Posted in category "Bishops"
The parishioners are not letting their church get taken from them and sold.
St. Frances Cabrini was among dozens of churches that the Archdiocese of Boston decided to close and sell in 2004, partially to help pay the costs associated with the priestly sex abuse scandal. While most churches closed without a fight, parishioners at St. Frances rebelled.
Kim Brown, 36, said she had become convinced that St. Frances Xavier Cabrini was a victim of its real estate.
Built when this South Shore community was considered the Irish Riviera, the church towers over a wide clearing on the side of a wooded road; ocean views beckon just over the treetops. ”The biggest problem is we have 30 acres of buildable land,” said Marsha Devir, 50.
Brown said church leaders never understood the commitment parishioners had put into the parish and the vigil. ”They’re not seeing the whole picture,” she said. ”They’re just seeing dollar signs. You know what? Sell some of your Vatican jewels. We need this church as a town and as a community.”
For over 1,560 days, the group at St. Frances has taken turns guarding the building around the clock so that the archdiocese cannot lock them out and put it up for sale. They call it a vigil, but for many it has become part of the way of living their faith.
“It’s much more of a living 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week faith,” said Margy O’Brien, 78, a parishioner since St. Frances opened in 1960. “My generation of Catholics have paid, prayed and obeyed, but you get to a point where you’ve had it.”
Many of the people involved in the vigil describe being transformed from passive Catholics to passionate, deeply involved members of a spiritual community that they say could be a model for the future of the church. 
“You would think because there are fewer and fewer priests that the various archdioceses would welcome a new configuration,” Mrs. O’Brien said. “Let the lay people do everything but the sacramental.”
Since St. Frances has no priest, parishioners lead services that include everything but the consecration of the host. On the Sunday before Christmas, about 50 parishioners attended a service conducted entirely by women, including the distribution of Communion. The hosts had been consecrated elsewhere by a priest described by Mrs. MaryEllen Rogers as “sympathetic.”
Parishioners hold suppers in the vestibule and meet Tuesdays to say the rosary. They raise money as a nonprofit group, donate to charities, and open the church to outsiders seeking comfort or repose.
“Lots of troubled people have come through and all they need, really simply, is someone to connect to,” said Karen Virginia Shockley, 43, who participates in the vigil with her two teenage sons. “Usually there’s an older person here who will sit down and just listen to you.”
Some parishioners have grown so disenchanted with the church hierarchy and so fond of the vigil routine that they cannot imagine returning to the old way.
“I cannot go back to the priest and the vestments and all that, I always felt, prince-of-the-church approach,” said Mary Dean, 61, who keeps vigil at St. Frances at least four hours a week. “I’ll always be a Catholic, but I may not be able to worship in the mainstream Catholic Church.”
”A very good thing has happened in this vigil,” Margy O’Brien added. ”A strong faith community has formed. There have been many little miracles happening. People’s lives have been touched, some improved. And I think this group of vigilers will be a strong community forever. I don’t regret doing this at all. Not one moment.”
Proposition 8 was a California constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Much to the utter shock of many people, especially gay people in California that took tolerance for granted, the measure passed on election day. The people who voted for it in the largest numbers were black Christians who also pulled the lever for Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama. Obama won, but so did Proposition 8. 
The California dioceses and California Catholic Conference weighed in against the measure, and the Knights of Columbus provided over $1 million for media and public relations efforts. Against this flood one gay priest spoke out against it, Father Geoff Farrow. Who said all the good men were gone from the priesthood?
Shock, anger, bitter disappointment, hostility, disillusionment, grim resolve…Quo Vadis, lesbian and gay Catholics? Walk away from Rome, or walk back to your people?
Two of the Roman Catholic dioceses in California have made an effort to extend an conciliatory hand to homosexual Catholics and others who support gay marriage, and worked for the defeat of Proposition 8.
