Francis I - a Pope for the People of God?

"Francis, Francis, go and repair My house which, as you can see, is falling into ruins". Icon of Christ Crucified speaking to Francis of Assisi

Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio,76 born  December 17, 1936 in Buenos Aires Argentina, was elected pope on March 13, 2013. Taking the name Francis I (after St. Francis of Assisi), he is the first pope from the Americas.  The archbishop of Buenos Aires is seen by some as an austere Jesuit intellectual who modernized Argentina’s conservative Catholic Church and became the first Jesuit to become pope. While the Jesuits have had their share of disagreements with the Vatican in the past, especially during pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the lack of a previous Jesuit pope might may have more to do with the background of their order.  Jesuit priests at the time of their solemn and final profession in the Society of Jesus promise: I will never strive or ambition, not even indirectly, to be chosen or promoted to any prelacy or dignity in or outside the Society; and I will do my best never to consent to my election unless I am forced to do so by obedience to him who can order me under penalty of sin (Constitutions S.J., Part X, N°6 [817]).

Yet, because of various reasons and in different circumstances—for example, need of a bishop in an area where the Church has still to be developed, recognition of a theologian's outstanding contribution to theological reflection, etc.—several Jesuits have been made bishops or even cardinals and now Francis I. In such cases they remain only nominally Jesuit, as they lose active and passive voice within the Order and are no longer under the obedience of the Superior General.

It is said that as archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Bergoglio lived in a modest home, travelled by bus, cooked his own meals and readily made himself available to the common and poor citizens of Argentina.   Bergoglio persuaded hundreds of Argentineans’ not to fly to Rome to celebrate with him but instead to give the money they would have spent on plane tickets to the poor.  At the same time was a fierce opponent of Argentina’s decision to legalize gay marriage * in 2010, arguing children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother.  He was created a cardinal by John Paul II on 21 February 2001.

Because Bergoglio as a former Jesuit, even if it is now considered nominally so – it will be interesting to see how his Jesuit background will help him address the mountain of problems which he has now inherited.  Without question the very future of the Roman Catholic institution depends on it.  For that reason alone something should be said about the order of the Society of Jesus or Jesuits – particularly how this may contrast with the dogmatic and iron rule under both JP II and Benedict.

The order’s commitment to social justice could be the trigger for renewed scrutiny from the Vatican.  According to author David Gibson ‘The Rule of Benedict’ (2006), The Jesuits saw themselves as responding to the [Vatican II] council’s call for religious orders to return to their roots”.  Gibson continues . . . “One of Ignatius’s founding principles, set out in his famous Spiritual Exercises, was for Jesuits to “choose poverty with Christ’s poor,” reflecting what his spiritual descendants did, especially in Latin America.  But, the Roman Curia had a different view and focused on what was seen as the order’s improper involvement in politics.”    

As a champion of the poor Bergoglio, must have been surprised when JP II and Cardinal Ratzinger both finally condemned liberation theology, in the mid eighties, as a hardcore Marxist idea.  While the Jesuit order has also been outspoken against centralization of the Church during the reign of JP II and Benedict XVI it is too early to state with any certainty if this remains an ideal to be followed with Francis I. Such liberating ideals were also reflected by some former Jesuits such a Michael Walsh when he spoke out against Roman Catholic elitist groups such as Opus Dei claiming that “the basic tenet of Christianity is that faith in Jesus Christ should be a liberating force in people’s lives, that it should free them to become more themselves, more in charge of their own destinies”.  Should Francis I desire a return to a more humble institution it would certainly signal a significant change from the hard line rule introduced by his predecessors.

The conflict in theologies handled under the direction of Pope John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger as head of the Office for the Doctrine of the Faith numerous notable Jesuits led many Jesuits being removed or silenced. These included such notables as Jon Sobrino, Jacques Dupres, Thomas Reese,  Karl Rahner, Fr. John McNeill, David Hollenbach, Anthony de Mello, Fr. Roger Haight, Fr. Paul Valadier, Jacques Dupuis, Fr. Bill Callahan, Fr. Pedro Arrupe.

