|
 Dedicated to St. Francis of Assisi, who heard and responded to God’s call to “repair my Church,” and, in so doing, emulated the justice-making and compassion of our brother Jesus.
|
The Progressive Catholic Voice
_______________________________________________
Spirit of St. Stephen’s Part 1: "Early Years " Last month we shared an extended trailer for the video documentary currently being produced by the Progressive Catholic Voice. Entitled The Spirit of St. Stephen’s, the documentary depicts the community of a Catholic parish in South Minneapolis – one that since March of this year, has seen the majority of its members forming a new worshiping Catholic community, which they have named the "Spirit of St. Stephen’s." As last month’s trailer showed, the Vatican II-inspired liturgy at St. Stephen’s has evolved over the past 40 years, nourishing the community spiritually, and inspiring numerous ministry programs on behalf of the economically poor and socially marginalized. Yet it’s also been an evolution that has taken the community’s liturgy beyond the rubrics of the Church, as outlined in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). For many years this was tolerated by the chancery of the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis. However, in early February of this year the chancery issued a directive for the parish to conform its liturgies to GIRM and discontinue its 9:00 o’clock Sunday liturgy, considered out of all of the Sunday services to be the one most out of line with the rubrics. Unwilling to abandon a style of worship that been prayerfully discerned, practiced, and developed over the course of 40 years, the vast majority of those who worship at the 9:00 o’clock liturgy relocated in March 2008 to nearby Park House where they have established the Spirit of St. Stephen’s Catholic Community. Recently, their numbers have been increased by the arrival of other St. Stephen’s parishioners, dissatisfied not only with the changes being made to the parish’s remaining Sunday services so as to bring them in line with GIRM (including a return to exclusively masculine pronouns and a diminished role for the laity), but by recent unilateral actions of the new pastor (appointed April 2008) based on his understanding that he is not bound by the bylaws of either the parish council or parish assembly. In short, collaborative decision-making and ministry, both once the hallmark of St. Stephen’s, have been superseded by unilateral decision-making by the pastor. In celebrating the past and envisioning the future of the community of St. Stephen’s, our documentary video will explore the roots of the current crisis/opportunity facing the community and outlined above. Accordingly, Part One: "Early Years" (see below) looks at the emerging new life of the community of St. Stephen’s in the years immediately after the Second Vatican Council (1963-1968) and the community's subsequent efforts, led at the time by a team of three priests appointed by then-Coadjutor Archbishop Leo C. Byrne (1967-1974), to build a Vatican II-style parish. As you’ll see, such efforts included the establishment of one of the first parish councils in the archdiocese, as well as the implementation of significant changes to the liturgy. Part One also examines the response of the chancery during the time that these changes were first being initiated.
Please Note: As with everything we post, we welcome your feedback. Comments can be e-mailed to progressivecatholicvoice@gmail.com. _______________________________________________
Archbishop Nienstedt rallies the priests and deacons of the archdiocese By Paula Ruddy Would you have pictured a meeting of the archdiocesan priests and deacons with their new archbishop as a genial get-together of the brotherhood? There would be lots of affable greeting, talking and laughing before they settled down to a serious exchange of views about the announced topic, the sacrament of marriage. They would be serious because some research shows that as many as one in five Catholic marriages end in divorce. According to our sources, the meeting on marriage scheduled by Archbishop John C. Nienstedt for August 28, 2008, at St John the Baptist Parish in New Brighton had been announced as just such an opportunity for priests and deacons to get together for discussion in between the every two-year presbyterate meetings that are customary in the Archdiocese. About 200 priests and deacons attended. Instead of being about sacramental marriage, however, the meeting was almost entirely about homosexuality and same-sex civil marriage. There were four speakers to present the well-known moral position of the Roman Catholic Church on same-gender sex and partnering. Instead of discussion, there was a Q&A period during which priests were asked to write their questions and submit them to the speakers. The opportunity to talk to one another was limited, as one priest put it, to asking: “How’s your chicken sandwich?” At the end, according to our sources, the Archbishop told the priests to ready themselves for the fight of their lives against legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. Several of the priests and deacons we spoke to expressed dismay at having been misled about the subject matter of the meeting and the lack of opportunity for discussion. Two were reported to have left in disappointment. One said he felt like he had been “duped.” One priest said, “I was embarrassed to hear what we were hearing and to sit together with my priest friends and do nothing. But it just didn’t feel like anything we could say or do would make a difference.” To obtain information on the meeting agenda, we called Dennis McGrath, Archdiocesan Communications Director. He said no information was available through his office. We got the following information from printed materials the speakers at the meeting provided to clergy in attendance and from the internet. The first speaker was Dr. Janet E. Smith, guest lecturer at the St Paul Seminary during the current term, and a professor of moral theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan. She is a member of the Pontifical Council for the Family. A search of the internet does not reveal where Dr. Smith went to school or received her training. Our sources said Dr. Smith’s presentation had been announced as “Marriage from the Perspective of Canon Law.” Her handout, however, was entitled, “The Natural Law Argument Against Homosexual ‘Unions’.” In an attempt to define what is “human,” Dr. Smith wrote that humanity is characterized by “living in community, seeking knowledge (art, music, sports), and worshipping God.” Humans live “in a rational way.” Examples were “eating in a rational way (plates, utensils); having sex in a rational way (married).” Inexplicably, she also noted that “Everyone is disordered sexually; chastity is a challenge for everyone.” Other speakers were Dr. John C. Cavadini, Reverend Michael Prieur, and Professor Teresa S. Collett. John C. Cavadini is Associate Professor of Theology, and Chair of the Theology Department at the Unversity of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana. He received his B.A. in 1975 from Wesleyan University; an M.A. in 1979 from Marquette University; and his Ph.D.in 1988 from Yale University. Dr. Cavadini’s lecture was entitled “Marriage from the Perspective of Church.” Contacted by phone, Dr. Cavadini said he did not have a written copy of the lecture. Fr. Michael Prieur, who graduated from St. Peter’s Seminary, London, Ontario, in 1965, obtained his Doctorate in Theology from the Pontificio Ateneo di S. Anselmo in Rome in 1969. As a professor of Moral and Sacramental Theology at St. Peter’s Seminary