What we don't hear....

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories (you can hear a "but" coming here about now can't you?) however (fooled ya!) I am intrigued by a few things I did not read or hear from the major media sources in the past two weeks. Consider:

Item 1: On August 10, 2011, two new bishops were ordained for the Archdiocese of Chicago. The two men, Bishop Andrew Wypych and Bishop Alberto Rojas are now major figures in serving the 2.3 million Catholics in Lake and Cook Counties, IL. I guess that is less significant the the three men who were going to be spending 24 hours living in a tree in Lincoln Park -- a story the Sun Times did find worth covering at the same time. My lack of a journalism degree apparently prevents me from understanding that editorial choice.

Item 2: Michelle Bachmann wins the Iowa caucus. Question: Who was second? To listen to the major broadcasters you would think it was Texas Gov. Perry or Mitt Romney as the pundits declared that the race for the Republican presidential nomination is now a three-tier race between Bachmann, Perry and Romney. Leave it to Jon Stewart to be the one to question why Ron Paul's performance is being ignored.

Item 3: A group of young girls from St. John Cantius marched through Chicago and up Michigan Avenue carrying bright yellow balloons emblazond with the word "LIFE". These balloons were strung together as a rosary. From one pro-life site that did pay attention to the event we hear:

For the school girls, there were lessons to be learned in the response of onlookers like the homeless people who gave high fives, street preachers who burst into the singing of Gospel songs, and in the semi-truck drivers who shook the streets sounding their truck horns in approval.

“I was completely ecstatic the whole time. I loved seeing how many people on a random street corner were thrilled. It is a lot more than we tend to think,” said one participant.

“A passerby tweeted, “A balloon rosary in the air. My faith confirmed:)”, while another surprised Chicagoan wrote, “What the ...giant balloon rosary, with cross just floated heavenward from the Michigan Avenue bridge.”

After coming to the Chicago River the girls launched their balloon rosary with the Wrigley Building and Trump tower as a backdrop. It made for a compelling video, but one that was completely ignored in the major print and broadcast media.

I can speculate as to why the media seems to have such a selective awareness of events, but doubt that it would be of much use. I am encouraged to recall that Jesus told us that "... the ruler of this world has been condemned." Therein lies my hope.

Why wear that collar?

From the time of the restoration of the Diaconate as a permanent order in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, barrels of ink have been spilled regarding the issue of whether permanent deacons should wear clerical garb. In some dioceses, it is assumed that deacons will wear "clerics" so that they are readily recognized as members of the clergy.
Other dioceses, including my own Archdiocese of Chicago, have an established practice that permanent deacons not wear the collar unless they are actively engaged in areas such as prison ministry or hospital chaplaincy in which the wearing of such distinctive garb helps facilitate that ministry.
For myself, as I have commented to the Vicar of Deacons on several occasions, "I don't like wearing a tie. why would I want to wear a Roman collar?" Well, those days may be at an end for me and this change has caused me to reflect on what the wearing of the collar might mean.
A few months back, our parish began to serve as a temporary home for a congregation of Chaldean Catholics who had sold their facility which they had outgrown but who did not as yet have a larger church in which to celebrate Mass. As my pastor had another obligation on the first weekend our visitors would be at the parish, I was to be the member of the clergy to represent the St. Lambert parish community to welcome our guests. While my own parishioners have been long used to seeing me in my role as deacon, I was an unknown to this other congregation and not readily identifiable as a deacon.
It was then that my pastor suggested that he would like to see the deacons in the parish wear clerical garb on Sundays to both serve as a ready identifier and reinforce in the minds of all the people the clerical status of deacons. So that we would not be mistaken for presbyters, the pastor suggested we wear black trousers and grey clerical shirts. Like it or not, I was going to be wearing a Roman collar.
Last weekend was the first time that I wore that collar. I anticipated some remarks from friends and parishioners questioning whether I was bucking for a promotion or trying to pretend I was a priest (the type of comments I would make were I in their shoes). But the reactions I got weren't quite the ones I anticipated.
Most people seemed to feel that it not only looked good, but that it seemed appropriate. There were, to be sure, several people who addressed me as "Father", but no more than normal. I was surprised however when one parishioner -- with whom I've been acquainted for several years, but with whom I have had little interaction -- approached me to ask a few questions regarding the Scriptures. It may have been coincidental and only because the pastor was engaged in conversation with someone else while I happened to be standing there -- but she had not done anything like that before and I could not help but think the wearing of the collar had increased my credibility in her eyes.
Again, the reactions were positive and affirming and led me to reflect on what the collar means and, more specifically, what it means to me. All of my life, I have accorded special respect to those men who wore Roman collars, a respect that was directed as much to the person as to the position. However, I know all too well the person that I am and that I am the same person with or without the collar. I know that I was not ordained because of any qualities particular to me, but simply in response to an undeserved calling.
Suddenly I am caused to view the collar in a different way and I can only call to mind the words of Jesus expressed in Matthew 11:29-30, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."
Suddenly it began to make sense to me. At least in my case, the collar is a yoke, serving to indicate one who is but a beast of the field whose only purpose to do the bidding of the Master. Considered in that light, I can not only wear the collar, I find it quite appropriate.

