« Egyptian Friction | Main | Document »
November 28, 2005
On the Schism Beat
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3751320
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On the Schism Beat:
Comments
So what else is new with Father "full of hmself" Cuenin? When I had him for a course at St. John's Seminary over 25 years ago he was browbeating diaconal candidates to follow the creed of Hans Kung and be Kungian evangelists.
Posted by: Deacon John M. Bresnahan at Nov 28, 2005 2:48:06 PM
Very interesting watching the career of Fr. Bowers. I live in the parish where Fr. Bowers grew up, my husband played with him as a little kid. I knew his mother when I sponsored a young woman in the parish RCIA. She said once that her one fear as a mother was that one of her children would leave the church -- happily, she thought, at the time (a dozen years ago), that wasn't going to happen. I can't help but wonder what she is thinking now. Also, at the time of initiation of Project Rachel in Boston, my husband and I attended an opening Mass at what is now my parish (we were city folk then), and the pastor proudly announced that there were four young men from the parish in the seminary. I believe that one was Fr. Bowers. Another was an acquaintance of mine who says the indult Mass and was a great help to Catholic homeschoolers in the Boston area. He might have lived two blocks from Fr. Bowers as a kid; his sister played with my sister-in-law. I continue to be amazed by the disparity in faith and fidelity among two men whose backgrounds and experiences before the seminary were extremely similar.
Posted by: scotch meg at Nov 28, 2005 3:54:32 PM
Schisms are always sources of scandal. And schismatics, like Luther, are almost always full of themselves.
A look at the various Reformations suggests blame on both sides, Catholic and Protestant. I wonder if the same will be the case in Boston, is schism were to arise. In the mean time, we should pray that it doesn't happen, and assume the best intentions about the two priests' outreach to a schismatic community.
I will say this. Apparently the Archdiocese has more than enough priests, since to my knowledge neither of these men have been offered a serious post.
Posted by: George C. at Nov 28, 2005 4:05:12 PM
I am sick to death of reading statements like this:
"...Both priests were pastors of prominent parishes known for their inclusive policies toward gay people and women, social justice advocacy, and outreach to the poor."
The implication always seems to be that those who are "inclusive" regarding gay "rights" are also the only ones who are concerned about social justice advocacy and outreach to the poor.
It's possible to believe that the Catholic Church should only ordain men who actually support and live by its teachings regarding human sexuality AND ALSO be concerned about legitimate social justice issues and care for the poor.
Is it just me? I seem to read this kind of thing a lot lately...
Posted by: CV at Nov 28, 2005 5:08:37 PM
No, CV, it's not just you. People who are full of themselves necessarily like to praise themselves. And it seems that the prevailing "wisdom" on the left these days is that you cannot possibly defend traditional morals AND be concerned for the poor. And of course, to them, "social justice" means gay marriage and abortion.
The term "Peace and Justice", for what it's worth, has become nothing more than a euphamism for Marxism.
Posted by: chris at Nov 28, 2005 5:35:22 PM
Actually, Father Joseph Clifford Fenton, a very conservative dogmatic theologian who taught for years at Catholic University before Vatican II, used to say that one of the characteristics of conservative Catholics was personal concern for the relief of the poor. I've worshipped in Milwaukee at parishes where the priests are keen on Catholic doctrine and not dissenters. Both of these parishes are outstanding for their concern of the poor both inside and outside of the parish (and even in the missions). All the pro-life people in both parishes are very concerned about the poor and also they're all opposed to capital punishment. Sometimes I think the media search for stereotypes of "conservative" Catholics.
I don't agree with Chris about the "Peace and Justice" people being Marxists. Only of the few of those I know would even be able to begin to describe what historical and dialectical materialism are. A lot of these folks have hearts that are good and in the right place about some issues, but they need far more in depth adult level catechesis. You can't really be a heretic until you've gotten at least SOME basic instruction on the faith. And you can't be a Marxist without knowing SOMETHING about the history and doctrine of this worldview of yesterday.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Nov 28, 2005 7:45:26 PM
RE: the "Peace and Justice" comment, I was far from clear when I wrote that. I was referring more to the use of the term outside of the Church, at least in my area (New England). When a group up here has the term "Peace and Justice" in their name, they are invariably Marxists. A local group called the "Maine Peace Action Committee" (http://www.peacectr.org/) even organizes annual trips to Cuba to show it's members how great it is. I'm sure the Cuban government carefully choses what to show them.
