and structures and the veiled security they bring, or is it love that calls us to a metanoia (a fundamental reorientation of our being) and thus to transform, cleanse and heal the brokenness of our world?

May all those Fathers, living and those dwelling in eternal life, be blest with our gratitude and appreciation for their love.

Please feel free to pass this little reflection on to your friends.  If they would like to subscribe, just have them send an email to mkshanahan@comcast.net and have them write “subscribe to Tuesdays with Scripture” in the subject line. If I have added you to the distribution list and you no longer would like to receive this weekly reflection please just send an email to mkshanahan@comcast.net and write “Unsubscribe” in the subject line.

Have a wonderful week.

Our parish website:  www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org

©Rev. Martin Shanahan 2008

Rev. Martin Shanahan is an ordained priest in the Old Catholic tradition and serves as pastor at Spirit of Hope Catholic Community. The community celebrates its Sunday Mass there in the summer months at 6 pm (at 5 pm other months) at St. Anne's Church Episcopal Church, 2035 Charlton Road, Sunfish Lake,  MN  55118.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Upcoming Events – June 2008

Dignity Twin Cities Liturgy

When:  Friday, June 13 and Friday, June 27, 2008
             7:30 pm

Where: Prospect Park United Methodist Church
              22 Orlin Ave. SE
              Minneapolis

Dignity Twin Cities meets every second and fourth Friday of the month at 7:30 p.m. at United Methodist Church.  Celebrating its 33rd anniversary this year, Dignity Twin Cities is one of 70+ Dignity chapters across the nation.  Dignity encourages and helps LGBT people experience dignity through the integration of their spirituality and their sexuality.  The organization envisions and works for a time when LGBT Catholics are affirmed as beloved persons of God and, as such, can participate fully in all aspects of life within both the church and society.

For directions, click here.

Third Monday Movie: America Blackout

When:  Monday, June 16, 2008
             6:30 pm

Where: St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church
              (Upper Room, Parish Center),
              4537 3rd Ave. S.
              Minneapolis

The Third Monday Movies series of Women Against Military Madness continues with American Blackout, a documentary film that questions why the mainstream media fails to accurately inform the public.  The film chronicles the recurring patterns of voter disenfranchisement from Florida 2000 to Ohio 2004, and examines the tactics used to control our democratic process and silence voices of political dissent.  A discussion will follow the screening of this film.

Cost: Free.

For more information: Call Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) at 612-827-5364.

Vanessa Sheridan: Living Lives of Principle

When:  Monday, June 23, 2008
             7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Where: St. Martin’s Table Restaurant and Bookstore
              2001 Riverside Ave.
              Minneapolis

The Annual Community Meeting of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) will feature a presentation by transgender advocate and author, Vanesssa Sheridan on “Living Lives of Principle.”

Cost: Free.

For more information: Call Michael Bayly at 612-201-4534.

Annual GLBT Pride Prayer Service

When:  Wednesday, June 25, 2008
             7:00 pm  

Where: St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church
              4537 3rd Ave S
              (The church building is located on the corner of Clinton Ave. So. & East 45th St )
              Minneapolis, MN 55419
              (612) 823-8205

This year’s GLBT Pride Service at St. Joan of Arc will once again feature musician Ann Reed and prayer partners, Therese Healy, Ron Joki, and Molly Morton.

April Knutson: A Report from Haiti

When: Thursday, June 26, 2008
             7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Where: St. Albert the Great Catholic Church
              2836 33rd Ave. So.
              Minneapolis

Longtime Twin Cities-based justice and peace advocate April Knutson has recently returned from a trip to Haiti where she worked with KOFAVIV, a women’s advocacy group based in for victims of rape in Port-au-Prince.  The women run a medical clinic for victims of sexual assault and also organize “reflection circles” for women to discuss the problems in their families and communities, and to gain strength and hope from each other. 

A discussion and dessert buffet will follow April’s presentation.

Cost: Free.

Sponsored by the Haiti Justice Committee of Minnesota.

Centering Prayer & Inner Awakening
Led by nationally-acclaimed author Cynthia Bourgeault

When: Saturday, July 19
            9:00 am – 3:00 pm

Where: Fleming Hall
             St. Olaf Catholic Church
             215 South 8th Street
             Minneapolis, MN 55402
             612-332-7471

Join Cynthia Bourgeault, hermit priest, writer, and internationally known retreat leader, as she leads this day of teaching based on her book. Bring a bag lunch (beverages and snacks provided). A free-will offering is requested ($25 suggested). (Click here for flyer with workshop schedule.)

To register, contact the St. Olaf office by phone at 612-332-7471 or online at www.SaintOlaf.org.

Free parking in the Energy Ramp (between 8th and 9th Streets), with entrances on 3rd and 4th Avenue. Handicap parking only in the church parking lot.

More About Cynthia Bourgeault

Cynthia Bourgeault divides her time between solitude on Eagle Island, Maine, and a much more extraverted schedule in Vancouver, British Columbia, where she serves as Principal Teacher for the Contemplative Society and an adjunct faculty member at the Vancouver School of Theology.

She is the author of five books: Chanting the Psalms, Mystical Hope, The Wisdom Way of Knowing, Centering Prayer and Inner Awakening and Love is Stronger Than Death. She is also responsible for many articles and CDs on the Christian Spiritual Life. She is a past Fellow of the Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural research at St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, MN, and an oblate of New Camaldoli Monastery in Big Sur, California.

As well as her role with the Contemplative Society, she is also a retreat and conference leader, teacher of prayer, writer on the spiritual life, and Episcopal priest. Cynthia is passionately committed to the recovery of the Christian contemplative path and has worked closely with Fr. Thomas Keating as a teacher of Centering Prayer, Fr. Bruno Barnhart, and other Christian contemplative masters, She is also committed to working with leaders of other religious traditions.

[Back to Top]

_______________________________________________

Contacting Us

To Subscribe:

If you received this e-newsletter directly from us and wish to continue receiving it, you need to take no further action (you are already on our list of subscribers) .

If you did NOT receive this e-newsletter directly from us (e.g., forwarded by a friend), and wish to continue receiving it, please send us an email at the following email address: progressivecatholicvoice@gmail.com; and be sure to include the word "Subscribe" in the Subject Line of that email.

To Unsubscribe:

If you received this e-newsletter directly from us and do NOT wish to continue receiving it, please send us an email at the following email address: progressivecatholicvoice@gmail.com; and be sure to include the word "Unsubscribe" in the Subject Line of that email.

To Contact Us with Your Questions, Comments, Events, or Articles for Publication:

Please send an email to progressivecatholicvoice@gmail.com and include your questions or comments, or attach the article you are requesting our editorial board consider for inclusion in a future issue of the e-newsletter.

To Make a Secure Online Donation (via PayPal or your Credit Card) -- please click on the "Donate" button that follows:

(Please Note: Although "Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities" (the non-profit corporation and fiscal agent through which the Progressive Catholic Voice accepts contributions) appears at the top of the donation page that you will see after clicking on this button, your contribution will go directly into CPCSM's Progressive Catholic Voice Account.)