Fr. Tissa Balasuriya OMI RIP

January 17, 2013 — A radical and innovative Asian theologian passes away

A Statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission

Fr. Tissa Balasuriya OMI, a Sri Lankan Catholic priest who once came to the attention of the world due to his excommunication by Rome which was later lifted, passed away yesterday in Colombo. He had been unwell for some time and was 89 years of age at the time of his death.

He was a trained economist and was ordained as a priest in 1953. He worked in many capacities such as the rector of the Aquinas University College, which was developed as an alternative for those who could not attend University, for many years and was the founder of the Centre for Religion and Society in Colombo. He played a prominent role in developing close links with all other religions and participated jointly with others in many progressive initiatives relating to various issues in Sri Lanka.

Beginning his career as a conservative priest growing under the tutelage of the then well renowned Fr. Peter Pillai, Fr. Balasuriya responded to the social changes that were taking place in Sri Lanka and began to call upon the Catholic Church to understand these changes positively and not to take a reactionary stance. His political acumen was, in fact, recognised by SWRD Bandaranayke, who later became a prime minister who invited Fr. Balasuriya to work with him. He refused and wanted to respond to the changes in Sri Lanka in his own way.

When Pope John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council in the early 60s Fr. Balasuriya and a few others such as Bishop Leo Nanayakkara responded positively and, in fact, this Council’s teachings were to change their world views and their lifestyles. Later, other prominent persons like Fr. Michael Rodrigo, who was assassinated in 1987 and Fr. Alloy Peiris and many others took the same teachings as their guiding light for their lives and work.

Perhaps some of Fr. Balasuriya’s most active years in life were those immediately following the Vatican Council where he devoted his time to introduce these ideas to Sri Lanka and, in fact, to Asia as a whole. He was one of the pioneers of the Asian theological groups who were to approach the problems of religion with a deep commitment to society, particularly to the issues of justice. He also gained recognition as one of the most prominent writers on theological issues from this perspective in Asia.

His passionate pursuit of the Vatican perspectives led him to engage with the most progressive social thought of his time in many fields. He took the issue of gender seriously and studied feminist thinkers and theologians. It was his engagement on this issue which led to his excommunication relating to a book he wrote entitled Mary and Human Liberation . Though attacked on some technical expressions close observers say that the actual attack was on his agreement of the ordination of women as priests.

When the excommunication was announced he openly challenged it and demanded to be shown the issues on which he had erred theologically. This challenge was never answered. However, he was under severe pressure due to one of the most intense international campaigns in his favour which caused severe embarrassment to the Catholic Church. A team of theologians of his religious order arrived in Sri Lanka and had several days of negotiations with him and he was requested to make some statement for the sake of compromise. Later his excommunication was lifted. Perhaps this is the only excommunication in the Catholic Church which was to be lifted in such a very short period.

Fr. Balasuriya was essentially a thinker. He tried to provoke thought on national issues and also theological issues within the Church.

He lived the last years of his life very much in quietness as the overall environment within the Catholic Church had become hostile to the theological positions of the Vatican Council. However, to the last he remained a disciple and promoter of these teachings.

His work and writings will survive him and may contribute to the development of discourse in the future.

Fr. Tissa Balasuriya was a friend of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The AHRC played a very active role in creating a global protest against his excommunication.

May he rest in peace

Read more about Fr Tissa

Today's Readings - The Law of Love

Third Sunday of Ordinary Time / Third Sunday after Epiphany – 27 January 2013

Book of Nehemiah 8:2-6, 8-10
Psalms 19:8-10,15
1 Corinthians 12:12-30
Luke 1:1-4, 4:14-21

The readings for today struck me in a most unusual way. At first I did not see the connection; at first I did not see the relevance to today’s world (particularly if these readings are all taken together). Actually, I was drawn up short by the apparent irony in these selections.

In Nehemiah we hear how the people had just come back from the Babylonian Captivity and how they listened to Ezra read the LAW from morning to mid-afternoon. I thought there might be a theme with the audience. After all, Nehemiah tells us all the men, all the women, and all the children old enough to understand were there. That should tell us something, I thought. No discrimination when it comes to listening to the law.

