“Run over by Metro”

Houston Press reports on the city’s transportation company and its shoddy safety record. Gruesome stories.

Tradition

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church is seriously concerned about bishops who break tradition, Diogenes tells us.

RIP Robert Webber

Evangelical scholar Robert Webber died Friday evening from pancreatic cancer.

Implications …

What were the practical consequences of the doctrine of limbo?

Ann Druge grew up in a Catholic family with eight children and the haunting knowledge that a ninth was stillborn. Because the baby, named Mary Ellen, had not been baptized, she was denied a Catholic burial.

“When we would go to the cemetery . . . we’d always stop where they threw the dead flowers. That’s where the little one was buried,” said Druge, 80, of Storrs, Conn. “My mother and father were very upset every time. She was stillborn, so she couldn’t be buried in the consecrated ground. We were told she was in limbo.”

An Afternoon Chat

Robert Duncan (of SperoNews, Santificarnos, and the IESE Business School of the University of Navarre) was in Houston for the weekend, and we got together for an afternoon chat in the lobby of his hotel, followed by a brief tour of downtown Houston. He was in Dallas yesterday, and visited with Julie of Happy Catholic, among others.

“Into Great Silence”

Georgia Bulletin review.

Stephen Hawking Flies

Stephen Hawking got to experience zero-G in the “vomit comet.” (Video at BBC). Old Faithful Wolf comments.

More on Limbo

Tom Droleskey provides a Traditionalist look at recent discussions on Limbo. Regardless of what one thinks about some of the sources he cites (e.g., Donald Sanborn), I think he makes a strong case that Catholic teaching on Limbo was more than a mere “theological hypothesis,” but was logically and inseparably interconnected with teachings about baptism, original sin, and damnation. He thinks Richard McBrien is right on this.

The notorious dissenter from the Catholic Faith, Father Richard McBrien, a priest (ordained well before the changes in the Rites of Episcopal Consecration and Priestly Ordination) in completely good standing in the Archdiocese of Hartford who has been teaching at the University of Notre Dame since 1979, saw quite clearly the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the International Theological Commission’s report on Limbo:

“If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace,” said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

“Baptism does not exist to wipe away the “stain” of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church,” he said in an e-mailed response.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. McBrien, who is an enemy of the Catholic Faith, giving aid and comfort to fully pro-abortion Catholics such as Mario Matthew Cuomo and Geraldine Ferraro in public office, saw quite clearly that the belief that unbaptized infants go to Heaven means that Baptism does not “exist to wash way the ’stain’ of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church.”

On Church and State

The dominant Catholic social theory prior to the Second Vatican Council was referred to under the heading of “The Social Reign of Christ the King.” This remains an important shibboleth for Traditionalist Catholic groups such as the SSPX.

Thomas Droleskey of Christ or Chaos states the matter thus:

” … a nation’s recognition of the Social Reign of Christ the King, and the authority of His true Church is the necessary precondition for the right ordering of civil institutions and the pursuit of fundamental justice …”

This was a major theme of Spiritans Marcel Lefebvre and Denis Fahey, but the authoritative statement of the teaching in modern times was the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Quas primas (November 12, 1925), establishing the Feast of Christ the King in the Catholic calendar.

We tend to use the term “king” of Christ in a metaphorical sense, or referring in a generic way to his lordship. Not Pius XI. He wanted to exalt Christ’s “necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created.”

This has explicit political overtones.

If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”

The solution to humanity is a reestablishment of the Empire of Christ (i.e., the Christendom that subsisted in the Middle Ages, when Church and State had a close relationship).

This would bring about real and lasting peace in the world:

If the kingdom of Christ, then, receives, as it should, all nations under its way, there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth – he who came to reconcile all things, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, who, though Lord of all, gave himself to us as a model of humility, and with his principal law united the precept of charity; who said also: “My yoke is sweet and my burden light.” Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ! “Then at length,” to use the words addressed by our predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, twenty-five years ago to the bishops of the Universal Church, “then at length will many evils be cured; then will the law regain its former authority; peace with all its blessings be restored. Men will sheathe their swords and lay down their arms when all freely acknowledge and obey the authority of Christ, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.”

But while the Church thus expects to wield power over the State, by decreeing what is right and moral, it does not allow any interference within its own affairs:

When we pay honor to the princely dignity of Christ, men will doubtless be reminded that the Church, founded by Christ as a perfect society, has a natural and inalienable right to perfect freedom and immunity from the power of the state; and that in fulfilling the task committed to her by God of teaching, ruling, and guiding to eternal bliss those who belong to the kingdom of Christ, she cannot be subject to any external power. The State is bound to extend similar freedom to the orders and communities of religious of either sex, who give most valuable help to the Bishops of the Church by laboring for the extension and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ.

Under this theology, Catholic social teachings would be imposed through legislation, but Catholic clerics and religious would be free from state coercion in any matter (herein lies the seed of that attitude that led Bishops for decades to refuse to cooperate with legal investigation into sexual misconduct by priests and religious).

This understanding of the Social Reign of Christ the King is the context within which to understand pre-Vatican 2 statements condemning religious liberty. In the Social Reign of Christ the King, the Catholic Church and its teachings have primacy in civil life; in it, there can be no such thing as a freedom of religion that treats all religions as the same or which preserves freedom of conscience as a positive good.

Consider, for example, Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (15 Aug 1832):

14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.²¹ When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”²²] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws–in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

16. The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books.²³ It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest “that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful.”²⁴ This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine.²⁵ “We must fight valiantly,” Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, “as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames.”²⁶ Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.

17. We have learned that certain teachings are being spread among the common people in writings which attack the trust and submission due to princes; the torches of treason are being lit everywhere. Care must be taken lest the people, being deceived, are led away from the straight path. May all recall, according to the admonition of the apostle that “there is no authority except from God; what authority there is has been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists authority resists the ordinances of God; and those who resist bring on themselves condemnation.”²⁷

Note, it is not just religious liberty that is condemned, but freedom of the press and freedom of speech, as these are all understood by democratic societies; he also defends burning of books.

