An Aid To Memory

http://getreligion.typepad.com/getreligion/catholicism/index.html

Let me say as I write this, I am probably soon joining the Catholic Church, and would be classified as a traditional Catholic who accepts Vatican II, so I am not a raving liberal (nor a member of the SSPX). It seems the Catholic sex abuse scandal has now become international, and we have more cases of bishops shifting abusive priests and even hiding them from the law. This is, of course, intolerable behavior, that needs to be effectively tackled and ended, with a comprehensive program designed and enforced by the Vatican. The American Bishops have taken great steps and now have a “zero-tolerance” policy, however, worldwide, I do not believe we have such safeguards.

There are of course many reasons why we need a strong and comprehensive policy to deal with this issue. First we must think of the poor victims. Such behavior is not only physically and sexually abusive, but it is also spiritually abusive. Bishops and priests are representatives of Christ and His Church, and as such bear his name. When a father molests a child, the person molested often has a negative view of fatherhood, or the family in general, because the abuse by the father has shaped the psyche so effectively. When the a priest is involved in molestation, or a bishop covers it up, we cause children to stumble, something that Jesus warned us against so harshly. The Church and Christ become associated with the heinous acts of molestation.

Also, we must think of the Church. In the United States we have a history of bigoted anti-Catholicism. Some of it subtle, some not so subtle. The Church’s behavior needs to be above reproach, for this reason, and because the Church is in the line of the Apostles. I am worried that we will have to apologize later for not acting now. Now we have the chance. This has also been a chance for many to change the issue, and use this as a springboard to advocate for pet causes like women’s ordination. Really the issue is not about women’s ordination or even married priests (which is a discipline issue anyway, not doctrinal, and many Catholics worldwide, the Eastern Catholics, have married priests), but about errant priests who have not been properly handled.

To deal with the issues, I think we must be vigilant and offer programs to prevent this sort of thing. We must also not convince ourselves that it’s really “no big deal.” It IS a big deal. So, why not take every chance we get to educate the laity and clergy on this issue? Why not offer programs in Sunday School classes and have mandatory yearly classes at Catholic schools explaining and showing ways to spot sexual abuse, whether happening to yourself or others? And why not make this mandatory worldwide? If we train children and adults to recognize when this deviant behavior occurs, how to respond, and offer a way to report this abuse, we can reduce the number of deviant acts and restore faith in the priesthood and hierarchy to those who have lost it. Of course, this should not simply be a prescription for the Catholic Church, but for ALL Churches, seeing as how sexual abuse is a problem in every church, much of it still hidden. To blame the Catholic Church alone is to miss the point, and to fall back on the mindless anti-Catholicism that still permeates American society. And these interventions would also spill over and hopefully reduce the sexual abuse rate in the home (which is where it actually occurs most commonly).

I am probably going to be Roman Catholic in the Fall, for a variety of reasons. However, that does not mean I feel as if this issue has been handled adequately, despite my growing acceptance and admiration of Roman Catholic doctrinal and social teaching. I hope that the Vatican initiates a strong program to deal with this issue, realizing that ignoring it, or mishandling it, is causing many “little ones” to stumble and is hurting the image of the Church. Boston’s Archdiocese recently closed 65 Churches mainly because of this very issue. The gospel and mission of Christ are hindered when priests molest children, and when bishops cover for their behavior. The only response is a strong one. As a side note, we must continue to be Christian in our handling of this issue. We must still recognize that child-molesters may be forgiven, but that proper penance for such behavior is to make civil and ecclesial restitution for the behavior, which includes jail civilly and defrocking ecclesially. As for the bishops who cover these things up, if they remain bishops, they should spend the rest of their lives making right the wrong situations they helped cause. I pray for the Catholic Church as she deals with this issue. She WILL emerge intact, it is just a question of how quickly and adequately it will be handled.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_040623.shtml

There has been a slurry of Bible translations released recently, mostly from conservative Evangelical quarters. Most differ very little, except stylistically. However now the mainline liberals are getting in on the act, and we have a new “relevant” and “earthy” translation released by One For Christian Renewal, a group that employs plenty of buzz-words, and even invites the reader into the land of sap to make “Origami Peace Cranes.” They also have illusions (delusions) that there will be “another Nicaea” called by the World Council of Churches, because “we need a new creed without myth” which has been the battle-cry of the now-60-something mainline liberals for some time. What they fail to realize is that the Nicene Creed will be around long after they will be, and that there is no crisis of belief for most Christians, mostly just upper-class, older, mainliners. Of course, since they have undertaken to replace the creed, why not replace the Bible? This seems to be what the “One” translation does based on the excerpts provided by a sympathetic webpage (linked to above). For instance, Paul’s admonitions against extra-marital sex are removed and readers are told to do the exact opposite. It is kind of like changing Socrates’ popular adage “the life unexamined is a life not worth living” to “an unexamined life is simply way cool dude!”