The Jesuit Society remains the largest order in the church today with nearly twenty thousand members. It’s very success also created problems.  It has been so influential that it often ran afoul of both secular and Vatican authorities.  Is it possible that Francis I may be the Pope to finally challenge the Curia and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and head the church in a new spirit filled direction?  Will he be(come) a modern chuch leader for the People of God, a Pope for the times?

Links:  Fr. Richard Rohr, O.F.M. on Francis I - here 

* while Francis I may have opposed legalizing gay marriage on the basis that children deserve a mother and father it should be recognized that a) the adoption of children by married gay couples became necessary because the biological parents were not able to care for them  b) gay married couples are not able to reproduce . 

Catholic Church Fails on Handling Sexual Abuse Scandal

We have a Church that doesn’t have a tradition of talking together about things. The key in all abuse is to allow people to speak of it. If you can’t name it then you can’t identify what must be healed. There’s nowhere to go unless you name it first.” – Sr. Nuala Kenny

Your words have power
use them wisely

Not many Roman Catholics want to return to the subject of child sexual abuse, self included.  But  recent exchanges with several so called ‘devout’ Roman Catholics helped change my mind.  Opinions about the clerical sexual abuse scandal within the Roman Catholic Church are seen by some, especially its leaders, as nothing more than a vicious attack upon the institution.   Au contraire! This is a worldwide problem and not just within religious institutions.  However painful the subject may be, it must not remain closeted in some dark and secret place if we are to bring healing and understanding to both its victims and abusers. The Church, which could influence a much needed healing on the subject, seems to prefer a defensive approach by blaming the matter on the media, secularism, and atheism etc.. Thus the church avoids looking inwardly. In doing so, it reveals a total lack of integrity and honesty which is desperately needed to bring God’s gift of sexuality out of the present darkness.     

The Roman Catholic Church knowingly and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the perpetrators from abusing more children.  Experts such as Dr. Richard Sipe and Fr. Tom Doyle clearly identified that the chief causes behind the abuse and cover-up are due to the clerical culture that allowed this situation to exist and continue.  A priest who did not feel free to identify himself for fear of repercussions from his bishop wrote, “Clericalism is not simply the burden of priests who abuse children; hierarchy betrays the whole Church by its dishonesty that they justify by a claim to superiority.”

Geoffrey Robertson QC in his book,  ‘The Case of the Pope’ (2010),  states, “The fact is that tens of thousands of children throughout the world have been sexually abused by priests who have mostly been secretly dealt with by an ecclesiastical law that provides no real punishment and gives them ample opportunity to re-offend.  There is no doubt that the scale of the sex abuse scandal came about because of directives from the Vatican – specifically from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) – which required all sex abuse complaints to be processed in utter secrecy and withheld from local police and courts.”  The culture of secrecy, according to Sipe, lies with Canon law and its instructions to the faithful -   i.e., ‘Do not give scandal —that is: do not say or do anything that could damage the image or reputation of priests or the church—or give the enemies of the church ammunition for attacks.’

Irish priest, Brian D’Arcy (2010) writes, “A combination of bad theology, the dysfunctional abuse of power and a warped view of sexuality, have contributed to the ‘systemic failure’ to protect the most innocent and the most vulnerable children. I believe that the evil clerical culture which pervades our institution, right up to the Vatican bureaucracy itself, needs to be dismantled.”

Again, to quote Richard Sipe, “It is clear that the institutional church is in a pre-adolescent stage of psychosexual development.  This is a period typically prior to eleven years of age in which boys prefer association with their own sex, girls are avoided and held in disdain, often as a guise for fear of women as well as-yet-un-solidified sexuality.  Sex generally is rigidly denied externally; while secretly explored.  The rigidity extends to strict rules of inclusion and exclusion.  Control and avoidance are of primary concern.  A church stuck in the pre-adolescent stage of development is limited in its ability to cope with sexual issues and give sexual guidelines”.

When the Roman Catholic Church is unable to face and handle its self-inflicted wound and refuses to apply the expert advice it has been given, it will simply remain in denial. In this unfortunate way, they are unable to assist the rest of the world in giving spiritual advice about sexuality for they obviously do not possess it themselves.