Next, Pope Bl. Pius IX, Quanta Cura (8 Dec 1864):

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,”² viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;”³ and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”⁴

4. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?

These various documents are agreed in their vision of a secure world, in which Christian teaching is protected in law and is the basis of legislation, in which princes are trusted as ruling by divine right, in which religious freedom and political freedom are both seen as the basis of anarchy and immmorality, and incorrect religious and political ideas must alike be opposed.

Later in the 19th century, Leo XIII wrote Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae in response to a controversy over a (mistranslated) biography of Isaac Hecker, founder of the Paulists. Leo was worried that people might apply the ideas of “Americanism” (freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, even democracy) to the Church. He saw that the spread of these teachings in society made it all the more necessary for the Church’s teaching voice to be heard.

But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state. …

These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.

Vatican 2 turned these teachings on their head. Dignitatis Humanae begins by noting the increase in civil societies of the concern for respecting the dignity of the human person, and that this is the basis for limiting government. The Council declares this hunger and thirst for freedom “to be greatly in accord with truth and justice.”

Then comes this statement of what the declaration intends, and what it does not:

First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you” (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature.

Some have tried to say that Vatican 2 is not as radical as it would appear, that it must really be assumed to be in harmony with existing teachings. But this ignores both the clear teaching of the document itself and the clear teachings of what went before. Folks like Lefebvre, Droleskey, and Ferrara are right: Vatican 2 changed what had been clearly stated Catholic teaching, affirmed repeatedly by popes warning against the evils of democratic societies. This change is affirmed by folks on the other side like John Courtney Murray and (recently) John A. Coleman.

Given this shift, what are we to make of rumored concessions to the SSPX on the matter of the mass, or of attempts at reunion which ignore these and related issues? The SSPX has never been criticized by Rome for its publications on the Jews, religious liberty, and the Social Reign of Christ the King. Individuals advocating these views have never been disciplined by the Catholic Church.

What are we to think? Is this a “development”? It surely isn’t in accord with Newman’s understanding of development as requiring continuity in type. How does one hold together the absolute authority of the Magisterium and deny that the Magisterium has ever erred or changed its mind when confronted with such a drastic turn around?

Snakes

Snakes will eat anything they can get their mouth around. And they have an articulated jaw that allows them to eat things far bigger than their heads. They aren’t picky.  Other reptiles, like alligators, are the same way. If it is moving, it is food. A mouse, a rat, a fish, a frog, a cat or a dog–all of these things are the natural menu items for a snake. The bigger the snake, the bigger the animals it can–and will–eat. Now, suppose you are the owner of a large snake. Does it really make any difference to the snake whether you feet it lots of mice or one small puppy? Nope. Is there anything inherently more worthy about a small dog than a large rat? Nope. Yet a fellow in Phoenix is under arrest and faces felony animal cruelty charges for giving his snake a larger snack. He’s also being charged with neglect of the snake. That doesn’t make sense. Snakes don’t want or need much attention. They can go a long time between meals. And it seems like this one was well fed.

The UnSuggester

I heard about the UnSuggester in the latest Chronicle of Higher Education.

Unsuggester takes “people who like this also like that” and turns it on its head. It analyzes the thirteen million books LibraryThing members have recorded as owned or read, and comes back with books least likely to share a library with the book you suggest. The unsuggestions come from LibraryThing data, not from Amazon. LibraryThing also produces great suggestions.

For instance, if you are a fan of Seven Storey Mountain, it suggests you probably won’t like Stephen King’s Dark Tower. If you like The Confessions of St. Augustine, you probably won’t be reading Night Pleasures by Sherrilyn Kenyon. If Left Behind is your thing, various works by Eveylyn Waugh are probably not on your shelf. If you heed The Screwtape Letters, you are probably not tempted by various tempting titles.

On the other hand, the BookSuggester seeks to give you helpful advice on things you might want to consider.

For example, if you like Seven Storey Mountain, consider other works by Merton, or Kathleen Norris’ Cloister Walk, or Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, or Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship. If Augustine’s Confessions causes you to reflect on your spiritual journey, then Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress might lead you further down that path. If you are in fear of being Left Behind, you might enjoy being scared by books by Frank Peretti or might want to make the most of the present life by reading The Purpose-Driven Life. If you like Screwtape, consider Sheldon Vanaukan, A Severe Mercy, or Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ.

Rutler Redux

Over at Dom’s, George Rutler responds to my remarks on vegetarianism (a response to his response to a letter in First Things responding to someone else).

It is clear we are both capable of playing with words and providing a little bit of levity in the all-too-dreary-debates of the blogosphere.

But as I consider his initial quips and his reiteration of those same points, it seems that his witticisms studiously seek to avoid what Scripture plainly says.

One should never cite Genesis to promote strict vegetarianism, as it was written by meat-eaters inspired by God who created all the animals as a menu for Adam and Eve. Their “dominion” over every beast gave them authority to choose how they wanted to serve them up, it seems to me.

This of course ignores the fact that Genesis is quite explicit that Adam and Eve were told quite plainly: “I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food.” Period.

He says,

“…[T]he creation of seed-bearing plants and fruit trees … only means that we should eat vegetables and fruits just as the provision of animals means we should eat them.”

That’s a silly statement; “If you create it they must eat”? Rutler seems to believe that God designed death and destruction. “Once animals got going, there you had dinner.” Cute saying, but completely contrary to the Word of God, which gives explicit instructions on what man is to eat.

“We need not wait for Exodus to find carnivorous action permitted.” Again, completely contrary to the Word of God, which gives permission to eat meat only after the Flood. We are not told what Cain and Abel ate, only what they offered to God. Abel offered a lamb in obedience to God, who commanded the shedding of blood after the Fall, in prefigurement of the sacrifice of Christ. We are to offer what God demands, and what he has provided for this purpose, not offerings of our own devising, regardless of their beauty or the hard work that went into them.

