The oppression continues. Thank goodness Bishop Nick Coleman is here to tell the stories. As Catholics throughout the Twin Cities returned from Mass to read their Sunday Star Tribune, they got the latest tale of woe from jolly old St. Nicholas. This time, the dateline was St. Stephen's, an old parish in the Whittier neighborhood.
Tin soldiers and Nienstedt's coming
We're finally on our own
It's a venerable tradition they had going at St. Stephen's, this "spritually arousing service" that Bishop Nick Coleman details in his Sunday Star Tribune column. All the way back to 1968, they think, although they can't be sure, as the genesis of the project, like so many great traditions, are lost in the mists of time.
Coleman describes the service this way:
You know the kind of service: with guitars, lay people giving homilies,
dancing in the aisles with people who have mental and physical disabilities, gay
couples openly participating in worship, along with ex-priests, ex-nuns and
sundry other spiritual wanderers.
It's all going away now, Coleman reports, because the Archdiocese "has moved in recent years to bring all of its 219 parishes into conformity."
Ah, the horror of conformity! All the other parishes are all the same, like McDonald's. The experience you get at Corpus Christi in Roseville is precisely the same as what you get at St. John the Evangelist in Little Canada. What happens at St. Charles of Borromeo in St. Anthony is exactly the same as what happens at Pax Christi in Eden Prairie. It's cookie cutter worship that doesn't allow such individual expression. All the pastors give the same homily nowadays. Whether you're at St. Agnes or St. Joan of Arc, it's all the same now. Nienstedt has crushed the spirit of Catholics all over the diocese.
The innovations are all gone now. No longer will these spiritual seekers be able to change the wording of the Lord's Prayer to be more inclusive - Bishop Coleman reports that this band of spiritual wanderers prefers "Our Father and Mother, Who Art in Heaven." Because of their heightened understanding of sprituality, they have no trouble editing the words of Jesus.
And even true seekers from suburbia have come and are disappointed that they will no longer be able to use the "Pimp My Ride" approach to religion, to design a service that fits their desires rather than the hidebound dictates that have served the Church for two thousand years. Coleman reports the lamentations of parishioners from St. Louis Park and Golden Valley, who will now be forced to leave the St. Stephen's school gym and perform their service five blocks away. Bishop Coleman implies that this relocation make these spiritual seekers "exiles in the desert." Actually, the Whittier neighborhood can be quite temperate.
Ah, but there's hope. The Golden Valley seeker sums the matter up this way.
We are supposed to learn how to 'pray right' or go away. Well, we are
going to pray the way we think is right. And we are going to go
away. With great sadness. But we will still pray.
There's long been a word for people like this. Protestant. Good luck to them. As for Coleman, I will say this -- at least he had the decency not to call what these people have been doing a Mass.
10 comments:
Liberals like Coleman have problems with the traditional Catholic Church because it embodies "dangerous" ideas like moral absolutes, self discipline, belief in a power greater than one's self, humility, duty to fulfill obligations, preservation of tradition, etc.
Concepts like these collide with the liberal philosophy of flexible standards for immediate convenience, similar to the secular world concept of a living, breathing constitution. If a standard is inconvenient, all you have to do is change it and life is so much easier. Something you engage in is a sin? No problem when morality is defined by personal choice. Person A's morality may be entirely different than Person B's and that's OK. Diversity is divinity. When you fail to meet standards simply adopt new ones more suitable to your lifestyle!
Traditional Catholics make things much harder than they need to be. Worship is so much easier with a flexible god with flexible standards. If he or she becomes too much trouble just redefine or replace it with another that is more in tune with the times or with your needs.
Isn't it wonderful how liberal thinking just makes problems and inconvenience go away?
- D
I am a Liberal and a Catholic. What this has meant at a practical level is that I oppose many of the reactionary positions taken by the latest slew of conservative bishops in the American Church, and I “vote” with my check book, and all of my donations go to my parish. I do oppose the Bishops’ use of power in appointing priests without consulting parishes, in imposing rigid liturgical and sacramental standards, and their push to lock out people who don’t view obedience and conformity as the greatest spiritual values. I accept and embrace the term Cafeteria Catholic. Having witnessed the sex and money scandals that have engulfed the Church recently, I don’t care a whit about what a few old men in pointy hats have to say about a lot of things, as I believe the fish rots from the head down.
And yet, I am a Catholic, whether others like it or not. And what makes me a Catholic is my own personal experiences; my participation in my parish; my 12 years of parochial schooling., etc. It’s bred in the bone, and that is why it is especially meaningful to me. I don't toe the line on abstract doctrine, but I don’t think that means I can't be part of the Church. It just means that Papal directives seem rather abstract and unimportant to me in the face of the lived experience.
What I didn’t realize, until Daria pointed it out, is that as a Liberal Catholic I have problems with understanding the difference between right and wrong, that I lack a belief in God, that I have no humility, and that I have problems fulfilling obligations. Thanks for clearing that up for me. And Daria, if you don’t think that moral absolutes can be dangerous, you missed the point of most of the last century.
Regards,
Rich
While Nick Coleman represents why not everyone should have access to computers, I do have one question, as this is something I struggle with in my nascent faith. Does being a true Catholic (or any other religion for that matter) require absolute adherence to everything the church's leadership says? The one example I can think of with the Catholic Church is that I don't see the reason why women can't be priests. I get why priests can't marry (although my simple mind didn't grasp the obvious until the past few years), but I don't understand why only men can lead mass.
So, since I have a disagreement with Church leadership, does that mean I am not wholly Catholic? Should I not take Communion because of this?