The late Cardinal Carlo Martini—a voice of reason and humility in the Church—said, “Our culture is out of date, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous”. It will require a great deal of humility for the Church to finally accept its role in this terrible scandal.

After all, who is going to continue to speak for the thousands of nameless victims (who are never mentioned by most Pro-Life groups)?  The carefully arranged public offerings of apologies by the clergy for its victims may be a beginning but it hardly touches the depth of compassion and understanding required to bring a total healing to this painful episode in the lives of the victims and our church.

Finally, we need to reflect on the following challenging and concluding remarks from the distinguished human rights lawyer and judge Geoffrey Robertson, QC. “What will be required of the Vatican, as a signal of a new com­mitment to put children first, is the complete abandonment of Benedict's claim that the Holy See has the right to deal with sus­pected felons under an obscure, inefficient and secret ecclesiastical process. But Canon Law provides a form of power, and perhaps Benedict's fatal flaw is his attraction to power — to the pomp and circumstance of statehood, to the queues of world leaders who come to bend at his knee and kiss his fisherman's ring, and to the satisfaction of having delegates promote his ideology with six seats at UN conference tables. Journalists often tell how this kindly old man offers to share his food with them, but an analysis of his behaviour suggests a man in thrall to power and unable to give any of it up — even for the sake of innocent children. When it ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Holy See quoted the words of John Paul II, to the effect that children 'are that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity'. John Paul II himself, as we now know, failed that challenge by cosseting notorious child molester and turning a blind eye to the mounting toll of child victims. So did his closest lieutenant, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. On the question of whether Benedict XVI is capable of the wisdom and humanity to protect the children of his church, the jury is out.”

 

  

Dissent within the Catholic Church

The Irish Times filed this report May 19^th. 2012 about Pope Benedict’s problem with dissent within the Catholic Church.  Under the banner ‘Pope has consistently come down on dissent within the church like a hammer’. Reporter PATSY McGARRY provides the following retrospective view on the occasion of the seventh anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI on April 19th, 2005.

The scenes on St Peter’s Square that afternoon illustrated what this divisive figure has meant for his church. Middle-aged and older people were crestfallen. A man sat at one of the great fountains in the square and wept openly. Around him danced seminarians from the North American College.

Well-scrubbed and in cassocks, they could not contain their glee. “Benedicto, Benedicto, Benedicto,” they shouted. “It’s a regular party,” a seminarian from Pittsburg told this reporter.

For them, the election of John Paul II’s enforcer as pope represented the final defeat of that liberal Catholicism ushered in following Vatican II which they and their mentors see as at the root of all that is wrong in the church today. The rigid certainties enforced by the new pope had so much more appeal for them than the porous, inclusive Catholicism of the previous generation.

Pope Benedict’s views were well-known, as were his attitudes to dissent. As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger helped to force closed many windows thrown open by Pope John XXIII and Vatican II.

For instance, where ecumenism was concerned and in his infamous Dominus Iesus document of 2000, he dismissed all reformed churches as not churches “in the proper sense”. They were merely “ecclesial communities”. All other faiths were“gravely deficient”. In 1997, he described Buddhism as an “auto-erotic spirituality”. Hinduism was based on a concept of reincarnation resembling “a continuous circle of hell”.

On celibacy, women priests or women in the diaconate, he was immovable. Similarly on the use of condoms even to combat Aids. On homosexuality he was virulent. In 1986, he described it as a “strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”.

Where dissent was concerned he brooked no hostages. It extended to former colleagues such as Hans Küng. In 1966, at Küng’s instigation, the Catholic faculty at Germany’s Tübingen university appointed Fr Ratzinger professor of dogmatics. In 1979, Küng was stripped of his licence to teach because he challenged papal infallibility. In 1981, when Ratzinger became dean of the CDF, he upheld that decision.

In 1986, he stopped US priest Fr Charles Curran from teaching because of his views on sexuality and ethics. A Brazilian, Fr Leonardo Boff, was silenced twice by him, in 1985 and in 1991. Fr Robert Nugent and Sr Jeannine Gramick, who worked with gay people in the US, were sanctioned in 1999. In 1995, Sri Lankan theologian Fr Tissa Belasuriya was excommunicated by him over writings on Mary, original sin and the divinity of Christ. He was later reconciled with the church.