Posted by: chris at Nov 28, 2005 8:17:16 PM
In the church, there are heterodox groups using the "peace and justice" phrase too. It's a symbol to them. Many of the most rabid peaceniks are too busy watching tv to actually feed anyone or stand up for them in a real pinch.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Nov 28, 2005 8:24:13 PM
The secular (mostly anti-Catholic) media loves stereotyping people they are out to damn. Dorothy Day on doctrine was hard core "right." She also was humble and frequently said if Church authorities told her to close up the Catholic Worker, she would. Today's so-called "liberals" in the Church are frequently narcissistic exhibitionists who get a cheap buzz out of their public antics. They pride themselves on so-called "independent" thinking, but are too intellectually challenged to realize they are just stooges for some of the worst pathologies in American society.
Posted by: Deacon John M. Bresnahan at Nov 28, 2005 9:05:19 PM
George C., and Jason, over at BettNet, both brought up Luther. Now, Luther was blazing his own trail (where that trail led to, in his case, is not for me to say:-)
However, in 2005 if you break with the Catholic Church in favor of gay clergy, women clergy and married clergy and have an ultra-liberal message - well, haven't you basically joined the ECUSA? What sense would it make for Cuenin and Co. to form some little schismatic offshoot of the Catholic Church, when they could be welcomed (and funded) by Gene Robinson's church? The ECUSA already accepted ultra-loopy Matthew Fox.
Schismatics on the right have painted themselves into a corner - how on earth can they join up with Protestants when they're More Catholic Than The Pope? The mainline "enlightened" Protestant denominations give heretical lefties a place to run to.
I suspect these schismatics won't stay in schism for long. They'll join the ESUSA - which will continue to provide us with smart and devoted converts, including some of their best clergy.
They're getting our goats and we're getting prize sheep. I'd say we're getting the better deal here :-)
Tom Haessler wrote:
I've worshipped in Milwaukee at parishes where the priests are keen on Catholic doctrine and not dissenters. Both of these parishes are outstanding for their concern of the poor both inside and outside of the parish (and even in the missions).
I would name St. Josephat's, which has a pretty traditional N.O. Mass, as one of those parishes. What are some of the others? I'd really like to know. It seems to me that some of the worst liturgical abuses I've seen are in suburban parishes,...,
Posted by: Donna at Nov 28, 2005 9:29:02 PM
"What sense would it make for Cuenin and Co. to form some little schismatic offshoot of the Catholic Church, when they could be welcomed (and funded) by Gene Robinson's church? The ECUSA already accepted ultra-loopy Matthew Fox."
It's not much to join another religion, but it is "noteworthy" when someone wants to gut Catholicism from within, and erect their own Vichy regime. Dissenters in the United States could have joined the ECUSA a long time ago, but they don't want another Church, they want the Catholic Church minus the dogma. It's been said that John Paul II feared a wide-scale schism in the United States. I don't know how true this is, but a rogue leader is all it takes for a schism to snowball, as Archbishop Lefebvre demonstrated in 1988.
Posted by: Jason at Nov 28, 2005 10:08:47 PM
*Like I said at Dom's, I'm not meaning to be dramatic about a small incident like this. I just hope it's on the Archbishop's radar screen, because you never know. If VOTF and Call to Action types ever united in a quasi-Catholic communion, with someone like Cuenin as "Pope", it could be disastrous for the Church in the United States.
Posted by: Jason at Nov 28, 2005 10:11:57 PM
Dissenters in the United States could have joined the ECUSA a long time ago, but they don't want another Church, they want the Catholic Church minus the dogma.
But what is the Church minus the dogma and the Pope but another Protestant sect? I'm not disagreeing with you, Jason, as much as I'm just trying to understand the (il)logical mindset behind this. It truly baffles me.
Posted by: Donna at Nov 28, 2005 10:40:56 PM
Donna, they're telling you that if Dissident X, for example, just switches over to the local Episcopal church, there are no fireworks--nothing happens except the one guy moves over.
What the dissidents have in mind, as dissidents, is to capture the Catholic church in some way and take her with them. And bang, they have notoriety and even more important, they have APPROVAL for the way they want things, APPROVAL for their peccadillos (and we've seen what some of those are, eh?).
There is a huge body of people who cherish the notion of being Catholic as something powerful, something they were raised with as the big enchilada. They simply will not give it up, even when they hate everything it is and everything it stands for. This is really what the church is up against. It's a sort of integralism no one wants to talk about--with a bite.
