The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Cardinal Mahony at Notre Dame
by Richard McBrien on Oct. 12, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionCardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop of Los Angeles, spoke recently at the University of Notre Dame on the topic, “Fostering the Baptismal Priesthood in the Year for Priests.”
He departed from his prepared text at the outset, referring to Notre Dame as “the premier Catholic university” in America. His standing-room-only audience gratefully applauded.
The cardinal’s gracious gesture came relatively soon after some 80 fellow bishops -- a minority, to be sure, but a large one -- had publicly criticized the university for inviting the President of the United States to deliver this past May’s Commencement address and to receive an honorary degree.
Indeed, Cardinal Mahony’s very appearance at Notre Dame served as a message, not only to the university but to the Catholic church at large, that he and the majority of U. S. bishops did not agree with the criticisms mounted by that large minority of bishops.
In doing so, Cardinal Mahony took a more indirect approach than had been taken a month earlier by Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, in an interview with Tom Roberts, editor at large of the National Catholic Reporter (“Bishop decries ‘combative tactics’ of a minority of U. S. Bishops,” 8/12/09).
Archbishop Sheehan pointed out that he had told his fellow bishops at their June meeting that more can be accomplished through collaboration and seeking common ground than through confrontation–something he had learned from the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.
He cited his own experience in discussions with New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson. In part because of these discussions, the Governor reversed his long-standing support for the death penalty. “We need to be building bridges, not burning them,” the archbishop insisted.
Asked if there were any other bishops who agreed with him, Archbishop Sheehan replied, “Of course, the majority.”
Indeed, there has been a persistent rumor that the papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, privately chastised the bishops for the actions of some, lest the Catholic church in America be regarded as politically partisan.
There is a stark contrast between the behavior of the minority of U.S. bishops with the posture adopted by the Pope and the Vatican generally. President Obama was received cordially by Benedict XVI in early July, less than two months after the Notre Dame graduation.
In the same month the Pope made the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, an honorary canon of St. John Lateran basilica, even though Mr. Sarkozy is pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage, and married invalidly to an actress.
Suffice it to say, Cardinal Mahony gave an excellent presentation at Notre Dame that emphasized the sacrament of Baptism that binds everyone in the Church -- laity, religious, and clergy alike -- as the basis of our common priesthood. One hopes that the complete text will be published soon.
For those who would like to probe the cardinal’s thinking on the subject more deeply, I would strongly recommend his pastoral letter on ministry, “As I Have Done for You,” written in collaboration with his priests and lay ministers and published in Origins nine years ago (5/4/00).
The letter insisted, as did the cardinal’s remarks at Notre Dame, that an emphasis on the priesthood of all believers is not a “stopgap measure.” Even if there were once again an abundance of vocations to the ordained priesthood, “there would still remain the need for cultivating, developing and sustaining the full flourishing of ministries that we have witnessed in the church since the Second Vatican Council.”
Unfortunately, the cardinal pointed out, it has taken the grave shortage of priests to awaken the church to an appreciation of the great variety and value of its lay ministers.
“Both ordained and baptismal priesthoods share in this one priesthood [of Christ]. ... What emerges from the Second Vatican Council is a clear theology of the laity rooted in an understanding of the church as the people of God, in the universal call to holiness and in an appreciation of the diversity of the nature of the church both hierarchical and charismatic.”
Following the lead given by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical Caritas in veritate (Love in truth), and connecting its concerns with this Year for Priests, Cardinal Mahony noted in his Notre Dame address that “the ordained priest best serves his people by promoting their royal priesthood. ...”
The priest is not to focus only on his own spiritual life or the uniqueness of his ministry, “but on how ... he might teach and guide, assist and encourage his parishioners. ...”
Pastorally important words from an important pastoral leader.
© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
Did he say Mass with the big
Did he say Mass with the big puppets?
Apparently Archbishop Burke
Apparently Archbishop Burke and the other episcopal BIG Republican puppets were not in attendance; at least this is not indicated within the present article.
Maybe there is still a
Maybe there is still a glimmer of hope for the church. If the majority of bishops would willingly speak out in support of collaboration and seeking common ground maybe, just maybe, we would not look so pompous in our pronouncements.
The lay ministers have been carrying this church for years. Please acknowledge their value and support their mission.