But WHY were they listening to the LAW? The Pharisees must have loved this passage. People were crying with joy over having to listen to hours of reading of the LAW.

My confusion continued as I saw that the Psalm centered about the Law of the Lord being perfect. I am so used to hearing the “Thou shalt nots” from the Old Testament that I had trouble focusing on what the Law of the Lord might be.

The reading from First Corinthians is a discourse on the Body of Christ and on how each person is a part of that Body of Christ and each person is important to the functioning of the whole body. How does that ever relate to people crying about hearing the LAW?

In the gospel, we find Jesus teaching in the temple. Jesus firmly proclaims that the passage he quoted from Isaiah was fulfilled – in him. He came to bring glad tidings, liberty, sight, freedom, and so forth. How does that ever relate to people crying about hearing the LAW?

Suddenly I could see a relationship. Look at it with me for a moment. It all fits so beautifully!

Nehemiah’s people were indeed crying for joy because they were back from captivity and they could hear the essence of their faith system. The Jewish LAW set these people apart from their neighbors. That is why they had their dietary restrictions, why they had certain codes, why they had certain prayer requirements, and why they had countless other obligations. It was their IDENTITY.

But, the LAW of Judaism was imperfect from a Christian perspective. Jesus came to FULFILL the LAW. He did not negate it; he fulfilled it. He got to the essence of the law and that is what he taught.

The Psalm tells us that the Law of the Lord is perfect. Indeed it is perfect in every way! The people about whom Nehemiah was writing did not know their LAW was imperfect. They were just grateful to have their identity. It seems that the Psalm is almost prophetic because the LAW as Jesus taught it was indeed perfect – even if the Jewish law was imperfect. Perhaps imperfect is not the best term. Perhaps we should say that the LAW of the Old Testament was incomplete because Jesus had not yet come to complete it or to pull it all completely together.

In a way, the reading from First Corinthians is juxtaposed with the gospel. In First Corinthians we see how each person has a role in the Body of Christ. But we don’t quite know yet what that means.

Picture Jesus in the gospel; he must have had a commanding presence because people certainly paid attention to him. He walked into the Temple (which was his right as a Jew) and he asked for a scroll. Now envision him reading that passage from the scroll and then with piercing eyes telling everyone present that that passage had been fulfilled. Can you hear his monologue? Perhaps he was waiting for a response but there was none. If you were in the crowd there, would you have wondered what Jesus meant?

Does the passage from Isaiah seem strange? Glad tidings, liberty, sight, freedom, and so forth? That doesn’t sound like the LAW as described in Nehemiah. That doesn’t sound like that perfect law of the Psalm. Ah, but wait! We need Jesus to fulfill the LAW – to make the LAW perfect.

The ancients loved their incomplete LAW and that was good. The ancients recognized that the LAW of the Lord was perfect and they rejoiced in that. But the ancient LAW was not perfect in the way we think today.

All of the good things that Jesus promised as a fulfillment of the prophesy were actually a fulfillment of the ultimate LAW of God – the ultimate LAW that Jesus gave us. That LAW is the LAW of LOVE. That fulfillment is not the list of “Thou shalt nots.” That LAW that was fulfilled – with freedom and glad tidings and sight and a myriad of other good things – was the LAW that Jesus came to fulfill, the LAW of LOVE.

The ancients had this LAW of LOVE but Jesus summarized it. Next week’s gospel is the great love passage from First Corinthians. It all fits in perfectly. And how many times did Jesus say he had come to fulfill the law? And how many times did Jesus say that the LAW of LOVE was the summary of the LAW and that therein we would find all of the LAW and the prophets. It is truly all there.

Now, let’s skip back to the reading from Nehemiah. ALL the people – men, women, and children old enough to understand – were ecstatic over hearing the LAW (albeit the imperfect or incomplete LAW). That must mean that the whole LAW applies to everyone old enough to understand. In other words, all are equal with this LAW of LOVE and there is no discrimination with this LAW of LOVE.

How does this Body of Christ fit into this scheme? Well, if we do what we are called to do, we are immersed in love. We give love, we radiate love. We are – or we become – that part of the Body of Christ that we are supposed to be. We fulfill that mandate that is given to us. And, in the process, we experience that freedom and that tremendous sight that Jesus has promised.