Mr. D and Daria are correct in that churches by definition proscribe moral codes that should be the same throughout the ages. If a church's moral compass changes with the prevailing winds, it ceases being a church, and becomes a social club. But, I guess I wonder if being a good Catholic (or again, any other church) requires total adherence to not only the moral codes, but also the politics of the church, or if you can disagree with at least some of the political aspects of the church (and, until I am shown scripture telling me why women can't be priests, I believe that is political)? That is my struggle with my faith at this time.
By the way, no one uses the plain folks fallacy like Mr. Laura Billings. His columns are as formulaic as every episode of Growing Pains (except Growing Pains was way more entertaining).
Mike,
It's a fair question and I don't pretend to be a theologian. The answer as I've understood it is twofold -- as we understand the matter, Jesus chose twelve men to be his apostles. There is no doubt that women played a central role in Jesus's life and the early church, but for reasons that I don't necessarily understand the priesthood was given to the Twelve.
The other thing I'd heard was that there was a reaction against priestesses, which were prevalent in many of the pagan faiths of the time. Early Christians apparently viewed female priests as a reversion back to pagan practices.
As for whether or not you can disagree with certain aspects of Church teaching and still be considered a good Catholic - my understanding is that while you don't have to necessarily agree with or even understand Church teaching on a particular issue, you are expected to accept that teaching. My own view is that prayer can help. If you pray for understanding, you're more likely to get closer to actually understanding. And remember, we are all sinners. We all fall short. Even the Pope goes to confession regularly.
Rich,
I don't know what to tell you. When I read what Daria wrote and what you wrote, it's obvious that you and she aren't even speaking the same language. I would say this -- the lesson of the last century wasn't that there aren't moral absolutes. On the contrary, the lesson is that when men pretend that their judgments carry the force of moral absolutes and then try to impose their judgments by fiat (cf. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc.) horrible things happen.
i wouldnt mind trading some of your bishops in exchange for several of ours here in CA.
I read the column and had a chuckle. It really is so predictable. Every good column needs a victim. It's absolutely amazing to me that the people described in the story seem so shocked that the Church would dare assert itself. Newsflash to Nick, The Catholic Church is Hierarchical!
Mr. D, you are quite right to point out that there are quite a number of people who for various reasons do not accept Catholic teachings or structure. Last I checked, none of us were victims.
Being a good {insert religion here} and the degree of importance that it is to you is a matter of personal choice. If you want to attend a given church due to unshakable and absolute belief in its teachings or just because you like the music, the beauty of the ceremonial robes or the ambiance of the building, etc. that is your business. As long as you don't disrupt others how will anyone know why you showed up anyway?
Must one be a "good" {insert religion here} in order to be a {insert religion here}? I have no idea. But I suppose being some positive percentage of a good {insert religion here} is better than having no faith at all.
I meant no offense toward people like Rich, in fact, I have a lot of respect for him as he shows real character by not demanding that the Catholic Church change to accommodate him. This is really the point that my wordsmithing fell a bit short to be able to make. If someone attends a given Church and gets out of it what he or she is looking for then all is well. Once again, no offense was intended toward Rich or anyone else and I sincerely apologise if I inadvertantly "Nicked" someone else when my intended target was Nick Coleman's thought process. In my defense, it really is a pretty small target.
If someone really wants to change the Catholic Church they can always get themselves elected Pope. I'm officially ineligible but I don't think I'll lose sleep over it.
As far as moral absolutes in the last century go I think Mark put it a lot better than I can. I learned from "South Park" that "Hitler was a bad, bad, bad, bad man". I guess that is the same thing Mark said but not quite as eloquent. The moral absolutes I was referring to were the moral teachings of a religion along the lines of "10 Commandments not 10 Suggestions", and did not intend to go down the "moral equivalency" road.
I've learned my lesson. It's strictly political commentary from now on.
- D
Daria,
You can write about religion here any time. I pretty much agree with you. I've know Rich for over 25 years and is a great guy. We don't necessarily see to eye to eye on politics, but he's honest and calls things as he sees them. I always appreciate a good discussion and when Rich weighs in, it's always worth pondering.
The same goes for you, of course.
Best,
Mark
Mark and Daria,
My apologies for overreacting to your heartfelt opposition to liberal tendencies in the Church today. As discourse in the nation has become increasingly divisive, I have grown reactionary in respect to the politicization of faith. And as a result, I think I read too much in to what you both wrote. To be perfectly honest with you, I find guitar mass insipid, I love the Tridentine rite, and my eyes roll back in my head every time someone bastardizes a traditional prayer for the sake of fashion and/or political correctness. I also am old enough to remember when the Vatican excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre for refusing to follow Vatican II dicta, so I know this stuff can cut both ways, and much of it really is politics. To me, the most important thing about being a Catholic is in being a member of a local community (my parish) that is part of the worldwide Catholic community. And as a result, having a shared sense of solidarity with Catholics everywhere. I like to think that we transcend cultural and political differences. What we share goes far deeper than papal teachings. That's why so many people can be certain that even if they don't pay attention to the Pope in certain matters, they are still in solidarity with other Catholics. It shouldn’t be the acceptance of peripheral matters, like whether we can practice contraception, whether or not woman can be priests, or whether priests can marry that should define our Catholicism. That is defined by a belief in the Trinity, a deep reverence for life, and the adoption of the Apostle's Creed as one's profession of faith. These are the core beliefs to which we commit ourselves. Other things come and go. Limbo was just recently banished, indulgences are a bad memory, and nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition any more. We have learned to separate those things from the core commitment that we pledge ourselves to at baptism. That is what we need to be mindful of.
Regards,
Rich
Pope Daria I! Love the concept!
Why not? In many diocees (dioci?) we have the equivalent of Bishop Beavis and Bishop Butthead, as well as Bishop Coleman.
Post a Comment