Also in Genesis, Jacob made his father a lamb stew from what was evidently an old family recipe. It probably went back to Eden.

Another cute saying, but one that avoids the fact that there was no death in Eden. Death is a response to man’s Fall, not part of God’s design, and is something that shall be destroyed at the end of time.

What’s the basis for your philosophy? Wit and human wisdom, or reverence for revelation? I’ll go with the Word of God over the word of any man, any day.

Gaudium de Veritate

St. Augustine found joy in the truth, for its own sake. Truth is not conditioned by time or place, by who speaks it or how it is spoken. Our greatest joy should be in seeking that truth and in its discovery, letting it be its own validation and its own reward. I don’t care whether it be Benedict XVI or Martin Luther, Martin Luther King or Gandhi, John Calvin or Francis Schaeffer or Francis of Assisi or Ellen White–I will rejoice in Truth regardless of who speaks it.

V. Gene Robinson

Homosexual Episcopal Bishop to “marry” his partner.

“How long, O Lord?!”

Tis a Puzzlement

Gay prayer service at Most Holy Redeemer Parish in San Francisco’s Castro district (“a Christian Community in the Roman Catholic tradition”) will be broadcast on BBC.

According to the MHR webpage,

On Sunday, October 22, at 5 pm, there was a special prayer service at MHR. Fr. Donal Godfrey, SJ, of the University of San Francisco presided and Fr. James Alison, author of Faith Beyond Resentment was the speaker.

This was a special service [see this contemporaneous blog post], recorded by the BBC for broadcast at www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/ on Sunday, April 29, 2007, at 8:10 am (GMT) and running online for the week following.

The BBC’s Radio4 Religion and Ethics broadcasts are listened to by nearly 2 million people every week.

In the last post, I drew attention to some issues of authority and authoritarianism, and how it is sometimes applied. In this link, we see an apparent anomaly; these kinds of activities continue to go on around the country and little, if nothing, is done.

Due Process a Sham?

Clergy witch hunt? – Due process for accused priests is a sham, critics say.

Is it surprising? A system for which authority is a critical value, and authoritarianism the modus operandi, is going to behave in predictable ways.

In previous decades, lay people who complained about abusive priests were slapped down and the priests were coddled and moved. In recent years, bishops fight to hold onto files and slap down lawyers who demand them, or they pay out exorbitant sums in hush money and slap down the faithful in the pew who complain, or they come down hard on priests accused, even if there is no evidence, or they refuse to hear complaints about liturgical or theological abuses and slap down those who bring them.

In previous centuries interdict, excommunication, the rack and the stake were tools used to the same end–to intimidate, to silence, to control. The faces may change, the tools may change, the targets may change–but does the system at its heart?

Contrast with the spirit of Jesus:

“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. 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.”

On the Christian Call to Discipleship

On October 31, 1517, a young Augustinian monk and university professor named Martin Luther tacked to the community bulletin board 95 propositions he wanted to debate with his colleagues. This simple act, done without fanfare and without press releases, became, in the hands of the “spin doctors,” an event which changed the world, religious and secular, perhaps more drastically than any other single event of the past thousand years.

But we should not understand that event simply on the grand scale of history. Rather, I suggest the beginning of the Reformation might best seen from a more intimate perspective, as a personal event, a spiritual event–the climax, in fact, of a deep inner struggle in the life of one Christian, Martin Luther–a struggle that resonated with people of all walks of life, religious or not–people who had struggles of their own, struggles that would not tolerate pat answers or easy solutions.

The story usually begins by telling about a religious charlatan named John Tetzel, Dominican friar, who earned his place in history by hawking indulgences–certificates signed by Bishop Albrecht of Mainz that would (crudely put) release the purchaser or his relatives from time in purgatory. “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs,” sang Tetzel, as he raked in the riches.

Luther reacted to this because he knew from personal experience that there was more to the Christian life than simply putting a coin in a box and getting an instantaneous result. For many years Luther had been tormented with fears and anxieties, seeking some way to please God–a God he saw as inscrutable, capricious, a God before whom one could only shake and “do one’s damnedest.” He struggled to find a gracious God–a God who could be trusted, a God who could be relied upon, a God who couldn’t be bought with a trinket.

Luther found what he needed in two primary places–Paul’s letter to the Romans, and the Psalms. In the Psalms Luther saw men of faith wrestling with God in bold confidence–cursing him, crying out to him, crying for vengeance on their enemies, but also thanking him, praising him, and rejoicing in him. He saw them unsure of where God was, but trusting him to be true to his word. He saw Paul, fighting with Judaizers who insisted that Christians must observe stipulations of the Torah such as circumcision–as if God was impressed with externals–He saw Paul lift up against this the love and mercy of God, who gave himself, who promised his care, who called for us to trust him.

Luther’s struggle was unique–but it was real. Here was a man caught between God and the Devil, as the title of a biography of Luther puts it. Here was a man who pushed on through the darkness and temptations of life in faith–faith in the God who had called him.

We may not have visions of the devil at which we throw inkpots, but we all wrestle with basic questions of faith–how do you believe in a God who gives so little evidence? How do you believe in a God who says he’s all powerful and all good, but who lets terrible things happen in this world of his? How do you find the strength to go on, through the temptations of life, when you are alone, and dare not disclose the secrets of your heart to even your closest friends?

Each of us wrestles in our own way, in our own time, under unique circumstances. Each of us is called to be faithful to the leading of Christ, wherever and whenever he might take us.

And this may leave us alone among our friends, stumped in our attempts to explain our call.

An image that has come to my mind in this is one from C. S. Lewis’ book, The Last Battle, the conclusion to his series, “The Chronicles of Narnia.” Like Lucy and Edmund and Peter and their friends, we may find ourselves being called “further up and further in,” into a world that is still recognizable as the same world I am leaving, but somehow larger and more beautiful and more real. Lewis also tells of some dwarfs pulled into that world against their will. But they couldn’t see it. What Lucy and Edmund and Peter saw to be delicious fruits and fragrant flowers the dwarfs thought were merely the droppings of the animals in the dark, musty stable they believed themselves to be in. Some do not, cannot see what we see at such times. We can’t change that, and should not try to argue with them. We can only follow to the end the path we have set out on, asking for their prayers and for continued friendship.