for over thirty-five years, he has specialized in Bioethics, the Sacrament of Marriage, and the Art of the Confessor. He is Coordinator of the Permanent Deacon Program for the Diocese of London. Fr. Prieur’s subject was “The Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Issue in Canada: What Happened?” Fr. Prieur warned against allowing the issue of legalizing homosexual unions as civil marriages to be framed in “rights” language. That is what happened in Canada, he said, and it led to some lower courts holding that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms required recognition of same sex civil marriage. The relevant passage in the Charter reads: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (Section 15 (1)) The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was embedded in the Canadian Constitution in 1982, replacing a Bill of Rights which had been a federal statute since 1960. After the lower court decisions, instead of appealing, the Canadian government drafted a bill, which the Supreme Court ruled was constitutional, and the Parliament passed. On July 20, 2005, Royal Assent was given to the Civil Marriage Act and it became the law of Canada. It reads: “Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.” The Act also “recognizes that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.” The problem with framing the question in “rights” language, according to Fr. Prieur, is that it “totally bypasses looking at the institution of marriage in any ontological sense, rooted in the ‘givens’ of creation and objective reality.” He did not specify why the government of Canada should view civil marriage in sacramental terms. In addition to bypassing the sacramental aspects, Fr. Prieur wrote that “rights” based civil marriage bypasses the question of the “common good.” In separating “love” from “procreation,” the primary purpose of marriage, the best interests of children, is overlooked. Fr. Prieur sees the equal protection of same sex civil marriage as possibly resulting in many evils – discrimination against heterosexual marriage, the blurring of all objective differences in relationships, the increase of illness due to anal intercourse and consequent law suits against the government, and the state’s inability to determine criteria for consummation. All of these arguments weigh in on the side of prohibiting same sex civil marriage for the common good in Fr. Prieur’s view. To avoid the negative consequences to the common good in the US, Fr. Prieur advised the priests to use the media, and to stand up strongly against legalizing same-gender civil marriage. “We may need simply to say: ‘Our teaching about marriage as being between a man and a woman is inherent in creation itself. This is the way God made marriage. It is unchangeable by human beings. And this teaching is on the level of the Creed. This is a teaching for which I am willing to die’.” Emphasis his. Teresa S. Collett, Professor of Law at the University of St Thomas Law School, gave a presentation, entitled “Marriage & Government, An Uneasy Union.” Professor Collett earned her B.A. at the University of Oklahoma and her J.D. at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. In her power-point talk, Professor Collett showed the gradual decline of sexual morality from the Middle Ages, when marriage was a matter for ecclesiastical courts, to the present, when civil governments set the criteria for civil marriage. She cited statistics on the “cultural erosion of civil marriage,” including no-fault divorce, creation of legal rights for cohabitants, acceptance of out of wedlock births, and legal recognition of same-sex unions.” The rest of her presentation was on the history of the legal struggle for GLBT rights in the US and particularly in Minnesota. She warned that in 2008 “nineteen state legislators sponsored a bill to include marriage within the Minnesota Human rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and to delete the prohibition of state recognition of marriages between persons of the same sex.” The bills she may be referring to are Senate File 3880, authored by Senator John Marty, and House File 4248, authored by Representative Phyllis Kahn, providing for gender-neutral marriage laws.. The Senate bill is entitled “Marriage and Family Protection Act.” Under the “Legislative Findings” section, the bills declare that the state has an interest in encouraging stable relationships regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the partners and the entire community benefits when couples undertake the mutual obligations of marriage. The bills also specify that religious institutions are not required to solemnize such marriages. If anyone has more or more accurate information on this initiative of the Archbishop to influence civil law and would be willing to share with the laity, we would appreciate hearing from you. Email us at progressivecatholicvoice@gmail.com. Paula Ruddy is a founding member of The Progressive Catholic Voice. _______________________________________________
By Michael Bayly
Drawing on the insights of Donald Boisvert, Susan Pitchford, and Leonardo Boff, Michael Bayly reflects on the life of St. Francis of Assisi (whose feast day is celebrated on October 4) – and on why he’s such a good choice for patron saint of The Progressive Catholic Voice. Last summer the idea came to me that Francis of Assisi would make a wonderful patron saint for the project that a number of us were discussing and planning and which would become The Progressive Catholic Voice online journal. Accordingly, we published the first issue of The Progressive Catholic Voice on October 4, the feast of St. Francis of Assisi, and it and every subsequent issue has been “dedicated to St. Francis of Assisi, who heard and responded to God’s call to ‘repair my Church,’ and, in so doing, emulated the justice-making and compassion of our brother Jesus.” Unquestionably, many Catholics recognize that this call to “repair my Church” continues to resound today in a Roman Catholic Church that, at its worst, is corroded and weakened by clericalism, hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, a profound lack of imagination, and a monarchical mindset and structure totally contrary to Jesus’ egalitarian model of community. Yes, my friends, there is much work to be done! The “ultimate rebel” In his book, Sanctity and Male Desire: A Gay Reading of Saints, Donald L. Boisvert suggests that “we all like to think of Francis of Assisi as the ultimate rebel” – perhaps yet another reason why he is such a perfect choice for our journal’s patron saint! After all, you can be sure that there are some Catholics who dismiss such an endeavor as the work of “dissenters,” “heretics,” and “rebels.” Yet according to Boisvert: “Each generation creates its own Francis, and takes from his character and legacy that which appeals most to its sense of priorities” – whether this be his anti-materialism, his simplicity, or his profoundly sacramental understanding and experience of creation. (“For if Francis was anything,” says Boisvert of the saint’s sacramental view of creation, “he was earthy; not the angelic figure of the tacky holy cards, but bold and brawny in his spirituality and in his humanity. . . . Francis, the ultimate outsider.”) As progressive Catholics in the 21st century, we claim Francis’ “profoundly new and uncompromising paradigm for understanding the gospel teachings of Jesus” in the face of a “very rich, feudal, medieval church” (sound familiar?). Francis, says Boisvert, “created fresh ways of understanding relationships and material goods, and the manner in which power, whether religious or secular, should be comprehended