What is the Body of Christ besides a communion of believers, each of whom has a task and each of whom has been granted the absolute liberty and glad tidings found in the fulfillment of Jesus’ LAW of LOVE, which was, in essence, the completion of the LAW given to our ancestors and read to the people by Ezra in the Book of Nehemiah? That was true then; and it is true now. And this is our faith system – the LAW of LOVE.

-- Roberta

Attitudes for confronting the current crisis

by Leonardo Boff
Theologian-Philosopher
Earthcharter Commission

No one can be indifferent to the present crisis. Decisions and finding a liberating solution are urgent. To avoid being mistaken, we will present here a few possibilities, and see which is best.

The first attitude is that of the catastrophists: the flight to the depth. They emphasize the chaotic aspect that inheres in every crisis. They see the crisis as a catastrophe, a decomposition and the end of the current order. To them, the current crisis is something abnormal that must be avoided at all cost. They accept only certain adjustments and changes within the same structure. But they make them with so many objections that they undermine any innovative change.

The good pope John XXIII already said about catastrophists, referring to the Church, but applicable to any field: «Real life is not a collection of antiquities. It is not about visiting a museum or an academy of the past. One lives to progress, learning from the experiences of the past, but always going forward».

The generalized crisis does not have to end with a fall into the abyss. As Pierre Furter, a Swiss philosopher and pedagogue who loves Brazil very much, wrote: «To characterize the crisis as a sign of a universal collapse is a subtle and perfidious way that the powerful and privileged avoid changes, by devaluing them beforehand».

The second attitude is that of the conservatives: the flight backwards. They point to the past, looking through the rear view mirror. Instead of taking advantage of the forces contained in the present crisis, they fly to the past and seek old solutions for new problems. That is why they are archaic and ineffective.

A large portion of the political institutions and world economic organisms, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the OMC, the G-20, but also most Churches and religions, seek to solve the grave problems of the world with the same old principles. They favor inertia and slow down innovative solutions.

Leaving things as they are will inevitably lead us to failure, to an unimaginable ecological and humanitarian crisis. Since the old formulas have exhausted their ability to convince and to innovate, they will end up turning the crisis into a tragedy.

The third attitude is of the utopists: the flight ahead. They try to solve the crisis-situation by flying towards the future. They are on the same plane as the conservatives, but facing the opposite direction. Therefore, utopists and conservatives can easily reach agreement.

They are generally headstrong and forget that in history only those revolutions that are made take place. The last slogan is not a new thought. The most audacious critics can also be the most sterile. It is not uncommon for audacious non-conformism to be nothing but evasiveness in facing hard reality.

There are presently all types of futurist utopias around. Many are of an esoteric character, such as those who speak of the alignment of cosmic energies that affect our minds. Others project utopias founded in the dream that biotechnology and nano-technology will solve all our problems and make human life immortal.

A fourth attitude is of the escapists: they flee within. They see the darkening of the horizon and of the fundamental convictions, but ignore the ecological alarms and the cries of the oppressed. They avoid confrontation, preferring not to know, not to hear, not to read and not to question themselves. These people do not want to coexist. They prefer the solitude of the individual, but are generally connected to the Internet and social networks.

Finally, there is a fifth attitude: that of the responsible: they face the here and now. They are those who develop answers, which is why I call them responsible. They are not afraid, nor do they run away, in order to avoid. Rather, they assume the risk of developing new paths. They seek to strengthen the positive forces contained within the crisis, and formulate answers to problems. They do not reject the past simply because it is the past. They learn from the past as the repository of great experience that should not be wasted, but not as an excuse for not undergoing their own experiences.

The responsible define themselves as being in favor of and not simply by being against. Nor do they waste their time in sterile polemics. They work and are profoundly committed to developing a model that corresponds to the needs of the time. They are open to criticism and self-criticism, always ready to learn.

What is most in demand now are politicians, leaders, groups, and others who feel responsible, and who force the passage from the olden times to the new.