Shortly after the vote, when name-calling and tempers on both sides were starting to rise, Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco made an appeal for public civility, gently chiding everyone that “tolerance, respect and trust are two-ways streets, and tolerance, respect and trust often do not include agreement or even approval. We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable.”
“While we argue among ourselves,” he continued, “the people who need our help with hunger, unemployment, homelessless and other problems wait for us to turn together toward them. More particularly, we Catholics in the Archdiocese of San Francisco need to minister to the needs of all Catholics in this local church. Whoever they are and whatever their circumstances, their spiritual and pastoral rights should be respected, together with their membership in the church. In that spirit, with God’s grace and much prayer, perhaps we can all move forward together.”
On December 3, 2008, about a month after the passage of Proposition 8, Cardinal Roger M. Mahoney, and all six of the auxiliary bishops signed a letter titled – A Pastoral Message to Homosexual Catholics in the Archiocese of Los Angeles.
“As bishops of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles,” the letter begins, “we are addressing this message first of all to homosexual members of our church. Given the controversy generated by the passage of Proposition 8, we want to reassure each of you that you are cherished members of the Catholic Church and we value you as equal and active members of the body of Christ.” 
“The passage of Proposition 8 in the state of California does not diminish in any way the importance of you, our homosexual brothers and sisters in the church. Nor does it lessen your personal dignity and value as full members of the body of Christ. The church’s support of Proposition 8 was our effort to resist a legal redefinition of marriage.”
“We were disappointed that the ballot information about Proposition 8 stated that the purpose of the initiative was ‘to ban gay marriage.’ From the very beginning, this was not our purpose.”
“Proposition 8 was never intended, directly or indirectly, to lessen the value and importance of gay and lesbian persons. Your intrinsic values as human beings and as brothers and sisters continues without change. If we had ever thought that the intent of this proposition was to harm you or anyone in the state of California, we would not have supported it. We are personally grateful for the witness and service of so many dedicated and generous homosexual Catholics. We pledge our commitment to safeguard your dignity.”
“We welcome thoughtful and civil dialogue with you so that we can deepen our realization that all of us cherish God’s creative life which we equally share. We are committed to find ways to eliminate discrimination against homosexual persons and to help guarantee the basic rights which belong to each of us.”
Read the whole letter here.
The remaining California Dioceses of San Diego, Orange, Fresno, San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, San Bernadino, Monterey, Santa Rosa, and Stockton have apparently declined to offer any post-Proposition 8 reconciliation.
Archbishop Niederauer and Cardinal Mahoney did go out on a limb to reach out and reassure gay Catholics. Their statements were disingenuous in spots, but for the most part I believe they are sincere.
I hope one of them is willing to offer Fr. Geoff a pastoral position, if he needs to leave Fresno.
San Francisco’s archbishop has appealed to Catholics on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue to be civil to each other.
“We need to stop talking as if we are experts on the real motives of people with whom we have never even spoken. We need to stop hurling names like ‘bigot’ and ‘pervert’ at each other. And we need to stop it now,” he said. 
In a December 1, 2008 open letter that was posted on the Archdiocese of San Francisco’s website, http://sfarchdiocese.org, Archbishop George H. Niederauer said: “Tolerance, respect and trust are always two-way streets, and tolerance, respect and trust often do not include agreement or even approval. We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable.”
He called on “churchgoers” to “speak and act out on the truth that all people are God’s children and are unconditionally loved by God.”
“Whoever they are, and whatever their circumstances, their spiritual and pastoral rights should be respected, together with their membership in the church,” he wrote. “In that spirit, with God’s grace and much prayer, perhaps we can all move forward together.”
Do ”intrinsic moral evil” and “objective disorder” qualify as uncivil, hurtful and mean-spirited terms good Catholics should take pains to avoid?
A federal appeals court has permitted a lawsuit over alleged sexual abuse to proceed against the Vatican.
The ruling, issued on November 24, 2008 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, marks the first time a court at so high a level has recognized that the Vatican could be liable for negligance in the thousands of sex abuse cases in the U.S.
