Here are a few of the things that I see as problematic (not an inclusive list and in no particular order, just a few that come to mind right now):
1. Lack of respect for the “ordained” on the part of some lay ministers
2. Liturgies and homilies (and/or “reflections”) that are usurped by political and/or social agendas, that in many cases are contrary to Church teachings
3. Liturgical dancing (I still shudder every time I think of the “Chrism Mass” last year)
4. Poor catechesis for our young people5. Lack of any meaningful adult education programs
6. The confrontational attitudes of people on both sides of the “orthodox vs. progressive” debate
I am sure that many people could add to this list and think that it does not go far enough, and that there are many out there who feel that I am “too traditional” in my thinking (something I have to say I have never been accused of!). But those are the extremes, and quite honestly, I am getting very tired of “extremes”.
Why does it always have to be “either/or” and not “both/and”?
CF has a tag that says
“Cleansing Fire is part of the daily reading of over 300 Rochester area Catholics, as well as several more Catholics across the globe.”which I think is awesome! I have learned a lot from the guys over at CF, even though in the beginning, I thought they were “the enemy”. But as I was reading this past week, especially the posts linked above, I started to wonder- how many Catholics are we really talking about, on both ends of the spectrum?
If the DOR has 360,000 Catholics (according to it’s website) and 400 (I am rounding up) read and agree 100% with the views of the gang at Cleansing Fire, we are still only talking about 0.1% of Catholics in the Rochester area.
Now, I will say, for arguments sake, that 10% of Catholics in the Rochester area are “ultra-orthodox, say the black, do the red” Catholics and 10% are “ultra-liberal, let’s throw the book out the window and let the Spirit prevail” Catholics, what about the other 80%? What are they thinking and feeling about Catholic life in the Rochester area? How do they handle the changes that leave them wondering?
I can’t help but to think that our Church would be better served by more cooperation and understanding among the extremes, and less division and “cafeteria-ism” from both ends of the spectrum.
As St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians: 12-27
As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
Now the body is not a single part, but many. If a foot should say, "Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. Or if an ear should say, "Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be? But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you," nor again the head to the feet, "I do not need you." indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. Now you are Christ's body, and individually parts of it.
Are we, here in the DOR, “one body”? As much as I hate to say it, I don’t think we are quite there yet, but I will keep praying!
**I have disabled the comment box for this post. If you have something relevant to the orignal post that you would like to comment on please send me an e-mail at oneofthewoman@gmail.com, (names and e-mail adresesses will be held in strictist confidence and not be posted unless your permission is given) and I will post as appropriate. A special "thank you" to all who added constructive comments to this post and helped to facilitate the dialogue I am always looking for.
Peace, Persis
2/12/10 10:57pm
We were one body until some people, who will remain nameless, usurped the parishes. I can't think of a single person who was preaching women's lib from the pulpit, stating "abortion's bad, but lack of choice is worse," or anything along those lines, before we had an administration like the one we have now.
ReplyDeleteThe real change happened in the days after Vatican II - maybe it's related, maybe it's not. Before that, you had people who were either very into the Church, very well-educated, loving the liturgy, or there were those who were apathetic. Surely there were some discontents, but they had respect enough for the Church in the DoR not to tear it apart. That reverence, on the part of progressives/liberals, has been lost. Just look at what's going on at Spiritus, St. Mary's, and beyond.
We can only be one if the schismatics come home. And we all know they're too proud to do that. The day I see Sr. Joan sitting in the congregation at OLV or the Latin Mass is the day, Persis, when we have become one body.
Also, there were never extremes before all this. You either followed the Church and Her doctrine, or you rejected it. Now, however, everyone's playing around with relativism. Those who are labeled as reactionary, conservative, etc. are the only ones who haven't changed their views. Most have embraced the reforms of Vatican II. However, most people in the diocese took some reforms too far, removing the good reforms of the Council. We were supposed to have Tradition without baggage - now most people have baggage without Tradition. The orthodox are the only ones who haven't been swayed by dissent, and their numbers aren't shrinking. They're growing. Rapidly.
I can’t help but to think that our Church would be better served by more cooperation and understanding among the extremes, and less division and “cafeteria-ism” from both ends of the spectrum.
ReplyDeletePersis, perhaps, in an ideal world. But we don't live in an ideal world, but a fallen world. I don't see it happening in the immediate future a) because of some irreconciable differences, and b) because of the highly charged atmosphere her, much of it attributable to pain and anger.
I also believe that it won't always be like this. Of all the reasons for the present state of affairs, one factor that will definitely change will be a new bishop in a few years. How that will play out, I don't know.
Beyond the new bishop, no situation stays the same for very long. Nor is the present situation totally unique in Church history. They have been major "disagreements," divsions, and even schisms in the past and the Church has survived.
In the meantime, one lives a day at a time - give us today our *daily* bread.
The other 80% is either indifferent (sings along and reads what they are told to by leaders), and apathetic (doesn't go to church, or goes once in awhile).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Persis,
ReplyDeleteI believe we ARE still one body in Christ. Under Her Mantle said it best that the Church has always experienced disagreements, divisions, schisim and even dissent and has survived. The Church will never be rid of all these because the Church is made up of human beings and we are not perfect including bishops and the bishop of Rome.