There were so many more.

There is also something deeply insidious about the methods he and Rome use to silence those who disagree, as we have seen in Ireland. You might say Rome has ways of making you “think with the mind of the church” (sentire com ecclesia), in that memorable phrase directed by Rome at Fr Tony Flannery last month as he was told“ . . . to a monastery go!”

The Irish Times has, for instance, been aware for years of the curt silencing of three other Irish priests/theologians as they sought their way to a more compassionate, Christian understanding of human life. All three belong to different religious congregations.

In all instances, the head of their congregation was summoned to the CDF in Rome after anonymous complaint. The congregation head was advised to bring the“dissident” into line. He in turn contacted the congregation head in Ireland. The “dissident” was summoned and confronted with his aberration.

Usually, at local level, the relevant head has been kind. The priest/theologian in each case has been torn between a need to articulate his convictions for the benefit of the distressed and the consequences this for his congregation. Each priest felt he had to accept silence.

In each case too, those of us in the media aware of it were asked not to write about this lest the sky fall and bring further misery on the already crushed. So Rome has had its way and through exploiting finer human emotions such as loyalty and respect. Clever? Yes, but hardly Christian.”

Like any other Institutionalized religion Catholicism demands that its followers adopt a particular way of expressing the faith along with a prepared set of beliefs. Religious institutions demand that dissent from church teachings is not acceptable and can be met with certain censures and even excommunication.  But how do these demands meet our understanding of God?  While a lot will depend on our cultural and family background the bible suggests that God gave us complete freedom to choose. Scripture tells us that God proposed only two primary conditions necessary to receive his daily blessings to be shared among all his people and that was ‘to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with your entire mind.  The second most important commandment is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as you love yourself.’   We are free to accept or reject God’s offer of love.  Even when we reject God it does not mean that God stops loving us.  God’s love is unconditional.  Only a merciful God is able to accept us after we have rejected Him again and again in our broken condition. Should religious institutions not follow suit?  Neither is God’s salvation limited to the converted or the ‘religious’.  Scripture tells us “for he makes his sun to shine on bad and good people alike, and gives rain to those who do good and to those who do evil”.  Should religious institutions not follow suit?

People celebrate their love for God in many different ways, but some have been made to believe that God can only be reached by following a prescribed form of prayer or particular form of liturgy.  Yet Jesus tells us “There are many rooms in my Father’s house and I am going to prepare a place for you.  I would not tell you this if it were not so.  And after I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to myself, so that you will be where I am”.  There is no hint here about exclusivity instead Jesus speaks of the many rooms  where unconditional diversity brings us together in unity.  Should we think that failure to accept certain religious teachings is a sin and a rejection of God?  Then remember that God meets us where we are.   And know that when our heart is right so God will respect and judge our decision. Should religious institutions not follow suit? 

Recently I came across a blog which seems to put the primacy of conscience in its proper perspective. 

  The perfect Scriptural example using one’s God given conscience is Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac. To any objective observer, such an act would be murder! Can you imagine Sarah’s reaction if God had permitted the sacrifice to occur? Put yourself in Abraham’s place. How was Abraham certain that it was God, rather than his ego, who demanded the sacrifice of Isaac?

Should religious institutions not respect an individual's primacy of an informed conscience when they cannot obey their teachings?

Readers may also be interested in 'How dissenters from Galileo to John Courtney Murray have helped the church to see mare clearly' which orginally appeared in the U.S. Catholic, July 28, 2008 by Jesuit Fr. Robert J. McCLory under the title 'When Wrong Turns Out To Be Right'.

Bible Interpretation Fail

The Catholic News Service filed the following story from the Vatican, dated April 20^th,  “While the text of the Bible is fixed, the same Holy Spirit that inspired its writing continues to inspire its proclamation and interpretation in the church, Pope Benedict XVI said.  The obvious intent here is that the Church desperately wants to consolidate its loss of power and influence over its flock.  Apparently Benedict believes that Catholics are not interpreting the Bible as is traditionally understood by the Church. This situation is alarming to Pope who seems unable to connect spiritually with the people it serves.    