Oh, and did I forget to mention--many of these crackpots work for the church. It's where their paycheck comes from, their retirement is, their friends are, and their future and past are. They're simply not going to go off and start all over if they can help it any more than anyone else would like that.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Nov 28, 2005 11:19:25 PM
Also, the Church minus the dogma and the Pope can't happen.
This is theologically necessary if you understand the Church as the mystical Body of Christ. Such a move would constitute an attempt at cleavage in the mystical body, leaving the church and another body as the two resulting parts, much as did the protestant movements of the 16th century.
The dissociation the original protestants made was to try to split the visible corporeal church away from the spiritual church. Of course, the church is unity, so it didn't work because it is not possible. Just like the physical Eucharist is joined to the spiritual Christ, the visible church is joined to the spiritual church, inseparably.
This present dissociation is one of splitting the moral theology away from the rest. It won't work either, because it can't.
Result? the Catholic Church PLUS a dissident group. No matter how you slice it.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Nov 28, 2005 11:34:07 PM
I think worries about schism are unrealistic. Call to Action and VOTF types (if you check them out) are deep into geezerhood! LOL Lots of young people are very enthused about orthodoxy. Some of the ones who love Father Stan's rap music want liturgical decorum too. And if you read NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER (which I do because they've got the most honest reporting on the sex abuse issue - even though they draw the wrong conclusions), that crowd hasn't had a new idea in decades. Those Catholics who love the Church, respect the magisterium, steer clear of anti-Semitic ravings, and distinguish between orthodoxy and conservative politics and economics (which are options for the orthodox Catholic, but not the only ones) have sufficient graviment to counter a schism on the left. Progressive Catholics don't have enough energy, according to Archbishop Weakland, to start a schism. LOL That's one of his comments I fully endorse.
Donna, Our Lady of Good Hope has had outstanding pastoral leadership from Fr. Don Hying for several years, until Archbishop Dolan had the good sense to put him in charge of spiritual formation at the seminary. He's a very holy priest who's been pouring his life out for God's people since the day he was ordained - orthodox, but not a crank (sorry, folks, I've known a few!), deeply committed to the pro-life cause [he's read exorcism prayers at Planned Parenthood], taught Theology of the Body and NFP [young adults who'd never heard Catholic teaching on NFP would say after one of his very down to earth talks - "Gee, it makes a lot of sense to me, but why haven't I ever heard this before?"], would listen to hours to those who'd been abused by priests, etc. About six months ago he said in the pulpit "You know, friends, I figured it out. If all the adults here would come to confession once a month, I'd be in the confessional for fifty hours a week. I just wanted you to know that I'd love to have that happen and I'll be here for you no matter how long it takes." He visited all the people in his parish (not just those who come to Mass). "I don't come to Mass anymore because I found out that most of the people there are hypocrites, Father." "Yes", Fr. Don would say, "and I'm the worst of the bunch. And I'd be even worse if it weren't for confession and the Mass." They were there the following Sunday.
Fr. Tom Devries, pastor of Lumen Christi parish, was received into full communion after being a minister in the Christian Reformed Church. He's another excellent preacher, who works much, much too hard (recently had triple by-pass surgery) and pours himself out for his people. Very strong pro-life group and charismatic prayer group in his parish. Challenges the teens in language they can understand in his preaching. Brings his in-depth knowledge of Scripture (that he got from his Calvinist days) to everything he does.
I could name some more wonderful things that are happening in Milwaukee, Donna, but that's a start.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Nov 28, 2005 11:59:36 PM
In my area (Newark, DE), a pastor and his ex-nun director of worship have been in the paper recently, exploiting the newspaper's interest in 30 year old abuse allegations to claim that only by "structural change" can we all be safe. In a homily (!!), the pastor urged everyone to join Voice of the Faithful and told them where and when to go, despite the bishop's opposition to publicizing their meetings on church property. The director of worship already attends the meetings. (I suspect she founded the chapter.)
I've met her and she is in favor of women priests and opposed to eucharistic adoration. Communion is a meal, the service is a get-together, etc. There are no confessionals (the church is brand new) because "we'd have to have them made of glass because otherwise it isn't safe". Everything you would expect.
This is the strategy: claim that everything you do is to protect children and then overturn the church from within.
Of the 3 directors of worship/education I know, 2 come right out and admit it. I think they sought these jobs with this end in mind.
I'd say we'd be better off if they all went elsewhere rather than stay in and mislead people and youngsters who don't know any better.
