Yesterday, I attended the Corpus Christi Mass and Eucharistic procession at the Monastery of the Angels in Los Angeles. This community of Dominican sisters, tucked in the hills just below the Hollywood sign, opens its doors daily from 5 am to 5 pm to allow the public to join in prayer and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Bishop Oscar Solis, our young Filipino auxiliary bishop, presided, and at the end of Mass he made a request for funds so that the sisters can repair their roof. The cost is estimated at $15,000. He asked those of us present to consider sending a donation directly to him, and he would see that the funds are given to the sisters.

Needless to say, the sisters are performing a unique service in the Archdiocese, and could use our support. If you'd like to make a donation, checks should be made payable to Monastery of the Angels and sent to:
Most Reverend Oscar A. Solis
Auxiliary Bishop
Archdiocese of Los Angeles
3424 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2202

   

Once again, I'll be joining the cast of Solanus, a play about the life and times of Father Solanus Casey, OFM Cap. This year the play will be performed in Duluth, MN, over Father's Day weekend. I always enjoy being a part of this production, and the cast has become like a second family to me. Now that I live in Los Angeles, I only see these people once a year, but the bond that comes from putting this production together is a strong one.

I've blogged before about last year's Detroit performances - see here and here for details. This spring an article appeared in the StarTribune about the current status of his cause for canonization.

Here's the blurb that appeared a couple of weeks ago in the bulletin for the Cathedral of Superior, Wisconsin:

Bernard Francis Casey (Barney) was born near Prescott, Wisconsin November 25, 1870. His father was a rather successful farmer, and the family moved several times to larger acreage. Barney was the sixth of sixteen children, two of whom died in their youth. He was a logger, a hospital orderly, a prison guard and streetcar operator. Eventually, around 1891, Barney came to the “boomtown” of Superior as a motorman on the early electric trolley system. He witnessed the murder of a woman on the trolley tracks, and this pushed him to follow his desire to study for the priesthood.
The pastor of Sacred Heart parish (the eventual “cathedral” of the Superior diocese), advised him to go to St. Francis seminary in Milwaukee in 1892. Classes were taught in German, and this proved too difficult for Barney. He was advised to return home after graduation. The desire to become a priest stayed with him and he turned to the pastor of St. Francis Xavier parish in East End. He advised him to go to the Capuchin monastery in Detroit, but Barney did not like the bearded Capuchins. However, he prayed for help, and seemed to hear the Blessed Mother tell him to “go to Detroit”. He arrived at St. Bonaventure Monastery on Christmas Eve 1896. He was professed in that Community as Francis Solanus Casey, but became known just as Father Solanus.
He continued to have difficulty with his theology studies, but because of his humble and sincere attitude, the Capuchins had him ordained a “simplex” priest on July 24, 1904. This meant that he could say Mass, but not preach formal sermons, or hear confessions. He could and did deliver some very good inspirational talks. Therefore he was given the job of sacristan and doorkeeper at monasteries in New York. After twenty years in New York he was assigned to St. Bonaventure’s Monastery in Detroit. Fr. Solanus had become very famous at his previous assignments as a humble man of prayer through whom wonderful things had happened. This continued in Detroit, and his fame spread far and wide. When he enrolled people in the Capuchin Mass Association they often had their prayers answered immediately or very soon. He often would tell people the exact day and time of the answer to their prayers. He always emphasized God’s tremendous love for all people.
In 1946 he was transferred to the Monastery in Huntington, Indiana because of his poor health. He lived there until l956 when he went back to Detroit and was hospitalized several times because of severe and painful health problems. When asked if he was in any pain he would often answer “yes, thanks be to God.” He died in St. John’s hospital in Detroit on July 31, 1957. He had said his first Mass in Appleton, Wisconsin on July 31, 1904 and died, fifty-three years later, at the same hour he had started that Mass. An estimated 20,000 people passed by his coffin before his burial at St. Bonaventure Monastery. In recent years a special shrine has been designed at St. Bonaventure’s by the same man who was the liturgical consultant for the renovation of the Superior Diocesan Cathedral, Fr. Richard Vosko.
Pope John Paul II declared Fr. Solanus Venerable in l995. This is the first step on the road to canonization. The next step is Beatification. Then public prayer and devotion can be started to Fr. Solanus. A drama based on the life of Fr. Solanus has been written and directed by Ms Molly Druffner from Hudson, Wisconsin, and the cast is composed of people from that area. It has been put on in Detroit several times. Now it will come to Superior and be performed at the Performing Arts Center at the Superior High School on June 18 at 7:00 p.m. and June 19 at 2:00 p.m. Watch for further information to come out in the bulletins and local newspapers.