In whom do you place your faith?

Perhaps one of the benefits of my aging is that I have had the opportunity to learn just how unrealistic it is to expect those whom I hold in high regard to be any more free of human failings than I am myself. Be the arena one of sports, politics, social justice or religion, may times I felt let down by men and women who fell short of my idealized version of them.
However they may have tried to hide their shortcomings from public awareness, my heroes were certainly not unaware of their frailty. St. Paul is one of those heroes who was both aware of his failings and acknowledged them. In 2COR 12:7 he reminds us "... that I might not become too elated, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated," and he refers to himself as the "...least of the apostles."
As years go by, I no longer expect those whom I hold in some esteem to be paragons of virtues in all areas of their lives. Nonetheless, when one I admire is shown to be less than I hoped, whether it be a politician, actor, athlete or religious figure, there is some sense of betrayal. This is playing out for many in the case of Fr. John Corapi.
He brought many people into or back to the faith by his personal witness and powerful preaching. He never avoided and indeed boldly confessed the many failings of his early life and used his own example to point the way to Christ. The compelling nature of his story and the energy he brought to evangelization and catechesis made him somewhat of a "rock star" among Catholic preachers.
It appears now however that he is something of a fallen star.
A press release from the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity, his (former) religious order, indicates that there are grounds to believe that Fr. Corapi may not have been as exemplary in his personal life as his many admirers might have hoped. There are many feeling a sense of pain and betrayal because of these revelations. All we can do is to pray for Fr. Corapi and for all parties involved including the many who are now experiencing confusion and hurt.
The faith of some may be shaken, however it was never about John Corapi. I am sure that he would be the first to remind us all that it is Jesus Christ who is the foundation of our faith. Whatever the failings of His ministers, Christ is the center of our faith and we have the opportunity to unite ourselves to Him in the Eucharist.
J.R.R. Tolkien made this point in a letter to his son when he wrote, "I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament." He further emphasized that it is Christ and not His ministers on whom we rely when he went on to advise:

Also I can recommend this as an exercise (alas! only too easy to find opportunity for): make your communion in circumstances that affront your taste. Choose a snuffling or gabbling priest or a proud and vulgar friar; and a church full of the usual bourgeois crowd, ill-behaved children – from those who yell to those products of Catholic schools who the moment the tabernacle is opened sit back and yawn – open necked and dirty youths, women in trousers and often with hair both unkempt and uncovered. Go to communion with them (and pray for them). It will be just the same (or better than that) as a mass said beautifully by a visibly holy man, and shared by a few devout and decorous people. It could not be worse than the mess of the feeding of the Five Thousand – after which our Lord propounded the feeding that was to come.

I pray for all those affected by the current situation and hope that is comes to a good conclusion. However it turns out, we still have Jesus Christ, "...the same yesterday, today and forever."

What is the compelling interest of the state?

With the recent passage of legislation in New York State recognizing homosexual "marriage," I am prompted to ponder what the role of the state is in regulating marriage. In ages past the argument was made that the state had an interest in the encouragement and fostering of families as the building block of society. As redefined in recent legislation marriage is itself divorced from the very concept of family.
In 1974, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that, “The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.” (Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195) Indeed, this same purpose has been repeatedly cited in other court cases. But we are now living in a world in which a vast number of individuals seek to separate sex from procreation. Simply put, one large segment of the population seeks sex without children while, at the same time, another segment is seeking to have children without sex. What a world!
When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy.
Absent the interest in promoting procreation and protecting the traditional family as the optimal environment for raising children, what is the compelling interest of the state in recognition of "marriage"?
The cynic in me predicts that the parties who will benefit most from this redefined institution are the divorce lawyers

Where's the focus?

