The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Hierarchs and lower-archs in the church
by Bishop Thomas Gumbleton on Sep. 24, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionTo listen carefully and deeply to today’s scriptures, it’s important, I think, to remind ourselves of the context in which these lessons are given to us today. A couple weeks ago, Jesus began this last journey of his life in the gospel we heard a couple Sundays ago, and just before that happened, you may remember, Jesus had challenged the disciples about “Who do you people say I am?” and so on, and finally, Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Messiah, the son of the Living God!” Jesus said, “You are blessed.”
|
Then, for the first time, Jesus told his disciples that he was going to Jerusalem and there he would be handed over to his enemies, they would torture him, kill him. And Peter (you may remember, again this is important) began to protest and say to Jesus, ‘No! That’s not necessary. You’re the Messiah. You’re the miracle worker. You have all kinds of power. Why would you give yourself over to torture and death? Why would you give up that power?’
Then Jesus rebuked Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You’re talking according to the ways of the world; not according to God’s ways.” Then they went on, but now as we find out, Peter and the others really still did not understand and did not accept what Jesus was saying, that you have to give up power and might and wealth and prestige in order to really follow the way of Jesus.
The first lesson today gives us some guidance on how Jesus himself developed this understanding of his role in the world and in his role in trying to transform the world into the reign of God, where there would be peace and justice and love and joy, because in that first lesson, we’re told about how the secularized people there in that city of Alexandria, as I explained at the beginning of the reading, took what they called the “just one.”
The “just one” is one who develops relationships and especially a just one in God’s sight is one who develops relationships with God. So those who were carrying out that relationship with God through the covenant that they had received and entered into at Sinai were being persecuted by the others and they say, “Let us set a trap for the righteous, for that righteous one annoys us and opposes our way of life. Let us see the truth of what he says and find out what his end will be. If the righteous one is really a son of God, God will defend him and deliver him from his adversaries. Let us humble and torture him to prove his self-control and test his patience. When we have condemned him to a shameful death, we may test his words.”
Of course, that righteous one is Jesus and he had been reflecting, surely, throughout his life on that passage and so many others where he discovered that God was leading him in a way where you reject power, you let yourself be tortured if necessary, but you don’t respond in kind; you respond with love. So that’s what Jesus was trying to teach his disciples, that his way was a way of rejecting violence, rejecting hatred, responding to hatred and violence with love and non-violence, even to the point of allowing himself to be nailed on a cross, where he would appear to be totally helpless, but there, as he said, “I draw all people to myself,” through that love being poured forth.
In that same gospel, Jesus tries to give an image that the disciples might really catch on to. They’ve had a hard time accepting what he’s trying to say. They refused to accept that he’s going up to Jerusalem to let himself be handed over to his torturers and be put to death. They want him to use power and might and so on. He takes a child in front of them and he draws that child into their midst; he embraces the child. This isn’t because children are cute and lovely and so on. No; what Jesus was showing them in that culture and at that time, a child was a person without any rights, had no power.
This is within the Roman Empire and they simply were not even allowed the possibility of any kind of self-determination, even as they were growing up, so a child is a symbol of someone who is completely without right, without power, and can be used in any way. Jesus said, ‘When you receive a child like that into your midst, you’re receiving me, because I am one who rejects all power, all violence, all domination. I allow myself to be helpless, but always pouring forth love.’ See, helpless in a physical way, helpless in a materialistic way, but in charge in a sense, because of the love that he pours forth that can transform and change everything.
Have we really heard this message of Jesus, and both within the church and the world in which we live, do we try to carry out this message of Jesus? I find it disappointing really, that within our church right now, there seems to be kind of a movement to restore a certain kind of domination and status and power, if you will, to those who are to be the leaders of our communities, ordained ministers.
In recent weeks, Pope Benedict XVI -- every Wednesday he gives a talk to thousands of people in St. Peter’s Square every Sunday from his window in the Vatican Palace; he blesses the crowd down in the square and speaks briefly -- in one of those talks recently, because he has made this what he calls the “Year of Priests,” he told the crowd that Mary, the Blessed Mother, had (and these are his words) “a special affection for priests as her sons because they are more similar to Jesus.” In other words, the ordained priest, just by being ordained, has a status that puts him apart from, and obviously above, others in the church.
Now that isn’t the way of Jesus. At the Last Supper, what did he do? He got down and washed the disciples’ feet, but he was celebrating what we think of as the first Eucharist. He wasn’t presiding, overseeing; he was acting as a servant. He had given up power; he didn’t need power like that, the world’s power. And here were are, now they’re talking about putting the altar rail back so there’s a barrier between the priest and the people, make sure the priest is above and better, holier. Not true!0
It’s a community of disciples that Jesus calls together, where everyone is equal in freedom and dignity. No one is over others, but we seem to have fallen back into that pattern of wanting to have hierarchs in the church, and then obviously, “lower-archs,” if you want to call them that, the people in the pews. Wrong -- that’s not the way Jesus intended it. We really have to struggle not to let that happen.
After the Second Vatican Council, there was a real movement forward to make our church a community of disciples, again everyone equal in freedom and dignity, no one over others. We need to make it become that way again, or even move more fully in that direction, because that’s the only way we’re going to be a light to the world around us, if we really become a servant church and those leading in the church become servant ministers.
But it isn’t only in the church though, that we need to look at how we act, and whether we act according to the way of Jesus. It’s in our society, in the world in which we live. As you may know, this past week, I was traveling in Iraq and just got back Friday night. It was an extraordinary experience, but one of the things that I discovered -- and it really is an example of how Jesus says, “The one who is like me is the one who gives up violence and power,” and so on -- he might not have the name “Roman Catholic” written across his chest or on a forehead or something.
I discovered this, because, it was last Wednesday or Thursday night. I met with a group of Muslims, an organization that is “Iraqi Nonviolence Group,” they call themselves. It’s composed by organizations and individuals with different ideological and political backgrounds gathering around the idea of nonviolence as the most effective way to struggle for an independent, democratic, peaceful Iraq. In other words, they’re convinced if you want to really bring peace into that country where there is so much conflict and constant danger to people, people living in fear all the time, here’s what they say, “We refuse occupation and war as a way to build democracy and establish the rule of law.
“Even when war and occupation is presented as the only option, we refuse it,” and that’s the message that is coming to us from the Muslims in this part of Iraq. That’s the message that should be coming from us, Christians, followers of Jesus. Jesus didn’t say the child was necessarily a Roman Catholic, but anyone who rejects power and is helpless and powerless as a child, that’s where you find Jesus. We need to look in those places for Jesus today, now, in our world and to our government. We should get to the point where we too reject occupation and war as a way to resolve conflict. That would be the way of Jesus.