and lived out.” “In his radical yet deeply disturbing simplicity,” Boisvert reminds us, “Francis altered the course of Christian history. He opened new vistas, showing that there are different ways of relating to each other, of ordering our priorities and values, of making sense – just as gay [people] are now doing.” Boisvert, of course, is writing for gay people – gay men in particular. But we have a broader focus and audience, built on the belief that the perspectives and insights of progressive Catholics are also capable of opening up “new vistas,” showing “different ways of relating,” “ordering priorities and values,” and “making sense” of the important issues confronting the Church. These crucial issues are related, in particular, to organizational structure, decision-making, and Vatican II’s call for the “full, conscious, and active participation by all the baptized” in the liturgical life of the Church. Dancing with the Divine In her book, Following Francis: The Franciscan Way for Everyone, Susan Pitchford observes that, for Francis, “to be a disciple of Jesus Christ was to be engaged in a lifelong love affair, swept into an intense dance with the Divine.” “It was a passionate God who called Francis into this dance,” writes Pitchford, “extending a torn hand in invitation. Everything that is distinctive and compelling about Francis’ life followed directly from the intensity of this love: when Francis renounced worldly possessions, he did so that he might embrace the poor Christ unencumbered. And when he took the leper into his arms, the kiss he left on the disfigured face was given to the risen Lord.” One of my favorite parts of Pitchford’s book is when she relates the story of Francis and the wolf of Gubbio. For Pitchford, this legendary tale serves to highlight how Francis “had the courage to confront his shadow side and be reconciled to himself, and to God.” Writes Pitchford:
We’re living in a time when many are asking: What does it mean to be Catholic? In relation to many important issues, this question generates strong feelings. It’s so easy to be carried away by our emotions and to say and do things that lack awareness and compassion. (I know that I can tend to dismiss people and their legitimate concerns by labeling them “reactionary.” And only last week, I was referred to as a “sodomite heretic” by another Catholic blogger!). Without doubt, we’re living through many “occasions” for mercy, reconciliation, and peace. Like St. Francis, my prayer is that we may open ourselves to being vessels of peace for one another. And certainly those of us who labor to produce The Progressive Catholic Voice see this project as a positive and proactive endeavor, one that will be undertaken in a respectful tone and in a spirit of love for our brothers and sisters throughout the Church – regardless of how they understand and/or identify themselves as conservative, moderate, or progressive. Still relevant Another book I was drawn to as I worked with others in preparing the first issue of The Progressive Catholic Voice last October, was Leonardo Boff’s Francis of Assisi: A Model for Human Liberation. In this book, Boff shares a wealth of insight on how “some aspects of [Francis’] life make him particularly relevant for our times in this planetary phase of humankind.” The first of these aspects include Francis’ “introduction of care, heartfelt reason, and emotional intelligence.” I appreciate Boff’s insights on Francis as a “postmodern brother.” For instance, Boff quotes Max Scheler’s description of Francis as “the Western world’s most characteristic representative of the way of relating with empathy and sympathy,” as “no one has better achieved the unity and integrity of all elements than did Saint Francis in the realm of the religious, the erotic, social relations, art, knowledge.” Boff contends that “essentially, Francis liberated the springs of the heart and the outpouring of Eros” (understood, in the words of psychoanalyst Rollo May, as “desire, hope and the eternal search for expansion,” and described by Boff as “creative spontaneity, freedom, fantasy, and the ability to demonstrate gentleness and care”). Francis, continues Boff, “achieved an admirable accord” between Eros and Logos [that system of reason that can tend to be antagonistic toward those dimensions of life that are less productive, though more receptive]. In short, Francis “demonstrated with his life that, to be a saint, it is necessary to be human. And to be human, it is necessary to be sensitive and gentle. With the poor man from Assisi fell the veils that covered reality. When this happens, it remains evident that human reality is not a rigid structure, not a concept, but rather it is sympathy, capacity for compassion and gentleness. . . . In Francis, one can see the sovereign rule of Eros over Logos, a communion and confraternalization with all of reality such as has never been seen since.” Related to this, of course, is the second aspect of Francis’ life that Boff identifies as being relevant for us today. It’s Francis’ “living out of universal kinship,” a trait, writes Boff, which is “crucial today when all cultures and religions encounter one another and can generate conflict and even war, due to lack of dialogue and true encounter.” “Brother tree” And then, of course, there is Francis’ “profound ecological stance.” As Boff reminds us, Francis “did not look at nature and all things as lifeless objects to be used, but rather as living members of the creation community that we must respect. He called the Sun, the birds, and the animals his brothers, and the moon, the earth, plants, and flowers his sisters. He cared for bees in winter so that they would not die of hunger and cold. He took the worm off the road to keep it from being stepped on and killed.” I read these words and chuckle. I have a family of spiders living in my attic bathroom that I simply cannot bring myself to destroy! And the photograph we’re using as part of The Progressive Catholic Voice banner is one I took of a tree by the Mississippi River. Whenever I go to this favorite spot of mine to reflect and pray, I always greet this tree as “brother tree.” It’s not that I’m not drawn to other aspects of nature, but for some reason I’ve always felt an especially strong kinship with this particular tree. Archetype of the human ideal And finally, says Boff, “the joy, enthusiasm, and optimism of Francis of Assisi toward life should be highlighted.” These words, too, bring a smile to my face, as I recall the great sense of excitement and energy my friends and I have experienced as we work each month to publish a new issue of The Progressive Catholic Voice. And it’s not just been among ourselves that we’ve experienced this energizing and joyful movement of the spirit, but among the many people – priests, religious, lay parish workers, teachers – whom we’ve met with over the past year in order to introduce and discuss our project and the invitation it offers to actively participate in (and contribute to) the ongoing renewal of the Roman Catholic Church. Without doubt, there’s a heartfelt recognition that the progressive voice, along with the conservative voice and the moderate voice, is essential to the dialogue that is part of any living faith community. St. Francis of Assisi belongs, of course, not just to those Catholics who call themselves “progressive.” Indeed, he doesn’t belong exclusively to Catholics or even to Christians. As Boff notes: “Through his deep humanity, Francis of Assisi has become an archetype of the human ideal: open to God, universal brother, and caretaker of nature and of Mother Earth. He belongs not only to Christianity, but to all humankind.”