Labels: father solanus casey

is a thing of wonder.

and sometimes the fruit of dialogue is modesty. I'd like to think that a recent dialogue with a fellow blogger produced the latter (more on this below).

Let me start by saying that authentic dialogue is a necessary part of the new evangelization envisioned by John Paul II; it's part of bearing the weight of our neighbor's glory, to borrow a line from C.S. Lewis. What exactly is authentic dialogue? I'll save that for another post. I might have more success defining it by what it is not. For now I'll just say that it involves at least three things: 1) a certain kind of asceticism; 2) a focused attention on what the other person is saying, and also on the good that the other person embodies (it is good simply that they exist); and 3) a firm intention to make a proper value-response to that person, despite anything that might counter-indicate that the other deserves it.

This leads me to my recent dialogue with John Heard, an Australian blogger I discovered through a link on Amy Welborn's site. John operates a blog called Dreadnought and describes himself this way: "sometime banker, former Newmaniac, probable lawyer, perpetual writer, gay, Catholic and conservative." The guy (who calls himself "Dread") clearly loves the Pope and the Church, and at the same time posts pictures of nude and semi-nude men that seem quite incongruous with his convictions. Anyway, I decided to invite a dialogue with him about the pictures, particularly in light of what John Paul II has to say about the matter in his Theology of the Body. The conversation covered a range of topics from the human body and pornography to iconoclasm and John Paul II. At times it got heated... accusations and personal attacks began to fly... but after things calmed down, I think it's safe to say that the conversation was worth the effort. Apparently Dread felt the same way, because he created a new post in which he references the dialogue that took place.

The Dreadnought blog can be found here, and our dialogue can be found here. NOTE: There are images on the blog that many will find objectionable. Our dialogue, I hope, is less objectionable.

In conclusion, I'll just say that the more I make efforts like this to engage people with whom I disagree, the more I am reminded of the wise words of Cardinal Newman: "It is not the way to learn to swim in troubled waters, never to have entered them." Be not afraid.

Labels: dialogue, theology of the body

Today (at 11:45 am, to be precise), I turn 35. While the Vatican may say I still qualify as a "youth" for the next four years, 35 seems a decisive point of entry into what many call Middle Age. If I were going to take my cues from the culture, I should be surrounding myself with black balloons and all sorts of birthday cards evoking nostalgia and/or grief. For all of the talk about being "forward-looking," we sure spend a lot of time hankering for the past.

I've spent quite a bit of time in recent months thinking about our passage through time... especially as both my father and the man I consider one of my primary spiritual fathers passed from this life to the next. Experiencing these deaths, and especially being present at the side of my father as he took his last breath, had an unexpected effect on me. Of course I expected the grief and sense of loss. But what surprised me was the way it stirred up a desire for the life to come, enkindled, I'm sure, by the fact that both men had pilgrim hearts: They took great joy in this life but never forgot that they were still on the way.

About a year ago, my dad sent me an essay he'd written in college about Robert Frost's After Apple Picking, which includes this passage:

My long two-pointed ladder's sticking through a tree
Toward heaven still,
And there's a barrel that I didn't fill
Beside it, and there may be two or three
Apples I didn't pick upon some bough.
But I am done with apple-picking now.

Dad enclosed a short note with the essay, very matter-of-fact, saying he found it among some old files he had been sorting through. He didn't need to say anything more; the consummate teacher, he allowed his own peaceful - and I might hazard to say joyful - entry into the next life to interpret the poem for me. It wasn't that he didn't enjoy this life, but he had tasted something more and wasn't going to stick with the hors'd ouerves when an entire banquet was being laid out before him. As C.S. Lewis once put it,

If we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

Or in the words of Saint John of the Cross:

I will never lose myself
for that which the senses
can take in here,
nor for all the mind can hold,
no matter how lofty,
nor for grace or beauty,
but only for I-don't-know-what
which is so gladly found.

Or as T.S. Eliot wrote in The Four Quartets,

In my beginning is my end. In succession
Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended,
Are removed, destroyed, restored, or in their place
Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass....

Old men ought to be explorers
Here or there does not matter
We must be still and still moving
Into another intensity
For a further union, a deeper communion
Through the dark cold and the empty desolation,
The wave cry, the wind cry, the vast waters
Of the petrel and the porpoise. In my end is my beginning.

So I think my perspective on age is a bit different, a bit changed this year. If someone approaches me today and asks, "So how does it feel to be a year older?" I think I will respond, "The real question is: how does it feel to be a year closer to the life to come?"

Not fare well,
But fare forward, voyagers.