And finally, if you want to hear what could happen, listen again to what James tells us today: “Wherever there is jealously and ambition [and power and might], you will also find discord and all that is evil. “Instead, the wisdom,” our first lesson today, “which comes from above is peace-loving. Persons with this wisdom show understanding and listen; they are full of compassion and good works; they are impartial and sincere. They are peacemakers who sow peace reap a harvest of justice.” That’s what could happen if we really began to follow the way of Jesus.
[Bishop Gumbleton preached this homily at St. Hilary Parish, Redford, Mich.]
Bishop Gumbleton says that
Bishop Gumbleton says that Pope Benedict XVI "told the crowd that Mary, the Blessed Mother, had (and these are his words) “a special affection for priests as her sons because they are more similar to Jesus.”". He asserts that this is somehow wrong. While he takes a portion of that speech as a means to make his point, allow me to give you the fuller version:
"Let us now go to the Cross. Before dying, Jesus sees his Mother beneath the Cross and he sees the beloved son. This beloved son is certainly a person, a very important individual, but he is more; he is an example, a prefiguration of all beloved disciples, of all the people called by the Lord to be the "beloved disciple" and thus also particularly of priests. Jesus says to Mary: "Woman, behold, your son!" (Jn 19: 26). It is a sort of testament: he entrusts his Mother to the care of the son, of the disciple. But he also says to the disciple: "Behold, your mother!" (Jn 19: 27). The Gospel tells us that from that hour St John, the beloved son, took his mother Mary "to his own home". This is what it says in the [English] translation; but the Greek text is far deeper, far richer. We could translate it: he took Mary into his inner life, his inner being, "eis tà ìdia", into the depths of his being. To take Mary with one means to introduce her into the dynamism of one's own entire existence it is not something external and into all that constitutes the horizon of one's own apostolate. It seems to me that one can, therefore, understand how the special relationship of motherhood that exists between Mary and priests may constitute the primary source, the fundamental reason for her special love for each one of them. In fact, Mary loves them with predilection for two reasons: because they are more like Jesus, the supreme love of her heart, and because, like her, they are committed to the mission of proclaiming, bearing witness to and giving Christ to the world. Because of his identification with and sacramental conformation to Jesus, Son of God and Son of Mary, every priest can and must feel that he really is a specially beloved son of this loftiest and humblest of Mothers," (Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience, Wednesday, August 12, 2009, Castel Gandolfo).
Priests stand in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) and thus take the place of Christ at celebrations of the Sacraments. This is why, for example, the priest says "I absolve you of your sins" or "This is my body", not "Jesus absolves you of your sins" or "This is Christ's body". This theology of the priesthood is ancient in the Church, as is the understanding of the ontological change that a priest undergoes at his ordination. In other words, at ordination, the priest is changed, in his essence he is no longer the same as he was before ordination. St. Thomas Aquinas articulated this quite beautifully.
As the Holy Father said, it is because of the sacramental identification of the priest with Jesus, as well as the priest's task to conform himself completely to the Person of Christ and the special role every priest has in acting in persona Christi in the celebration of every sacrament, that is the source of Mary's special devotion to, and love of, her priests. It is not because priests are more important or powerful or special, but it is because, unlike everyone else, the priest has accepted the great task to conform himself completely to the mind, the heart and the person of Christ Jesus. Like Our Lady, who said "yes" to God, the priest has chosen freely to sacrifice everything, money, family, stability, children, a spouse, their own choice of career or location or type of home, everything, for the purpose of the kingdom. In exchange, they are ordained and given the opportunity to stand in the person of Christ, to be a public witness and minister of the Gospel of Christ. Is it any wonder that the Blessed Mother loves her sons, priests, in a special way?
Let's get back to the basics
Let's get back to the basics of what Jesus taught by words and actions. Any "ordination" or other religious structural invention that encourages, either directly or indirectly, placing a believer other than in a place of service, is non-Christian and violates the Jesus principle. The Jesus principle is a love relationship between the individual with God and with one another. It abhors the concept of clericalism; any such hierarchical structure is just that: a structure of religion as an institution. Jesus was all about love relationships and died trying to dismantle the religious structure of his day. We should learn from that and not try to set up a new structure in its place.
I welcome in future therefore
I welcome in future therefore your greater show of respect and indeed reverence for these great priests: The Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, the Reverend Father John Dear SJ, and companions, as such respect has not been immediately visible to the casual reader of your prior comments under their illuminating columns.
Even so one must sak how you dare question this, our greatest American Roman Catholic bishop, in this way, for whose most courageous and correct words I am ever more deeply grateful, and ever the better informed in our Faith in our gradual process of conversion to the Word of God . . .
to Love one another
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT
And, I welcome in the future
And, I welcome in the future these priests actually teaching the dogma and doctrine of the Church. I have great respect and affection for the office of priest, but not necessarily the person filling that office. I have no respect for someone who would, for example, willfully choose to pervert or alter the teachings of Mother Church for his or her own benefit. One of the most important callings a priest has is to conform himself to the will of Christ. I believe that Fr. Dear has taken that call seriously and is attempting to do so in his life; though I may disagree with his public assertions, I do not doubt his sincerity or his good will. Fr. McBrien, on the other hand, is a separate matter altogether, a matter which I will leave for another time.
Secondly, to respond to your "how dare you" comment, I could ask you and many others on this site the same question. How dare you question the teachings of Mother Church as promulgated by the Ordinary Magisterium? How dare you question the infallibility of that Magisterium, even when the particular teaching is not stated ex cathedra? But, I will not ask those questions. I have never had a problem with asking questions, but rather with the answers that some provide as if they are expressions of the truth. As Cardinal Rigali once told a group of us at a dinner in St. Louis, "A thousand questions do not necessarily make a single doubt". Questioning can be good and helpful, but we must also recall in our moments of questioning, the requirement of humility, and, when the Church offers the answers to those questions, in humility we must accept those answers.
Finally, "our greatest American Roman Catholic bishop"? Please, tell me you are being facetious. Obviously that is not true, since he was never entrusted with the care of a the souls in a diocese (praise God). Also, I can name, dozens of bishops greater than he, if we assume a measure of that greatness derives from the bishop's seriousness about properly teaching the Faith, governing and sanctifying their people: Fabian Brusckewitz, Charles Chaput, Raymond Burke, Edward Egan, Timothy Dolan, Francis Cardinal George, Justin Cardinal Rigali, Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua, John D'Arcy, John Liebrecht, Robert Finn, and Michael Sheridan, to name just 12 that came to my mind. I could, of course, go on.