Jesus did not seek to
Jesus did not seek to collaborate or find common ground with those who disagreed with him, he had a very clear message, and that message was the truth. He did not wheel and deal, he spoke rather forcefully. If His Church is continue the mission He entrusted to it, let it be as clear and unwavering in it's service to the Truth as it's head is. The sort of confusion that Mahoney and Mikie Sheehan are propagating is the result of the idea that everything is better at the fifty yard line. Let us pray for our bishops that they will be unwavering in the proclamation of what our faith teaches us.
That's because Jesus was a
That's because Jesus was a fanatic (read: someone who actually believes in something and is willing to confess that belief no matter what) and did not understand that the most important thing is getting along with people. He did not understand that, in the modern age, the most grievous and serious crime a person can commit is offending someone else. He did not understand that the highest good is not salvation or eternal life, but rather tolerance, and that, in the service of tolerance, one should be willing and ready to compromise everything.
That's why, in the modern world we live in, Jesus is not really an appropriate role model. Perhaps someone like Joseph Caiaphas is better. After all, as Saint John reminds us in his Gospel, he realized that, in order to get along with the "Powers That Be" of his time (Rome), it was appropriate for one man to suffer, rather than the whole people. He was willing to sacrifice an innocent life for the sake of "getting along". He is precisely the kind of role model we should be emulating in today's society.
At least, that is what some would want the Church to believe.
Kindly, Clint, name your
Kindly, Clint, name your "some."
As for myself, I shall continue to learn to "Love thy enemy" and thus fulfill the Law of the fanatical and nonviolent Jesus Christ.
Recently in the regular reading of the Rule For Monks from fifteen hundred years ago written by Our Holy Father Saint Benedict he demands in the divine office the reciting of the Pater in order to avoid scandal and to renew continuously our "covenant" to "Forgive as we are forgiven."
How wonderful here to read between your lines that this too is your course, which is as shocking yet welcome to me as your recent espousals in defense of the diverse in the face of fundamentalists.
Certainly you must cheer the latest from the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien!
Deo gratias!
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco
I will assume from your post
I will assume from your post that you would want the bishops to speak Jesus's message about selling all that we have and giving it to the poor. Also that when wronged, we should turn the other cheek (just think of how few law suits there would be, as sueing for injury would be going against Jesus's message). That when someone asks for our coat, we should give that person, not just our coat, but our shirt as well. Oh, yes what a different world it would be if the bishops did not water down and spoke Jesus's message. Perhaps I am wrong, but what I really suspect is that you want the bishops to be forceful in only certain issues with which you agree.
Cardinal Mahony's remarks, I
Cardinal Mahony's remarks, I regret to say, give me reason for concern.
His gracious acknowledgement of lay ministry notwithstanding, the cardinal still defends the distinction between the "ordained priesthood," on the one hand, and the "common [or royal] priesthood," on the other. It is precisely this distinction in official Catholic teaching that is central to the development and maintenance of the sinful "clerical culture" manifested in the longstanding elevation of the ordained and subordination of the laity. The clerical pedestals remain.
Until Catholics --- lay and ordained --- jettison this understanding of priesthood and reemphasize the primitive nature of this reality, we will continue to preserve a system that is, by its very nature, dysfunctional and inimical to the good of the church.
To quote the future Pope Benedict XVI, "[F]acts, as history teaches, carry greater weight than pure doctrine" (HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 17). As I've noted before, respect history, respect facts.
Those who don't heed the lessons of history.....
Is there anything else in
Is there anything else in Vatican II that you would like to dispute?
Theologian Bernard Lonergan
Theologian Bernard Lonergan wrote, "The meaning of Vatican II was the acknowledgement of history." The future Pope Benedict XVI likewise expressed appreciation for the contributions of history.
Vatican II set a trajectory for the church. Historical scholarship has advanced much over the past 44 years. Given the dysfunction in the church, we would be foolish to ignore our ecclesial "roots" in order to preserve the institutional "accretions" decisively influenced by Roman imperial usage.
Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history.....
On a related note, when I
On a related note, when I commented on a different thread that the church needs to look to the primitive Christian communities for liturgical inspiration, a blogger reminded me that the church forbids "innovation."
I replied there is no "innovation" in primitive Christian practice and belief.
My fellow blogger apparently could not respond to this simple truth.