Leonardo Boff

01-11-2013

Free translation from the Spanish sent by

Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar, done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU

Report of "A Call to Action" meeting on 10 October 2012

We are pleased to make this report more widely available.  More information about the "A Call to Action" group

Meeting of the ‘A Call to Action’ group and its supporters, October 10th 2012.

St Mary Abbot church, Kensington.

After enrolment at Heythrop College, the meeting of about 350 people gathered at St Mary Abbot church, Kensington. Derek Reeve gave a brief introduction with the story of the group from its inspiration for the Association of Catholic Priests in Ireland through to today’s meeting, the numbers attending exceeding all expectations.

Derek led us in a song to the Holy Spirit and a moment of prayer to make the day a positive and spiritual encounter.

The Rev Gillean Craig, the vicar welcomed us to his church, and passed some complimentary remarks about the Catholics concerning the great social mix who came to Sunday Mass, the attachment to the life of the church rather than to a particular individual priest in most cases, and the astonishing commitment of many Catholic people with sacrifices given for what they hold dear. He described Vatican II as a great act of courage and gave thanks for our commitment and vision. He wished God’s blessing on our day.

Joe Ryan then reported on the meeting he and Pat McLoughlin had had with Archbishop Nichols. The archbishop recognised that something needs to be done, and after a fruitful conversation said he would like to observe and see how the group develops.

We moved on to the four guest speakers.

Chris McDonnell, head teacher, spoke of the dream of Vatican II, which had not come true. He also remarked on the dangerous times in the world as the Council began, e.g. with the Cuban missile crisis, the US move towards the Vietnam war etc. It was also a decade of excess and of confusion and doubt. Humanae Vitae, 1968, was a big stumbling block to the vision of Vatican II. Many priests felt unable to comply, and its issues remain contentious still with many people following their consciences. Two great changes were Episcopal collegiality and the use of the vernacular. Great strides were made from the simple Dialogue Mass that was in use just before the Council. Some people today want to return to that perceived security. But we are a pilgrim Church in a pilgrim society.

Pot-shots continue to be taken against theologians such as E.Schillebeeckx. Hans Kung has become dispirited. However, Kevin Kelly saw the Council as a continuing exercise. He suggested that the bishops were not supporting the people in their pain at the new translation of the Mass (this received to spontaneous applause). Church teaching continues to be from a historical perspective and distorts reality, something Cardinal Martini had said before he died.

He concluded by asking how we make the Church, our Church, the Church of our children? This is our responsibility.

Two questions were invited. The first queried the lack of mention of the Pastoral Congress of 1980. Christ replied that it had been an event that was followed by nothing. It could have implemented Vatican II better, but in reality it fizzled out.

The second noted that there had been no mention of women priests in his talk. Chris replied that he had been working on what might be achievable this year.

Catherine O’Donovan spoke next, and gave an account of her personal experience of the times of the Council and thereafter, which would also be from a female point of view. During Vatican II she had lived in Rome as a Salvatorean sister. She had lived through some years of the pontificate of the fairly remote Pius XII, and then that of John XXIII, who promulgated the Council, and who was far from remote as he visited people rather than giving only audiences in his Palace. There were many tears in Rome when this irreplaceable pope died. She had experienced the very positive time of liturgical changes, new habits and broader social life. But at this time, women’s position did not change, as can be seen in that part of Paul VI’s speech which closed the Council referring to women.

During the Council, a Belgian cardinal had asked why no women were represented in the Council Chamber, in response to which a token number were invited. Women are still not sufficiently involved in the real life of the Church (i.e. beyond flower arranging and cleaning)

The first question to Catherine enquired whether the ordination of women should not be included in the agenda of today’s meeting. Catherine suggested that C/E female clergy often show something men lack when helping with personal situations. She also said that Cardinal Koenig had encouraged women to get out and to speak up.. She agreed that women’s ordination should be on the agenda.

She also suggested that Rome is living in the past. She herself is now a teacher, and she felt that the Vatican does not appreciate how people are suffering, what they are missing, etc.

Catherine was followed by Tom O’Loughlin, professor of historical theology at Nottingham, who specialises in the early Church. He began by mentioning that Catholics are not so well represented in the academic life of his university, and then made three points:

1. There is a distinction to be drawn between Church as corporation and as community. It is wrong to see it primarily as corporation. The Church only works if it is made up of human communities. More than 100/150 in a group and it suffers; but the 100/150 size prospers. Better tiny churches in villages or towns than great basilica-sized bodies of people. There is tension between the corporation and the community, and the clergy have to cope with this and join in the struggle.

