What effective leadership looks like

Trumpeter, dude, take this column into your monastic cell, into your chapel, into your place of peace, into your Fortress of Solitude, and read it as lectio divina, and weep, and repent for continuing the very division and hatred the Reverend Father Richard P. MCBrien here prophetically and compassionately indicates, out of his own great, wise love for our Church.

This is the Roman Catholic Church, not the Nazi Party to be purified along mere ideological lines. This is the compassionate Church of Jesus Christ, all loving without measure, without restraint, without definition, universal. This is the universal Church of God.

pray for peace
love thy enemy
find compassionate understanding of Others
and embrace each and all, everyone

for this is our new anthem, our hymn
to Love.
As Jesus loves, without measure, without holding back, everyone.

"The Church is both human & divine. "

Yes, but the "church" is not the hierarchy or the magisterium. It is us. The problems in the "church" come not from us, or the Fifth column as trumpeter claims. The problems arise in the magisterium and curia. As long as they sense that there is an "enemy" in their ranks, they are correct. It is themselves.

Here's a question: What would Rome do if all the priests and bishops who disagreed with the "magisterium" decided to go on strike until some real dialogue took place? Yes, I mean to follow their consciouses, not cave in to blind obedience.

It should happen.

Aldus

I question whether you can accurately call the church "divine." But that's a discussion for another time. I'll grant you that it might be. But the comparison was not with the church, but with the Vatican - whose main claim to divinity may be Dante's "Divine Comedy."

No! Absolutely wrong. Even in Canon Law in its most literal interpretations would require no blind obedience the the Magesterium unless and until a specific doctrine was presented ex cathedra. I believe only one (maybe two?) ever was.

have her come with me to the Spanish Mass
preferably at the great Cathedral in Ciudad Juarez, where the Church is vibrantly alive!

Of course the city has been judged for the second year in a row based on ratio of homicides (and other violent crimes against persons) to general population the most violent city in the world, so, well, with me have her send her prayers only, please!

and by her prayers I guarantee you that Cathedral and its plaza is very much alive!
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)

Actually, commenters on this site would NOT like that at all. I've already demonstrated in several other topics, the latest of which is the previous post by Fr. McBrien, by posting quotes from his works that progressive catholics would NOT like what John XXIII had to say at all.

One person in particular basically said he sounded like a hate-filled, Pontius Pilate wannabe. It's there, go and read the comments.

Sinner, I sympathize with your pain, frustration and anger that your "traditions" seem to have fallen by the wayside. I tend to look toward the Great Tradition which the Church (by which I mean the whole People of God, the Mystical Body of Christ) has held and been guided by since New Testament times. Why should we canonize and remain in continuity (See Msgr. Guido Marini's recent speech) ONLY with the theology, liturgical expressions, and moral outlook of the 16th to 19th centuries???

There ARE two basic cultures in the Church today: Those who seek truth and those who seek certainty. The latter group usually prefers certainty over the truth. Seekers after certainty always want answers now and certified by external authority; they find it impossible "to live with the questions," with deep Christian Faith and Hope that the answers will come.

I pray that you are not really a "seeker after certainty. Peace, KMS

Would you consider this an example of the "signs of the Times" theology you here send into exile:

"13. In the present day, however, individual and group effort within these countries is no longer enough. The world situation requires the concerted effort of everyone, a thorough examination of every facet of the problem—social, economic, cultural and spiritual. The Church, which has long experience in human affairs and has no desire to be involved in the political activities of any nation, "seeks but one goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth; to save, not to judge; to serve, not to be served.'' Founded to build the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than to acquire temporal power, the Church openly avows that the two powers—Church and State—are distinct from one another; that each is supreme in its own sphere of competency. But since the Church does dwell among men, she has the duty "of scrutinizing the SIGNS OF THE TIMES and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel." Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees these aspirations not satisfied, she wishes to help them attain their full realization. So she offers man her distinctive contribution: a global perspective on man and human realities."

to be read in full at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_...

or is this an example of the theology you find so execrable and erasable:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-...

sourced as the fount of the earlier embedded citation.