Labels: fatherhood

Since I moved to Hollywood to be a screenwriter and missionary nearly two years ago, many of my friends from back in Minnesota have asked: "So how's the screenwriting going?" Actually, there haven't been too many developments in that arena. But I guess the mission work has taken a different direction. This past year, Fr. Willy Raymond, national director of Family Theater Productions, invited me to be a catechist in an RCIA program designed for Catholics (or those interested in becoming Catholic) who also work/aspire to work in the entertainment industry. The program, initially developed by screenwriter and mentor Barbara Nicolosi, has an ambitious curriculum that includes not only reading from the Catechism and documents of Vatican II, but also studying great literature from authors such as Evelyn Waugh, C.S. Lewis, Dostoevsky, and Flannery O'Connor, and viewing a number of films, such as Babette's Feast.

This year's program - which included several aspiring young actors, a screenwriter, and a producer - concluded on Pentecost Sunday with the confirmation of three young men at St. Monica's parish in Santa Monica. Please pray for them, especially for the young actors who aspire to a career in the industry. It's a very competitive industry, and one in which it is easy to be de-evangelized. I think actors face a special challenge, because the industry often treats them simply as vehicles for making a profit. The message of the dignity of the human person definitely needs to be heard in Hollywood.

Congratulations to Shea, Dario and Jonathan on their confirmation! May God, who has begun the good work in each of them, bring it to completion.

Here's a few photos from Pentecost Sunday.

Dario and his sponsor	Jonathan and his sponsor	Shea and his sponsor (lead catechist Tony Sands)
Fr. Willy and I with the newly confirmed, chrism still fresh on their foreheads

Labels: Holy Spirit

Ratzinger's 1997 interview with journalist Peter Seewald, which was published as a book entitled Salt of the Earth, is a fascinating window into the mind of this remarkable believer and thinker. Here's an excerpt in which he answers some questions about Christianity in relation to the other world religions:

All the great cultures we know of had or have religion as the most important thing in common. It seems that there is sort of a unison of doctrines, for example, in the exhortation to moderation, the warning against egotism and autonomy. So then why shouldn’t all religions be the same? Why should the God of the Christians be better than say, the God of the Indians? And why should there be only one religion that confers true bliss?

This proposal, which has been made since the early days of the science of comparative religions in the Enlightenment (though it had come up even before that), is already self-contradictory with respect to the religions themselves, for these are plainly not the same. There are various levels [of religion], and there are religions that are obviously sick, religions that can also be destructive for man.

The Marxist critique of religion is correct insofar as there are religions and religious practices that alienate man from himself. As an example, let us think of the fact that in Africa belief in spirits continues to be a great obstacle to the development of the land and to the construction of a modern economic organization. If I constantly have to protect myself against spirits, and an irrational fear governs my whole sense of life, then I am not rightly living what a religion at its depth should be. And so we can also see that in the Indian religious cosmos ("Hinduism" is a rather misleading designation for a multiplicity of religions) there are very different forms: very high and pure ones that are marked by the idea of love, but also wholly gruesome ones that include ritual murder.

We know that human sacrifices shape a portion of the history of religion in a terrible way. We know that political religion has become an instrument of destruction and oppression; there are, as we know, pathologies in the Christian religion itself. Witch burning is a recrudescense of Germanic customs. It had, with difficulty, been overcome by the early medieval missionaries, and then it reemerged in the late Middle Ages as the faith began to grow weak. In a word, even the gods are not all alike; there are decidedly negative divine figures, whether we think of the Greek or, for example, the Indian religious cosmos. The idea that all religions are equal is already disproved by the simple fact of the history of religion.

But could we not also accept that someone could be saved through a faith other than the Catholic?

Well that’s a different question altogether. It is definitively possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if you want to use the word, help him to please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale. It is just that it would be misguided to deduce that from this fact that the religions themselves all stand in simple equality to one another, as in one big concert, one big symphony in which ultimately all mean the same thing.

Religions can also make it harder for man to be good. This can happen even in Christianity because of false ways of living the Christian reality, sectarian deformations, and so forth. In this sense, in the history and universe of religions, there is always a great necessity to purify religion so that it does not become an obstacle to the right relation to God but in fact puts man on the right path.

I would say that if Christianity, appealing to the figure of Christ, has claimed to be the true religion among the religions of history, this means [in connection with what I just said] that in the figure of Christ the truly purifying power has appeared out of the Word of God. Christians do not necessarily always live this power well and as they should, but it furnishes the criterion and the orientation for the purifications that are indispensable for keeping religion from becoming a system of oppression and alienation, so that it may really become a way for man to God and to himself.

A couple of years ago, a certain Michael Bayly printed an editorial in the St. Paul Pioneer Press entitled, Catholic Church: It's time to re-evaluate our views on human sexuality. In the article, he set up two straw men - Catholic Parents Online and the Suspend Abortion Compact - and I didn't feel he should get away with this, so I wrote him, hoping to start a dialogue. Dissenters are always speaking about dialogue, I thought to myself. Let's see just how interested Mr. Bayly is in dialogue.

