« Today in Rome... | Main | Dan invites... »
May 15, 2006
Another coming storm...
A reader from LA writes with this: am in the archdiocese of Los Angeles.
I would be interested to hear what you and your blog readers think about what happened in parishes in our diocese yesterday. In the middle of mass, after the homily and before the Creed, Fr. C. stood up and said that Cardinal Mahony asked all priests in the diocese to pass out post cards to the parishioners regarding immigration reform, addressed to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The ushers passed them out with pencils, then picked up the completed forms. It took about 20 minutes. Here is the text of the post card:
Dear Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: I urge you to enact realistic and humane comprehensive immigration reform this year that: (1) includes a path to citizenship for hard working immigrants and their families. (2) provides an effective visa program for future immigrants that protects their rights and includes a path to citizenship. (3) keeps families together, (4) protects our civil rights and civil liberties, and (5) does not criminalize immigrants or their allies. Our immigration laws and our leaders should recognize that immigrants strengthen our economy and contribute to the fabric of our country. Signed: City & Zip:
While this is a social justice issue, and most people do agree that immigration laws need to be reformed in some way, it becomes a political issue when parishioner are asked to sign their names to something to be sent to a member of the Senate.
What really angered me about this, is that a couple of months ago, a group of us asked Fr. C. if we could collect signatures after Mass on the patio to get the parental notification act back on the ballot. We were told that Cardinal Mahony said we could not collect signatures on church property for a political issue, so we stood on the sidewalk to collect signatures. We were totally fine with that, and did so with no complaint whatsoever. I would not have minded if there was an "immigration reform table" on the patio after mass and if there was an announcement about it at the end of mass, but to interrupt the holy sacrifice of the mass for a political agenda is completely inappropriate.
We had active, faithful parishioners stand up and walk out of mass yesterday. This is going to be very divisive. I sure wouldn't want to be answering the phone in Cardinal Mahony's office this week!
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
We had active, faithful parishioners stand up and walk out of mass yesterday. This is going to be very divisive. I sure wouldn't want to be answering the phone in Cardinal Mahony's office this week!
Perhaps the office would be better served by routing calls to the seminary. The director of admissions seems adept at handling "complicated" matters like this.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at May 15, 2006 10:16:06 AM
Were any unsigned cards handed back? Did cards just diappear into pockets or purses? Any way of knowing how many were returned signed with real names?
Were the cards bilingual? In SF we would need them in four to five languages.
It was certainly the wrong time and place to do this.
Was it done in all of Mahoney's parishes? I wonder if it will spread to other dioceses.
Posted by: Caroline at May 15, 2006 10:33:31 AM
Rich, that bring up a question I meant to ask Jimmy Akin last week, but never got around to it. Perhaps I'll do it later this afternoon.
Q: Is it permissible to get up and walk out of Mass if something truly horrifying is going on, provided that you attend another one later (on a Sunday)?
I came VERY close to doing this at an Indult Tridentine Mass about a half year ago, when the old priest saying the Indult Mass called the current Vatican leadership "diabolic" during his homily. I stayed, but man was I fuming. It was on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and there was another new rite Mass about an hour later.
Posted by: Chris S. at May 15, 2006 10:33:39 AM
Rich's link threatens to derail this thread before it even gets started. Let's NOT talk about homosexuals in the priesthood in this set of comments, please, as it is not what the article is about. Just my opinion, but I think we should talk about 1. what should and shouldn't be done at mass, and 2. immigration. I can see that we might go so far as to talk about hypocrisy and a double standard (different for 'left' political issues from that for 'right' political issues.)
And that's the point. I find myself, actually, agreeing with the wording of the letter the parishioners were asked to sign. But even before I got to the report of the writer, I knew they weren't doing this in mass for anything about abortion! And of course, plenty of good Catholics might totally disagree with me about these immigration issues. They shouldn't be put on the spot during mass over an issue on which good Catholics might disagree.
But then, during the first Gulf war I stood up and argued with a priest who was giving an antiwar "this is just about oil" sermon. I really resent having political issues on which Catholics can reasonably disagree, pushed during mass.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at May 15, 2006 10:40:26 AM
Two thoughts:
1. What parishioners are being asked to sign is substantially identical with what the US bishops have said about immigration. I don't see a big problem about asking people to sign it.