2. Evangelisation is just one model for spreading the Gospel. It is a structured thing. But the Church grows and reform happens when people make a decision. There is a personal journey of discovery. This second takes the form of a one to one encounter and is on a small scale. Evangelisation is structured but it doesn’t become real until it is personal. Matthew ends his Gospel by telling his disciples to go out and make disciples, Mt 28:16ff. And also, in this personal encounter, the teacher changes and there is organic growth.

3. The Holy Spirit is seen by some as only coming within the Church. But Pacem in Terris presupposes the presence of the Spirit in the world. We should assume the Spirit is there already. Paul sees the ‘unknown god’ as testimony to the presence of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not tied to the corporation, nor to a past (probably imaginary) ‘golden age’. And this all moves us to witness.

The first question asked about ordaining married men at this time when married C/E convert clergy can be ordained. Tom replied with saying how St Paul appointed presbyters in his pastoral journey to be presiders. The corporation of the Church puts celibacy and personal sanctity ahead of the responsibility of presiding, whereas the first job is that of presiding, and where the Holy Spirit would call someone (i.e.anyone).

The second question asked whether the Church should know more about the role of women in the early Church.. Tom noted how we are all creatures of the times in which we live, and how in the first days of the Church it would have been unthinkable for anyone but a man to be host at a dinner; (he would be the presider). But our understanding of host and presider has changed radically and there is space to bring this to the question of an ordained woman presider at Mass.

Fr Gerry Hughes SJ, former philosophy teacher and now at Oxford, then spoke.At the time of Vatican II there was the great notion that the Spirit was breathing everywhere and on everyone. This squared well with subsidiarity and with local solutions being the best. But our over-centralised Church does not help this.

Today there is fear. Many parishioners are afraid to talk frankly to their parish priest, and vice versa. The ‘simple faithful’ have so much to tell and share! Such sharing is more important than grandiose schemes. Rome has recently taken concrete steps to keep control, e.g. the dismissal of an Australian bishop. There are many other instances of this also.

We should try and create an atmosphere where people and priests and bishops will talk with each other. ‘Call to Action’ should look for and diagnose solutions without looking for grandiose schemes. It should organise meetings where people can say what they think and expect to be heard. Authoritarianism is rife in the Church, and it is the enemy of truth. Fear keeps the lid on things.

Call to Action could start with non-theological questions, such as

1. What to do with untended parishes. Celebrate Eucharistic services? Place of women in them? Local people might take charge of local questions.

2. How can a foreign country impose a translation of the Mass on the English-speaking world?

3. Concerning the appointment of a bishop, the people of a diocese should have a major say.

But seeking permission concerning subsidiarity is pandering to an authoritarian culture. The answer is to recognise that dialogue needs openness with everyone respected.

Martin Pendergast, who lives in a parish where there is no resident priest, told us how they celebrate services there, but added that he felt sub secreto correspondence between Rome and bishops was excessive. Gerry contributed that this sub secreto method was a powerful instrument in the hands of power: truth suffers, respect for others too; it is contrary to the Holy Spirit.

Groups were sorted out; lunch was taken; groups formed in various places and discussions followed, until,

Plenary session

Everyone present was thanked for their presence and contribution and asked to be careful to refer to the group’s website: www.acalltoaction.org.uk

Chris McDonnell spoke again. He said how a lot of listening needs to be done, and how there are many people who feel they have a right to speak. Priests vary from their openness to this through to their refusal to discuss anything. So, how can we talk to each other, including with those who have different views. When we do we will discover the problems are we are facing.

Why, he asked, are we bothered about upsetting people? Why are we concerned about being frank? But often people are lone voices and will not speak out. Not enough forums exist for dialogue/conversation.. And also, you need to be able to anticipate that when you speak you will be listened to, which often does not happen.