So here is the correspondence that transpired between myself and Mr. Bayly:


Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:51:53 +0000
Subject: Opinion Page article: August 12 Pioneer Press

Dear Mr. Bayly:

I read your recent column in the Pioneer Press with great interest.

The title of the column was "It's time to re-evaluate our views on human sexuality." I definitely agree. Some of what you said within the article seemed quite penetrating and insightful; there were other assertions made, however, which I would be interested in discussing with you via some kind of dialogue (e-mail would be my preference).

So I have two questions for you:
1) Would you be open to having me ask a few questions of you?
2) If so, I would want to see the July 19 letter by Phyllis Plum that you reference in your column. I have been looking all over the Web for it without success. If you have a copy, could you forward it to me?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Clayton Emmer



From: "Michael Bayly"
Date: Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:37:46 PM US/Central
Subject: Re: Opinion Page article: August 12 Pioneer Press

Dear Clayton,

I'd be happy to correspond with you via e-mail re. my August 12 commentary.  Below are several other relevant pieces including both Ms. Plum's letter and Suspend Abortion Compact's open letter to Archbishop Flynn.

Peace, Michael
_______________________________________________

1) "Gay Debate Goes On" by Phyllis Plum (St. Paul Pioneer Press, July 19, 2003)
2) "The Voice of a Good Heart: An Interview with Kathy Itzin" by Michael Bayly (Rainbow Spiritóthe newsletter of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities [CPCSM])
3) An Open Letter to Archbishop Harry Flynn from the Suspend Abortion Compact (July 7, 2003)
4) "It is Time to Re-evaluate Our Views on Human Sexuality" by Michael Bayly (St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 12, 2003)
5) "CPO Does Not Speak for All Catholic Parents" by Michael Bayly and Mary Beckfeld (Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 5, 2003)
6) "Concerned Catholics to Stage Alternative Forum on Homosexuality" (Press Release from the Dignity Coalition, July 2003)



Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:27:23 +0000
Subject: Beginning a dialogue

Dear Michael,

I'm grateful that you are willing to engage in a dialogue with me. Thanks for sending along, in addition to Phyllis Plum letter, the additional five related articles; that was very generous of you.

I will need a day or so to read these carefully and then I will e-mail you again.

In the meantime, I thought I would introduce myself and let you know what I would hope for from a dialogue with you.

A brief overview of my background: I am 33 years old, an English Literature major, and a former serminarian for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. I studied for two-and-a-half years in the MDiv program at Saint Paul Seminary as part of my priestly formation. I currently work as a website manager and IT support person for a professional school in Saint Paul. Next month, I will be moving to Los Angeles to pursue a career in screenwriting and to serve as a missionary in the spiritual slums of Hollywood.

Ever since college, I have taken a strong interest in theology and pastoral practice. Thus, in recent years, I have been watching with great interest the debates and exchange that have been taking place in this Archdiocese over issues such as sexual orientation, the ordination of women, etc. So when I saw your article, I immediately wanted to enter the discussion.

For me, the way a discussion takes place is just as important as what is said. The principles of dialogue and respect are very important to me, and I hope they will govern the conversation that will take place between you and me. Charity must be at the center of the discussion - or else, all that is left is the clashing of cymbals (cf. 1 Cor 13).

So in preparation for our dialogue, I want to ask if you would please read the attached article by C.S. Lewis entitled "The Weight of Glory." Especially the last portion of the essay is significant, I think, for the process of dialogue:

"It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour's glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously - no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner - no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat - the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden." (CS Lewis, from The Weight of Glory)

Again, I look forward to our conversation. Thank you for your willingness to engage in a dialogue with me.

Let's pray for one another.

In Christ Jesus, our hope,
Clayton



Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:41:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Opinion Page article: August 12 Pioneer Press

Michael,
I haven't forgotten you, nor my promise to respond to the articles you sent me. Life has simply been so busy as I prepare to leave my current job that I haven't had time to respond. But the coming week should offer me a chance to write to you.

Having visited the CPCSM website this week, I'm aware of the friendship between CPCSM and Fr. Greg Tolaas. I imagine this week is a difficult one for you. While I didn't know Fr. Greg personally, everyone who speaks about him remembers his remarkable compassion.

I hope to be at the funeral this morning, and perhaps I can meet you in person at that time. If not, expect to hear from me next week.

In Christ, Clayton



Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:48:12 -0500
Subject: FW: Opinion Page article: August 12 Pioneer Press

Dear Michael,

I hope this e-mail finds you well.

I have finally settled in my new home in Los Angeles, and am ready to begin a dialogue with you regarding your August 12 Pioneer Press editorial, "It's time to re-evaluate our views on human sexuality."