Certainly Bishop Gumbleton has offered service to the Church, and certainly, I believe, he is a sincere man who offers his comments, however divergent they are from the Church's teaching, in good will. Such hyperbole as you engage in, however, does nothing to bolster the strength of your argument.
The hyperbole, my dearest
The hyperbole, my dearest Green, resides upon the other foot in each of your statements here and in your recent statement under the reverend Sister Joan Chittister OSB's column, in which you finally though hyperbolically endorse first class citizenship for women in the Roman Catholic Church, gay rights, compassion for unwed mothers, the doing away with the death penalty, etc., etc., etc.
Here you write: "Certainly Bishop Gumbleton has offered service to the Church, and certainly, I believe, he is a sincere man who offers his comments, however divergent they are from the Church's teaching, in good will."
Kindly, patiently, in that pausing manner by which even I, whose lips move while I read, dear sir, list the ways in which you discover this divergence, and cite the specific normative Church dogma.
I remember the Reverend Fatehr Teilhard de Chardin declaring all that rises must converge, and certainly each of these columns and paragraphs and phrases of Bishop Gumbleton rise unto the very throne of God like incense. Hopefully, faithfully our holy mother Church converges, and I perceive from this point no divergence as you allege. Upon what point do you rest, dear sir, that you see any divergence, and where?
Dear sir, you consistently make the most absurd statements without any basis in fact and then refuse to present the bases for your statements. This sir might be mistaken by some as calumnious, as slander, as a lie. I relay this information to you in the most charitable spirit of brotherly mercy, as your failure to provide any evidence "does nothing to bolster the strength of your argument."
When you write, sir, as you so often do, thusly: "And, I welcome in the future these priests actually teaching the dogma and doctrine of the Church. I have great respect and affection for the office of priest, but not necessarily the person filling that office. I have no respect for someone who would, for example, willfully choose to pervert or alter the teachings of Mother Church for his or her own benefit" you beg the question of your specific charges and sources, yet you never supply any. It seems sir that you rather pull this out of your hat to make noise.
When you write, sir, "Fr. McBrien, on the other hand, is a separate matter altogether, a matter which I will leave for another time." I must most charitably point out to you that there is no other time, and that you must, to use with your forgiveness the most unfortunate parlance of this barbaric day: put up or shut up.
Meanwhile in the spirit of our recent reading of the Rule For Monks of Our Holy Father Saint Benedict from Chapter Six, I find that I as well must most graciously and charitably fall into a firm silence upon this point, as your absurdities are insupportable and your failure to prove them a great and an arrogant sin, which I reveal to you in the most humble and charitable spirit demanded in our Rule. I shall instead dedicate my too brief times of lectio divina not to the difficult and insupportably painful readings of your blogstuff, but to the reading of the great priests and Bishop here upon our blessed NCRonline.org
most kindly yours in Christ
frere charles du desert OSB
Dear Frere Charles, Several
Dear Frere Charles,
Several times, on a variety of topics, I have offered facts to support my statements. Indeed, I offered one on this topic, the fact that Bishop Gumbleton is incorrectly or improperly interpreting the words of the Holy Father. He is doing so in light of his own prejudices rather than the traditional teaching of Mother Church on the nature and office of the priesthood and the relationship of the priest to our Blessed Mother.
In every instance in which I have cited evidence, you have either dismissed or ignored it. In addition, you provide little in this area either. In fact, your every attempt to refute my positions, and the positions of others who dare disagree with you and NCR, is based on rhetoric, not evidence. Thus, you will understand that I have little reason to respond to your continued request for facts and evidence.
Regarding Father McBrien, I will point out, once again, that his seminal work, "Catholicism", has been repeatedly investigated and found lacking in very important, nay essential, areas of Church teaching by the doctrine committee of the USCCB. That work is not permitted, for example, to be used as a textbook in Catholic universities and high schools. Fr. McBrien has been given numerous opportunities by the USCCB to correct his errors in this book, yet has refused to do so. In addition, he continues to offer divergent opinions and statements on various issues, including most recently the issue of Eucharistic Adoration, which was completely and utterly in opposition to the Church's traditional teaching on adoration and the teaching of several popes and saints. The only conclusion one can draw from his refusal to accept correction of his works which are obviously in error is that he persists in this error as a result of pride.
au contraire mon cher, as you
au contraire mon cher, as you have several times offered us the benfit of your opnions but consistently choke when asked for any trace of evidence.
Upon what grounds do you presume to be a more faithful and accurate interpreter of our Faith than our beloved Bishop Thomas Gumbleton? The very pride and envy of your statements must cause shame to anyone who loves Our Holy Mother Church!
You have NEVER presented any evidence to support your absurd statements, and thus give me nothing whatsoever to "dismiss or ignore."
The one who shouts "j'accuse" is the one who must provide the evidence, mon cher, at least under this present innocent until proven guilty system, unlike the Holy Office of past.
I shall continue ever to demand your "facts and evidence" as long as you fail to provide them and to speak so uncharitably and unjustly about my beloved Church.
When has the great work of the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien been "repeatedly investigated and found lacking in very important, nay, essential areas of Catholic teaching by te doctrine committe of the USCCB?" Can you provide the original documents and dates? In which "Catholic universities and high schools" is it so banned, and by whom? When has the Reverend fater Richard P. McBrien so "refused" to "correct his errors" and what exactly are they, upon whose authority, and by what authority? What "divergent opinions and statements" has the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien "offered" and in what context and to what purpose was this offering made? How was the "divergent opinions and statements (from what did they diverge?)" of the Reverend Father Ricahrd P. McBrien on Eucharistic Adoration "completely and utterly in opposition to the Church's traditional teaching on adoration and the teaching of several popes and saints?" Which, what and when? Or does it simply drive you personally into the uncomfortable position of thinking for once about our Faith, in sparking, as the pre-eminent professor of Roman Catholic theology in the United States, your beginning to host a Faith seeking understanding, which is Theology?
How is "the only conclusion one can draw from his refusal to accept correction of his works (again when, of what, by whom, where, which, why?) which are obviously in error (to whom? to you alone? in what way? by what authority?) is that he persists in this rror as a result of pride?"