A reporter noted that Francis Cardinal George has written books reflecting on the role of God and the Church in the world and asked the Cardinal if he had considered writing a more personal memoir. Cardinal George responded: (full story here)

I'm not very good at that. A priest is supposed to point to Christ, not to himself. I really believe that firmly. … I found that strange when I first got to Chicago. They were all very interested in my personality and all the rest. … All of a sudden charisma became the qualification for leadership. If you're not charismatic, you can't lead. Whereas the church is very different. It's the office that counts. I'm going to be gone. It's the office that's important, not me the officeholder. … Priesthood is an office, and we're trained, well trained, to disappear behind the office.

This seems to have a tone strikingly different from that adopted by Fr. Michael Pfleger, another Chicago-based Catholic churchman, who went to a nationally broadcast radio show to express his thoughts on the possibility that he might be asked to change assignments at the request of the local ordinary to whom he made a promise of obedience: (full story here)

"I want to try to stay in the Catholic Church," Pfleger said. "If they say 'You either take this principalship of (Leo High School) or pastorship there or leave,' then I'll have to look outside the church. I believe my calling is to be a pastor. I believe my calling is to be a voice for justice. I believe my calling is to preach the Gospel. In or out of the church, I'm going to continue to do that."

There certainly seems to be a difference in focus.... just sayin'.

Here is a battle that probably won't be fought...

I have been spending a little time studying the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal which is to be put into use beginning at the start of Advent this year. Among the things I have been looking at are the rubrics of that Missal to compare them to the currently used missal. I have been paying particular attention to those rubrics which address the relative orientation of the priest to the people. It is evident from a close reading of the rubrics that the document assumes the priest is facing in the same direction as the people for much of the liturgy.

1. The revised missal seems to retain in spirit the rubrics of the second typical edition of the Missale Romanum (1975), March 1, 1985 although the language varies slightly
2. The matter of orientation of the priest relative to the people is addressed in only a few instances.
3. The current missal seems to allow for the priest facing the altar for the sign of the cross and then turning toward the people for the greeting, while the revised missal seems to envision that both the sign of the cross and the greeting be done facing the people.
4. The Penitential Rite, Opening Prayer and Profession of Faith give no indication as to orientation.
5. Specific instructions to face the people are given at the Orate Fratres (Pray Brethren) in both instances.
6. The Eucharistic prayer indicates the consecrated body and blood of Christ are to be “shown” to the people but does not indicate that this "showing" requires facing the people.
7. The elevation at the doxology omits any reference to the “showing” of the host or chalice.
8. No indication of orientation is given for the Pater Noster , however the revised missal instructs the priest to face the people for the greeting of peace.
9. Specific instructions to face the people are given for both the Ecce, Agnus Dei and the closing prayer

Though not explicit, it is convincingly evident that the Fathers of Vatican II and the Congregation for Divine Worship clearly anticipate that normally the priest would be facing the same direction as the people. This is indicated by the apparent necessity to include explicit instructions for the priest to "face the people" or "turn toward" the people at specific times. Such instructions would be unnecessary were the priest already facing the people.

I note however that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal indicates:

299. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.

There is ambiguity inherent in this instruction as to whether it is the circumambulation of the altar, the facing of the people, or both which is considered “desirable”, moreover the original Latin would more commonly be translated "useful" rather than "desirable". In either case, it is plainly evident that a posture versus populum, or facing the people, is optional and not mandated.

In short, the missal apparently envisions that the priest's posture for the much of the Mass would have him in a position to pray with, rather than at, the people. Unfortunately many people would react by saying, "The priest is turning his back to us," and fail to recognize that the priest is instead facing God along with them.

Alas, I'm sure there are many who would have a difficult time accepting this interpretation and that there are few priests willing to fight that battle.

Signs of the times

Long time... no post. I've been weaning myself of the delusion that the thoughts that go through my head are worthy of notice, but this exercise is mainly for me as I try to knit a few things together. As is the case today when reading two stories that struck me for different reasons.

In one corner we have the story of the Northwestern University prof who decided he could best advance his students education by having a couple (not married, but at least affianced) engage in a live demonstration of the use of sex toys. (story here) Tuition at NU is over $40,000 per year. There are men who, although lacking the academic background of the esteemed professor, could provide the students with a more in depth and hands on experience for considerably less. They are known as pimps.

Meanwhile, out west, the #3 ranked Brigham Young University men's basketball team suffered a loss to New Mexico. Apparently the BYU team was hampered in part due to the loss of 6-foot-9 forward Brandon Davies who was booted off BYU's team for breaking the school's honor code. Davies' offense? He was dismissed from the team Tuesday for having premarital sex, according to reports in the Salt Lake Tribune. (story here)

The disconnect between these stories is remarkable. It is also remarkable for me to consider which university is going to come under the greater fire.