As I said before, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the sentiment expressed in the title to your editorial. And Pope John Paul II subscribes to the sentiment as well.

I know of no twentieth-century thinker who has spent more time writing about this topic than John Paul II. In fact, the first 129 Wednesday audiences of his pontificate were spent on a detailed catechesis on human sexuality, which has now become known as the "Theology of the Body."

I have been studying these audiences with a group of young adults in the Twin Cities for the past two-and-a-half years, and it has completely revolutionized my understanding of the human person. Many young adults across this country apparently experience the same kind of awakening upon reading these audiences, or upon hearing a synthesis of the teaching provided by a man named Christopher West. Theology of the Body study groups are rising up and growing rapidly across this country.

With this background, I find it difficult to understand the following assertion that you made:
"When it comes to issues of human sexuality, members of CPO and, unfortunately, much of the leadership of the Catholic church, base their 'right' understanding on a worldview no longer relevant in light of contemporary findings in the human sciences. Accordingly, just as church teaching has changed on issues such as cosmology, the procreative process, slavery, usury, democracy and capital punishment, so too must the church re-evaluate its understanding of human sexuality."

First of all, I would caution against the generalization that the views of Catholic Parents Online represent those of much of the leadership of the Catholic church. It is a bit difficult to substantiate such a broad generalization.

Secondly, I am not sure I know what you're referring to when you say that church teaching has changed on the issue of the "procreative process."

Thirdly, I am not certain I would use the word "change" to describe the development of the Church's teaching in any of the other areas you mention. Are you familiar with John Henry Newman's work on the development of doctrine, or Pope John XXIII's address on October 11, 1962, which opened the Second Vatican Council?

Here is a small portion of the address:
"The manner in which sacred doctrine is spread, this having been established, it becomes clear how much is expected from the Council in regard to doctrine. That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.

Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that
must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character."

At any rate, I will be interested to know if you have already encountered the Theology of the Body, and if so, what you make of it. I've attached a couple of articles in Microsoft Word format, as well as the complete address by John XXIII.

I look forward to hearing from you, and I remember you in prayer.

Yours in Christ Jesus, Clayton Emmer



Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:11:46 -0600
Subject: Checking back in with you

Dear Michael,
I sent you this message a month ago. Did you receive it, and if so, did you have a chance to review any of the associated material? Just wanted to check in with you.

Sincerely, Clayton Emmer



Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:28:19 -0600
Subject: FW: Checking back in with you

Michael,

Now it has been nearly two months since I wrote to you and I have not received any acknowledgement of my correspondence. Please let me know if you received my message.

Regards, Clayton Emmer



Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:52:52 -0600
Subject: August 12 Pioneer Press article

Michael,

It has been over six months and I still have not heard from you. Are you no longer interested in a dialogue about your StarTribune editorial?
I hope to hear from you.

Regards, Clayton Emmer

Labels: dialogue, theology of the body

I promise to move off of the topic of Rainbow Sash soon, but this article published yesterday by a certain Michael Bayly of the Catholic (sic) Pastoral Commitee on Sexual Minorities caught my attention. Mr. Bayly was among the Rainbow Sashers who sashayed up to Communion at the Cathedral of St. Paul on Pentecost. I know Mr. Bayly from a previous attempt at dialogue with him (see my next post). Anyway, here is my favorite section (emphasis mine):

When communion time came, Fr. Skluzacek reiterated the archbishop’s request that those wearing the Rainbow Sash remove them before receiving communion “as a sign of reverence for the Lord and a desire for unity.” I found myself wondering how wearing a multi-colored sash could possibly threaten either the Lord or Christian unity. The denying of communion as a way of protesting and punishing those you disagree with seemed much more disrespectful and divisive.

Fr. Skluzacek continued his pre-communion warning—noting that if anyone did attempt to receive communion wearing the sash, they would not receive the Eucharistic host but just a blessing. No one around me made a move to remove their sash.

When it was my turn to approach Skluzacek, I did so and received his blessing. I then looked him in the eyes and said, “I realize the situation you’re in, and I forgive you.” I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was simply following orders. Perhaps if it was up to him he would give communion to all of us. Perhaps he lacked the courage to follow his conscience and defy such orders.

Interestingly, I think everyone wearing the sash made some comment to the Eucharistic minister they approached to receive communion. My friend Mary, for instance, took the hands raised in blessing of one minister and said, “Shame on you!” Later she told me how appalled she was that they would consider their blessing a substitute for what they were denying. “It was so incredibly pompous!” she said.