Most educated and Confirmed Catholic adults, with an informed conscience, will read and interpret the Bible searching for a God who is relevant to their particular situation in life. The sincerity of their efforts will not go without the assistance of the Holy Spirit (which they received at Confirmation) who meets them where they are – not necessarily where others and the Church would have them be.  

The role of the Church is to help us find God in our everyday lives.  This cannot be achieved when the central focus of the Church seems to be based on constant warnings about such things as secularism, pluralism, atheism, and the ‘godless people of Europe’. Where once it taught love and understanding the Church seems preoccupied with the sins of human sexuality. Sensing further dangers the Church has now launched a modern inquisition aimed at the bishops of Ireland and Women Religious in the US.  These matters obscure the real message to be taken from the bible that  Jesus came so that we might live a life to be lived to the full!

When the Church insists that it alone possesses all the ultimate truths in the Bible does it not contradict the words of Jesus when he said “The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and make you remember all that I have told you?”  While the text of the Bible is fixed the works of the Holy Spirit continues to inspire the lives of all the faithful, while God’s revelation brings forth new understanding each moment of the day.


 

The Real Inspiration in the Bible

Except for the Bible itself, it took until the second half of the twentieth century for the voices of reform and change to begin to have a wide, public, and legitimate voice. I do not think that is an overstatement. In any swing of the pendulum in the direction of justice, the masses, the bottom, were always considered subversive and traitorous, up until the 1960s! Why not, when even the churches were usually looking down from the top and the Bible had been made into establishment literature—which it clearly is not.

The Bible affirms law, authority, and tradition, as most writings in most of history have done, but then it also does something much more: it strongly affirms reform, change, and the voiceless, starting with the Exodus event itself. This is what makes the Bible a truly revolutionary and inspired book. It affirms the necessity of authority and continuity in a culture (tradition), but against the usual pattern it also affirms the currents of change, reform, the poor, the outsider, and justice for the marginalized groups—starting with the enslaved Jewish people themselves.

The Real Inspiration in the Bible

Except for the Bible itself, it took until the second half of the twentieth century for the voices of reform and change to begin to have a wide, public, and legitimate voice. I do not think that is an overstatement. In any swing of the pendulum in the direction of justice, the masses, the bottom, were always considered subversive and traitorous, up until the 1960s! Why not, when even the churches were usually looking down from the top and the Bible had been made into establishment literature—which it clearly is not.

The Bible affirms law, authority, and tradition, as most writings in most of history have done, but then it also does something much more: it strongly affirms reform, change, and the voiceless, starting with the Exodus event itself. This is what makes the Bible a truly revolutionary and inspired book. It affirms the necessity of authority and continuity in a culture (tradition), but against the usual pattern it also affirms the currents of change, reform, the poor, the outsider, and justice for the marginalized groups—starting with the enslaved Jewish people themselves.

The Biblical bias toward the bottom has been called by some “the preferential option for the poor.” But it is an option, an invitation: it is a grace, and it emerges from inner freedom—or else it would not be from God. In the last analysis, the Bible is biased; it takes the side of the rejected ones, the abandoned ones, the barren women, and the ones who have been excluded, tortured, and kept outside. This is all summed up in Jesus’ own ministry: He clearly prefers, heals, and includes the foreigner, the non-Jew, the handicapped, and the sinner—without rejecting the people of power, but very clearly critiquing them.

Richard Rohr, Adapted from A Lever and a Place to Stand:
The Contemplative Stance, the Active Prayer (CD)

   

 

Fast-tracking two Popes to Sainthood

I have just purchased the book, The Power and the Glory- Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican (2007) by David Yallop. Hopefully this book will reveal an honest and objective portrait of the 'real' Pope John Paul II, unadorned by the usual biased Vatican approved criteria. The author promises to expose some of the myths about the role Wojtyla played during and after WWII in Poland as well as some of the half-truths about this Pope's long reign. At the same time this book will examine the role of the Vatican in the fall of Communism, the mismanagement of Vatican finances, its failure to address the child sexual abuse crisis, the rise of Opus Dei, to the "Holy Alliance" between the White House and the Vatican. The Power and the Glory, according the fly-leaf is a bold and unflinching look at a man being fast-tracked to sainthood and his profound effect on a polarized institution.