Michael Bayly is the editor of The Progressive Catholic Voice. A version of this article was first published October 4, 2007, on his blogsite, The Wild Reed. _______________________________________________
“Two Phenomenal and Totally Peaceful Events” By Dick Bernard Editor’s Note: Dick Bernard is a member of the Minnesota Alliance for Peace, Veterans for Peace, and an organizer of peace events during the 2008 Republican National Convention (RNC). As well as participating in the 10,000 person march for peace on September 1, Dick participated in two other “phenomenal and totally peaceful events” – the Peace Island Conference at Concordia University on September 2 and 3, and the Peace Island Picnic on Harriet Island on September 4. Perhaps you might be interested in how a Twin Citian, me, saw the assorted events outside the Republican National Convention (RNC) last month. Cathy and I hosted overnight four of the eight persons who were completing their 500-mile “Walk for Peace” from Chicago to St. Paul on August 29 – very nice young people. I was near the head of the protest march on Labor Day, estimated to have 10,000 participants. On September 2 and 3, I was one of the organizers of the Peace Island Conference, which was a great and quiet success, and attracted 350 people, peacefully. Thursday, September 4, I spent the entire afternoon at the very peaceful Peace Island Picnic expertly organized by Coleen and Ross Rowley (she the former FBI agent who was named TIME Magazine's Person of the Year in 2002.) When I arrived at Harriet (now and forever more Peace) Island at 1 p.m., there was plenty of quality parking. There were few people in evidence, plenty of room to park, and a huge plenty of hot dogs, pork, cake, and on and on and on. It looked like it would be heaven for someone looking for a free meal (and it was). There was a box for contributions towards the event cost, and I hope they did well on collecting. Down on the river bank it was a chilly afternoon, overcast, breezy, maybe in the 60s. But it was about perfect for a gathering in many ways. The Rowley’s were there, and, initially, perhaps 100 of us were strolling around. And then the music gig began, first with Larry Long, no stranger to folks in these parts, who was joined by Pete Seeger’s grandson, Tao Rodriguez-Seeger, for a medley of songs beginning with “Down by the Riverside,” then “This Land is Your Land,” then “Lonesome Valley,” and so on. The two musicians by themselves were phenomenal, the power for the speakers and instruments was solar (and stellar), and even in the overcast conditions worked impeccably all afternoon. The afternoon was off to a great start. In my initial planning for participation in the picnic, I was going to stop by for awhile, go home, and come back later in the afternoon to help be part of the giant human peace sign. But it was such a mellow place, this Peace Island, that I decided to stay the entire day. I went back to the car to get my outdoor canvas chair, and settled in by the flagpole erected in memory of the 9-11 victims, just to the musicians’ left, and with a clear view of the river. I was ready to settle in for one of the most relaxed afternoons I’ve ever had. There could not have been a more peaceful place than Peace Island that day. The crowd grew, but slowly. Eventually the picnic drew about 1000 people. Tuesday’s Robot, a really good local band, followed Larry and Tao, and they were to be followed by a continuous succession of musicians all afternoon. There was some great jam sessions as the afternoon progressed. I counted up to 15 musicians together at one point. Around 6 or so we all assembled into a giant peace sign. I’ve seen the photograph of all of us in this peace sign. It was a very clear shot. I can even make out myself, on the back portion of the circle, a few folks to the right of the upright portion of the peace sign. Unfortunately, the Peace Island Conference got not a single line or mention in the media (and not for lack of effort on our part – it was too peaceful, I guess.) The picnic got a dismissive short take in the local paper, so dismissive that the paper apologized in a later edition. The local Minneapolis paper reported that a total of 69 people had been charged with felony or gross misdemeanor over the week of the RNC. Compare that against 10,000 peaceful protestors. There were apparently 3,700 police to keep order at immense and excessive expense to the taxpayers. We were swimming in folks that looked like Ninjas or Star Wars storm troopers. In the entire week I witnessed not one single incident of any kind, and I was in middle of the action. I know of two people who were temporarily detained for non-violent actions, one was pepper sprayed. In the midst of such violence, the Peace Island Conference and the Peace Island Picnic turned out to be two phenomenal and totally peaceful events. _______________________________________________
By Paula Ruddy Paula Ruddy examines the relationship between individual rights and the common good. When the Pope and the bishops inveigh against “individualism” in favor of “community,” what is the dichotomy they are on about? For one thing, they are making the error of separating two realities that only exist in relationship to one another. We talk about them as if we can choose one over the other, but fully developed individuals don’t happen without strong communities and there are no well-functioning communities without individuated people holding them together. So the question is not about which is more important; it is about how they are related so that both can be honored and strengthened. Not either/or, but both/and. The hierarchy is obviously concerned about a problem they perceive in U.S. life when they complain about individualism. It may be that they are criticizing our private lives: they may see us as self-centered, too intent on our own best interests. But I think their criticism is directed more to our public morality, how our laws and our system of government shape our national life. Their concern is that Catholics are buying into a “worldly” perspective that values individual “rights” rather than the “common good.” The concern is acute because citizens in the U.S., by and large, do not agree with Catholic moral teachings, particularly on matters of sexuality. Previous popes have affirmed individual rights and their relation to the common good in many encyclicals, but always in general principles. (See particularly Pacem in Terris, 1963.) But when it gets right down to applying principles, who is to determine the rights that individuals have and how they are to be protected? That is where law comes in. The current pope and bishops seem to think that they have the knowledge and the teaching authority to tell all U.S. citizens what the laws should be. In his homily for the Mass for delegates to the Republican National Convention on Sunday, August 31, Archbishop John C. Nienstedt said the Roman Catholic Church stands ready to help lawmakers of all political parties form their consciences. No doubt some would like to return the favor. I think the hierarchy’s position is based on a conceptual error. The pope and the bishops don’t seem to understand the concept of pluralism and how it determines the morality of government. A tradition that depends on unity The hierarchy sees an individual’s life as essentially embedded in one, and only one, community, as plant life goes from seed to flower in a single garden plot. To uproot the plant is to destroy it. To let the plot overgrow with weeds or fill with junked cars destroys the habitat. Continual cultivation and care of the garden ensures the life of good sturdy plants in season. For plants and gardens this is true. In their view, the one garden for strong individuals is the Catholic Church. There may be Irish Catholics, Italian, German, Polish, or Mexican Catholics, but they are all one in the Roman Church. A family is the seed ground, a parish and a diocese in communion with Rome supports the family, keeps the world view intact, controls the language of faith, channels right thinking and