Sex abuse victims and their attorneys have long claimed that the church failed to report priests accused of sexual crimes and misconduct; and instead covered up the deeds to protect them.
Walking a fine line in recognition of Vatican sovereignty, the appeals court found that the Vatican may be responsible for policies or directives as they were carried out in the U.S., and may have affected how abuse complaints were handled.
One of the central pieces of evidence in the case was a 1962 memo, issued by the Vatican and unearthed by reporters in 2003, that directs Catholic bishops to keep silent about claims of sexual abuse. The document was approved by John XXIII.
“What the court has allowed us to do is proceed against the Vatican for the conduct of the U.S. bishops because of the bishops’ failure…to report child abuse,” said William F. McMurry, the attorney for three men who claim they were abused as children by priests in the Louisville, Kentucky archdiocese.
The November 24 ruling will allow the plaintiffs’ case to proceed in the U.S. District Court in Louisville. Among the legal questions to be decided in the case is whether U.S. bishops are employees of the Vatican, and whether they acted on the Holy See’s orders.
An estimated 54% of Catholics voted for Obama for President. 46% did not. They voted for the McCain/Palin ticket or someone else. Catholics called the election again, as they have done for the past eight or nine. 
In spite of 50 dioceses issuing “pro-life” voting statements, every anti-abortion initiative was voted down, and the presidential election went to Barak Obama.
Here’s why I think McCain lost Catholic voters:
1. The economy
2. The economy
3. The economy
4. The $700 billion bailout (however necessary) of banks and other financial institutions
5. Doubts about Sarah Palin, combined with John McCain’s age
6. President Bush’s unpopularity
7. Ethical issues surrounding the mortgage crisis
8. Unhappiness with the overall direction of the country
Catholic voters voted for change. What can the bishops learn from this?
Focusing solely on abortion and to some degree, same-sex marriage, is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when the passengers are heading for the lifeboats. They are not the primary concerns of most Catholic voters. The economy is.
The bishops have not regained, and may not for decades, the prestige and respect they lost in the clerical sex abuse scandal. Making pronouncements from on high is not an effective strategy. Meeting people where they are is.
Many liberal Catholics, myself included, are not pro-abortion. But because conservative politicians are unattractive on many other levels, I can’t vote for them on single issue platforms. Instead, I prefer to vote for candidates that promote alternatives to unwanted pregnancies. This is another way of addressing the same problem: abortion.
“Unwed mother” no longer carries the social stigma it did decades ago. When teenagers get pregnant, they don’t automatically give up their baby for adoption or end up in an unwanted marriage. Or get an abortion. Many of them want to have and keep their baby. The problem is – they have no money or resources to do so. Abortion becomes necessary.
Catholic bishops and Catholic conservatives can stop a lot of abortions by pushing elected representatives to fund programs for single mothers (and fathers) to get financial support for housing, food, pre-natal care, health care, education/job training, and child care.
Quo Vadis, bishops? Are you serious about making an impact on abortions, or do you just want to hear your own voice?
Quo Vadis, bishops? Be realistic. People aren’t going to give up sex. Kids and adults take chances and use nothing or don’t use birth control and get pregnant. Then what? If the woman doesn’t have the resources to give birth and raise the child, what does she do?
Abortion is a moral issue. But it is also an issue of resources.
Will U.S. bishops continue to focus on sex, and make thundering statements about “intrinsic moral evils” and huff and puff and threaten liberal Catholic politicians, and leave it go at that?
Will they also come after conservative Catholic politicians and their allies–threaten them with the loss of communion, status and photo-ops–if they do not do everything in their power to help pregnant girls and women who want to keep their babies and not be consigned to a life in poverty?
Or, will they stop the threats, roll up their sleeves, and live Pro-Life by example.
I suggest every bishop, starting with the 50 who made Pro-Life statements in this election, dedicate a portion of their endowments to support all unwed women who want to keep their child. Bishops can use this money to fund diocesan social service programs, and act as a “safety net” for when the government falls short.