On Benedict and Islam

Liberty Magazine considers the Regensburg address.

How well did you sleep last night?

Compare your experience with this.

The Democratic Candidates

Reports say they debated, and that they took separate private planes from DC to SC for the event.

I didn’t watch it. I won’t watch it. I see no reason to watch it. I will never vote for a member of the Democratic party. Each Democratic candidate, and the party as a whole, believes the following act is good, and just, and right:

“‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms–everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus… .

“‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

“‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .

“‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’” Ibid.

That’s quoted in the Supreme Court decision Gonzales v. Carhart, which each Democratic candidate and the Democratic party opposed.

Now, this doesn’t mean I’ll vote for any Republican party candidate. I might just boycott the whole next election.

But I will never vote for those who support the machinations of Moloch.

The Sabbath That Remains

So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest . . . . Hebrews 4:9-11

One of my favorite movie musicals is Fiddler on the Roof. I love Tevye, the pious, wise and comical milkman who has the chutzpah to shake his fist at God when his horse goes lame, yet who can in humble confidence hang his head before God when true catastrophe strikes. The one thing that steadies him through all his ups and downs is his Tradition. As Tevye puts it, “Without our Tradition, our lives would be as shaky as a fiddler on the roof!”

I’m especially moved by the scene of the lighting of the Sabbath candles. The mother gathers the family about the table, and with a veil over her head, and her hands over her eyes, she leads the family in prayer. Dressed in their finest clothes, the thoughts and arguments of the week put away for twenty-four hours, together they welcome the Sabbath. Throughout the village of Anatevka all families, rich and poor, large and small, unite in this act recognizing the holiness of this time.

Those images never fail to bring back memories of Sabbath celebrations when I was a Seventh-day Adventist. We never lit candles, yet the Sabbath’s arrival was distinguished nonetheless by the flaming colors of the Friday sunset and a hushed atmosphere of holy expectation. We were exhorted to “guard the edges of the Sabbath,” making sure our work was done well before the start of the Sabbath, and treasuring the last moments of the sacred time. The Sabbath was marked not merely by an absence of work and of the blare of the television, but also by special meals and special guests, gatherings for prayer and song, and leisurely strolls through the woods or along the seashore admiring the handiwork of the Creator, who left this holy time as a memorial of his work of creation.

Sanctifying time

There is something experienced by Jew and Adventist in the Sabbath that non-Sabbatarians too often miss. And yet there are times when I still experience that same holy hush, when time is sanctified. To sanctify time is to set it apart and devote it to God; it is to see this moment as a place of encounter with the holy. Christians recognize many such times: the Sunday assembly, holy days such as Easter and Christmas, as well as the practice of gathering for prayer at specified times each day, especially morning and evening, praising God through the singing of the psalms.

Christians and Jews can speak of the sanctification of time because, unlike devotees of many other religions, we do not see time as something opposed to God, but as his creation. It was within time that God created, marking it off day by day. It was within time that he redeemed Israel from Egypt, and it is within the mystic time of Pesach that Jews today experience that same deliverance. It was within time that Jesus came as one of us; it is within time that he continues to meet us.

We do not have to wait until “the trumpet of the Lord shall sound and time shall be no more” to be in his presence. But as we gather to hear his word proclaimed, as we gather to praise his name, as we unite around his table, he is with us. These are sacred times, full of awe and mystery and majesty as surely as was that day the shekinah glory led the people of Israel through the sea, or that hour when the earth shook and the temple veil was torn as God’s son hung lifeless on the cross.

Two of the times that most recall to me the Sabbath experience are Evening Prayer and the Easter Vigil. It’s not hard to see why. Both begin with the lighting of candles. They are characterized not by ostentation but by simplicity: psalms, prayers, scripture. You cannot rush them. These liturgies require an offering of this time to God–however long it might take. As the darkness deepens outside, the flickering of a solitary candle marks out this space and time as holy. Like the Quaker meeting, these are liturgies in which the silences are as important as the words. These deep pauses, the simple chants, and the succinct collects allow the worshippers to dissolve into the surrounding darkness, and the word itself to hover like a moth in the candle’s soft glow, perfumed by the rising incense.

But the sanctification of time does not rely upon props such as candles, chant or incense. Jesus said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Matthew 18:20). Consider times in your life when you’ve experienced that. You may have come together as strangers, but as you became comfortable in one another’s presence, sharing stories of faith, you found yourselves to be in the presence of God. The silences that were awkward in the beginning became rich moments of reflection and grace. Your time together became sanctified.

I could go on with other examples of sanctified time: times of contemplative prayer in the presence of Jesus; silent walks through autumnal beauty; times of intense wrestling with God, like Jacob at the Jabbok River. These times are holy because they are times in which we are truly aware of the presence of God, and we come away thinking, “This is what heaven must be like.”

But the sanctification, or setting apart, of some moments of time leaves many others in the sphere of the commonplace. Christ does not allow us to build tents on the mountaintop, but, after glimpses of glory, he calls us back down to the valley. Yet these mountaintop times are what carry us through our journey; it is there that we, like Peter and Andrew, James and John, can see our ordinary experiences transfigured, and the glory of God illumine the darkness.

The time crunch

We rejoice in these special times; like Peter, we wish that they would never end. And yet what excuses we give as we see them coming! How difficult it is to set aside time to pray, especially when we first attempt it! Even with the best of intentions, time seems to slip through our fingers. I am frightened when I see myself becoming like the father in Harry Chapin’s song, “The Cat’s in the Cradle,” who just can’t seem to find time for his family, and is startled late in life to realize that his son has indeed grown up just like him. And who doesn’t have days like Tevye, who is rushing to finish his deliveries before the Sabbath when his horse goes lame, forcing him to pull his cart by hand–thereby upsetting everyone else’s Sabbath preparation as well!