Posted by: Paul at Nov 29, 2005 12:25:19 AM
Hi, Paul,
Women priests - bad idea. Opposition to Eucharistic adoration - bad idea.
But the Eucharist IS a meal and IS a "get-together" (celebrated by the gathered local Christian community). Benedict XVI stopped a lot of useless discussion at the Synod by responding to a bishop who said "The problem is that people think the Eucharist is a MEAL, but it's really a SACRIFICE." The Holy Father simply pointed out that Scripture and the magisterium had always insisted that it's both.
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Nov 29, 2005 1:15:14 AM
michigancatholic wrote:
Oh, and did I forget to mention--many of these crackpots work for the church. It's where their paycheck comes from, their retirement is, their friends are, and their future and past are. They're simply not going to go off and start all over if they can help it any more than anyone else would like that.
Which is exactly why schism won't work. If Fr.X and Nun Y suddenly announce that they are forming the "American Catholic Church" - well, where will they, and their followers, pull paychecks from? Where will they hold their "masses?" A formal declaration of independence would entail cutting themselves off financially. Breaking off would put them in the situation of a 7 year old who runs away from home "for good" - and then finds himself getting hungry and cold sitting there in the park all by himself.
There might very well be some wealthy American Catholics out there willing to bankroll these folks (a new pet project for Mrs. Kerry? -Although I would certainly hestitate before handing over wads of cash to Fr. Cuenin) Still, I don't see how it would work out financially in the long run. Particularly since, as people have noted, the "spirit of Vatican II" types are getting long in the tooth and have not created successors - which is exactly why they're feeling panicked and embittered these days.
That's why I think many of these folks will end up in the ECUSA eventually. They might dream of remaking the Catholic Church in their own image, but in the meantime they'll have to eat. And the ECUSA does have money.
Gay Fr. Brad might wish to remain a Catholic priest while living openly with his boyfriend. O.K., where is Fr. Brad going to conduct services - people's houses, the beach, the parking lot of Bad Boyz Lounge? While in the meantime, there's a lovely ECUSA church right down the street which would be happy to have him where he can play priest to his heart's content,...,
Posted by: Donna at Nov 29, 2005 8:28:10 AM
No, CV, it's not just you. People who are full of themselves necessarily like to praise themselves. And it seems that the prevailing "wisdom" on the left these days is that you cannot possibly defend traditional morals AND be concerned for the poor. And of course, to them, "social justice" means gay marriage and abortion.
They've replaced the Church's theology of redemption - in essence - with a theology of inclusion.
As a result, "social justice," in all its stripes, comes to equal salvation.
It's all less about Marxism - at least here in the States - than it is about trying to build the Kingdom of God here on earth. The focus on the transcendent is lost - or at least is presumed to have nothing at all to do with the material.
Posted by: Richard at Nov 29, 2005 9:07:44 AM
But the Eucharist IS a meal and IS a "get-together" (celebrated by the gathered local Christian community). Benedict XVI stopped a lot of useless discussion at the Synod by responding to a bishop who said "The problem is that people think the Eucharist is a MEAL, but it's really a SACRIFICE." The Holy Father simply pointed out that Scripture and the magisterium had always insisted that it's both.
Before the Council the going concern was that the emphasis on the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist had obscured the communal aspect: that the horizontal had been lost in the vertical.
But today the problem is quite the reverse - or worse. In the typical N.O. parish now, the problem is pretty much never one of too much focus on the sacrifical or horizontal aspect of the Eucharist. It's the opposite.
The Holy Father's comments were on point. But he also realizes (since he has written on it) that what's being voiced is a concern about the almost exlcusive focus on the communal or meal aspect of the Eucharist in most of Western Catholicism.
Posted by: Richard at Nov 29, 2005 9:17:23 AM
All this talk about schism, retirement pensions and "identity" is old hat to former ECUSA folks like me. Why couldn't the "prophetic" types just become honest Unitarian Universalists, content to profess nothing much except their love for leftist politics and let ECUSA remain a branch of historic Christianity?
Because UUs don't have bishops . You wouldn't get interviewed on national news, giving your provactive opinions on the issues of the day. You don't get to wear fancy vestments or chant, and we all know how cool that is, even if it's all just empty symbolism.
Some above have said ECUSA is the only answer for those who support women's ordination, gay marriage, etc. But michigancatholic hit the nail on the head. People don't want to give up their identity, the church they love, etc. Either out of self-absorption or genuine belief in the rightness of their cause, many will not give up.