A focus of the annual diocesan parish tithe should be directed to funding programs for these women and their children.
When serious money is on the table, I’ll know they’re serious.
Yesterday morning conservative Archbishop Charles Chaput and I were both a little glum.
Archbishop Chaput is an articulate and forceful anti-abortion spokesman. I am just-married, same-sex marriage advocate.
Over morning coffee and papers we were greeted with some good news and some bad news. 
- Democratic candidate Barak Obama, and his Catholic vice president, Joe Biden, won the presidential election.
- Colorado voters had soundly defeated a ballot measure that would have defined life as beginning at conception. The constitutional amendment would have defined a person to include “any human being from the moment of fertilization.”
- California voters banned same-sex marriage. The referendum called for the California constitution to be amended by adding the phrase that “Only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California.”
- California voters failed to approve a measure that would require doctors to notify parents or guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor.
- Arizona voters banned same-sex marriage.
- Florida voters banned same-sex marriage.
- Washington State voted to permit doctor-assisted suicide.
- South Dakota defeated a ban on abortion.
- Arkansas voters approved a ban on couples, who live together without being married, from adopting or fostering children. This impacts straight couples, but was primarily aimed at gay and lesbian couples.
Now what? We need to mourn, and find fresh resolve. St. Benedict points a way: Orare et laborare. Pray and work. Pray and work. Start with prayer, and then work.
And when the work seems too hard, arduous, demeaning, and hopeless; pray for strength and grace and a sense of humor to get over the rough spots. And then work.
The Synod of Bishops on The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church ran October 5-26, 2008 in Rome. 
The final 55 propositions submitted to Pope Benedict XVI represent a victory for what might be called the “moderate” line. The Synod’s conclusions are merely advisory, and it will be up to Pope Benedict XVI to decide on what action, if any, to take. But the propositions illustrate the thinking of a representative cross-section of bishops from around the world.
This Synod is likely to be remembered for its efforts to reach out to women.
For the first time, women were a majority among the official “observers,” occupying 19 of 37 spots. Six female scholars were nominated as experts. More women participated in this synod than in any edition since the body first met in 1967.
In the end, concern for women came through most clearly in Proposition 17, devoted to “Ministry of the Word and Women.”
Under existing church law, the ministry of lector is technically open only to males. In part, that’s for historical reasons; before 1972, the office of lector was considered one of the “minor orders” leading to priestly ordination. 
Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) it’s become common practice for women to read at Mass, including during papal liturgies in Rome, but this is officially considered only a “temporary” measure.
The bishops recommended it be made permanent.
“It is hoped that ministry of lector can be opened also to women, so that their role as announcers of the Word may be recognized in the Christian community.”
The proposition on the lectionary did not directly address complaints from some quarters that the current selection omits stories about women, but it called for attention to the “exclusion of certain important passages.”
In a letter sent to Congressional leaders on September 26, 2008, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, NY, chairman of the episcopal conference’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, urged a consideration of five key principles when considering how to bail out the nation’s failing economy. 
The first key Bishop Murphy encouraged was taking into account the “human and moral dimensions” of the crisis.
“Economic arrangements, structures and remedies should have as a fundamental purpose safeguarding human life and dignity,” he affirmed. Murphy said a “scandalous search for excessive economic rewards,” is an example of “an economic ethic that places economic gain above all other values.”
“This ignores the impact of economic decisions on the lives of real people as well as the ethical dimension of the choices we make and the moral responsibility we have for their effect on people,” Bishop Murphy wrote.
He called for responsibility and accountability.
“Clearly, effective measures are required which address and alter the behaviors, practices and misjudgements that led to this crisis…Those who directly contributed tothis crisis or have profited from it should not be rewarded or escape accountability for the harm they have done,” he said.