Sanctified times are so special, so vital (and so hard to come by!) because time itself is finite. To be in time is to confront limits. It means not being able to do everything, and that necessitates making choices. We live in fear that our time will run out before we get everything done that we want to accomplish. As the great Protestant theologian Karl Barth put it, in every area of our lives, in everything that we aspire to do or to become, we eventually come to a wall, a barrier, beyond which we cannot go–the point at which all our requests, all our pleas, are met by a firm, final, and absolute “No.”¹

This is what Jesus took upon himself in becoming a man. This is the truly awesome, inconceivable meaning of the Incarnation. Jesus did not just pop into our world for a brief visit. When he took upon himself our nature, he became like us in every way except sin (Hebrews 2:14-16; 4:15). He took our flesh, our weakness. Most important, he took upon himself our time-boundedness.

Think about that for a moment. He whom the heavens could not contain, “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,” became flesh. Forget about the porcelain Nativity sets you have seen, and try to imagine the gritty reality. A baby lies in a dusty manger, wrapped in ragged strips of cloth. Hungry, he cries, and must be lifted up to nurse at his mother’s breast. He messes his diapers, and they must be changed.

He through whom the world was made, whose word spoke us into existence, allowed himself to be walled in by time. He submitted to all the “nos” that we must. He had to be cared for as an infant. He had to obey his parents as a youth. He could only be in one place, walk only so far, speak to and touch and heal only so many. And then he died. On a cross. The ultimate limit–the ultimate no–literally nailed to one place, one moment in time.

Seeing with eyes of faith

Now, however, we live not in the darkness of Good Friday, but in the brilliant light of the Easter dawn. Time is no longer the enemy we feared, a cold, dark tomb which confines our hopes and our aspirations; it is now the intimate garden within which our risen Lord embraces us in love. We remain finite and circumscribed here and now, but these limits are no threat. Having been accepted freely by Christ, our limits are now graced, are now sanctified; they are instruments through which God can act.

I used to read the Bible and wonder, “Why doesn’t God act like that today?” I was too accustomed to Cecil B. DeMille movies and Harry Anderson paintings. The truth is that God acts in today’s world in the same way he has always acted. He has not changed. I think the problem is that Hollywood has misled us. God’s miracles were never of the Cecil B. DeMille sort, indisputable displays of raw power. They have always been seen as such only by the eye of faith.

God’s approach to humanity has always been the same; rather than trying to overwhelm us with displays of power and glory, he comes in humility and love. He empties himself, as he did in becoming a man. Today, as in ancient Palestine, God uses and blesses simple things, veiling himself in a form that we can approach, and can touch, and can see. Bread, the simplest of foods, becomes the Body of Christ; wine, mere crushed grapes, becomes his Blood.

The Sabbath is like that. It does not appear to be anything particularly grand to the world. The world doesn’t notice either its coming or its going. But the eye of faith sees in this humble maiden a queen or a bride, decked out in splendor. For the Jew and for the Adventist, the Sabbath has the same meaning that the Eucharist has for many Christians. It is “the presence of God in the world, open to the soul of man.”² It is the ordinary made extraordinary. It is the sanctification of the secular. It is sacrament.

The gracing of life

Are you frustrated by your limits? Do you wonder, “What can I do? I’m only one person. I can’t go far. I can’t do great deeds. I can’t influence lots of people.” You don’t have to. For the same grace that transforms bread and wine can work through you–your words, your actions, your touch. Your limits are no longer a “No.” God’s grace has made them a “Yes.”

We come to God’s table to fellowship with our Lord, who has called us to himself out of a love without limit, without condition. He has forgiven our sins and made us whole. We are home, here, surrounded by our family. From his table we are called forth, to love, to forgive, to heal. To do justice and to make peace. We don’t have to do it all. We need only do what we can. And God will bless it, and use it, transforming the simple, ordinary experiences of our lives into shining moments of grace in a dark and broken world.

That is evangelization is really all about. It doesn’t require grandiose plans or complicated and costly strategies; it is simply living out, and sharing in small ways, those moments of grace you’ve experienced, those times in your life when you have been touched by God.

And God may surprise you, turning your whole world around, when you take the first small step of faith in obedience to that call.

Consider the story of Abraham, who faithfully followed God out of Ur to the promised land; who believed God’s promise that he would make of him a great nation; who was then asked to do the impossible–to take his son, Isaac, the promise in flesh and blood form, bind him to an altar, and plunge a knife into his breast.

It seemed at that moment that God was taking back his promise. Abraham was 75 when he left Haran, the Bible says. He was 86 when, trying to fulfill the promise on his own, he fooled around with his slave, Hagar, who gave birth to Ishmael. He was 99 when God changed his name from Abram (“exalted father”) to Abraham (“father of many nations”). He was 100 when Isaac was born (and to think that there’s a debate today among ethicists who think it is immoral for a 50-year-old to have children!).

And now, sometime after, that, when Isaac is old enough to talk and talk and argue (and fight back), when Abraham no longer had the will to look to a slave for a solution, God says, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you” (Genesis 22:2).

It seemed that everything that God had done in Abraham’s life up to that point had been for nothing other than God’s sadistic pleasure. Yet Abraham trusted God, and God was faithful in the end, and through Isaac, the child of promise, God did bless the world as he had promised he would.

The remaining Sabbath

This is the deepest meaning of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made to be a sign of what God wants to do with us and through us. God wants to take us, in our simplicity and humility, and use us. God wants to sanctify us. God wants us to be places where he meets with humankind. God said this to Israel quite explicitly, “You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, given in order that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you” (Exodus 31:13).