We’ve heard the story before. We need to “demythologize” the Bible, get rid of all of the hard stuff it contains, that way it will be more accessible. This includes any masculine language or high ethical ideals that conflict with secular culture. This line of reasoning is not new, and was advocated by Thomas Jefferson, Rudolph Bultmann, and “bishops” Robinson (J.A.T., not Gene) and Spong. Jefferson probably took the most honest approach: just simply delete the offending passages. It is only the late-modern person who sees the need to rewrite or mistranslate the text. This may be because the late-modern person is so “enlightened” that he or she has the right…no…the obligation to correct and emend the writings of those “unenlightened” souls who had the misfortune of being born before 1920. How this mistranslating or correcting is any different from medieval scribes “correcting” scripture in the transmission of the texts is beyond me.

The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury supports this new translation and offers praise for it. I wonder if he would support “inclusivizing” other classical works, like the Socrates example above? Maybe we should draw more women on the walls of the Sistine chapel? Davinci’s “Last Supper” doesn’t have enough minorities and is not “earthy” enough, let’s repaint it. Why? Because, like the Bible, according to Archbishop Williams, it is too “specialized” for the average person to appreciate. Plus, we have the right, don’t we? We are modern people after all!

There used to be a time when converts to Christianity were “brought up” to the level of Christian truth, and invited to participate in the timeless mystery that is Christian Truth and Ethics. The Bible (along with Tradition) was the guidebook to this Truth, difficult passages and all. Now it seems every chance is being taken to create a Christianity that is palatable only to the blandest and most secular of Academics. The Anglican Communion has succumbed to this type of thinking at the highest and lowest of levels. The only consolation is that this translation will probably be viewed as just another novelty. Most believers worldwide are too traditional, and most academics are too scholarly to use it as a serious translation. I guess that leaves mainline clergy, who continue to convince themselves of their relevance while the mainlines die right before their eyes. The situation is like the Captain of the Titanic, practically swimming in the approaching waters, continuing to proclaim the unsinkability of his ship. I suppose if the philosophy behind this Bible translation were a commodity it would be “New Coke.” And the Coca-cola company would be faring about as well as the mainlines had it stuck with “New Coke” this long.

I like to run. Usually I end up running 3-4 times a week, if not more. I don’t just go out and perform the physical act of running though. Running, while (obviously) the central reason why I get out to "run," is not the entire picture. Let me explain.

I almost always run outside when the weather cooperates. I try to run on the trails at the local State Park, at the local floodwall, or over the hills behind the rural High School 2 miles from my home. As I run, I take in the changes of the seasons, the scenery, the animals that wander by, and the flowers that blossom. I observe the purple flowers of spring, and the painted rows of white stinging nettles as summer comes to a close. I smell the blooming Dogwoods in the spring, the green grasses in the summer, and the rotting apples in the fall. Even winter in its sparseness has a distinct smell. I even try to get a tan when its sunny. I usually carefully pick out a CD to listen to on the way over, as I roll the windows down and enjoy a slower-than-usual drive to the running destination. I often pray when I run, or think about theological issues, like how after the Incarnation all the world was redeemed and sanctified. I have picked up snow many times and commented on how it is "redeemed snow." Other times I just think of past relationships, good and bad. When I run with my brother, we usually talk about these same things. So as you can see, when I go out to "run" it is something far more than just moving my legs above 3 miles-per-hour. It is a whole experience and something rich and meaningful that would be missed if "running" simply meant just the physical act itself.