As a convert to Catholicism, married to a cradle Catholic, I initially avoided almost everything and anything that spoke against 'the Church'. Today all that has changed due to a greater inner desire for truth and justice. As an active member of our small parish it was my happy duty to accept the role as Catechist for more than twenty years. In order the present fresh material for our yearly inquirers I specifically avoided using the same material and resources as much as possible (admittedly for the purpose of keeping it interesting for myself). The research lead me into many avenues and alleys along the way. However, the objective as I saw it was to bring people closer to an unconditionally loving Creator. As the years went on, I gradually began to question some of the teachings of the Church against the greater Gospel values. This was to become my 'downfall' as I started to speak out about a God, who did not punish, reward or hand-out favours. Additionally questions about Apostolic Succession, Gays, Abortion, and Sexual Abuse lead to my eventual (predictable?) dismissal by a recently appointed completely Orthodox minded priest. Most of the priests, during the previous year's understood and accepted my more expanded views. I seldom failed to include the Church's Traditional position or teachings. 'Critical thinking' is better than 'no thinking' remains my motto in the search for truth.

Nowhere does this seem more appropriate, then on the subject of Pope Pius XII and his role regarding the Jews during WWII. Yallop suggests that Pius XII may have saved as many as 860,000 Jews. The latest findings by German historian, Dr. Michael Hesemann were hailed as Proof is overwhelming Pius XII saved Jewish lives by a local Catholic on-line news media. The online article stated that Pius XII "arranged the flight of 200,000 Jews from Germany as early as 1938."

The number of books that have been written 'pro and con' about Pius XII during WWII would almost fill a medium sized library. Since the Vatican remains secretive and unresponsive, this controversial subject will remain on people's questioning minds for many more years to come. In the meantime, fast-tracking Pius XII to sainthood, similar to Pope John Paul II, may take a little longer.

>

On Vatican Challenges

The following letter was mailed today to our Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Dear Bishops:

I have read your letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, March 19, 2009 as well as his initial letter to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, of March 10, 2009.

I am deeply concerned about the recent events that have so troubled our Church and its leaders and thereby all faithful. At the same time I want to express my disappointment with the two exchanges mentioned above. Archbishop Weisgerber’s response to our Pope is typical of the hierarchical restraints used to adequately deal with the problems that face a fearful church today. From my own personal experience, I find that the Church has failed miserably to "bring reconciliation to those who are estranged from the community of faith".

Church leadership continues to pour new wine into old wine skins. A new way of seeing and communicating with the community of believers is needed. The role of the Church must be seen, in teaching its followers to discover and claim the God within – not outside, isolated and subject to a dominant hierarchy! Reading our Pope’s letter one will immediately detect a strong pre Vatican II Roman Catholic flavor. Far removed from the spirit I embraced as a convert more than twenty-five years ago. Accordingly, I am compelled to respond to our Pope’s words – see bold text in italics below:

Pope’s concern for reconciliation

Many will ask “is Pope Benedict XVI sincere about his desire for reconciliation with groups like Society of St. Pius X *? And, should it not have included the one hundred of more theologians, and other members of the clergy who were silenced or dismissed in the last twenty five years? Compared to the Lefebvrist the latter individuals were ‘punished’ for what now seems a whole lot less. God created us as unique individuals to be bound together through diversity.

*We were told by Vatican officials that the Pope made the decision independently and without consultation or collegialy through his fellow bishops.

“Some groups openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the [Vatican II] Council: as a result, an avalanche of protest was unleashed”

There is very little doubt about Benedict’s position regarding Vatican II. His actions and words, as head of the CDF* and subsequently as Pope, are very clear on this point. There are volumes of books, such as ‘The Rule of Benedict’, by David Gibson that support the Pope’s opposition to much of the Council. More importantly, when the Vatican received an ‘avalanche of protest’, regarding the changes implemented by the Council, why did the Vatican choose to ignore the cry of the people? Or was this simply a matter of imposing convenient hierarchical truths?

“I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility.”