The Heidelberg Catechism of the Reformed tradition says that the Sabbath commandment requires that I “allow the Lord to work in me through his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath.”³ If God is to work, we must rest. As Calvin said: “We must be wholly at rest that God may work in us; we must yield our will; we must resign our heart . . . . In short, we must rest from all activities of our own contriving so that, having God working in us, we may repose in him . . . .”⁴

God will use you. God will bless you. God will work miracles through you. You might not see it as such at the time. You might not see the effect for years–maybe never. But he will. You don’t need to concern yourself with that, however. You need simply to say, Lord, your will be done. And then do, and speak, as he leads you to. Reach out to those who need healing and reconciliation. Reach out to forgive and to love. Do so in the assurance that the God who so sends you says,

Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the water, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you. . . . Because you are precious in my sight and honored, and I love you . . . . (Isaiah 43)

Notes

¹Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 38.

²Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1951), pp. 60ff.

³Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 103. The Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; Part One: Book of Confessions, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church, 1970), 4.103.

⁴John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), ii.viii.29, I:396.

An e-mail I sent out

Here’s what I sent to my young adult ministry e-mail list:

For nine years I’ve been director of the Office of Young Adult and Campus Ministry.

We’ve accomplished some wonderful things together in these years. I’ll always be grateful for your friendship, support, prayers and the hard work you all provided to make a success of Bayou Awakening, Theology on Tap, Café Catholica, our campus ministries, and the many other things that we have done together.

I’m still going to be involved in ministry with young adults, but on a grassroots level, where I can do more ministry and not have to worry so much about bureaucracies.

Let my final words be those of St. Paul to the Philippians:

Rejoice in the Lord always. I shall say it again: rejoice! Your kindness should be known to all. The Lord is near. Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you

Keep your hearts and minds fixed on Jesus. Turn to him. Trust in him.

If you are a member of a young adult group that spends more time at bars (even on Friday nights in Lent!), turn it around-or find another where Jesus is first. If you are a member of a young adult group that volunteers to support events contrary to Christian teaching (such as the recent AIDS Walk Houston, sponsored by Planned Parenthood), turn it around-or find another where Jesus is put first. If you are in a parish where you find yourself butting your head against a wall, do what you can to turn it around-or go where you can see Jesus. If you are a member of a young adult group or a campus ministry that is turned in on itself, and doesn’t see the need to reach out, turn it around-or find another where the focus is upon sharing the good news with those who are suffering and struggling and questioning.

May God bless you all, now and forever.

*Sniff*

I’ve been getting lots of calls, visits, and e-mails after my announcement. This one really touched me.

I’m saddened to hear that you will be leaving the office soon. In my young adult experience, where people come and go due to jobs and school and such, there has always been the constant for ministry. That constant is you doing good work at the arch-diocese. I just want to thank you and wish you the best on this new path you are embarking on. I’m glad you will remain on the scene. It’s always good to see familiar faces around here and there. Houston has been blessed to have you inspire and support the young adult community. Once again, thank you.

Here are some others:

I have noticed the sincere dedication to Christ and to the young adults you minister to. I sense that often you had to balance delicate situations between the young adults, yourself, and the chancery. I have thought that you did an outstanding job of being in those tight situations and making the right decisions without drawing attention to yourself. Your dedication to Awakening has particularly touched me and even when some rules or decisions seemed arbitrary and annoying, I have appreciated the firm but delicate way you have guided this ministry. I recognized that with the young adult ministry you were trying to drive a boat down a straight path that is often trying to stray too far to the left or to the right. I thought you handled that admirably.

From one of my longtime volunteers:

Well, I am very happy for you. I know you have had a lifetime more patience with that role than anyone could have ever imagined. I hope you will be happy in your new job. I can attest to the relief of changing environments. … You have done an outstanding job with the Young Adults and leave a great story of progress behind you. You are due for a change!

From the former chancellor:

Thank you for personally letting me know that you have resigned. I had heard that you had. I do understand the need to minister elsewhere. Nine years is a long time in this type of ministry. You did a lot of good work in organizing Young Adult and Campus Ministry in the archdiocese. I pray that you know that your contribution is appreciated. I assure you of my prayers that you will find contentment and and joy in your next ministry. God bless you and your family.

Vegetarianism

Dom (via Irish Elk, via a very old Saintly Salmagundi post) gives space to a rant by George Rutler against vegetarianism (responding to a letter in Crisis by Daniel Paden of the Catholic Vegetarian Society).

Vegetarianism, says Rutler, “contradict(s) the order of grace”; it is “Manichaean,” he says.

“Man was made to eat flesh (Genesis 1: 26-31; 9: 1-6), with the exception of human flesh,” he claims.

And the various posters take Rutler’s rant at face value.

But Rutler is wrong. Man was not made to eat flesh. Genesis 1:26-31 does not say man was made to eat flesh–in fact, it says the opposite.

God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.

That could not be more plain. All living beings were created vegetarian; man was specifically given seed bearing plants and seed-bearing fruit. How could it be otherwise, as there was no death in Eden?

It is only after the flood (Genesis 9) that God gives man permission to eat flesh, “only flesh with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat.”

In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 restrictions are placed upon which meats may be eaten. When Daniel and his companions were taken captive to Babylon, they refused the rich meat and wine of the king’s table and asked to be served only water and vegetables, “after ten days they looked healthier and better fed than any of the young men who ate from the royal table.”

And in Acts 15, the apostles said to the Gentiles that it was their decision and that of the Holy Spirit that they should, among other things, abstain “from blood [and], from meats of strangled animals.”

There will be no death in the kingdom of heaven, and man shall then return to the Edenic diet.

Vegetarianism is not unknown in Catholic tradition; it is the norm of the Trappists, who cite the Rule of St. Benedict.

Vegetarianism can be seen as a sign of penance, choosing to abstain from something that one has freedom to use; it can also be seen as a sign of man’s original state and of eternal destiny (celibacy is observed by folks like Rutler in keeping with the latter, is it not?). Catholics also place a value on reason, so why not do the same here? On that basis vegetarianism can be advocated today for health reasons (it is better), for reasons of compassion for all living things, and for reasons of global well-being (you can feed more people on a vegetarian diet). And if these are not reasons enough, rent and watch Fast Food Nation.