In his 1966 book, Ratzinger reminded readers of liturgical "accretions," a problem addressed by Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Given the nexus in church doctrine between the presbyter's intimate association with the altar and the eucharist, on the one hand, and the laity's subordination in this picture, on the other, we need to restore the original understanding of priesthood, to wit (as Paul reminded his listeners), every baptized person --- male and female --- is a "priest." At this time, there was no hierarchy as we understand this term today. The liturgical presider was known as presbyter or episkopos, depending on particular community title.
I am not "disputing" Vatican II teaching. I am merely using ecclesial history to extend this teaching back to its genesis, i.e., the primitive church.
We cannot assume that the
We cannot assume that the Bishops that remained silent opposed those that spoke out against the Notre Dame invite to Obama. Since no Bishops publicly supported the invitation why would anyone think this was a majority opinion? Seems like Fr. McBrien is being divisive and engaging in wishful thinking. How sad.
I disagree with you. I think
I disagree with you. I think Archbishop Sheehan told the truth. The majority of the USCCB placed the appearance of unity with each other ahead of their distaste of the attack on Notre Dame. In this case silence signals an unwillingness to publically confront fellow bishops, not agreement with their position.
And it could also be they had no desire to make themselves the target of the same kind of hate that was directed at Notre Dame.
Dear Esther: I don't konw how
Dear Esther:
I don't konw how sad are you. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit will always bless our hearts and bring us heavenly joy and keep us in loving God and our neriggbors as Jesus taught us.
Apparently Cardnal Mahony has
Apparently Cardnal Mahony has not been informed of the Land Of Lakes Agreement which successfully pulled Notre Dame and other ubiversities out of the orbit of the presiding bishop and into the hands of the ruling academics of each university. Notre Dame is Catholic in fiction only.
The good Cardinal never misses a chance to garner applause from saying words that people want to hear, no matter how wrong he may be.
sparch... If you're going to
sparch...
If you're going to insult Notre Dame, you should start by actually knowing what you're writing about.
The Land O'Lakes (not Land of Lakes) Statement (not Agreement) reflected the suggestion of placing ownership, fiduciary and operational responsibilities of the University into the hands of competent Boards of Trustees. Considering, for example, that in 1968 the budget of the University of Notre Dame was 40 times larger than that of the CSC Indiana Province - which had jurisdiction at the time.
This was not taking the responsibility away from a Bishop, as most all of the Universities were supervised by the heads of Religious Orders (Holy Cross, Jesuits, etc.). And not placing it into the hands of "ruling academics."
From Land O'Lakes,(not the
From Land O'Lakes,(not the butter) "To perform its teaching and research functions effectively the Catholic University must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself..." pretty much eliminates any authority that is not the "ruling academics". One can not be autonomous and in communion at the same time.
I appreciate your edification
I appreciate your edification and take heart. However, I think that when the board of trustees take over these responsibilities, the bishops have no leverage over the universities aother than pulling out catholic support. As history will atest, no bishops are willing to pull that rug out from under and "catholic" university.
The question then becomes, who now has the power of the university?
This may be a turning point
This may be a turning point where the hierarchical priesthood recognizes its supportive, rather than controling, nature in relation to the baptismal priesthood, not to mention the baptism of faith priesthood.
“…[His message] emphasized
“…[His message] emphasized the sacrament of Baptism that binds everyone in the Church — laity, religious, and clergy alike — as the basis of our common priesthood. …Both ordained and baptismal priesthoods share in this one priesthood [of Christ]. ... What emerges from the Second Vatican Council is a clear theology of the laity rooted in an understanding of the church as the people of God, in the universal call to holiness and in an appreciation of the diversity of the nature of the church both hierarchical and charismatic.”
.
Even though I have some concerns about Cardinal Mahony and issues unrelated to his visit to Notre Dame, the above words of his message resonate as truth that we desperately need to hear within a Church presently divided. Our unity as Catholic Christians (as opposed to the uniformity upon which some insist), is anchored to our common priesthood by baptism. It cannot be revoked or made of no account — even by those who eagerly desire to “weed out” the members of the body with whom they disagree or deem to be ‘not Catholic enough’.
.