I agree somewhat with the concerns you have listed, especially #5. I'm 50 years old and I totally agree with you that this Diocese does not think of older Catholics when they sponsor religious education programs. Yes, there is Theology on Tap for younger adults, but I'm too old for that group. And, yes there is St. Bernard's School of Theology and Ministry, but I have neither the money nor the desire to take a class at St. Bernards.
With all due respect to CF and F & F, I don't share their views about Bishop Clark's book. I finished reading it last week and I thought it was terrific. And I intend to write my own separate letter to Rome about what I like about the book and my support of Bishop Matthew Clark and lay ecclesial ministry.
Speaking of disagreement and division in the Church, look at how many and various times the Franciscan order has split and divided in its history. On the other hand, the Dominican order has never had a split or division. I wonder why, and whatever the reason is, could we use that in the Church today?
ReplyDeleteTmac, you've added to what I said and I wish to clarify.
ReplyDeleteThe word dissent was not something I included. Also, my comment about living in a fallen world was in the context of this diocese. Extending it to bishops and the pope gave it a nuance I did not intend.
My comment was in the context of living with the tension that is present, not condoning it. Division rooted in dissent and schisms are harmful.
The disagreements and divisions that arise from the organic development and/or distillation of doctrine may also be painful, but cease with a crystal clear understanding of God's will on the topic.
Since the topic of dissent has been raised, just for the record, I consider the phrase "loyal dissent" to be an oxymoron.
Other than a few excerpts, I have not read Bishop Clark's book so I'll leave the comments about it to others.
Persis,
ReplyDeleteYou make some very good observations. I am in basic agreement with all of them especially # 6.
Underhermantle and Tmac also make wise points but I am not as optimistic about our future.
The "ultra-orthodox" as you call them see themselves as the remnant of the One True Church and tend to have little or no respect for Catholics who do not share their views. This disrespect extends to not even considering them "real" Catholics. My experiences with them on their blogs and in real life convinces me that many have no desire to associate or worship with Catholics they consider inferior to them. Their hostility to those who are not in sync with them seems equal to their professed love of the Church. Anon's dismissal of 80% of Catholics is typical. The zeal of many to "reform" Vatican II and "take back" the Church by publicly vilifying self-identified enemies makes them resemble a cult to mainstream Catholics and non-Catholics. Their short term goal of a "smaller purer" Church through purging the less "orthodox" seems more probable than their long term goal of filling the pews.
Your point that they represent .01% to .10% of Catholics is well taken. I have been told by those more qualified than me that I am wasting my time and damaging my soul tangling with them in an effort to defend our bishop and promote One Body of Catholics.
I think I should listen and follow that advice.
God Bless,
Irondequoit Catholic
"Their hostility to those who are not in sync with them seems equal to their professed love of the Church. "
ReplyDeletePeter, you simply can't write one post where you aren't hostile towards those you call the orthodox Catholics. God, you are some hypocrite.
"tangling with them in an effort to defend our bishop and promote One Body of Catholics"
ReplyDeleteYou absolutely are not defending Bishop Clark in order to promote oneness, you're defending the bishop because he's a progressive Catholic like yourself. You speak negatively several times in your posts at DoR Catholic about the orthodox bishops. You call them pedophile protectors, and you frequently use the term "kick-ass bishop" in a negative sense referring to them. You hardly are one to defend bishops; you just defend the progressive far-left pro-homosexual, pro-women's ordination bishops. When people bring up that Clark defended pedophile priests, you just brush this fact aside. Clearly if it's a progressive who is being questioned, you'll look the other way. Hypocrite.
I apologize for all the negativity that I have written. I now realize that orthodoxy is the correct path to follow.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
Irondequoit Catholic
Persis, I'd recommend turning on comment moderation before this gets out of hand.
ReplyDeleteIC,
ReplyDeleteYou've indicated here, and on other blogs, that we should be more concerned with filling the pews. I've asked before, and I will ask again, is there ANY criteria you would deem required for membership? It may be one thing to have "warm bodies" in the pews, but if they are there and don't share the Church's beliefs (and I mean the magisterial teachings of the Church - not individual interpretations), are they benefitted by their attendance and is the Church benefitted by their membership?
I know you have a major complaint about the Church's teaching on birth control, so I ask you: If the Church changed the teaching on birth control would that be enough for those who have left the faith to return? Should the Church also change Her teaching on divorce? How about homosexuality? Okay. How about reproductive technologies? Embryonic stem cell research? Let's keep going. What if someone has a problem with the teaching on the death penalty? The preferential option for the poor? The Resurrection? The divinity of Christ? The Incarnation? Does denial of any of these teachings disqualify a person for membership?
You get my point. We belong to the Catholic Church and that should mean something. Otherwise, we could belong to just about any other Christian church.
As for Persis' post, I will continue to pray for our local Church and for Bishop Clark. It's taken a while to get into our current situation, it will take a while to get out.