Sadly, millions of Catholics are not listened to or consulted about issues that directly affect their spiritual lives. Many find themselves condemned instead of offered compassion when they expressed their right and duty to challenge Church teachings.

“the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity.”

This is probably the most damaging statement made by a Pope since the Spanish Inquisition. A statement made all the more confusing considering it was his predecessor John Paul II who initially excommunicated the Lefebvrists. It begs the question which Pope was right? Additionally the overemphasis on the term 'punishment' revives the old pre Vatican II image of a angry and punishing deity. Jesus never refused those who came to him for healing and understanding. Did Jesus not invited sinners to sit with him and dine? Would Jesus really excommunicate or deny his presence (Eucharist) to us for any reason?

“Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.”

The Church must teach & guide us to be obedient to the Divine Indwelling the very roots from which the tree draws its life. So many Catholics profess faith in the Church but express little trust for the God within. A perfect recipe for co-dependency on both sides.

“the faith is in danger of dying out . . . God is disappearing from the human horizon”

Institutional religion is certainly dying out, witness the dramatic decline in Church attendance/participation worldwide. Recent statistics show that close to ninety percent of people believe in God. The same statistics show that people no longer accept the ‘traditional understanding of God’ and want to experience a strong healthy & responsible faith instead of being spoon fed. Dogma, doctrine and church rules can be helpful when dealing with life’s painfull problems but is no substitute for the ‘real thing’.

“At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate.”

When we label some people as ‘intrinsically evil, or fail to demonstrate God’s understanding & compassion with regard to abortion, responsible use of condoms, prayers for the conversion of the Jews, etc. are we then not attacking them?

"Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh”

I choose this final statement as a typical example of the kind of archaic ‘churchy’ language that people can no longer relate too. The term ‘flesh’ is understood probably by most people, especially clergy, to have sinful sexual connotations. When it is used to define the ego or false self, as I believe St. Paul did, it takes on a much deeper meaning for all humankind and their struggle to die to self.

As a once active and involved Catholic, I stand on the many wonderful Catholic friends and volumes of uplifting authors that continue to inspire me to remain faithful to the Christ within.

Yours in Christ

The following story (not included in the above mailing ) by master story teller Fr. Anthony de Mello, SJ, perhaps best illustrates what I hoped to convey in the above letter to our Canadian Bishops.

There was a man who invented the art of making fire. He took his tools and went to a tribe in the north, where it was very cold, bitterly cold. He taught the people there to make fire. The people were very interested. He showed them the uses to which they could put fire — they could cook, could keep themselves warm, etc. They were so grateful that they had learned the art of making fire. But before they could express their gratitude to the man, he dis­appeared. He wasn't concerned with getting their recognition or gratitude; he was concerned about their well-being. He went to another tribe, where he again began to show them the value of his invention. People were interested there, too, a bit too in­terested for the peace of mind of their priests, who began to notice that this man was drawing crowds and they were losing their popularity. So they decided to do away with him. They poisoned him, crucified him, put it any way you like. But they were afraid now that the people might turn against them, so they were very wise, even wily. Do you know what they did? They had a portrait of the man made and mounted it on the main altar of the temple. The instruments for making fire were placed in front of the portrait, and the people were taught to revere the portrait and to pay reverence to the instruments of fire, which they dutifully did for centuries. The veneration and the worship went on, but there was no fire.

Where's the fire? Where's the love? Where's the drug up­rooted from your system? Where's the freedom? This is what spirituality is all about. Tragically, we tend to lose sight of this, don't we? This is what Jesus Christ is all about. But we overem­phasized the "Lord, Lord," didn't we? Where's the fire? And if worship isn't leading to the fire, if adoration isn't leading to love, if the liturgy isn't leading to a clearer perception of reality, if God isn't leading to life, of what use is religion except to cre­ate more division, more fanaticism, more antagonism? It is not from lack of religion in the ordinary sense of the word that the world is suffering, it is from lack of love, lack of awareness. I have run into individuals, here and there, who suddenly stum­ble upon this truth: The root of evil [ego or 'false self'*] is within you. As you begin to understand this, you stop making demands on yourself.

* Congregattion for the Doctrine of the Faith.