And a new chapter begins …

I’ve spent many years wandering in the wilderness of liberal Protestantism and bureaucratic Catholicism. In both, I’ve seen that programs and policies and intellectual rationalizations too often obscure plain Biblical teaching and Christian faith.

God didn’t part the Red Sea, so many folks say, he just helped a handful of fugitives muddle through a marsh. God didn’t feed five thousand, he just had them whip out their lunch on cue. God didn’t create in six days, he stepped back and let evolution do what it might. God doesn’t want us to wash feet–unless the right person does it at the right time to the right people.

But God does what he wants, when he wants. Just when we think we have him figured out, he surprises us.

The last several weeks have been a roller coaster ride, and it all started with the most innocent of remarks from a couple of friends: a smile, a word of invitation.

I’m not telling you the whole story now. It is still sinking in for me and for them.

I had a growing sense that God was calling me to do something. I tentatively reached out to friends, and found encouragement and prayerful support. Some remarkable signs pointed the way. But then came crunch time. Two friends sat in my office on Friday afternoon and asked, “Would you take a step of faith?” That night I looked at Joy and asked, “Do I have your permission?” She smiled, held my hand, and said, “Yes.” I took that step. The next day, I took a further step. And then I wrote my letter of resignation.

Tonight, over a meal of broken bread, the third day since these things happened, all good things came to pass. Old prayers were answered. Old dreams came true. The fears of my kids assuaged.

For just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down and do not return there till they have watered the earth, making it fertile and fruitful, giving seed to him who sows and bread to him who eats, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:11

I’ve got some things to tidy up at the office, some files to arrange, some boxes to pack. But I am champing at the bit for this new adventure to begin.

Ebert: “You can have fun while you’re sick”

Roger Ebert, recovering from cancer surgeries, won’t let his appearance keep him from his film festival. He doesn’t care what he looks like, and he doesn’t care what the gossip rags say. Via Amy.

God’s Timing … and Man’s

Bishop Edward Braxton has told a 20-year-old woman she could not be confirmed. She must go to 10 hours of classes and complete some more requirements. He informed her of this immediately before the confirmation liturgy.

Catholics point to Acts 8 as Scriptural proof for this sacrament. But did the apostles demand classes and preparation and certificates?

It seems man sometimes puts obstacles in the way of grace.

When God wants to do something–either follow along, or get out of the way. Don’t get in the way.

Reflections on Nine Years in a Chancery

And so it ends, after nine years of heading a chancery department in a major archdiocese.

I’ve said little about my job in five years of blogging, to keep this a personal page and to not give the impression that it was part of my ministry.

I became Catholic in 1992, and after more than a year of doing various part time jobs I became director of religious education at a parish in upstate New York. After about three years I became pastoral associate at St. Mark’s University Parish in Goleta, CA, the Paulist-run campus ministry at University of California at Santa Barbara. Then, in 1998, I was hired to create the Office of Young Adult and Campus Ministry for the Diocese of Galveston-Houston. I was given the task of bringing the various existing campus ministries into a single department, with direct oversight over them, to create a diocesan vision for campus ministry. The other part of the ministry was to build upon the preliminary work of the Bishop’s Advisory Committee on Young Adult Ministry and to do training and advocacy on ministry to young adults, to work with other departments to encourage a “young adult friendly” perspective within the chancery, and to develop programming for young adults. When I first met with Bishop Joseph Fiorenza, I asked him what his personal priorities were for my office. He thought a second and said, “Three. First–vocations. Second–vocations. Third–vocations.” I then went downstairs to introduce myself to the Director of the Office of Vocations.

Creating the vision for campus ministry was the first step, focusing on evangelization of the university, working in harmony with the rest of the church (not as freelancers, as happens too often), teaching in harmony with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, doing liturgy in harmony with universal and diocesan norms, making issues related to the “Gospel of Life” a priority in our catechesis because of Houston’s role as the leader in medical education, and making prominent the call to vocations to priesthood and religious life, and to working with the Office of Family Life to enhance marriage preparation.

Campus ministry at the time of my hiring reminded me of the refrain in the book of Judges: “Every man did what was right in his own eyes.” I was told by the chancellor that my job would be one of “herding cats.” I had to remove some personnel, disrupt some communities where non-students dominated the campus ministry, and do some basic instruction with all personnel on liturgical and catechetical norms. I had to then hire capable people who were happy to work within the new vision. I was proud to have hired excellent campus ministers like Joe Magee, Ph.D., and Rev. Justin Price, OSB, and opened up a position for a transitional deacon from the Dominican Southern Province, which was first filled by (now) Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP.

One of Archbishop Fiorenza’s great strengths was the ability to work with a variety of movements in the church; following his lead, I made connections with many dynamic movements in the church committed to faithful evangelization, including Opus Dei, the Legionaries of Christ, Communion and Liberation, and FOCUS (though I was hindered in bringing a team to Houston). I’m especially grateful for what we did with the LC/RC apostolate “Compass.” I hosted a national Compass conference, was invited to speak at the Prince of Liechtenstein Fellowship in Europe in 2005, and then served on the Compass advisory board.

I’ve been active in NADDCM (the National Association of Diocesan Directors of Campus Ministry), serving at one point on its board, and in CCMA (the Catholic Campus Ministry Association), serving as program chair for a national convention and as chair of a regional convention. For that regional conference I invited speakers like Colleen Carroll Campbell and representatives of FOCUS and Compass, to enter into a dialogue with campus ministers who had been skeptical of these new apostolates, and who, following the conference, were now grateful for new understanding and friendship.

Two campus ministry programs of the archdiocese have been recognized as “exemplary programs” by the USCCB and the Catholic Campus Ministry Association while I’ve been here, including one on social justice education created by Lubna Nabi at UH and “Classes on Christian Principles,” a collaboration between Rice University students and faculty, campus ministers, and Opus Dei. I also nominated Archbishop Fiorenza for recognition as exemplary bishop in support of campus ministry, in gratitude for the leadership he provided, and was very proud to be at the USCCB meeting where he received the honor.