My point? Well, the Christian faith is like this. There are sparse options and there are full options, just like there is "just running" and there is "my running." We can just have "me and Jesus," as many Protestant churches embrace. We can have white walls, and God confined between Genesis and Revelation. We can have a faith divorced from sacrament and symbol, divorced from the people and places of history. We can have it sparse I guess. I cannot judge the salvation of those who keep it sparse, seeing as the Church is a mystery. However, this little personal illustration explains why I am drawn to the Catholic Faith (and I include the Orthodox, and much of classical Anglicanism in this too, although I am heading Romeward). I want the fullness of Christianity. I want candles, sacraments, stained-glass, icons, statues, incense, holy-water, liturgy, history, mystery, and more. I don’t want them because I want to somehow replace Christ, rather I want them because I want to know and experience Christ in all His fullness. Granted, these externals possibly could distract me from Christ (as the scenery could potentially distract me from running), but they have never yet done that. Rather they have enhanced my relationship with Christ, because they are not only fully in accord with Christ, but have been given by the Holy Spirit through the Church to help us experience Christ more deeply and profoundly. Because of the deep meaning, I crave the liturgy. I crave the Eucharist, just like (in a different way) I crave getting out and "running." I suppose I could get by without the fullness of the Faith, or by running inside (which I do during the deep winter), but who wants to "just get by" when you can have the full package??

 I currently live in a small town of about 1200 people. I personally enjoy many of the facets of small-town life, although I am also frustrated by the lack of young people and how downright boring it can be at times. But for the lack of businesses and social events, we sure do have a lot of churches. I counted the other day, and we have the "Shield of Faith Evagnelistic(sic) Church," a Nazarene Church, a Methodist Church (who believe more like the Baptists), a Christ in Christian Union Church (think John Wesley minus the Holy Spirit and his Catholic tendencies), a Presbyterian Church, and two more "non-denominational" churches. So that is seven churches, for 1200 people. Even if we consider the surrounding areas, the number of people goes only to around 6,000. That is 1 church for every 171.4 people in town, and 1 for every 857 in the surrounding areas. That of course, assumes that everybody in town and the surrounding area goes to church, which is not really true.

Most of the churches have been started from, or grown from, splits in other churches. I suppose it is American individualism at work…The reasoning is, if I don’t like the carpet color, the pastor’s sermon style, etc, then the only option is to start a new church. So rather than one or two churches with over 200 people, living as a vibrant community of Christ, we are left with bunches of small, struggling churches, that often act clannish and suspicious of one another. I have to grant that we are in a culturally religious area, and the county seat has a church on almost every corner. The predominant cultural faiths are Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostal. Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians do not fare so well, although the Roman Catholics do pretty darn well. All in all, even in a town of 1200 people we have seven competing Christ-proclaiming communities, demonstrating how we have failed Christ’s prayer that we may be one as the Trinity is One.

So what can we do? Well I think we must do the best that we are able to do in our current churches. We shouldn’t smooth over our differences in hopes of one, bland, church. This is why the World Council of Churches has failed. We can however, work together as best as we are able, finding common ground in our Nicene faith, and trying to work out major differences while emphasizing our common beliefs. Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have so much in common, and are essentially saying the same things in different ways (although there are a few doctrines and practices that might fall outside of this assumption). This has happened since the beginning, and was even an issue during the Nicene era. The West thought the Greeks tended toward Arianism, and the West seemed like closet Sabellians to the East. I personally volunteer to work my tail off to reunite Rome and Constantinople as a layperson and theologian, and hope to do that through the web, especially at ancient-future.net. Our schism is a scandal, especially in a post-Christian society. Again, I am not advocating pretending there are not differences, just wondering if there isn’t good we can do despite our differences?

Tomorrow is the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, popularly known as Corpus Christi. It is a Roman Catholic and Anglican holiday, although the Episcopal Church does not officially celebrate it (and the American Catholic Conference of Bishops has translated the Feast Day to the Sunday after the traditional date). I think I will try to visit a Catholic Church on Sunday to celebrate the feast (ironically though, not partaking of the body and blood, since I am not a member..yet).