acting. From birth and baptism to confirmation to fruitful marriage to old age and gracious dying, the individual lives and grows within the one community. Season after season, individuals are born and die, but the community lives on. In this view, the very life of individuals depends on protecting the institution. The “common good” is the garden and there are so many individual plants that the life of one individual is subordinate to the whole. Unity is the overriding demand. Universal truth, unchanging customs and teachings keep the institution strong. Individuals will become strong if they conform their minds and judgments to the Church’s teachings. The Roman Church is structured to ensure its own continuation as the controlled-growth garden plot. The hierarchy currently seems to be in a desperate surge to reinstate this vision of Catholic unity/identity in the wake of Vatican II. The surge might work and it might produce some holy and strong individuals. Analyzing that possibility is a question for another day. The problem we are looking at here is how the hierarchy is relating their vision of Catholic community to the rest of the citizens in the civic arena in the U.S. They seem to think that all U.S. citizens should be coerced by law to join them in their view of “the common good.” It may have worked in the Middle Ages, but the breakdown of the one-world-view society of the Western world in the modern era led to a political and social reorganization to which Catholicism has yet to adapt. Indeed, it has resisted adaptation with every erg of power it has. A tradition that accommodates difference The Western liberal constitutional democratic tradition that developed through the reorganization into nation states has had to come up with a way to conceptualize the relation between individual rights and community in societies with many different cultures and world views. In this tradition individual “rights’ and the “common good” are complementary, not opposed, and the key to thinking about them is in the idea of pluralism. The fact is that the human species sorts itself into innumerable “communities.” They sort by kinship, by geography, by language, by customs, by religion, by ethnicity, by economic status, and on and on and on. Each community has its own culture, customs, and version of what a “good society” should look like. What happens when many different communities find themselves within the geographical boundaries of one nation? The citizens in a nation in which everyone is united in one culture, one religion, one ethical system, will find it easier to make laws with which everyone can agree to be ruled. When a society is comprised of many different cultures as the US is, making laws that have legitimacy with everyone is a harder task. Identity as individual citizens – Our system of government demands a certain level of moral sophistication. We have to be able to hold a two-tiered identity. At one level, our overarching identity is solidarity as individual citizens in a nation state where our basic human needs are at stake. We depend on working together to ensure that we have livelihood, work, homes, our general education, infrastructure, our physical safety. We are committed by this interdependence to respect the rights of other individuals and to regard all as free and equal. By virtue of our living here, interdependently, we have a moral obligation of allegiance and participation. The moral norm at this level is that the institutions and laws we create should treat every individual justly. Identity as community member – At the second level, within the large, diverse, national community, we get our life needs met by organizing in multiple denser, more homogeneous social and religious communities. Each of these communities has its own view of a good life (ethics), its customs, and its perspectives on the common good. Our identity at this level is as a community member in a group—middle class, African American, Latino, business owner, etc. There is no question that individuals need strong community to help them individuate to maturity and to give them a sense of belonging in order to thrive. But it need not be one, and only one, community for life. We begin by identifying with family, culture and church, but we may receive ideas and values from many other communities in our growing up. My assumption, unlike that of the bishops, is that all experience, sifted and evaluated, strengthens individuals over a lifetime. To keep its growing individuals, a community has to grow with them. An individual can identify with many communities. Deliberative process using both identities – In our system, no one community is allowed to coerce other people to live by its ethical systems or to tell others what is in their best interests. Each community has its own voice. We deliberate together from our different perspectives about what laws and institutional forms will serve us all. We try to persuade and convince each other that our way is better and we form coalitions to make our needs known. We recognize that laws have to be grounded in reasons that most people can accept or the rule of law will not hold. What is for the civil “common good” can only be determined by the input of all the people affected. It can’t be determined by any one ethical community for the others. And this is where the two-tier identity matters. The deliberation process requires an individual with a strong commitment to his or her social or religious ethics to rise to a universalized moral view as a citizen in a pluralistic society. For example, a person may believe strongly with his community that women should be veiled in public, but he will, as a citizen, take the moral view that it wouldn’t be just to force women of other faiths to comply with his beliefs. Another example: a person may be strongly committed to the view that marriage is for the purpose of procreation in accord with her religious tradition, but, while she views her own marriage that way, as a citizen she sees that justice requires a civil law that recognizes marriages of people without regard to their intent to use contraceptives. No one is forced to use contraceptives, no one is forced to have children. In this tradition we have a strong moral ideal that people should not be coerced against their consciences. We can hold to our own religious ethics without imposing them by law on other citizens. Or another way to say this is that we can live our own version of a good life and let others live theirs. Living freely by our own ethical codes takes strong individuals with strong community support. In our system of government, we can’t depend on the law to force us to live wisely or to force other communities to support our community’s ethics. Archbishop Nienstedt also told the delegates to the Republican National Convention that it is time to ask what kind of country we want to live in. I’ve heard other people use that line when they are asking “Do we want a society with those people in it? Do we want a society where people behave like that?” But the question has been asked and answered by the Constitution. We want a society in which people are free to live in any community they choose, but we ask them to respect the rights of others to do the same. The society is comprised of many diverse communities. Pluralism. Some of us rejoice in that; some of us are appalled by it. No question, our system is a work in progress. Everyone agrees that “liberty and justice for all” is a commitment rather than an achievement. Since the beginning of the nation we have been struggling to extend freedom and equality to excluded groups. Historically the laws have been created by Euro-culture, propertied, heterosexual males to promote their version of the “common good.” Some of us are more aware than others of the enormous injustices harbored in our social and economic institutions and laws. But reforming institutions and laws depends on people in all stages of cognitive, emotional, and moral development as well as in cultures of vastly diverse outlooks working together, a slow, difficult