In retrospect, it was quite amazing: Over a hundred people speaking from that holiest of places—their conscience—and making their feelings and beliefs known to the hierarchy at the most sacred time of the mass. How appropriate for Pentecost! And how unprecedented! Have the members of the church hierarchy ever before experienced such a loving yet firm challenge? Who could have foretold that the banning of communion to Rainbow Sash wearers would initiate such an outpouring of the spirit! Such confounding paradox, the Bible contends, is often a sign of the presence and action of God.

Such thoughts, however, were to come to me later. For the moment, I found myself returning to my seat having been denied communion – at least by a priest. For as it turned out, I was to receive communion that morning.

Back in our pew, Eduard gently touched my arm. Turning, I saw that he was reverently holding half a host in his hand. He broke it and gave a portion of it to me. I, in turn, broke my piece and gave half to my friend Kathleen.

Later I discovered that someone without a sash had shared the host they had received with Eduard—who was wearing a sash. What this person (and apparently other non-sash wearers) did seems to me to be what communion is all about. I found this loving and sharing action very inspiring and hopeful. It would be something Jesus would do—and did do through the actions of these people. Here were “ordinary Catholics” taking to heart Christ’s call to be a “priestly people.”

It's a classic illustration of the Shame Game that dissenters love to play. "The Church is being divisive and pompous!" The typical pot calling the kettle black. The dissenters have nothing to stand on but accusations, and it's always interesting how their judgments often seem more well suited to fall upon their own heads.

The most remarkable words, in some way, are Mr. Bayly's words to the priest: "I forgive you." Don't you just love it when someone comes up to you to forgive you for something you did that wasn't wrong?! Isn't it a great moment when an act of charity and magnanimity becomes instead a tool of manipulation and accusation? I had a Director of Religious Education do as much to me, about ten years ago, when I called her on the carpet for inviting an adult education speaker to my parish to speak about "Refounding the Church." We ended up having a sit-down meeting: the pastor, the DRE, and a friend of mine. There was this manufactured civility and piety in the words and tone of the DRE that was truly astonishing.

I'm also fascinated by the self-deception that actually views this kind of protest as virtuous and, indeed, holy. And by what I can only call "the ecclesiology of the belly button:" Me and my navel are the Church, and we commune with one another and all of the like-minded members of our Club. Forget the apostolic teaching, the martyrs who died for it, the communion of saints, etc. etc. - and most of all, forget God. Conscience is no longer the voice of God echoing in the human heart... it becomes the voice of human appetite projected onto God as onto a ventriloquist doll.

in their own words...

Good morning, Joan of Arc! Happy Pentecost too!

You know, Pentecost is a really important feast, and it doesn't get the attention it deserves, but sometimes I think we can celebrate even better because of that. And because of the controversy over the Rainbow Sashes, I just want to read a statement before Mass this morning, if you would give me your attention for a minute please.

St. Joan of Arc has a proud history of being welcoming to people wherever they are on their journey. And Pentecost is indeed intended to be a festival of openness and diversity in which people are to reach out in mutual understanding and compassion. The decision to deny Communion to persons who wear so-called Rainbow Sashes is a tragedy. The Eucharist, which should be a sign of unity, is turned into a confrontation. There is clearly a misinterpretation in what the Rainbow Sashes are meant to symbolize. I am proud of the contributions of the gay and lesbian members of our community here at St. Joan's.

(applause and cheering)

In our efforts to address issues of confrontation in the past, we at St. Joan of Arc have always sought not to give up our deeply-held values nor to act aggressively and confrontationally. Rather, we have sought to find a third way. That is what we did with the prohibition to having Reverend Mel White speak at St. Joan's; it's the way we responded to the denial of the religious education award to our own Kathy Itzin. We sought responses that were creative and intended to be respectful to all. We must do the same today. We must be true to ourselves. We must offer an alternative vision of inclusivity, promotion of peace and solidarity with those who face discrimination. We welcome everyone of good will to our Eucharistic banquet.

(more applause)

So I welcome all of you, wherever you are on your journeys, and on this Pentecost day, we've got Debbie Duncan to spice up our liturgy, and our own St. Joan of Arc musicians, and you have to put up with me as the preacher. So if you'll all stand and share the peace of Christ...

Fr. George Wertin, St. Joan of Arc parish, Minneapolis - May 15, 2005

The audio from today's liturgy can be found here.

Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ's mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of his agape.

In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion. The faithful are one because, in the Spirit, they are in communion with the Son and, in him, share in his communion with the Father: "Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 Jn 1:3). For the Catholic Church, then, the communion of Christians is none other than the manifestation in them of the grace by which God makes them sharers in his own communion, which is his eternal life. Christ's words "that they may be one" are thus his prayer to the Father that the Father's plan may be fully accomplished, in such a way that everyone may clearly see "what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (Eph 3:9). To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father's plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ's prayer: "Ut unum sint".