I can only conclude you persist in your error as a result of pride, envy and arrogance, and am reminded once more of the immortal words of the great Irish poet WB Yeats in his prayer for his daughter: "For arrogance and hatred are the wares // Peddled in the thoroughfares."
In short your statement here, which offers as always with you no evidence at all, only serves to raise more questions, which you refuse to answer as there is none.
Despising so deeply as you do the staff of the good and holy National Catholic Reporter, why do you visit here? Out of pride, arrogance, hatred?
So now women are not only
So now women are not only unable to become priests but are not loved so much by Mary because they aren't priests!
I'm not so sure a lot of the priests would say they freely chose celibacy over marriage. They accepted it in order to become priests but that is different from choosing it for themselves.
Unbelievable. Sometimes I
Unbelievable. Sometimes I think folks, perhaps you included, simply scan these comments and look for ways to be offended.
My statements had nothing to do with women. I was simply trying to point out that Bishop Gumbleton's critique of the comments of our Holy Father was not in keeping with the traditional understanding and teaching on the office, ministry and role of the priesthood in the Church. I was trying to explain why it was that the Holy Father's comments were completely consistent with the Church's teachings and with the Traditional understanding of the relationship between Mary and priests. The fact that you so readily interpreted my comments to be an attack on women speaks far more about your viewpoint regarding Mother Church than it does about the Church herself.
No one forces a priest to be a priest. No bishop holds a gun, proverbial or real, to a man's head and says "Be a priest!". Men choose to respond to God's call to them to be priests, and do freely choose celibacy. In a similar manner, a man or woman freely choose to enter into the sacrament of matrimony, knowing full well that it means that forsaking all others, knowing full well that to be married means accepting the requirement of chastity -- giving up all forms of sexual behavior outside of the marriage, and being faithful to that same person for the rest of their lives. It seems that millions upon millions of individuals are able to freely accept this (even if a portion of them stumble, everyone sins) requirement of being a part of a chaste marriage. So, why can priests not freely make this choice as well? Are you asserting that priests are somehow forced into ordination, or that priests are somehow coerced, or that no one can freely choose to either celibacy or married chastity? If you are arguing the first two positions, what low opinions you have of those men who choose to serve God and His people as priests. If you are arguing the last, then what a low opinion you have of the human race.
His hyperbole swamps the
His hyperbole swamps the great Mr. Green once more and we most charitably rush to his rescue (or more charitably look away), as he so breathlessly and uncharitably and incorrectly concludes: "Are you asserting that priests are somehow forced into ordination, or that priests are somehow coerced, or that no one can freely choose to either celibacy or married chastity? If you are arguing the first two positions, what low opinions you have of those men who choose to serve God and His people as priests. If you are arguing the last, then what a low opinion you have of the human race."
Take a breather, Mr Green. Here is what our dear and broken earthenvessel actually wrote: "I'm not so sure a lot of the priests would say they freely chose celibacy over marriage. They accepted it in order to become priests but that is different from choosing it for themselves."
It is you, sir, who so wrongfully and willingly misreads this as to conclude certain men were forced at gunpoint to be priests. What our gentle earthenvessel actually wrote is that they were forced into celibacy "in order to become priests" proposing as do so many throughout the history of our Church (see for instance the historical and theological record in the standard text The Church by our Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, among others by this author) that celibacy is not normative to the priesthood.
You indulge yourself in the highest indignation only at the expense of the truth, and of charity to our dearest and most fragile earthenvessel, who so kindly and courageously reminded us of a pressing point of theology and ecclesiology.
yet i remain in charity and in humility and an absolute abnegation your least
frere charles
No Clint, I am not saying
No Clint, I am not saying that priests are forced into celibate priesthood except in the sense that if they felt called to be married AND a priest, in the Roman rite there is no place for them so they have to give one or the other up. Many choose the priesthood IN SPITE OF having to give up marriage.
As far as women go, I was just making a point of what was left unsaid or unthought of when it was said " Mary loves them with predilection for two reasons: because they are more like Jesus, the supreme love of her heart, and because, like her, they are committed to the mission of proclaiming, bearing witness to and giving Christ to the world". This seems to say that since women are excluded from the priesthood then they are also excluded from being loved as Mary loved Jesus and the male priests. I guess the reason I am sensitive to it is like when you stub your toe each consecutive time you stub it it becomes more sensitive. I have indeed become sensitive to being considered a lesser being because I am not a male.
The earliest liturgical
The earliest liturgical presiders were laymen. Their liturgical leadership was predicated on their community leadership. They were not ordained to any office/service. These presbyteroi/episkopoi (different titles but same function in different communities) chaired the Christian assemblies at worship. They were priests by virtue of their baptism. As one writer has noted, no longer was priesthood limited to a particular clan or tribe (as in the Jewish faith). No, priesthood embraced every baptized Christian, male and female alike (see Paul). There was no priestly "pecking order" in this scenario.
The earliest extant ordination rituals are in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, customarily dated ca. 215 AD although more recent scholarship suggests they may date to as early as 150 to as late as 350 AD. The ordination ritual for episkopos barely includes reference to priestly/sacerdotal duties/expectation whereas the ordination ritual for presbyter includes no reference at all to such duties/expectation.
The Catholic/Christian priesthood, in other words, was a historic development, not something begun by Jesus or his immediate disciples (including the Twelve). Indeed, Jesus and his followers knew only the Jewish priesthood, which disappeared after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Even before the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish people accorded their priests no special prerogatives in the synagogues even though, as one writer has noted, they would have formed a recognizable group at any community event.
Joseph Ratzinger noted that "facts, as history teaches, are more important than pure doctrine" (HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966).
As far as the power to absolve sins is concerned, every Christian community has this power, which cannot be limited to ordained presbyters. Indeed, this authority is found in Mt 18:18, if I recall, and ultimately reflects the Lord's wish that his disciples forgive one another indefinitely. The sacrament of reconciliation has undergone historical development just like the sacrament of orders.
Ultimately, however, facts are more important than pure doctrine. If the clerical culture in the present church is any indication, we dare not ignore history and the lessons it offers us today.
Mr. Green, the Lord had no
Mr. Green, the Lord had no idea of establishing a Christian priesthood since both he and his disciples (including Mary) knew only the Jewish priesthood. It is only in Paul at the earliest (after the Resurrection) that we begin to see mention of a "priesthood" --- to wit, the "priesthood" of all the faithful, male and female, by virtue of their baptism. The earliest extant ordination ritual is that of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus customarily dated ca. 215 AD although recent scholarship suggests that its various parts might date from as early as 150 AD to as late as 350 AD. Even in this source, the ordination for episkopos includes only bare reference to priestly/sacerdotal duties/expectation and NO reference at all to such duties/expectation for presbyter!