2. The fact that other causes have not been passed around the pew doesn't make this one invalid.
Posted by: WRY at May 15, 2006 10:47:10 AM
Susan,
There's a certain context in which things take place in that diocese. Hence, Amy's reference to "Another coming storm ..." The trains on the L.A. line were derailed long before I posted the link.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at May 15, 2006 10:48:07 AM
I agree with Susan.
The fact that politcs is injected into The Mass is worrisome. It would have been just as bad, if the card asked Mass attendees to support the president on issue A or B. The Mass is one of the few moments during the week when we approach our Lord unified as Christians. To inject such a controversal subject into the homily takes things way too far. What ever happened to the idea of Christian Unity? It is just cheap talk.
Posted by: JP at May 15, 2006 10:52:10 AM
And Susan, your last paragraph is spot-on.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at May 15, 2006 10:53:42 AM
"The Mass is one of the few moments during the week when we approach our Lord unified as Christians."
Very difficult if there is a claim that someone writing this writes a "balanced" blog entry:
"Of course we are. We actually believe in something."
Let this jihad rage on.
Posted by: Daniel H. Conway at May 15, 2006 11:00:42 AM
The way the postcard campaign was handled in that parish was outrageously coercive. I think I would refuse to fill out the postcard simply because I was pressured to do so.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at May 15, 2006 11:06:44 AM
Very sad. As has been pointed out, this is an issue on which faithful Catholics can disagree about how to solve this problem.
Given that, why not give a homily that teaches the faithful how the teachings of the Church apply to this issue (virtue of hospitality, legitimate desire to protect family/income, etc, solidarity with poor, etc). And then, stand back and let the people use that knoweldge to act. Is all the talk among "progressives" about "empowering the laity" earnest or not?
Posted by: Marc at May 15, 2006 11:07:26 AM
2. The fact that other causes have not been passed around the pew doesn't make this one invalid.
True. But the fact that they do this over immigration, but not abortion, speaks volumes about where the Bp stands morally and politically, and makes it that much more difficult to take him seriously.
I really resent having political issues on which Catholics can reasonably disagree, pushed during mass.
The fact that politcs is injected into The Mass is worrisome.
So which is it? Do we want homilies that incorporate the faith and how to apply it to the burning issues of the day, or do we want happy talk and the hymn from St. Barney ("I love you, you love me...")?
Handing out signature cards during the homily crosses the line, but stating the case for it and directing parishoners to action seems perfectly acceptable (just wish they would give pro-life issues one tenth the attention they give to other issues). Is our faith something hermetically sealed off from the world, or do we have Truths that clash with political events that we need to confront (and need guidance on)? So much for being salt - as long as we remain in the shaker.
Posted by: c matt at May 15, 2006 11:10:08 AM
I don't understand Mr. Conway's comment at all.
Rich....I know there is a larger context and that it is applicable to this situation. But the particular issue you brought up is one on which feelings run deep and strong and discussion of it, I thought, could prevent discussion of anything else.
Susan
Posted by: Susan Peterson at May 15, 2006 11:10:28 AM
Q: Is it permissible to get up and walk out of Mass if something truly horrifying is going on, provided that you attend another one later (on a Sunday)?
I would say it is permissible and that you don't even necessarily need to go find another Mass. Seems to me that you made a good faith effort to fulfill your Sunday obligation. If attempting to fulfill it is a near occasion of sin, then I would say leave and realize that it wasn't for want of trying.
Now that being said, I think rather than thinking of getting to another Mass out of obligation, I would do it out of desire to meet Christ without the distraction that caused you to leave the other Mass.
Posted by: Will Barrett at May 15, 2006 11:15:35 AM
First reaction? Report Mahoney to the IRS. Reasonable reaction? Let it go for now, but remind everyone of this the next time you want to put pro-life voters' guides on the cars in your church parking lot and your bishop/priest cries about losing the precious tax-exempt status.
In my parish yesterday, the KC's were in the vestibule handing out pre-printed postcards to folks to send to their senators about same sex "marriage" legislation. I'd bet money they didn't even ask our priest's permission.
I recently heard the bishops' spokesman, Mr. Leo Anchondo, present the bishops' proposal for immigration reform(www.justiceforimmigrants.org) and was definitely left with the impression that the U.S. is the "bad guy."
Posted by: midwestmom at May 15, 2006 11:18:17 AM
If the Presider or others are getting you upset/distrubing you from raising your heart to the Lord, to join with the angels, then they have done the devils bidding. Better to seek more holy grounds.