Our Faith is our Love, as God is Love.
When we fail for your ideological (or liturgical!!) reasons to Love, we do not Love God with all of our heats, with all of our body, with all of our soul, with all of our strength, as commanded, nor our neighbor as ourself.

The proof of our Love is well listed in Matthew 25.

I find unfortunate your inability to draw the analogy of transcendent cooperation which the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, skilled professor and scholar of Roman Catholic Theology, draws from such a concrete, clear and comprehensible example of transcendent Love in action, in birthing, in creation where before lay only division and hatred. Perhaps a more acceptable image for you would be the ancient symbol of our Church as Mystical Body. You call to lobotomize or amputate or castrate or otherwise mutilate our Mystical Body, which is this Church of Jesus Christ, is an injury to your own self. Remember if you will at least Saint Paul's preaching upon the parts of a body, as well as Our Lord's, and Love.

"certainly not self-righteously" but earnestly, sincerely, with all of your strength, as this is the center of our Faith; this is the practice of our Faith. This is how they know we truly follow Christ; we love, really.

You further write: "The Church must now stand up and fight for human life."

Our contemporary Popes have condemned the US invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq, and of the Afghan; do you stand for the human lives lost by our hand?

"The bishops have a sacred duty to defend life!"
Make Love, not war.
Work hard for the Development of Peoples, not for their death and destruction.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)

Of what traditions do you speak? Those resulting from the Council of Trent or those of Apostolic times?

I am a pre Vatican II Catholic and I love the wisdom of those council Fathers
who took us back to our true roots - the early church, unfettered by the rituals that grew through misinterpretation and fear.

The division arises from looking back to a controlled church, where Catholics could not think for themselves to one where Christians were able to grow together.

We have not rejected any dogmas; we have a great reverence for Eucharist; we uphold the institutional church, but we wish to continue moving forward as the people of God not 'as sheep being led to the slaughter'.

Dear "A sinner": Your passion for the abortion issue deserves admiration and respect. The isolation of this issue, as if it were the only comparable one or not inextricably linked with so many other like issues is misdirected. McBrien does not view church as a sports event as you describe, but leadership that focuses so narrowly on one dimension of one issue, whether of life or whatever is blind to the reality that life and dying and killing in Iraq, buried in Haiti, being desperatly poor in Equador, kidnapped as a child soldier in Uganda, raped in Los Angelas are all more similar than distinct. A "Catholic" country like Haiti, abandoned by its church, "absolved" it thinks by miniscule, temporary, good-willed mercy missions funded by pennies of children is as sinful as any abortion. No less, it fails to recognize the horror of the poor girl, abandoned by "partner", parent, and society who fearfuly seeks the release from a "sentence" that should be a "blessing". We are the moral culprits. What vanity and hyprocicy we have to blame the McBriens who seek a leadership which would confront us with the obligation to do something rather than simply complain and castigate.

To those of you who have replied I thank you. Let me respond:

1) When I say pro-life I do indeed mean being against, not only abortion, but war, murder, rape, and anything else which devalues and/or destroys human life. Life is a gift from God which is precious and sacred. I believe the U.S. should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So I am not merely focusing on one thing. Note that virtually all dioceses have social justice projects such as food pantries and soup kitchens. I suppose that the reason why abortion is attacked so rigorously is that, unlike war, it is an intrinsic evil. Sometimes war may be neccessary (self-defense, halting of genocide, etc...). Abortion, on the other hand, is the taking of a human life which is impossible to justify (especially partial-birth abortion).

2) I don't want to return to the 16th-19th centuries at all. Nor the 1950's. Catholic tradition is living tradition! I attend the TLM, not out of nostalgia or confusion, because I feel it is able to bring me closer to God. My main concern with the TLM, gregorian chant, ad oritentem worship, and communion while kneeling is that they were discarded in a rather cavalier way. The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and the Canons of St. John Cantius, two very traditional (and rapidly growing) orders, celebrate both forms of the mass in their churches. There is no confusion or messiness. Instead I beleive, as both they and POpe Benedict do, that both forms of the mass should enrich each other. The liturgy wars which emerged after Vatican II were scandalous in my opinion and could easily have been avoided if what Pope Benedict is doing was done from the start.