As for priests being (in your words) "more like Jesus" and "committed to the mission of proclaiming, bearing witness to and giving Christ to the world," you have, in fact, described the basic identity and mission of every male and female priest, i.e., every baptized human being. You seem to confuse baptism with ordination --- and priesthood with the presbyterate/episcopate. It is baptism that confers priesthood (even of the men we have traditionally called "priests"), and it is ordination that confers the orders of deacon, presbyter, and bishop. All baptized persons offer sacrifice to God through Jesus the one and only High Priest. It is the presbyter (or bishop/episkopos) who "leads" his/her fellow priests in community worship. In other words, the presbyter or bishop functions as the "lead priest" during the liturgy/mass.
"Priests stand in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) and thus take the place of Christ at celebrations of the sacraments." I agree --- as long as we understand "priests" to mean every baptized Catholic (in this denominational context). When it comes to confession, for example, the presbyter represents his/her community, which has power to absolve sins in accordance with Matthew 18:18 --- not to be confused, of course, with Matthew 16:18 (if I recall), which ecclesiastical authorities have preferred to the exclusion of the later scriptural passage.
As for the supposed "ontological change" occurring at ordination, there was no such theological/philosophical understanding in the primitive Christian churches where everybody was a priest by virtue of baptism. Therefore, we need to be careful with suggesting, as you apparently do, that the word 'ancient' embraces the 'primitive,' the latter designating our ancestors in the faith closest to Jesus and his immediate disciples in space and time. Furthermore, as theologian Joseph Komonchak noted in a recent COMMONWEAL blog thread, he has yet to get anybody to tell just what this word 'ontological' actually means. After all, the soul is pure spirit and is incapable of having anything imprinted on it. Thomas Aquinas was a product of his time, place, and circumstance.
As for the priest, i.e., presbyter, having chosen to "sacrifice everything...for the purpose of the kingdom," we know this viewpoint is not at all universally true. Indeed, there are presbyters and bishops today who live quite comforable (in some cases, lavish) lifestyles --- while being otherwise "faithful" to hearing confessions, baptizing babies, administering the last rites, witnessing marriages, presiding at mass, etc. If these ordained men are placed upon socio-ecclesial pedestals, all the better. After all, there's nothing like being liked and admired for one's position in the church! Some writers have used the word 'narcissism' to describe this phenomenon.
The infatuation with formal ordination, not to mention the presbyter's intimate association with the sacred altar and the eucharist, have resulted in the widely recognized "clerical culture," i.e., a well ingrained arrangement that separates the ordained from the rest of the People of God, thus resulting in the elevation of the ordained and the subordination of the laity. And, Mr. Green, I would hope you have become well acquainted by now with the perverted "fruits" of this culture.
When I was in parochial school more than 45 years ago, we kids were taught by the good Dominican sisters that each of us is called to be "another Christ" by being his voice, his ears, his hands, his feet, his heart.
That was a good reminder then, and it needs even more emphasis today as we strive to undo a clerical culture built upon a specious idea that ordination somehow makes a man "ontologically different" from (and, thus, better than) the rest of us mere mortals!
Those who don't learn the lessons of history...
Bishop Gumbleton has the
Bishop Gumbleton has the wisdom of a Spirit filled peacemaker he attracts, rather then repels others. Teresa of Calcutta another peacemaker used to say -
Speak in the language of servanthood, charity and forgiveness. The harvest, too, is far more precious: growing warmth that makes one ever more gentle, more open, more loving and glad to be so. The harvest is joy and love, not the lie of possession and bitterness. It attracts, rather than repels others.
This generous and blessed
This generous and blessed sermon may be summed up in these words:
"you have to give up power and might and wealth and prestige in order to really follow the way of Jesus."
Lord, make me courageous and humble enough to give up all, so that I too might follow stumbling the way of Jesus unburdened, and to laugh while we have the light of Life lest the darkness of Death o'ertake us (Is that from the Psalms, or Saint Benedict, or both?).
The rich young man walked sadly away, for he had power over a lot of really cool things.
How very fortunate we are for a good and holy Bishop such as is Bishop Gumbleton, and that his sermons are so generously shared here. Let us read them well, and again, in contemplation as true lectio divina hermeneutic for our day and place.
But here is something that
But here is something that the church doesn't want to give up - power over others. Including the condemnation of those who don't follow the marching orders of the church.
Yes you can give up money and possessions. But there is another kind of "money" - the ability to control others and their minds. And in many cases to get them to do the 'dirty work' for you. While you maintain a facade of innocence.
And God help you if you are Gay today in the church. Who will do anything they can to get you to conform to their beliefs. Including crush your very core emotion of sexuality which differs from the hierarchies beliefs, in an attempt to change your core emotions. By a church that in this regard, and denied by every mainstream medical / psych association, drives these victims to terrible internal conflicts, depression,and sometimes suicides. The abortion of full grown victims by words that kill. To protect their bank account called "power"
The church's mentality on this issue is in the year about 1500. When it threatened Gallileo - the greatest scientific mind of his time - with torture for declaring the Earth was round, and that the Earth revolved around the sun.
Thanks Bishop Gumbleton. What
Thanks Bishop Gumbleton. What a church we would be if our leaders mirrored the Gospel as you do.
Bishop Gumbleton is one of my
Bishop Gumbleton is one of my favorite writers.
Jesus is truly an amazing person. He makes Peter to head His church and he also calls him Satan and yet, Jesus forgives Peter and he is eventually a saint.
As usual, a message from
As usual, a message from Bishop Gumbleton that changes me!
Thank you Bishop
Thank you Bishop Gumbleton...I wish other bishops would echo your concerns as
it is so painful to read about and see so many stories of institutional power and eliteism. How and why has our Church mirrored the politcal realities of us and them. I just don't understand how retreched our Church seems to have become since John XXIII open the window....I almost can't express it, but this heavy emphasis on control and exclusiveness seem to be the head of an anti-Christ....Where is the Holy Spirit in all of this? It is getting harder and harder to find clergy and religious who are not afraid of losing their jobs and pensions for fear recriminations. And those who are not afraid are one of them, I am afraid... IMHO
Welcome back B. Thomas
Welcome back B. Thomas Gumbleton
I agree completely with this position: “Even when war and occupation is presented as the only option, we refuse it.” Yes, war cannot be an option for intelligent and compassionate people. Christians are those who accept to carry the cross instead of making other people suffer.
amen
amen
Thank you Bishop Gumbleton
Thank you Bishop Gumbleton for you insightful homily. As Dorothy Day taught us, we must become humble and put ourselves in the company of the homeless and prisoners. That is where Jesus is. The seduction of power is ever within us all.