The L.A. Church should have left those cards in the back of the Church for the interested people.
Posted by: Dean at May 15, 2006 11:18:21 AM
"So much for being salt - as long as we remain in the shaker."
LOL! I like that!
Posted by: midwestmom at May 15, 2006 11:20:14 AM
I always ask myself the question, what if this were civil rights days?
A homily saying that negroes (the term in use then) are our brothers in Christ and that we ought to treat them as such, and that they deserve every human and civil right that we have, would have been the proper application of the Gospel to the issues of the day.
Passing around cards urging legislators to vote for, say, the act which made it illegal to refuse to serve a negro, or one which made it illegal to refuse to rent to one, would not have been appropriate. Some people believed that these laws unconstitionally violated people's property rights or their right to freedom of association. ( I think Sam ....what was his name...he was so incisive and impressive at the Watergate hearings...jog my memory, someone... had been of this opinion.)
This was a legitimate constitutional opinion.
A sermon should have said that people ought not to refuse to serve or rent to negroes...that it was morally wrong to so refuse...but it should not have required people to have a certain opinion on the constitutional questions, or to sign cards about it...and certainly not during mass.
Does this make the distinction clear, between what is proper application of the gospel to the issues of the day, and what is illegitimate use of the pulpit and of the requirement that people be at mass?
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at May 15, 2006 11:23:17 AM
In my parish in the LA Archdiocese, the presider simply included in the announcements that the Parish Social Justice Committee would be outside church collecting signatures on letters to our elected representatives asking them to pass "fair and just immigration reform." He then added that the Archbishop had asked all the faithful to add their signatures to the letter. This would seem to be exactly the approach the original post suggests should have been used.
I think we need to find out exactly what instructions were given to the parishes in the archdiocese.
Posted by: decker2003 at May 15, 2006 11:24:38 AM
c matt makes a good point: Are we scared of actually hearing what our church teaches just because it is controversial?
Liberals want the church to be liberal. Conservatives want the church to be conservative. Each is happy so long as their side gets the plug. Actually, maybe we should all squirm a little more.
It is worth noting too that the immigration issue is immediate, directly in front of congress at this moment. To me, that could justify a different treatment from more long-range issues or concerns. If a pro-life issue becomes as burning and immediate I would hope for a similar response. Will the people complaining now complain then that the church is being used for politics?
Posted by: WRY at May 15, 2006 11:36:53 AM
"So which is it? Do we want homilies that incorporate the faith and how to apply it to the burning issues of the day, or do we want happy talk and the hymn from St. Barney ("I love you, you love me...")?"
cMatt, do we incorporate the Priest or Bishop's
personal politcal views into our faith? As has been stated earlier, most Bishops and priests rarely say anything about abortion during Mass, which is a far more serious moral problem than immigration.
As I see it, the Bishops wish to keep the staus quo on immigration. Here, for once they are in union with the captialists who exploit cheap immigrant labor. Should I follow the Bishops so I can enjoy inexpensive lettuce and tomatoes?
Posted by: JP at May 15, 2006 11:38:34 AM
If you look at the Archdiocesan website http://www.archdiocese.la/ you can see that there was a bulletin insert (not used at my parish) saying that the postcards would be available to sign after mass. Yet, in other text about the postcard campaign, the Cardinal states that the postcards are to be handed out during mass.
And yes, the postcards were bilingual.
Posted by: Lisa at May 15, 2006 11:41:02 AM
No, I would say c matt presents a false dichotomy. There is a middle course between saying nothing and trying to dragoon people into taking a specific stand on a specific question on which there is no obvious Catholic position.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at May 15, 2006 11:45:52 AM
I was replying to WRY above.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at May 15, 2006 11:46:50 AM
There are a couple of issues here. Having people write political postcards during a mass (on any issue) strikes me as stepping over the line. But homilies should definitely be used to teach about the entire catholic social teaching, bit just the pieces that satisfy your own political ideology. Most people around here seem (for reasons unknown to me) to be seduced by American secular individualism and nationalism. It would be good for them to hear homilies about just war, the death penalty, poverty, immigration, and social justice in general. Likewise, it would be good for so-called liberals to face homilies about abortion and the church's teachings on same-sex marriage.
Posted by: Tony A at May 15, 2006 11:51:04 AM