When I first took Communion at the Episcopal Church in 2000, I really felt Christ’s presence. I knew that what we were doing was more than a memorial meal, more than mere eating. I didn’t have the theological tools to describe what I felt, except to say that it was Real and mystical. Ever since then my Eucharistic views have been "high" and "catholic." I always attempt to let the Eucharist inform my views and practices, whether with regard to social action or doctrinal formation. I hope that my views, and those of my church, will be "in accordance with the Eucharist" as St. Irenaeus writes (Against Heresies, IV: 18). The Eucharist, or rather more importantly Christ’s Real Presence under the species of the bread and the wine, is our chief means of meeting Christ objectively. As such, with Ignatius, I desire the bread of God and the drink of God (To The Romans, VII). I find that I crave Christ in the Eucharist. The other day I prayed before the Blessed Sacrament in a Roman Catholic Church, my rosary and Catholic Prayer Book in hand. I began a Novena to the Holy Spirit, seeking God’s direction in my life. Once again I felt something I can only describe as mystical, giving me calm and assurance as I seek God’s will in the midst of the storm that is the collapse of the Anglican Communion (or at least the collapse of the catholicity of the Anglican Communion). Christ was there! I was kneeling before the Risen Lord! What great peace and joy! As sinful humanity continually fails me (and I too am a sinner!), I am made to realize that the Eucharist has never failed me. Of course, how could it? Christ’s objective presence never fails, especially in the midst of such a subjective, postmodern world.

So I stand with the witness of faithful Christians that have come before me, living today with Christ, as I celebrate the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ. Something so meaningful and powerful as the Eucharist deserves a feast day! Reflect on this excerpt from the Thursday Prayer in Honor of the Blessed Sacrament, in the New Saint Joseph People’s Prayer Book:

Lord Jesus
let the Power of Your Eucharist
pervade every aspect of our daily lives.
Let Your Consecration transform all of our actions
and all the events of each day
into supernatural agents that form Your Mystical Body.

I was at a contentious meeting last night, which was called by a few of the more liberal church members upset at the direction our local parish was going. I was on the orthodox side, and agree with the direction, which involves joining the new Anglican network. In typical Anglican fashion the meeting was civil, although I was troubled with how politely folks can spew slander and malice.

One lady in particular at this meeting pointed toward "Anglican broadness," which used to be considered a strength of Anglicanism. Queen Elizabeth I was a champion of this general broadness, and did not care what a person believed inside, so long as he or she conformed in outside matters. Then this particular lady went on to speak of how Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals,and liberals have lived side-by-side for years, under one big umbrella, singing "Give Peace a Chance" and holding hands…well…not the last two, but you get the point.

I wondered about a few things. First, I thought, where are the evangelicals and anglo-catholics? Especially where are those whose vision for the church is not broad? In the USA, and in most of Western Anglicanism, they are gone..they quite wisely hit the road a long time ago when they realized their visions were doomed. Then I began to question the broadness of the Episcopal Church, where Anglo-Catholic bishops no longer have a conscience clause allowing them to not ordain women, and how women clergy have volunteered to go from traditional diocese to traditional diocese performing liturgical acts simply to force broadness on everybody (as strange as it sounds…and by the way, no pun intended when I used "broadness!"). What has happened is that broadness has become itself the test of orthodoxy, and rather than broadness being a term describing varying outlooks, it has become a clearly defined outlook itself, and anyone disagreeing with this rigid "broad" outlook has long been forced out of Western Anglicanism. Of course, this means that "broadness" is just as narrow as any other outlook within Anglicanism; it just so happens that the broad party is in charge.

Second, because of broadness becoming itself an outlook, in the postmodern age our "broadness" is leaving us with only "broad" people anyway. This is not England in the 17th century! The Episcopal Church is not the state religion, nor is it ubiqitous. In England in past days, yes you conformed, all views under one umbrella, because that was the Erastian nature of the Church of England. However, in postmodernity we have options, and plenty of them. A good Anglo-Catholic is soon going to realize that his or her vision of the Church is going to be met with bitter resistance, and rather than be both a bad Anglo-Catholic and bad Episcopalian he or she opts for Rome or Orthodoxy. An Evangelical eventually realizes that he or she is always fighting, and like the Anglo-Catholic, cannot be both a good evangelical and good Episcopalian. In most every community there are plenty of catholic and evangelical options, which means that if one passionately supports either of these options, he or she will likely eventually leave the Anglican Church. Now, there are (as I have mentioned) those who want broadness as an outlook, and it is only these who remain, and it is only these who can truly live out their vision in the Western Anglican Church. Of course, there are very few of these folks, and they seem to be getting older and not replacing themselves, while the opposite is true of evangelicals and catholics (evangelical churches and the Roman Catholic Church recently showed very positive growth). So in postmodernity the Anglican church is neither truly broad nor a good option for most Christians. This explains its decline and why, despite being against so-called exclusivity, its dogmatically broad vision excludes most people.