At the time I have read this,
At the time I have read this, there aren't any comments yet. This could be because the moderators haven't been able to get to the comments posts, but, I'm afraid it could also be because seeking peace in the midst of conflict both within the Church and within the world isn't very popular.
At Mass, this past week, when I was listening to the Gospel, I had the distinct image of myself being the child placed in the midst. (I wrote a post on my blog about being God's object lesson that day--my nose was red from a pimple and sunburn--extremely obvious to everyone.)
Probably the reason it isn't popular to discuss a way towards peace within our own Church (not merely priests/hierarchy, certain laypersons are in this too) is because it wears a person out. It's tiring. It seems utterly futile. You get branded with not being a "true" Catholic from one side. Get branded as a fool for trying from the other side. You get downright angry at BOTH sides and just want to give up......that's when we have to grab hold the Jesus of Faith, not of Religion.
Of course, that will lead to different paths for different persons. Some of us may have to leave to preserve our souls. Others of us may have to pull back from serving/volunteering. Still others of us may just have to simply go mad/bonkers/crazy--be the object lesson.
Speaking as one of the "lower-archs". ;)
God Bless You, Bishop Gumbleton, and thank you.
I was especially taken with
I was especially taken with the reference you made about the Pope, saying that priests are more pleasing to God because, by their ordination, they have been elevated to a higher place. There are so many things that this Pope is saying that are alienating to an older woman like me. And this is certainly one of them. I have tried to be an active member of the Body of Christ, whether as a religious ed teacher and church musician years ago, and currently, doing volunteer work at our local crisis center--where every week we try to help the poorest among us, and those dealing with mental illness, as well as a volunteer at our local hospice. It makes the leaders of our Church seem pompous and out of touch, making our work seem "less." Thanks you for that statement--makes me feel better that someone "gets it." Bobbie
Of course that is not what
Of course that is not what the Holy Father was saying. Priests are not more pleasing to God necessarily due to their ordination. Priests are SACRAMENTALLY more like Christ than others, due to the fact that they stand in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) as an alter Christus (another Christ) at the celebration of the sacraments. The Holy Father was saying that Mary has a special love for priests because they stand in the person of her Son. They have voluntarily taken on the calling to be ever more conformed to the heart and mind of Christ. At the same time, priests, because of the calling that they have, are held to a higher standard by Christ as well.
It seems sometimes that people actually look for things to anger or offend them. It seems as if they read into comments that the Holy Father makes whatever that they want, whether the comments actually mean what they want them to, or whether the Holy Father actually says what they say he says does not matter.
No one is saying that your work is "less", accept perhaps Bishop Gumbleton. The term "lower-arch" is one he invented to describe the laity. It is not a word that would even be recognized by the Church.
AMEN!
AMEN!
Clint writes: "It seems
Clint writes: "It seems sometimes that people actually look for things to anger or offend them."
It does seem that way, doesn't it, Clint, and more than sometimes, as reflected in your comments.
When have you written a comment here not out of anger or offense?
This is why Christianity is
This is why Christianity is the hardest faith-way to follow. We are asked to give up our power and also to forgive anyone who hurts us. We are forgiven so easily which makes it seem as if our faith is the easy road but to really follow Jesus is hard - so hard at times, I know I don't do it well at all. Very good sermon and one we need to hear often.
The pope says the priest is
The pope says the priest is special and this priestly notion of entitlement leads still to abuses of power and control, leads to continuance of scandals and predation of Catholic children and seminarians. the claim by the Pope that Mary claims "special affection for priests as her sons because they are more similar to Jesus". What does that imply?
This says we laity are not similar to Jesus. This nullifies that we are to love one another, serve one another, serve each other and no one is to lord it over anyone. (1st Peter) This wrong idea of the pope, not Jesus, grants power, prestige and control to the priests and that goes against what Jesus taught. The pope is in error in how he regards priests and bishops and laity. Sad what the pope is doing.
I recommend that you read
I recommend that you read what the Pope actually said, instead of Bishop Thomas Gumbleton's distortion of it.
At what specific point to you
At what specific point to you discover "distortion" and in what way?
Are you a more faithful and trustworthy interpreter than Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, and why?
BishopGumbleton,you say we
BishopGumbleton,you say we really have to struggle not to let that happen.
It is pretty hard to struggle when it seems that is all we do is struggle. We are not allowed to meet on church property if we disagree with anything the hierarchy says or believes. Where is the Holy Spirit? The Old Catholic Church looks pretty inviting to me.
anonymous writes: "We are not
anonymous writes: "We are not allowed to meet on church property if we disagree with anything the hierarchy says or believes." and thus gives in to the pseudo-"Old Catholic Church."
Yet here we read anonymous openly disagree with our good and holy and courageous prophet Bishop Gumbleton, hierarchy, as we meet here upon his very own blog space . . .
This One Holy, Universal and Catholic Church gathering at ncronline.org
"looks pretty inviting to me!"
your lowerest lower-archy
frère charles
Would Planned Parenthood or
Would Planned Parenthood or NARAL let the National Right to Life Committee meet on their property to plan the March for Life? Obviously not. Why then should the Catholic Church let those who actively work against the Church meet on theirs?
Thank you for these words of
Thank you for these words of consolation and encouragement. I've felt tremendous sadness when reading some of the forum comments made by the neo-traditionalist folks who want to take the Catholic Church backward by 50 years.
It's difficult to find any reflection of the Lord I know within their desire for pecking-orders and exclusiveness — a "church" turned-in upon itself with no love, light or joy... only endless rules and anathemas... more love for ceremonial and ideology than for God's people. Such an institution will be doomed to become a small irrelevant cult of "orthodox us" at war with everyone they construe to be the "evil them".
"In recent weeks, Pope
"In recent weeks, Pope Benedict XVI -- every Wednesday he gives a talk to thousands of people in St. Peter’s Square every Sunday from his window in the Vatican Palace; he blesses the crowd down in the square and speaks briefly -- in one of those talks recently, because he has made this what he calls the “Year of Priests,” he told the crowd that Mary, the Blessed Mother, had (and these are his words) “a special affection for priests as her sons because they are more similar to Jesus.” In other words, the ordained priest, just by being ordained, has a status that puts him apart from, and obviously above, others in the church."