Young adult ministry included creating a summer coffee house program, Cafe Catholica, which has attracted 250 to 300 young adults each week for seeker-friendly conversations about Catholic faith and life. We then brought in Theology on Tap, which operates in a similar manner on a smaller scale. We adapted the Awakening Your Life to Christ retreat, created by Bishop Sam Jacobs when he was a campus minister in Lake Charles, forming Bayou Awakening, which involves about a hundred young adults in retreats held twice a year. In these retreats college age young adults hear their peers witness to the love of God, his forgiveness, prayer, the mystical body of Christ, and the communion we share within it.

I worked with Hispanic leaders and young adults to try to expand our ministry with Hispanic young adults, who comprise over 50% of our young adult population. These are our most dedicated young adults, the hardest working, most committed to ongoing formation. Young adults have spent their own time and energy and have created a pastoral de conjunto to coordinate the work of many young adult groups; they’ve had wonderful advisers; they’ve been able to work collaboratively with the Institute Fe y Vida which has had training programs in pastoral juvenil Hispana at the OMI-run Christian Renewal Center in Dickinson. We participated in the year-long process of the Primer Encuentro Nacional de Pastoral Juvenil Hispana, culminating in taking a bus load of young adults to Notre Dame last summer (which the archbishop generously funded). We worked with the international movement, Encuentros de Promocion Juvenil, and hosted their national and international meetings a couple of times. They are the single most outstanding ministry of young adult evangelization in the Catholic church today, in my experience. But despite these efforts on the part of Hispanic young adults, despite years of advocacy and lots of talk about the importance of this ministry at other levels, my office remained one of the few without a Hispanic associate director. See this article from the National Catholic Reporter.

In all these ministries we have promoted vocations successfully, especially through the Life Awareness weekend run by the Office of Vocations and the Serra Club. We have focused on evangelization of young adults and supporting them in discernment, and our seminary, as well as the minor seminary in Dallas, and many religious orders can testify to the success of this approach.

I also worked with other offices to promote a “young adult perspective.” This included working with the Family Life Office to review our marriage preparation guidelines to put an emphasis on evangelization, the creation of a brochure and webpage on Getting Married in the Catholic Church, so that these guidelines would be known by young adults, the creation of a curriculum on “Marriage Preparation across the Lifecycle,” to implement Pope John Paul II’s call in Familiaris Consortio for remote, proximate, and immediate marriage preparation, followed by pastoral care of married couples and families. I worked with Joe DeVet, archdiocesan NFP coordinator, to promote NFP to young adult groups and campus ministries.

I have loved the ethnic and cultural diversity of this ministry. Besides the work with Hispanic young adults, I have given talks to the Vietnamese Eucharistic Youth Society (TNTT), assisted in the planning of our annual Asian Mass, and worked with several of our African-American parishes and with Unity Explosion. I’ve given radio broadcasts on KCOH for our Office of Radio, including a series in February on Black Catholic history. Last fall, with a campus minister and a couple of students, I participated in the first National Summit on Catholic Campus Ministry at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Here’s another area of frustration, where the resources and the personnel have simply not been provided for a critical ministry.

One of my passions has been ecumenism, and we’ve been able to do some great things in ecumenical and interfaith relations at many campuses, especially at Rice, where we did a Veritas Forum about a year after I came, and where I am on the advisory board of the Boniuk Center for the Study and Advancement of Religious Tolerance. I’ve participated in the ADL’s Coalition for Mutual Respect and was on the program committee of the 16th National Workshop on Jewish-Christian Relations. But this area was the area of some frustration, too. I will have more to say about that one when I’ve gotten a little more distance.

I’ve enjoyed working with our Office of Continuing Christian Education as an instructor in our Formation Toward Christian Ministry program, teaching classes on Christology, Church History, Church Doctrine, and occasionally Old Testament, Ministry, and Prayer & Spirituality.

I’ve twice been chair of our archdiocesan Evangelization Commission, and was a member of the US Commission on Catholic Evangelization. This has been more talk than action, but we’ve implemented Disciples in Mission, did some training on outreach to inactive Catholics, and sought to create a common vision of evangelization as the mission of all and a better sense of what different ministries are doing to accomplish that mission.

You can check out the office webpage, http://youngadultcatholics.net, for more.

In sum, it has been a remarkable period of my life. I’ve worked with some wonderful people, colleagues and volunteers. I’ve seen great things happen in the lives of students and young adults.

Would I recommend such a life to others? Perhaps, with one caveat: don’t make a career of it. I said to my pastor this morning that I think chancery officials should be restricted to a five year term of office, then be sent back to the parish. It’s easy to lose perspective. It’s easy to lose sight of the mission. It can be a struggle to maintain your faith. For these reasons, you need to have an understanding family and a capable spiritual director. The clericalism and the bureaucracy can be stifling, and I’ve seen the ugliest sides of both in various parts of the country.

The Church must be about preaching Jesus Christ above all. It must see that its mission is evangelization. The Church, and all its agencies and all its personnel of whatever title and standing, must see that they are servants, washers of feet. If it loses sight of this, if it becomes an end in itself, if it is more concerned about its own authority and procedures and programs, if it exalts one class of Christians above another, if it is more concerned about currying favor of the wealthy than serving those humble souls who carry the evangelizing fire of God in their hearts–it has lost everything.

That’s the danger. If that frightens you–stay away. If your faith is strong, serve for awhile, then get out. Be content to serve among the littlest of God’s children.

The Catholic Bishop of Rochester

Bishop Clark celebrates liturgy with college students.

“To Live Is to Change”

“To live is to change,” said John Henry Newman. And after nine years in my present job as Director of Young Adult and Campus Ministry for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, I’m making a change. A new ministry opportunity has presented itself, which will be more ministry and evangelization and less admin.