Concerning structures at national level, Chris acknowledged that they can be good, but that more local structures might be better because there you can identify where and why the blocks exist. Slow, gradual steps and possibly are more possible at the more local level and more likely to produce fruit. Also, there is more the idea of come and talk. A national structure would serve more just to give publicity.

There is evidence of the Holy Spirit among young people in parishes, and also in our society – more indeed than in the Church.

Society shows great commitment to the poor – where the Church may be more concerned with sex. Gay people and women’s issues receive more attention outside the Church than inside. The Olympic and Paralympic Games had shown the Spirit at work among people. There is the way the nation responds to crises.

The hope was expressed that the Spirit had been present at St Mary Abbot, and it appreciated how much He was needed so that the day did not stop in Kensington. The Church needs to be more open and to talk about many things, e.g. sexuality, because it is wanting in responding to life situations.

Tom reflected on why Christianity was so successful during the first 350 years. We tend to think of structural unity in the early Church and not much diversity. But the early Church was as varied as you could imagine. Diversity allowed it to put deep roots in very disparate communities. And the trade routes kept Christians in touch with each other and gave them unity. The Church should exist in the diversity of the groups it produces, and its unity flow from that. And this gives a different notion of the problems seen in the Church today.

(I haven’t attributed some of the above to Gerry Hughes, as I should have done.)

Pat McLoughlin wound things up. He described the core group, now of 9 members, emphasised that we are a lay as well as clerical group, how we need to lose fear and how blind loyalty to the pope is not healthy. We pray for the work of the synod now meeting in Rome. We are not an issues group and seek to help the bishops. There is need of conversation/dialogue. We should start work on the diocesan level and form groups.

A personal post script. We 350 present were probably from the 5% in each parish etc who generally get involved. As or more important (and challenging) than meeting with bishops is to galvanise the remainder of the 5% and convert some of the 95% (who since the time of our Lord went with the flow wherever it 

went).

More information

In search of a consistent ethic

On 20 October 2012 Questions from a Ewe published a guest contribution by Ray Temmerman.   It is a reflection worth pondering

Our Catholic leadership has taken, and continues to take, a strong position on life issues, especially where sexual ethics and the first nine months of human life are concerned. They have made it clear that any deviation from a sexual norm determined long ago is considered an intrinsic moral evil. And any activity, or indeed any method of acting, which is contrary to the natural order of things is not considered morally acceptable. They are to be applauded for their clarity of vision, and their determination to hold life sacred, allegedly from conception to natural death.

But I find myself wondering, and questioning.

Continues on Questions from a Ewe

Did the Church leave all of us?

Found on Catholica today

Tom Poelker from St Louis, Missouri, sent in this commentary a few days ago that probably expresses the feelings of many elders who are attacted to Catholica. Around the other side of the world, we sit here pondering on the reflections sent to us and simply wonder if these hierarchs and prelates who have been responsible for pushing so many of the faithful away from the altar ever stop for a single micro-second and reflect on what sort of"reward" they are going to earn for this enormous emptying of the pews? One wonders how cock sure some people can be of their "eternal certitudes"?

The Church left Me!

by Tom Poelker

Swimming against the tide

George, a regular contributor to our discussion group, sends this link and comment


Swimming against the tide......

http://www.france24.com/en/20121007-catholic-leaders-gather-counter-decline-faith

IMHO, this is Vatican Doublespeak. It is not about the rising tide of *Secularism* that b16 and the episcopacy are concerned. It is about their frustration with the larger and growing larger number of Catholics and non-Catholics who continually pay less and less attention to their so-called teachings/sayings. The possibility of this effort bringing them results is about the same as the *Catholics Come Home*  program effort in the USA. As it is not possible to dialogue with them, people eventually begin to ignore them, which is when people win, bishops lose.

However, it will give the Good Old Boys an opportunity to drink excellent wine and dine on fine cuisine at the faithful*s expense. They probably fly First Class, too. Some aspects of a bishops life are quite good.

However, I’m not complaining – tomorrow is Half Price Slice day at my favorite pizza parlor!

Some are more than happy but many more grieve.

With thanks to Catholica and John.

There are so many events this year commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. Many of them seem to be wakes, lamenting and grieving over the lost opportunity. John Chuchman today endeavours to capture some of the grief in this reflection.