Well, a priest is alter Christus, is he not?
HAPPY to be a LOWER-arch. I
HAPPY to be a LOWER-arch.
I don't have as far to fall when I fail.
"In fact, Mary loves them
"In fact, Mary loves them with predilection for two reasons: because they are more like Jesus, the supreme love of her heart, and because, like her, they are committed to the mission of proclaiming, bearing witness to and giving Christ to the world." POPE BENEDICT XVI GENERAL AUDIENCE 12 August 2009
"In other words, the ordained priest, just by being ordained, has a status that puts him apart from, and obviously above, others in the church."
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton's opinion is that because the Pope said ordained priests are more like Jesus, what he means is that they are "above others in the Church". A gross misunderstanding of the Pope's position and the position of the Church in regards to priests. Maybe Bishop Gumbleton should listen to what the Pope actually says instead of projecting his own opinions onto the Pope.
Maybe you might show a
Maybe you might show a greater erspect and reverence for our beloved BIshop at least within this Annus Sacerdotalis declared by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in memory of Saint Jean Marie Vianney, Cure d'Ars.
Maybe in this at least you "should listen to what the Pope actually says instead of projecting (your) own (bitter) opinions onto the Pope."
frère charles du désert
Are you saying I am not
Are you saying I am not alowed to disagree with Bishop Gumbleton when he distorts what the Pope says?
let us look at what
let us look at what pseudo-veritas wrote and see at what point there is any disagreement or distortion: "Bishop Thomas Gumbleton's opinion is that because the Pope said ordained priests are more like Jesus, what he means is that they are "above others in the Church". A gross misunderstanding of the Pope's position and the position of the Church in regards to priests."
pseudo-veritas merely points out what she considers "a gross misunderstanding" not only of "the Pope's position" but also of the "position of the Church in regards to priests."
By the rules of rhetoric this is not "alowed" because one cannot state a thesis and run. pseudo-veritas offers no explanation of how this might be willingly perceived as "a gross misunderstanding" while Bishop Gumbleton offers at length reasons for his thesis. pseudo-veritas speaks ot therefore upon the probable truth but upon an unestablished pseudo-authority which one is at liberty to accept or not, no convincing argument being offered. In fact no argument at all is offered, only a brief thesis statement, devoid of any evidence. Hit and run. This is not "alowed" by the stern laws of logical discourse, and that old Aristotilean Saint Thomas D'Aquin would be among the first to reject it.
At the least we might expect a simple citation of the standard HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism as to what precisely are the "position of the Church (and Pope) in regards to priests" compared and explicitly contrasted with what has been written here, with some more-than-slight indication of how this constitutes a "misunderstanding" in any measure, gross or otherwise, before we dare to break or obligation as Roman Catholics to reverence the office of the Bishop.
As we Benedicintes so recently read once more in our ancient Rule for Monks in Chapter Six, the place of the disciple is to listen and to learn, while the master teaches. Let us hear therefore what the Holy Spirit teaches us today through these blessed and proper and just homiletics by our very good and loving Bishop Gumbleton, and let us not so eagerly and illogically and sinfully rush to express our own "gross misunderstandings!"
most charitably yours in the love of Our Lord
frere charles du desert OSB OBLAT
"offers no explanation of how
"offers no explanation of how this might be willingly perceived as "a gross misunderstanding""
The gross misunderstanding is that the Pope never said that Priests are "above others in the Church", that is just Bishops Gumbleton's distortion.
"by the rules of rhetoric this is not "alowed"'
If we were following the rules of rhetoric your long winded pseudo intelligent comments would not be allowed.
Truthfully, in recognition
Truthfully, in recognition and accomodation of my severely limited literary capacities, and as you so charitably indicate here, my tragically untrained methodology of correct classical philosophical discourse, I beg you have all kindness and charity in carefully indicating explicitly each of your two points here above, praying with the Apostle Saint Thomas to see and to touch and to hear the evidence which you assume so obvious yet which I cannot discern in my limitations, if I do not in so asking overly try the space so generously supplied here by this wonderful ncronline.org to whom we are so very much in debt, now, forty five years and counting.
your least
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT
WOW ! This homily of Bishop
WOW ! This homily of Bishop Gumbleton says it all. If his homilies were broadcast throughout all the Catholic dioceses of the United States, the churches would be overflowing instead of empty! Thank you so much, Bishop Gumbleton, for your insights and courage. You are a blessing to the people; you are, Sir, a real bishop!
Anything to take a shot at
Anything to take a shot at priests, huh?
Blessing upon thee, Bishop
Blessing upon thee, Bishop Gumbleton! You are a beacon to many of us.
God Bless you Bishop. I wish
God Bless you Bishop. I wish this message was a bit more prevalent in the church today. To use political jargon...The neocons think that they are making "progress", maybe even winning...but the vast "silent majority" of "good" Catholics don't make noise, they don't "fight" back, they quietly walk away. I dare say that Jesus may have done the same thing.
No wonder there is a
No wonder there is a vocations problem with attitudes like that. Why become a priest when so many within the Church view you as the same as everyone else and nothing special?
If that specialness becomes
If that specialness becomes elitism, which it all to easily can, it is a distortion of Christ's message and is damaging to The Church, the people the priest is serving and certainly very much so to the priest himself.
If a man is wanting to be a
If a man is wanting to be a priest because it makes him special he really shouldn't become a priest. Jesus said those who would follow him will be the servant, the one who comes last not first. The church has been getting this mixed up lately.
Don't confuse special with
Don't confuse special with feeling superior, they are very different things. Being a true servant does make him special. All the wonderful servants of God throughout the ages are indeed special, but I highly doubt the likes of St. Teresas, St. Francis et al would feel at all superior. I agree with the previous post that in the eyes of the priest if special becomes superior, then yes there is a problem.
What is this alter Christus
What is this alter Christus stuff? The early Fathers and Mothers of the church held that Jesus became human so that we--all of us, ordained or not--might become divine. Being a priest absent anything else does not make someone closer to God or Mary. Maybe the Pope's comments will make Mary want to bring down the mighty from their [Papal] thrones!
Jesus was not ordained and yet God referred to him as his dearly beloved. HMMMM!
If you want to become a priest because it makes you special, you have missed the entire message Jesus proclaimed--loving service, not special honors.
The Pope and the old Church are going to keep at it until they bury the church as we have known it. Requiescant in pace!!!