I am reminded of Fr. Damien’s words (now Saint Damien) in letters he wrote to his brother. In these letters he referred to himself and everyone within his mission community on Molokai, as lepers… even before he himself became infected with the disease. Without regard for Catholic, Protestant or catechumen, each person was a valued part of the island leper community to which he ministered. When they died he crafted their coffins, dug their graves and gave each a proper Christian burial — weathering the condemnation of other Catholics including his own bishop. He too, ultimately died from the disease of leprosy and continued to be reviled from afar by other Catholics, right to the time of his last breath. But now, the priest who suffered so much calumny and pain in this life, the Church has declared to be a saint.
.
When we think about it, in the eyes of a holy God we are ALL “lepers” deserving of nothing, yet God has called each of us to the common priesthood as children of God in baptism. When we point to another of our faith community desiring to cast them out, we may actually be reviling one of our Lord’s saints. It is good to remember that we are inextricably bound together in our common priesthood of baptism, and our common need of mercy.
Well said! Strong, tender and
Well said! Strong, tender and gracious. Many thanks.
The Reverend Father Richard
The Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien correctly describes: "In the same month the Pope made the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, an honorary canon of St. John Lateran basilica, even though Mr. Sarkozy is pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage, and married invalidly to an actress."
In fact, it was soon after his valid wife (and mother of their children)'s refusal to meet with President GW Bush that they permanently separated, as she claimed health reasons.
Actually the honorary title
Actually the honorary title of canon accrues to the French head of state dating from the Louies. We might agree that Paul VI should have abolished the honor along with the Papal Knights etc. We might not agree that the "wife" of the president is an actress.
Perhaps actress is the
Perhaps actress is the honorary title of this person of challenging parentage?
Wikipedia describes her, the third wife of President Sarkozy, thusly:
"Carla Bruni-Sarkozy[1] (born Carla Gilberta Bruni Tedeschi, 23 December 1967) is an Italian-born, naturalized French[1] songwriter, singer, and former model. She is the wife of French President Nicolas Sarkozy whom she married on 2 February 2008."
Wikipedia also alleges her sister the actress, and that Bruni is noted for her modeling au naturel.
It is interesting to note: "Her second album, No Promises containing poems by William Butler Yeats, Emily Dickinson, W. H. Auden, Dorothy Parker, Walter de la Mare, and Christina Rosetti, set to music, was released in January 2007."
WB Yeats and Dickinson, as well as Auden? Where may I rip that? Her latest effort apparently includes Lenny Kravitz. But certainly this is far too much information for the confirmed francophobe.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Dear Eileen -- Beautifully
Dear Eileen -- Beautifully said! Since none of us can know the mind of God, let us rather follow Jesus because He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." When we follow Him, we do not condemn the 'other'. We get rid of the mantle of, "Be reasonable. Do it my way."
Cardinal Mahoney was pastor
Cardinal Mahoney was pastor who was absent when it came to the abuse of minors by his priests. NCR - you are so selective. Why not lump all of those bishops who allowed pedophiles to ruin our young. How dare you call him pastoral!
Your support for Notre Dame is one thing but to declare Mahoney a pastoral bishop when he allowed these abusive priests to destroy innocent lives is a disgrace. Shame on you Fr. McBrien!
Dear Mara: Poor Fr. McBrien.
Dear Mara:
Poor Fr. McBrien. But I firmly believe that God loves you as much as He loves Fr. McBrien.
Perhaps Father McBrien,
Perhaps Father McBrien, Cardinal Mahony, Father Jenkins and, if the rumors are correct, Archbishop Pietro Sambi can all qualify for the "Judas Priest Award" I hear Notre Dame is considering to give in this "Year of the Priest"?
TNCath: Why not just blog
TNCath: Why not just blog with Fox News where your manner of snide remark is very acceptable.
TNCath - How easy it is to
TNCath - How easy it is to resort to the use of sarcasm when one cannot think of a Christian way to say something. For shame!
I wonder how many remember
I wonder how many remember "As I Have Done For You" or have read it? It is a marvelous paper, every bit as applicable today as in 2000.
I wonder also how many keep in mind that each bishop is subordinate only to the Pope? Yes, the dicasteries in Rome try to get their oars into the mix but the position of bishop is hugely powerful. It is this power that leads to one bishop refusing to exclude the NCCB's auditing of child molestations in his diocese. That they get along as well as they do is quite amazing.