“There are human needs which find no place on the market,” Murphy stressed. “It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied.” In this regard, he called for a “renewal of instruments of monitoring and corection within economic institutions and the financial industry as well as effective public regulation and protection to the extent this may be clearly necessary.”
Bishop Murphy’s Diocese of Rockville Centre is based on Long Island. Many of his flock, myself included, work in New York or for people who commute there. Long Islanders have been particularly walloped by the Wall Street meltdown.
It’s stunning just how fast and how deep this collapse is, racing around the world to batter everyone’s economy.
This crisis has created a teachable moment for the bishops – what can happen in an ethics vacuum, and how we are all interconnected.
Any decline in the financial industry has ripple effects across the region, said Jesuit Fr. James Martin, associate editor of America magazine. Before his ordination, Fr. Martin worked in corporate finance with General Electric.
“It’s more a symptom of environments where people seem much more interested in making money than in making sensible decisions,” he said. Senior executives made “obscene amounts of money making bad investments,” he said, and there were no incentives not to continue.
“They were carried away by greed and that trumped rational responsibility. They should have known better.”
Miami Archbishop John C. Favalora snuffed out an attempt by the Alliance Defense Fund, a consortium of conservative Christian groups, to encourage pastors in his diocese ”to join their Pulpit Freedom Initiative by preaching a sermon ‘that addresses the candidates for government office in light of the truth of Scripture.’”
Issued on September 12 in the form of a letter, Archbishop Favalora’s statement to his flock is titled, Why we don’t take sides on candidates. His words are measured and calm.
Favalora said the group, which advocates for what it terms “Christian legal issues,” is attempting to challenge the Internal Revenue Services’s rules restricting non-profit organizations from advocating for particular political parties or candidates.
Favalora opined that scriptural truth “is not that easy to attain. What is more “true” in terms of scripture: The Old Testament passage that says ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ or Jesus’ admonition to ‘turn the other cheek’?”
He added that the Catholic church not only values Scripture, but also “2,000 years of oral and written tradition.”
He said the church cannot be compared to a “party boss” and will not tell people how to vote.
“When church leaders speak on issues such as immigration, poverty, health care, abortion, war or embryonic stem cell research, we are not telling people how to vote. We are reminding them of the moral teachings that should inform their lives, and as a result, their votes,” he wrote.
Favalora said the church “will speak in support of legislation that we consider to be morally sound and beneficial to the whole community” regardless of party or candidate. “That is our duty as teachers and successors of the apostles.” 
“Your duty as Catholics,” Favalora wrote, “is to listen to those teachings before making rational, informed, conscientious decisions regarding whom or what to vote for.”
The bishop of Limburg, Germany, Franz Peter Tebartz van Elst, has removed a priest from office for “blessing” the partnership of two gay men. Their marriage took place on Friday, August 15th. 
Fr. Peter Kollas, a dean of priests in the city of Wetzlar, participated in the blessing of the two men during a civil wedding ceremony witnessed by a Protestant minister and 150 guests.
The bishop, appointed to the Diocese of Limburg by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, said Catholics “have a duty to protest the legal recognition of homosexual partnerships.”
In a statement appearing on the diocese’s website, Bishop Tebartz van Elst said he had removed Fr. Kollas as dean of priests to avoid further “damage” to the Church’s reputation.
The bishop met with Fr. Kollas, who said hat he would promise to “omit” such blessings in the future and said that he had never done them before.
A new dean of priests will be chosen who has the “confidence of the bishop.”
The statement from the bishop’s office came after protests over the event, not only from Catholics, but also area Protestants.
Fr. Kollas must have been disciplined within days of the event. The bishop’s reaction was much swifter than what we usually see for other transgressions–like pedophilia accusations or financial improprieties.
Obviously, gay men and lesbians in love are a much greater threat to the church–and merit a much harsher response-than serial child abusers and priests who help themselves to the parish bank accounts.
I am grateful to Fr. Kollas the sacrifice he made to bless a loving relationship.