I'm Grieving, You're Grieving, We're Grieving!
Fifty Years ago at Vatican II,
the world's Bishops gave our Church Hope.

They reaffirmed Freedom/Primacy of Conscience.
Today's hierarchy says it must conform to their pronouncements.
We grieve.

A church governed in loving Collegiality was promised;
We've been dealt a Feudal Monarchy.
We grieve.

The Sharing of Power with local Synods of Bishops Representing the People
was foretold.
Power, instead, has been consolidated in the chief hierarch.
We grieve.

Lay Leadership of and in the Church was mandated.
Rather, the laity have been re-delegated to less-than-clergy.
We grieve.

Ecumenism was seen as essential to the future of
Catholicism, Christianity, Religion.
Instead, the walls have been raised.
We grieve.

We all got excited about Renewed Liturgical Practice
honoring local Artists, Musicians, and Traditions.
In a show of power, the hierarchs imposed
new archaic liturgical language and rituals.
We grieve.

The Council launched Intellectual Debate with Respect for Theologians.
With the silencing of hundreds, Dialogue is Dead.
We grieve.

The Church of Vatican II was to Heed the Signs of the Times.
Rather than a Church of and in the twenty-first century,
we're told to revert to the Fifteenth (15th).
We grieve.

The Bishops of the world correctly saw the Church as the People of God.
Instead the Pyramid has been preserved with the people of God the base.
We grieve.

A Deeper Spirituality was promised,
seen as the essential mission of Church.
The corporate hierarchy of today has no clue.
We grieve.

True Biblical Scholarship was encouraged.
Today, Fundamentalism pervades.
We grieve.

Respect for and Protection of Young people
was deemed essential to the Future of Church.
Instead, Young people are abused
with their abusers protected.
We grieve the alienation and loss of the Young.

Liberation Theology was valued.
Rather, It has been undermined, squelched, stifled, silenced.
Latin America grieves.

The promise of a Christ-like Church with Christ-like Leadership
excited us all.
Yet, It is nowhere to be found.
We grieve.
We grieve.
We grieve the loss of all that Church is meant to be.

Love, John Chuchman
Thanks (I think) for reminding me, Matthew Fox

This reflection is also published on John Chuchman's blog.

IMAGE CREDIT:
The background used to support John Chuchman's reflection has been sourced from stock.xchng one of the sources for free images on the net provided by people who voluntarily upload their work for others to share. Daniel Cubillas who is located in Spain provided today's image. A gallery of Daniel's freely available images can be found at: www.sxc.hu/gallery/dcubillas. The image used in the headline is sourced from the ex-christian net website: new.exchristian.net/2011/02/loving-father.html

Catholic Fundamentalism and a Catholic Christian Response

Our  thanks to John Greenleaf for this analysis.   The full article may be read here

John ends with a biblical reflection.  We would like to begin with it

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28; cf. Mark 10:42-45 and Luke 22:25-27)

Increasingly, Roman Catholic fundamentalism (one need only reflect on many a red-faced outburst from the Cardinal Archbishop of New York) is a form of organized anger in reaction to social and religious change.

Fundamentalists find change emotionally disturbing and dangerous. Cultural, personal, and institutional religious “certitudes” are shaken. Today’s Catholic fundamentalists, like Cardinal Raymond Burke wrapped in his medieval cappa magna  pushing to bring back the Latin liturgy of the Council of Trent, yearn to return to a utopian past or a golden age, purified of “dangerous” contemporary ideas and practices.

Todays Catholic fundamentalists, like supporters of Pope Benedict’s New Evangelization, have aggressively banded together in order to put things right again – according to “orthodox” principles. They want to get things back to “normal”….Or as Bishop Blair said: dialogue is “about how to have the LCWR really educate and help the sisters appreciate and accept church teaching.”

Today’s Catholic fundamentalists are still troubled by:

1.  the cultural revolution of the 1960s that questioned all institutions and brought profound social, economic and political consequences that continue to this day;
2. the impact and immense cultural changes generated by the much-needed reforms of Second Vatican Council.

Catholic fundamentalism is becoming a powerful movement in the church to restore uncritically pre-Vatican II structures and attitudes.