"Alter Christus" means
"Alter Christus" means "another Christ", because he has been ordained to act in his person. The priest at the altar is, for all intended purposes, Christ. That is why, for instance, if you were to assult a pries, not only would you have to confess the sin of having assulted another person but you would also have to confess the sin of sacrilege.
This may come as a shock to
This may come as a shock to you, Paul Knight, but assaulting anyone is a sacrilege. We are all the temple of the Holy Spirit, priest or no. So, it is no worse assaulting a priest than to assault another human being, despite what the church would have you believe. Saying that assaulting a priest is worse does not make it so. The fact that the church would say such a thing shows its profound disrespect for the "officially not ordained" brothers and sisters of Christ. Indeed, this basic lack of respect for others is precisely why the church so callously and violently and menacingly covered up the sex abuse carried out by the ordained. That is the true sacrilege the church should proclaim and for which the church has yet to make amends. Remember what Christ said--what you do to the least of these, you do to me. Dont' be fooled Paul. It is a sacrilege to assault anyone.
"The priest at the altar is,
"The priest at the altar is, for all intended purposes, Christ."
No, the presbyter at the altar is a fellow priest of the laity by virtue of his baptism. In the primtive churches, the presbyter/episkopos was a layman whose liturgical leadership was predicated on his community leadership. As Paul reminded primitive Christians, everybody --- male and female --- was a priest who offered sacrifice to God through Jesus the one and only High Priest. The presbyter/episkopos (same function, different titles for different communities) presided at the mass, that is, he chaired the assembly at worship by maintaining order and calling forth the gifts of the people. There was no hierarchical "pecking order" at this time.
Ordained ministry was a historic development. The earliest extant ordination rituals are in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, customarily dated ca. 215 AD although recent scholarship suggests its various parts may date from as early as 150 AD to as late as 350 AD. The ordination ritual for episkopos includes only a bare reference to priestly/sacerdotal duty/expectation. The ordination ritual for presbyter, on the other hand, includes NO such reference! What we understand today as bishop-priest-deacon took a number of centuries to develop.
Joseph Ratzinger did us all a favor when he wrote more than 43 years ago that "facts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 17). As theologian Bernard Lonergan noted years ago, "The meaning of Vatican II was the acknowledgement of history."
We need to jettison this archaic (and historically novel) idea that ordination to the presbyterate somehow confers some kind of special "ontological status" on the ordinand. If historical facts have any bearing on this matter, we need to heed the future pope's lesson that "facts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine."
Respect facts. Respect history.
The people closest to Jesus and his disciples in time and place understood baptism to confer priesthood on everybody, no exceptions!
Well written. Articles like
Well written. Articles like this still give me hope.
Neil Chapman New Zealand
Tom Gumbleton should have
Tom Gumbleton should have replaced Deardon as Archbishop of Detroit. Laghi blocked that. This man has more soul than any 6 other bishops I know. God bless him!
The hierarchy in the church
The hierarchy in the church has come to idolize the priesthood and thus the priest. This sinful idolatry of the priesthood is a basic reason why it was easy to cover up the sexual abuse of children and of women, I might add. Idolatry of the priesthood is the very reason why there is a moral and spiritual gap between priest and people that is virtually unbridgeable. Idolatry of the priesthood is the motivation behind the actions of these newly ordained priests in costume who want to look and act like priests of the 30s and 40s (in addition to having watched Going My Way too many times). Idolatry of the priesthood is why there is so much alienation, hate, divisiveness and spiritual death in the church today, on the part of laity for sure, but especially on the part of those who claim to be acting, and in fact claim that they are the only ones who can act, in persona Christi. There is little love of God emanating from the very ones who ought to be the picture of Christ beyond all others because of the role that they assume and for which they claim they were chosen. I say bulldiggies!! There is no reason whatsoever why Catholics cannot join together in their own homes and celebrate the Eucharist in small faith communities the way it was done in the early church. This hijacking of the Eucharist for the sake of idolatry is indeed scandalous, sinful and truly sad. We in the US should follow the lead of those Catholics in Latin America. They have taken back their church and worship God in base communities. I only hope that Intentional Eucharistic Communities will have the same effect here.
As always, a beautiful and
As always, a beautiful and honest homily Your Excellency! Hopefully the Spirit will continue to renew our world and the Body of Christ as well. It does seem that with Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI we are moving farther and farther away from what Blessed John XXIII intended when he flung the doors of the Church wide open to the world and new possiblities. Let us continue to pray that we do not cling to the mistakes of the past but continue to follow the Lord forward into the pages of history! With you, Bishop Gumbleton, as our guide we continue to be feed with strength and courage through your marvelous words!
Yes, this notion of being
Yes, this notion of being special, set apart,appeals to the childish need of the human being. Every child wants to be recognized as special and (s)he will act out if not recognized as such. But as we grow up we arerequired to put away the things of our childhood, to acknowledge that there are others who we need to live in harmony with. Eventually we see that we are called by Jesus to serve others too. This is a growth in consciousness, in maturity. But it is a hard saying. It seems neither the pope nor most of the bishops have grown to this level of consciousness and acceptance of Jesus' way. It's a real sacrifice, they must increase, I must decrease.
I've always longed to see a
I've always longed to see a Pope who is the servant of all, a person who lifts up the poor and the powerless as his sisters and brothers, his companions in this spiritual journey that encompasses all of us. Instead, we see a small man sitting in a large throne, so focused on money, power, and authority as to loose sight of our compassionate Lord. We, the church, need to always question such leaders and bring to light what we see. Doctrine is a poor substitute for reality, and it is so easy for clergy to hide behind it and thereby excuse themselves from accountability. This situation will continue as long as we, the church, permit it.
I think that, early on in
I think that, early on in their priestly career, some truly holy priests and bishops hear the Holy Spirit whispering: "Don't worry; you will not rise high in the structures of this church. Instead, devote yourself to a ministry of service to those who fall under your wings and be prepared to live your life humbly and die a happy non-clericalist."
About the privileges of the
About the privileges of the priesthood
A friend of mine is shortly to be married. A Deacon will be officiating at the event, and a Priest will step in to say the Canon of the Mass, and then head for the sacristy as the Deacon distributes Communion to the faithful Catholics (others need not apply) and gives the final blessing. The couple, in their pre-marital counseling (a pre-Cana Conference), have never met the Priest. As I listen to his story about the events leading up to the exchange of their Wedding Vows, it seems as if something important as been lost in the process. Their preparation and wedding have the air of being mechanistic in the interest of expediency.
Post new comment