Even before I was a Christian I used to get pretty impatient with “professional activists.” You know who I am talking about, those whose whole being is tied to being angry at the status quo. And even if they win every battle they still find something to protest and something to be outraged over, and soon the average guy and gal just cannot comprehend the obsession and anger it takes to continue harping on an issue even after you have won.

Even though I am not a professional activist, nor do I want to be a perpetual protester, I feel as if I am constantly protesting too much. First, I am in a church that was born out of the Protestant reformation. Our protests were certainly valid in the 16th century, and we were, I believe, right to tell the corrupt papacy to get out of England (at least for the time being). However, hundreds of years later, even after various reforms by the Roman Catholic Church that have addressed our protests, our protests themselves have become a way of life.

Second, our reformation churches are so full of strife and protest that we have no common vision or mission. We have liberals who have protested so much over the last 30 years that many parts of the church are liberal, and openly embrace secular trends. These liberals have taken charge of many positions within the church and then the conservatives have become the protesters. Then suddenly conservatives get victory and then once again the liberals are protesting. This happens and will happen ad nauseum. And then something obvious happens: these churches decline. Someone we know once said “a house divided against itself cannot stand” and he is right. All of the infighting and and protesting resulting from radical conflicting visions have led to mainline protestant churches hemorrhaging members right before our eyes. It is like two boxers in the middle of a boxing match while the audience slowly leaves the arena, until nobody is even left, but the boxers are so entrenched in fighting that they don’t even notice that nobody even cares anymore.

I am guilty of this fighting as well. I have become so used to fighting that it has become a part of my Christian identity. I check the Anglican news sources daily, and am always outraged and ready to protest even more. I have (or rather, had) resolved myself that I would be ready to fight for the rest of my life, ready to continually protest the direction of my already protesting church. And then it suddenly dawned on me: we are going to be fighting forever, until that is congregations die (which they are) or the endowments run out (although endowments will be around even after their congregations have long died). And then I sighed and thought, “what a hell of a prospect! How utterly pathetic!” Our churches are in rapid decline, and I have to fight for our church to simply believe Jesus is the Son of God? This is postmodernity. There are many catholic options out there (Roman Catholic and Orthodox for example) and here I am using all my time and talents to convince the unconvincable that the basics of the classical catholic faith are true. For example, my local parish, St. Paul’s Chillicothe, Ohio, under a capable orthodox priest, recently joined the new Anglican network and already some members are making trouble (believe it or not, the most elderly in the congregation). They are calling meetings and promising vocal protests, rather than drive 15 miles to the next parish which is more liberal. So even after our protest (joining the network) which I thought would end the protesting for awhile, we have to deal with even more protesting. And now I am going to these meetings using up an evening defending the basics of the Christian faith, when I could be doing something useful (like blogging! ;-). There are people around us starving literally and spiritually and we are still debating issues that were settled, oh, around 1900 years ago!

I guess when your church is born out of protest, the result will always be the need for independence and protest, and the protestant churches have gotten their wish and then some. Protesting, arguing, and calling fancy expensive commissions who tell us what we already knew anyway are now accepted (and horribly dysfunctional) ways of operating that rarely get questioned. Recently the Anglican primate of Canada expressed concern that other parts of the communion were “meddling” in the business of Canadian Anglicans, and he said Canadian Anglicans should just do whatever they wanted. Fine. It is his right as a Western modernist Canadian. However, I (and the millions of others who have bailed from mainlines over the last 30 years) am tired of fighting, tired of saying “we believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” weekly yet belonging to a church that is looking more and more divided, particular, and novel. I am exploring the Roman Catholic Church, and we will see about that. Regardless of where I go, I am sick of fighting and sick of protesting, and the prospect of doing this for 60 more years makes me literally sick at my stomach. I do protest too much, and quite frankly, I am ready to leave that job for those who have the will and the time. When our whole reason for being is protest, and even our protests get protests, which then in turn get protests, we know we are in trouble.