process. Conclusion The question begs to be asked: Which traditional ethical system is more in line with the Gospel message, the Catholic one or the Western liberal democratic one? Or maybe the question is: How does each of these traditions read the Gospel message? I’m thinking about it. But one thing seems clear to me: The Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. could be so much more effective in its mission if the current hierarchy understood itself as leaders of one community among many communities within a pluralistic society. We can work together with others as citizens of one nation, as most Catholic laity do. When Catholic ethics has something important to say to secular citizens, they would be much more inclined to listen if we respected them as equals in our common humanity. It can’t be in our own interest for the hierarchy to use its teaching power to undermine our system of government by denigrating individual rights and by pressuring Catholics and Catholic legislators and judges to betray their constitutional duty to act with justice toward other citizens. I’d like to know what you think. Send your comments to progressivecatholicvoice@gmail.com. Paula Ruddy is a founding member of The Progressive Catholic Voice. _______________________________________________
Female Ordination: "God's Gift to a Renewed Church" By Connie Aligada Connie Aligada reviews Ida Raming’s A History of Women and Ordination – Volume 2: The Priestly Office of Women: God’s Gift to a Renewed Church (Scarecrow Press, 2004). This second English edition of Dr. Ida Raming’s classic study of the canon law background for the priestly office of women is based on her doctoral dissertation first published in German in 1973, three years before Rome’s first statement on the subject known as “Inter Insigniores: Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood,” published by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on October 15, 1976. Raming’s research provides clear evidence that the source of the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to women’s ordination is based not on the work of professionally trained Scripture scholars accepted by their peers, nor on any comparable document composed by dogmatic theologians not working under Vatican supervision. The Church’s opposition to women’s ordination is based on a loose assemblage of tangential canons written in various times and places in church history. These sources gathered in the Corpus Juris Canonci (which is the background for the Codex Juris Canonici, or Code of Canon Law) were originally compiled and handed on in an atmosphere of psychologically immature gender discrimination. Some of these ancient sources were later discovered to be significant miscopying of originals, or even forgeries. For example, in a letter to Italian bishops, Pope Soter forbade the participation of women in liturgical functions as “blameworthy conduct to be fully censured.” The Italian bishops were ordered to put to an end such “pestilence.” This letter is now known to be forgery. This discrimination continues today, even to the point of criminalizing women’s ordinations which continue to take place since the first ordinations in 2002 on the Danube River. These ordinations were performed by a bishop or bishops in apostolic succession and in good standing with Rome. Subsequently, women have also been ordained as bishops in apostolic succession. The General Decree issued in the spring of 2008 by Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and entitled Regarding the Crime of Attempting Sacred Ordination of a Woman, states that: “If he who has attempted to confer holy orders on a woman or if the woman who has attempted to receive holy orders, is a member of the faithful . . . they will be punished with major excommunication.” It is puzzling that the General Decree cites Canon 1378 of the Code of Canon Law as its authority for the excommunication of a priest when he acts against the prescript of Canon 977. The language of Canon 977 states the absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment (adultery) of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death. With this decree the CDF will excommunicate both the ordaining bishops and ordained women priest. Why do we not have a comparable document threatening to excommunicate priests who have sexually abused children and women? This current church teaching implies a wink and a nod toward clergy who rape women, but comes down exceedingly harsh on a bishop who ordains one. As Ida Raming notes, “Despite all reassurances of the equality of women (e.g., Mulieris Digitatem) and despite the praise of the “genius of woman,” the history of discrimination against women in the Roman Catholic Church continues.” Dr. Raming’s book needs to be read by those in the Roman Catholic Church who continue to support an erroneous view of women’s role in the church. She analyzes a number of sources (legal, patristic, and biblical) that have, over time, formed the basic arguments that the hierarchy has used (and continues to use) to discriminate against women based on gender. These sources, found in the canonical literature of the medieval period, are specifically correlated to Canon 968 of the Code of Canon Law that stipulates that only a (baptized) male can validly be ordained. Raming takes a further step by identifying the particular conception of women that lies at its base. Gratian’s Decretum (ca 1140 A.D.) is a collection of church law that served as a legal textbook. His sources include Roman law, the Bible, the works of the early Church Fathers as well as the decisions of church councils. Gratian’s Decretum includes commentaries about the illicitness of women’s participation in liturgical activity. Women cannot touch consecrated vessels and cloths, cannot incense the altar, or take communion to the sick. Not everything in this collection can stand up under the scrutiny of today’s scholarship. The Decretum (ca 1140 A.D.) prohibits a woman from the practice of teaching men on the basis that women are inferior to men and must stand in a subordinate position to men. To teach men suggests that women can rule over men. Ultimately Dr. Raming concludes that the denigration of women in medieval times had its source on the concept of the ‘order of creation’ which figures prominently in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Their writings were considered authoritative and actually considered as legal evidence. According to St. Ambrose, an early Church Father, the fact that a man is superior to a woman is self-evident: “The man should realize that the designation vir (male) is not derived from the sex but rather from virtus animi (strength of soul) and the designation mulier (woman) on the contrary derives from mollities mentis (softness of mind) that is, from weakness and softness of character.” Raming concludes that these terms are not value-neutral. Mulier implies a serious stain and inferiority, while vir indicates a human being as an ideal form. Church Fathers often used scriptural sources to support woman’s place in society as a condition of servitude. The Imago Dei (image of God) was not applied to a woman. The evidence that a woman is not made in the image of God was derived from the Yahwistic creation narrative (Genesis 2). Indeed St. Ambrose in his Book of Paradise concludes “that woman was made not from the same earth from which Adam was formed, but from a rib of Adam himself . . . . Therefore two, male and female, were not made from the beginning, but first male and then female from him. . . .” St. Augustine apparently did not view the subordination of women as being offensive, rather it belonged to the natural order of creation, recognized as being of divine origin. Raming states that “this Augustinian type of reasoning, to deduce norms of natural law from the factual, is by no means unique in the history of natural law. The existence of slavery was rationalized as natural necessity, which in turn led to the fundamental permission to hold slaves.” Dr. Raming views the ecclesiastical prohibition