It breaks my heart to see this conversation again in my (God willing) soon to be new Church.
Posted by: Beth at Nov 29, 2005 10:28:07 AM
With the discussion of a schism, VOTF, Call to Action and an American Catholic Church, I can't help to notice that the one's advocating the VOTF/CTA agenda, besides being gray, are overwhelmingly white.
Perhaps my perspective is bias from living in the greater San Francisco area, but the congregations of the Church's where I have attended Mass consist of people of all races and ethnic groups.
I think this reality will limit the appeal of the VOTF/CTA, as these progressives--in my opinion--represent a far different and self-centered faith system then what my Catholic neighbors practice.
Posted by: dpt at Nov 29, 2005 10:44:59 AM
Donna, I asked myself the same question you ask. But, you know, if they joined the Episcopal church, they would have to be subject to some authority, to some bishop. They would have to stop using whatever version of the mass they now use, and use the book of Common Prayer. They might use the service which is most like the second eucharistic prayer of the Novus Ordo, but they would have to use it. They couldn't have communion services when their priests are absent because most Episcopal bishops don't allow it; the Episcopal tradition has Morning Prayer as an alternative. Maybe they wouldn't even want to open their services with the beautiful opening prayer Episcopalians still use " Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid, cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love you and worthily magnify your Holy Name, through Christ our Lord, Amen." (You would think it would give some of them pause, although it doesn't seem to have stopped the Anglican "reassessors." )
The point is, the Episcopal Church is not just Catholic lite; it is more than a list of its liberal teachings. It has its own history and traditions and language. And these people aren't Episcopalians, they are schismatic Catholics. They don't want the Episcopal tradition, and they don't want to submit to any authority. They want to go their own way.
And yes, I think they want to transform the Catholic church according to their own ideas.
And I do think that there is a chance that if they attract priests with powerful personalities, they could lead a large part of the church in the United States into schism.
Many of the people I go to daily mass with openly say they agree with everything the people at Spiritus Christi are doing, although they think it is too drastic to separate officially from the church over these issues. They all believe the church will eventually come around to their point of view, and hasn't only because it is sort of slow, lumbering, trogdylite, always behind the times. (being with the times is apparently always a good thing in their minds.) Maybe it is different elsewhere. From where I am, if there were a large movement towards schism along these lines, I am not sure how much of my local parish would be left in communion with Rome.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Nov 29, 2005 10:49:25 AM
Rosmary Ruether still calls herself a Catholic because (to paraphrase her explanation) the Church owns the xerox machines. In other words, is Matthew Fox in the news much since he switched Churches?
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Nov 29, 2005 4:39:42 PM
Prehaps it is the little things that are most telling. You rarely hear people describe themselves as Roman Catholic anymore. It is also not unusual to hear people describe the Church here as the Catholic Church in America. It may be just a small thing, but sometimes the most obvious is the most telling.
Posted by: JP at Nov 29, 2005 5:01:51 PM
"Prehaps it is the little things that are most telling. You rarely hear people describe themselves as Roman Catholic anymore. It is also not unusual to hear people describe the Church here as the Catholic Church in America. It may be just a small thing, but sometimes the most obvious is the most telling."
Well, JP, as quite a few others will tell you the term Roman Catholic came from Anglicans who considered themselves "catholic" and therefore wished to distinguish themselves from those foolish followers of popery.
If someone asks me if I'm Roman Catholic I might very well tell them that I'm a Catholic of the Roman Rite.
Posted by: Dave B at Nov 29, 2005 6:00:00 PM
Although my upbringing was primarily Lutheran I spent some time in the Episcopal church. "On the books", so to speak, there is an ordered authority but I found Episcopalians to be much more unstructured simply because the Episcopal church is not a confessional denomination and with its "high" church and evangelical wings it is not as universally "catholic". Some Episcopal parishes are quite ready to jettison the Book of Common Prayer for something more "contemporary."
A church which makes room for Gene Robinson, John Shelby Spong and Matthew Fox has long lost its Biblical authority. I don't have any fears of a mass exodus from the Roman Catholic Church even for some "charismatic" leaders aka Spiritus Christi.
The state of the Catholic parish does vary from region to region. Here in Northeast Ohio there are still many parishes who do not share the liberal leanings of some of the parishes in California. I would venture one would find the same in the Midwest and Southern regions.
Posted by: Christine at Nov 30, 2005 9:30:07 AM