- Ut Unum Sint (On Commitment to Ecumenism) by John Paul II, paragraph 9

I put together a little Flash presentation to commemorate that auspicious day when the Church received Benedict XVI as the 264th successor to Saint Peter. It's called Ratzenfreude.

UPDATE: Someone wrote me requesting some still images of the newspaper pages in the presentation, so I've posted them at the links below. Each story actually exists on the web (with different headlines, of course)... except for the first.

Shock and Awe   still image

Sr. Joan Chittister   inspiration  still image

Fr. Richard McBrien   inspiration  still image

Monika Hellwig   inspiration  still image

Fr. Andrew Greeley    inspiration  still image

Andrew Sullivan   inspiration  still image

Fr. Thomas Reese   inspiration  still image

Freude away!

Labels: choleric

Ever since the 2004 HIV scare shut down the porn industry in Southern California for several weeks, I have been wondering: has anyone considered (or, better yet, developed) a ministry to those seeking to leave the world of pornography?

I do know of a couple of internet apostolates: the most impressive I have seen is xxxchurch.com, and there is also the Catholic pornnomore.com, which has good content, despite the unattractive layout. (An aside here: Sin doesn't need good production values in order to sell -- if you've ever seen pornographic materials, this is quite self-evident. However, I think it's difficult to make an effective appeal to truth and beauty without a design consistent with the message. Sin is ugly - and porn proves that. Goodness, truth and beauty are awe-inspiring, and materials that want to make an appeal on behalf of these things ought to testify to their attractiveness, rather than provide a counter-witness. I really have to pick up Fr. Thomas Dubay's book, The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet).

My sense is that many Christians just find the whole business of pornography distasteful and beyond the possibility of missionary endeavor. Of course, it is a healthy instinct to recoil at the notion of porn, but recoiling from those who are the day-to-day casualties of the porn industry seems to me a deficient attitude, especially for Christians.

Last year, an article in the Los Angeles Times gave a bit of backstory about the actors in a nightmarish, oppressive industry that presents itself as victimless and, at times, even glamorous. I can't help but believe that some of these actors would be especially open to what John Paul II has to say about the dignity of the human person, the destructive power of lust, the false freedom of shamelessness, and the desire to be loved as an unrepeatable person instead of being desired as a reproducible object.

And that is only to consider the ones producing the content. What about all of those people receiving it? Judith Reisman has done extensive research on Dr. Alfred Kinsey and the effects of pornography. I recommend a visit to her website, www.judithreisman.org. She's done her homework. Particularly compelling is her testimony last year before the Senate: The Brain Science Behind Pornography Addiction and the Effects of Addiction on Families and Communities. Here is a brief excerpt:

Thanks to the latest advances in neuroscience, we now know that emotionally arousing images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail.

This applies to so-called "soft-core" and "hard-core" pornography, which may, arguably, subvert the First Amendment by overriding the cognitive speech process.

Once our neurochemical pathways are established they are difficult or impossible to delete. Erotic images also commonly trigger the viewer’s "fight or flight” sex hormones producing intense arousal states that appear to fuse the conscious state of libidinous arousal with unconscious emotions of fear, shame, anger and hostility.

These media erotic fantasies become deeply imbedded, commonly coarsening, confusing, motivating and addicting many of those exposed.

So Dr. Reisman has done the research. Now who will enter the mission field? Or will no one do as St. Francis once did, when he went out to be among the lepers? The words of John Paul II haunt me:

"Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). Yes, every man is his "brother's keeper," because God entrusts us to one another. And it is also in view of this entrusting that God gives everyone freedom, a freedom which possesses an inherently relational dimension. This is a great gift of the Creator, placed as it is at the service of the person and of his fulfillment through the gift of self and openness to others...
Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 19

Granted, John Paul II was writing talking about abortion and contraception in this passage, but he also referenced all of the other expressions of the culture of death. Pornography certainly falls within that camp.

So here are a few questions for discussion and reflection:

• Do you know of anyone engaged in an outreach to those who have been used by the porn industry?
• An outreach in this arena has special demands and spiritual perils. What sort of people would best be suited for this mission field?
• Am I praying for those in the porn industry: directors, producers, actors, and viewers/addicts? Or does my disgust with the whole business make me avoid the call of charity in this regard?

Labels: hollywood, human life, John Paul II, mercy, suffering, theology of the body

John Paul... explains that [the] "affirmation of the person" means "living the fact that the other -- the woman for the man and the man for the woman -- is... someone willed by the Creator for his (or her) own sake." This someone is "unique and unrepeatable: someone chosen by eternal Love." Is there any man or woman who does not ache in the depths of his or her being for such affirmation? And, according to John Paul, in God's plan this is all revealed and lived "by means of the body." This does not mean that everyone must experience sexual union to be affirmed as a person. But it does mean that sexual union is supposed to be this: the deep affirmation of our goodness as persons through the sincere giving and receiving of the gift of selves.