against women’s ordination as a religious issue. Women are limited by canon law to pursue their call to priestly ordination even when they are given such a charism. (I Cor. 12-11) She recognizes that the ancient tradition of the church of an all-male priesthood is alleged to be of divine origin. The subordinate position for women according to Dr. Raming “deprives her of the opportunity to have direct access to God in her being and her religious life, and is thus deprived of full independent personhood.” The concept of “difference” employed by the hierarchy is a “cloak for the denigration of women.” The four appendices handle new developments and documents since the first edition of the book, and include a bibliography of new publications. Dr. Raming’s desire to create a path to the ordination of women is not a simple issue of access to ecclesiastical office. Christ, as Head of the Church, bestows the Spirit’s gifts to all for the building up of His Church. The teaching against women’s ordination places obstacles to the working of the Spirit in the church. She believes that this one-sided, patriarchal character of office has led to the stagnation of the contemporary church. The very future of the Church will depend on a change of attitude toward women by the hierarchy. The title of her book says this most succinctly: The Priestly Office of Women: God’s Gift to a Renewed Church. Connie Aligada, St. Paul, Minnesota, is the Vice Chair of Call to Action-Minnesota. She has masters degrees in Social Work and Theology. _______________________________________________
A Resource Guide and Reading List for Catholic Voters In the lead-up to the November 4 presidential election, The Progressive Catholic Voice offers the following list of websites and links to articles and commentaries. Websites Faithful Citizenship – the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Roman Catholics for Obama/Biden ’08 Catholics for McCain/Palin ’08 Green Party of the United States Articles and CommentariesKnow Your Voters’ Guides – National Catholic Reporter, September 19, 2008. Yes You Can: Why Catholics Don’t Have to Vote Republican – Gerald J. Beyer (Commonweal, June 20, 2008). Why I Am a Republican Catholic – Deal W. Hudson (InsideCatholic.com, September 13, 2007). On Not Reducing the Church’s Politics to Voting – Michael J. Iafrate (CatholicAnarchy.org, October 5, 2008). Theologian Says that One-Issue Bishops Violate Their Own Teaching – Thomas C. Fox (National Catholic Reporter, October 7, 2008). Good Reasons to Be Humble: A Foreign Policy Agenda for the Next President – Anne-Marie Slaughter (Commonweal, February 15, 2008). I’m Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Abortion, and Support Obama – Nicholas P. Cafardi (National Catholic Reporter, September 20, 2008) Libertarian Heresy: The Fundamentalism of Free-Market Theology – Daniel Finn (Commonweal, September 20, 2008). Faith and Politics: After the Religious Right – E. J. Dionne Jr. (Commonweal, February 15, 2008). Ways Past the Culture Wars – National Catholic Reporter, September 5, 2008. The New Evangelical Politics – E.J. Dionne Jr. (Washington Post, August 19, 2001). _______________________________________________
Letters to the Editor - October 2008 Spirit of St. Stephen’s Video Documentary Thank you for presenting this beautiful, tender video of the transition of St. Stephen’s. My heart goes out to these faithful followers of Jesus. I am filled with admiration and compassion for them on this blessed journey.
Now I said it was seamless, but it only became that because of a lot of work and time you, and everyone at Progressive Catholic, put into creating it. Thank you for doing it. Just from this first segment, this might well be something to be shown at the gathering of small Eucharistic communities that is having some kind of national convention this year. Hope you are now outside enjoying this gorgeous day.
Lost in translation? I enjoyed Paula Ruddy’s review of George B. Wilson’s book, Clericalism: The Death of Priesthood. This is the sort of thing that keeps me reading the Progressive Catholic Voice. Much as I agree with Wilson’s basic argument, I wish he would have treated the ambiguity of the word “priest” in the English language. It translates both the Greek hiereus (priest in the sense of a temple priest, pagan or Jewish) and the Greek presbyteros (“elder”). Actually, the English word “priest” is an elision of the Greek presbyteros, so the primary use of “priest” in the English language is to refer to an elder in the church who has certain functions in the community. I also would have liked him to have started with a more theological treatment of “laity” in the sense of the Greek laos (“people” as in Vatican II’s emphasis on the People of God). An ordained priest does not cease to be a lay person - a member of the People of God. And there is no way an ordained priest can be “reduced to the lay state,” which the ordained priest never left in the first place. There is a canonical/legal conflict between the terms “laity” and “clergy,” but that is not a theological conflict. Bill Hunt
The “pro-life” issue and the upcoming election The good news from the Bishops is: we are not single issue voters (Faithful Citizenship, November 2007). Rather than addressing all the life issues that are part of Catholic Social teaching, I will focus on protection of the unborn. A few weeks ago the Sunday Gospel was the parable in Matthew about two sons being sent to work in their father’s vineyard. One said he would, but didn’t. The other said he wouldn’t, but did. Today we have candidates of two major political parties vying for the presidency. One party calls itself pro-life. During the current administration, there is no evidence that even one unborn life has been saved by its policies. On the contrary, during his tenure, President Bush has withheld more than $200 million approved by Congress for UNFPA, the UN Population Fund which the U.S. helped establish in 1969. UNFPA works to promote the human right of “reproductive health.” This includes helping families to:
According to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals report for 2007, globally some 200 million women have an unmet need for effective family planning. Loss of U.S. funding is a factor. Abortions in the U.S. and world-wide are strongly correlated with financial need. The other party, identified as pro-choice, has a new plank in 2008, which includes: the party “strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education” that “help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.” About 1.2 million abortions are performed each year in the U.S. Currently in both the U.S. Congress and the MN state legislature there are bills to reduce the number of abortions. Initiated by <a href=http://www.democratsforlife.org/>Democrats for Life</a>, the Pregnant Woman Support Act provides financial and other supports to pregnant women. This is part of the 95-10 Initiative, a plan to reduce abortions in the U.S. by 95% over ten years. In conclusion, there is more to pro-life than meets the eye (or ear). By their fruits you shall know them. Florence Steichen, csj _______________________________________________
Upcoming Events - October 2008 The Jesus Seminar on the Road When: Friday, October 10 – Saturday, October 11, 2008. Where: Plymouth Congregational Church (1900 Nicollet Ave., Minneapolis). The Jesus Seminar has always cast a broad net, looking not only to the New Testament, but to the wider variety of texts and traditions that made up the diversity of earliest Christianity. In the next phase of its work, the Jesus Seminar is now asking what this diversity of materials might tell us about the diverse origins of Christianity. This seminar will introduce participants to the fascinating world of Christianity “beyond the canon.” Lecture Friday evening, workshops Saturday. You can register for the entire seminar or individual events. For details and registration, visit www.westarinstitute.org, scroll down to “Jesus Seminars on the Road” and click on “Minneapolis,” or phone toll-free 877/523-3545.