Here are some clear signs of contemporary Catholic fundamentalism:

1. Nostalgia for a pre-Vatican II Golden Age, when it is assumed that the church never changed, was then a powerful force in the world, undivided by the post 1960s misguided devotees of the Vatican II values. In fact, we know for certain that the church and its teachings have often changed. Some church statements have been shown to be wrong and were repealed or allowed to lapse.
2. A highly selective approach to what fundamentalists think pertains to church teaching and belief. Statements about sexual ethics, for instance, are obsessively affirmed. At the same time, papal, conciliar, or episcopal pronouncements on social justice are ignored or considered simply matters for debate.
3. An exaggerated concern for accidentals, not for the substance of issues, e.g., the Cardinal Burkes stress Latin for the Eucharist, failing to see that this does not pertain at all to the church’s authentic tradition.
4. Vehemence and intolerance in attacking people like LCWR who are striving to relate the Gospel to the world around them according to the insights and teachings of Vatican II.
5. An elitist assumption that Catholic fundamentalists have a kind of supernatural authority and the right to pursue and condemn Catholics who disagree with them, especially “radical feminists” and theologians.
6. A spirituality which overlooks the humanity, compassion, and mercy of Christ and stresses in its place an unbending and punishing taskmaster God.
   

Remember: Membership in Catholic fundamentalist groups is not a question of logic, but an often sincere, but misguided, search for meaning and belonging.
If we react to Catholic fundamentalists with heated expressions of anger we will only confirm them about the rightness of their beliefs.

Our best witness to the truths of our Catholic beliefs, as they continue to be explored and developed, is our own inner peace built on faith, charity, and concern for justice, especially among the most marginalized.

Call for Action: So why bother? Because the task of reform is worth the effort!

An email discussion has ensued following the meeting of Call for Action on 18 July 2012.

A gentleman who has been an active Catholic wrote, "Please remove my contact details from your database:  I no longer regard myself as a member of the church" 

He was supported by another who said "I cannot be the only Catholic who is already halfway through the Exit door, and who is pausing, wondering whether it is just possible that Call for Action is the first hint of a new dawn."

Ted, a highly valued supporter of We Are Church (UK), has responded

Please can I ask everyone who finds themselves "halfway through the Exit door" to turn round and come back in.  Over a lifetime of 70 years (so far d.v.) I have learned that the best, in fact only successful way to reform an organisation is from the inside.

Which is why Jesus came first, not to set up a new religion (that was St Paul's job), but to reform Judaism, and to restore it to the religion that Moses founded when he led the Hebrews out of Egypt, in his turn based upon the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph.

To leave (my beloved) Roman Catholic Church and start a new Christian sect would be to create another man-made organised religion, which is bound to have faults that would lead to further schisms.

Instead, I beg you please, to remain in the Church and assist in reforming - or rather restoring - it.  I am a member of We Are Church UK (WAC UK), which is a part of the International Movement We Are Church (IMWAC), dedicated to the reform of the Church in line with the promises and documentation of the Second Vatican Council.  Take a look at our website - http://www.we-are-church.org.uk/. 

I am also a member of the Executive Committee of Catholics for a Changing Church (CCC) whcih, despite the efforts of some, is still working for the same cause of reforming the Roman Church, and publishes a quarterly newsletter "Renew".  A link to the CCC website will be found on the We Are Church site.

Richard refers to the "feeling of utter helplessness" among the laity of our parishes.  As Catholics, at least we cradle-Catholics, are taught to do as we are told by the parish priest, the bishop and ultimately the Pope.  When we find that what they are teaching is in conflict with our Personal Conscience, we have no "fall-back position".  The ability to decide between these two conflicting concepts has never been included in our learning, even though it is given to us at our confirmation.

WAC UK, CCC and all the other movements are establishing that fall-back position.  My old school was Clapham College (hallo to any Old Xaverians reading this) and our school motto was "Res parvae concordia crescunt" (NB we reformers do still like Latin) which means 'Small things grow by union'.  By uniting your energy and efforts with one or more of these movements, you will contribute to the reform of the Church.

Please don't go away, stay and make your home uncomfortable to those who keep trying to re-arrange the furniture.

In the love of Christ,

Ted