Notre Dame as the premier
Notre Dame as the premier Catholic University? Is he talking about the dome alone? If so, he might be right! In point of fact, I doubt ND ever was the premier Catholic University. Georgetown was when it was still Catholic. The Jesuits have more scholars than the CSC.
And who really cares what Roger the dodger who shelled out $600M to alleged victims without so much as requiring a polygraph from any one of them thinks about anything anyway? He is a modernist bishop through & through! He is the premier example of what is so very wrong with the Catholic Church in America today! Thank the dear Lord that he is almost 75! I'm sure Rome will gratefully accept his retirement!
Frere Charles says,speaking
Frere Charles says,speaking of French President Sarkozy: "...It was after the refusal of his valid wife to meet with GW Bush that they permanently separated...".
Well, something else to blame poor President Bush for! It seems the only thing he is not responsible for is the sky falling--not yet anyway.
You bias for Republicans ("Archbishop Burke and the other episcopal big Republican PUPPETS")is showing, dear Frere. Are we not required to love everybody (including our enemies) as you are so fond of saying?
I love my country and weep
I love my country and weep for what was done to her these past eight years and more.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
You say about George Bush and
You say about George Bush and his critics; "it seems the only thing he is not responsible for is the sky falling". From my prespective the real problem is that so many on the right refuse to hold him accountable for anything - not Iraq, not using the Justice Dept. to swing elections, not the desaster of the Katrina response, not turning a surplus into a defecit... Really nothing at all. There is always, always excuses, denial or attacking the messenger.
Also, pointing out failure of leadership is not failling to love ones enemies, but again, for those who give blind support, this distinction is often never reconized. And, for those who follow the Right Wing media, all critizism of George Bush is filter thru a protective and defensive lense. Nothing will ever be his fault and, in their eyes, he will always be victim.
All of us must be held accountable, even George Bush. It is not failing to love to do so.
So, Castellina, you are
So, Castellina, you are saying that Baby Bush publicly calling forth the President of France to be his new BFF and build sand castles with him in Kennebunkport, while the President of France's second wife publicly stayed behind in Montreal, was his being a "uniter, not a divider?"
Obviously she had no other moral choice but to decline the presidential summons to play beach bingo with Bush, the butcher of Baghdad, who as Governor of Texas executed more human beings than any other governor in history, the one who gave an uninvited neck rub to the President of Germany . . .
Yes, who knew what awaited her in Kennebunkport!
A speedy ride in the cigarette boats which drive the neighbors bananas?
Bush selfishly revealed undeniably a rift in the President of France's second marriage.
I'd have remained in civilized Montreal with the kids as well, where at least I could count on accessible health care, and a decent cafe au lait with baguettes and butter (in the absence of which I have given up all caffeine and white flour and diary)!
Lovely?
I think not.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Such charity toward President
Such charity toward President Bush! Even-handed, rational, and completely devoid of slurs. Inspired by your truly Catholic example, I may want to join your order!
The position of honorary
The position of honorary canon received by President Sarkozy is not at all comparable to an honorary doctor of laws degree awarded by Notre Dame. The former is transferred from each French head of state to the next in recognition of the actions of one of their predecessors, and is not in any way a recognition of the actions of President Sarkozy. (http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2009/03/honorary-canon.html) The latter is awarded to recognize someone's work and accomplishments. For President Obama (at that time), pro-abortion legislative activity was among the most prominent features of his political career.
Portraying the Holy Father as at odds with the American Bishops is a real stretch. The bishops were not opposed to Father Jenkins meeting with President Obama any more than they were opposed to the Holy Father meeting with President Obama. Notre Dame gave the president an honorary degree; the Pope gave him a copy of "Dignitas Personae"--a document on the right to life and bioethics. See the difference?
And by the way, how does Cardinal Mahony (by virtue of his appearance at Notre Dame) represent the Catholic Bishops any more than Cardinal George (who criticized Notre Dame's commencement decisions), president of the USCCB, or the USCCB document Catholics in Political Life (which identifies the principles upon which the commencement decision was opposed)? The fact that most bishops did not issue statements on the controversy in no way means that they disagreed with the statements that were issued--in fact, some may have felt that their points had been adequately expressed. There's no law that every bishop must weigh in on every affront to Catholic values (nor indeed would any bishop have time to do so), although it is laudable when they do speak out.
Post new comment