When: 7:30 p.m., Friday, October 10 and Friday, October24, 2008. 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. 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 the both church and society. Dignity Twin Cities’ October 10 liturgy will mark the organization's 34th anniversary! For directions, click here.
When: 3:00 – 5:30 p.m., Sunday, October 12, 2008. Where: St. Paul River Centre (175 Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul). Sponsored by Isaiah, a non-profit ecumenical coalition of 90 congregations working in the greater Minneapolis, St. Paul, and St. Cloud regions, Time to Believe aims to facilitate a revival and transformation via an “issues agenda.” The goal is to create an agenda that responds to today’s challenges – global climate change, crumbling public infrastructure, and increasing economic insecurity. Public officials and everyday people are invited to “come together to celebrate, be in relationship with one another, and to invite others to start building a new thing!” Issues to be discussed include health and healthcare, job creation and transportation equity, comprehensive immigration reform, education and housing, and environmental renewal. Isaiah is a multi-racial, faith-based movement “committed to transforming our communities, our state and our country around a vision of racial and economic justice for all people.” For more information, visit <a href=http://www.gamaliel.org/Isaiah>www.gamaliel.org/Isaiah</a>. Free and open to the community. October Meeting of the Network of Spiritual Progressives When: 7:00 p.m., Monday, October 13, 2008. (Come at 6:30 p.m. for refreshments and fellowship.) Where: Plymouth Church (1900 Nicolett Ave., just south of Downtown Minneapolis. Enter the door under the canopy off the rear parking lot and go downstairs to the Jackman Room.) This month’s meeting will focus on “Spiritual Progressive Values in Turbulent Times.” Notes coordinator André Samples: “We will have roundtable discussions on moving from fear to hope and igniting a culture of love, peace and justice. What can you feel/think/say/do to help change the world to one based on spiritual progressive values between now and November 4? Beyond November 4? The greater your participation is, the greater our opportunity is to make change in this world, so please make a point of joining us as we continue this vital work of raising the consciousness of our nation and the world.” For more information, visit the website of the Minnesota chapter of the Network of Spiritual Progressives. _____________________________________________
When: November 14-16, 2008. Where: St. Paul’s Monastery (2675 Larpenteur Ave. E., Maplewood, MN). Sponsored by New Ways Ministry and facilitated by New Ways Ministry staff members Francis DeBernardo and Matthew Myers. About this program: “Next Steps” addresses three important questions: 1) How can Catholic communities respond compassionately and faithfully to the gifts, needs, and life experiences of lesbian/gay people and their families? 2) What skills, knowledge, and talents are needed to address lesbian/gay issues in Catholic environments? 3) What role can pastoral leaders play in building bridges between faith communities and those who feel alienated and ostracized because of sexual orientation issues? This weekend of prayer, presentations, dialogue, and planning is designed to assist those seeking ways to include lesbian/gay people and issues in their home parishes, schools, or other ministerial settings. All interested in learning to develop lesbian/gay ministry programs are invited to participate. If you don’t have a program, come to learn how to initiate one. If you have already begun a program, come to develop the next steps. No pre-requisite knowledge or experience is needed other than a willingness to listen, reflect, and share. Through discussions, presentations, and guided writing exercises, participants will develop ideas into a pastoral plan of realistic ideas and feasible actions to put into practice in the weeks and months following the weekend. New Ways Ministry staff will support participants in this process and will also be available for follow-up consultation after the weekend. Registration Fee: Limited scholarships are available. Call New Ways Ministry at 301-277-5674 for more information. To download a brochure (which includes a registration form), click here.
When: 8:15 a.m. – 3:30 p.m., Saturday, November 15, 2008. Where: Church of St. Edwards (9401 Nesbitt Ave. S., Bloomington, MN. Sponsored by Call to Action Minnesota (CTA-MN). About this conference: Parish closings and mergers all over the US are causing a diverse cohort of Catholics (progressive, moderate, and conservative) to rise up to save their parish home. Both Vatican II and the Code of Canon Law (C.208-233, 515) support the authority of laypersons and of the parish to contribute to the well being of the faith community. Many good structures such as parish and diocesan councils are often underutilized because of passive Catholic culture still exists. Sister Christine Shenck will provide information about resources and strategies to keep vibrant parishes alive. Joe Bailey, a psychologist, the author of Fear Proof Your Life will show us how to quiet our minds and we address changes occurring in our Church. Sister Christine Shenck, CSJ, serves as the Executive Director of FutureChurch, a uiynational coalition of parish-centered Catholics. FutureChurch promotes the full participation of all baptized Catholics in the life of the Church. Sister Christine believes that open, prayerful, and enlightened dialogue expresses the Sensus Fidelium, the Spirit inspired beliefs of the faithful. Joseph Bailey, M.A., L.P. believes that as Catholics we are called to be fearful in our daily lives and to act from courage and love. As the Church struggles and resists change it becomes important that we trust the spirit of Christ within ourselves. Our faith in Him serves as the source of courage to act. Living this way then lifts us above the mental chatter of self-doubt and fear. There is no conference fee, though there is a $16.00 charge for food and beverages. Pre-registration required. Write to CTA-MN, P.O. Box 19406, Minneapolis, MN 55419.
_______________________________________________
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. 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:
|
|||||||||