This is the language of the nuptial embrace: "I give myself totally to you, all that I am without reservation. Sincerely. Freely. Forever. And I receive the gift of yourself that you give to me. I bless you. I affirm you. All that you are, without reservation. Forever." This is an experience of being chosen by eternal Love. If sexual union does not say this, it does not correspond to the nuptial meaning of the body. It does not correspond to the dignity of the person and can never satisfy the longings of the heart. If sexual union does not say this, it is not an expression of love but only a cheapened counterfeit.

Christopher West, from his book Theology of the Body Explained, page 103

Labels: theology of the body

I recently read Dan Brown's bestseller, The Da Vinci Code. Many things could be said about it, are being said about it, will be said about it. One thing is for certain: The great success of this book should put to rest any illusion that a Gnostic worldview is a thing of the past.

The book is embarrassingly bad as literature, but works quite well as agenda because it is a page-turner (for me, it was a stomach-turner, too). Take the following passage, for instance, in which we are initiated into the secret gnosis about what really happened in the Church's interpretation of the creation story. The protagonist summarizes the way the Church has come to understand the Genesis account:

The power of the female and her ability to produce life was once very sacred, but it posed a threat to the rise of the predominantly male Church, and so the sacred feminine was demonized and called unclean. It was man, not God, who created the concept of 'original sin,' whereby Eve tasted of the apple and caused the downfall of the human race. Woman, once the sacred giver of life, was now the enemy. (page 238)

That was pretty neat and easy: Theology for the USA Today generation. But I have a couple of questions: When was the Church predominantly male? And what was the motivation for creating a concept of original sin? Personally, I don't get it, but I guess that simply means that I am not one of the elect.

What I find interesting is that the book doesn't even attempt to wrestle with the Church's great devotion to the Virgin Mary, the notion of the Church as Mother, or the insights of the Theology of the Body. From an author who demonstrates an obvious hunger for "more data" and all manner of information, these omissions are remarkable.

I highly recommend Amy Welborn's De-Coding Da Vinci for a bit of perspective.

Labels: theology of the body

This past year, many Americans who asked the question about whether or not to give Communion to political candidates favoring abortion 'rights' were unable to frame the question in anything other than a legal/disciplinary perspective. Very few seem to be asking the sacramental/theological question: "What does receiving the Eucharist express?" Once you've framed the question this way, you can hardly say that the Bible is silent on the matter. Paul speaks about this in 1 Corinthians 11. And I think the tradition is clear that receiving Communion expresses a communion with Christ and his Body -- a union of heart and mind on essential matters.

When a Catholic serving in public office clearly opposes the Church's teaching on essential matters, he makes himself incapable of receiving the Eucharist for what it is -- a life-giving union with the Christ's body, a giving and a receiving that one participates in without reserve. For such a Catholic, receiving the Eucharist is a form of spiritual contraception. He engages in the act without intending to express the very meaning of the act. In effect, he uses Christ's Body rather than receiving that Body for all that it is.

It is common knowledge that those who reject the Church's teaching authority often do so as a result of the Church's teaching on contraception. It seems to me that this is no accident. Contraception is that act by which we give ourselves permission not to respect the other, but merely to serve our own interests. When we use contraception in our married life, it damages marital communion, because it interferes with our vocation to be a gift to our spouse and to receive our spouse as a gift. And when we engage in spiritual contraception by receiving Communion unworthily, it damages our communion with Christ's body. We begin to relate to the Church simply in terms of how She might benefit us, and we cease to pay attention to how we might serve Her.

A public servant who is Catholic is just that -- a servant. This is a noble calling and a beautiful witness when lived authentically. The more deeply one comes to appreciate one's faith, the more one recognizes that the service of the common good is sustained and nourished by a vibrant Catholic faith. It is the Church who fosters in us an awareness that in every person we discover an image of Christ, that Christ gave his very life for every human being, and that we are called to revere every life even when it costs us dearly to do so. We must not cease to remind ourselves that our leader in the faith sacrificed His very life for the well-being and redemption of every human life.

Our true adherence to the Church does not make us partisan in our attitudes, as though we had joined some club which only respects its own members. Rather, our life in the heart of the Church opens our heart to every human person, regardless of creed, ethnicity or any other distinguishing characteristic. To be Catholic is to love and to defend all that is truly human. And the life of the unborn is truly human. Failing to recognize the humanity and dignity of the unborn diminishes our own humanity, because it robs us of the beauty both of being a gift to others and of receiving others as gift.

Labels: respect