3) To the poster who spoke about going to the early Church there is a danger in that. We must remember that tradition is living and evolving. There is a danger which occurs if we are to set up a certain epoch in the Church's history as some sort of golden age (whether it is the early Church, medieval Church, Church of the 1950's, or contemporary Church). Also recall that ad orientem worship, amongst other rituals, were in the early Church. I'm not diminishing the importance of any epoch of the Church, as they all have contributed something, but I am just pointing out that we don't want to slip into the archeologism that Pius XII rightfully condemned.

if only . . .

You know, when Ronald Reagan was governor of California he tried to blame the faculty of the state's universities for student opposition to the Vietnam War.
Called 'em un-patriotic.

Funny thing though. They turned out to be right.

...or their failure to stand for the message of Christ rather than institution in the contemporary world

wow, Bernie, what diocese is this!

D.B., Father McBrien does this for a very simple reason. If he ever stopped being a "leading voice of dissent" as another poster mentioned, he would find, very soon, that no paid him any more attention. The only reason anyone cares what he says or thinks, the only reason that people buy his books, the only reason that news outlets invite him on to comment, is that he is a priest who publicly, and often, disagrees with definitive Church teaching, tradition, and the Magisterium. The day he stops sowing rebellion is the day he fades into a well-deserved obscurity.

You are correct that he is part of an ever-shrinking minority. As Cardinal George so eloquently put it in 1998, "liberal Catholicism is an exhausted project". It is a project that is not capable of continuing itself since it cannot pass on the faith with any authority (it rejects all types of authority) and integrity (it is hypocritical, on the one hand celebrating dissent and division and the right of all people to believe what ever they want; on the other condemning all those whose beliefs are different from their own).

The fact that our seminaries are full of those who believe in the authentic faith, who accept the Magisterium and the teachings of the Church; that the only religious orders experiencing any significant growth are those who hew to the traditional charisms of the religious life; the fact that the current crop of bishops and cardinals, since the latter years of the reign of Venerable John Paul the Great and throughout the Benedict XVI years so far, are equally faithful and authentic men of the Church; just goes to prove that, given enough time, liberal Catholicism will become just another historical footnote. In a hundred years (maybe sooner!) this project will be seen as just another failed attempt to drag the Church down the road of false teaching.

This same was said of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., within white's only barber shops and the highest offices of the FBI. Why was he stirring up trouble, they asked, when all he did was to indicate prophetically the trouble which existed, the signs of the times, and to walk the nonviolent, peaceful and arduous path towards comprehensive reconciliation.

As does here the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, who sows no rebellion, but lovingly offers the sacrament of reconciliation.

This "history" is so fantastic that I'm guessing it’s from Dan Brown. In any case, Pope Liberius was not only no friend of Arianism, he strongly supported St. Athanatius, one of Arianism's most effective foes, against the Emperor, who had banished him. The Emperor than banished the Pope and installed the Arianist Anti-pope Felix II. As for "most of the Bishops", not sure what that means, at the Council of Nicea, which condemned Arianism, only 3 out of nearly 300 bishops supported it. The Arainist later of course had their own Bishops (and anti-pope), but those were by definition not Catholic Bishops. As for "who won the day", well laity perhaps but mainly Muslim laity. The main Arianist areas were North Africa and Iberia until those areas became Muslim. The Arianists of Europe North of the Pyrenees were converted by the gentle persuasion of the Franks, and later the Normans. Were those the Laity you meant?

"the Arian heresy was embraced by Pope Liberius & most bishops"

Most bishops did embrace the heresy. The Arians were the 'progressives' of their day. However, Liberius didn't embrace heresy.

Here is some good info on him. It was a very difficult time for the Faith, but of course Christ saved His bride The Church!

"The laity won the day by resisting the Arian heresy."
The majority of the Catholic laity did in fact cling to orthodoxy, something most modern progressives generally frown on.

The Arian heresy is a very interesting point in history. It is WELL worth reading about.

male, celibate (or not) and over-ridingly extreme right wing . . .

or anyone that can breathe . . .

Thanks Ben....I think!