Danger of single issue decisions

The danger of single issue decisions

I am an active Roman Catholic priest.  I am opposed to abortion and I wish we Roman Catholics in leadership had done and continue to do a much better job of promoting the dignity of every human being from the moment of human life within the womb of a woman to the day of death. 

At the same time I am strongly opposed to the view that is espoused by far too many Catholic clergy, Religious and laity that declares that opposition to abortion is the overriding issue when making choices of candidates for any position of public office from members of Congress to Supreme court justices. I am not alone in that position. Actually the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops agrees with that position.

In their document “Forming Consciences for

Faithful Citizenship,” they state “Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-

formed conscience that perceives the proper

relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot

Vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil , such as abortion, euthanasia  …

or racist behavior,  if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a

candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for a truly grave reason, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.” (#s 34 -35)

I appreciate  the carefully composed statement of

our Catholic bishops. At the same time, I was and

continue to be disappointed at the way far too

many Catholics understood that document and

voted accordingly.

I am even more concerned at the way too many

Catholic bishops and clergy misused this document to teach Catholics that they could not in good conscience vote for a candidate who was “pro-choice”. I read of a Catholic priest who

declared to parishioners that Catholic could not in good conscience vote for a Democrat. I spent time in a online conversation with a bishop who claimed that this one issue was so overriding that no other issues could override it. He serves in a state that ordinarily would have voted Democrat and this time voted for Trump in a close vote.

To this day, I am convinced that one of the major

reasons we have the President we have today is

 because of the position and teaching of Catholic

clergy regarding how to vote. I would hope by this time that many see the wisdom of what the bishops wrote about the reality of situations when it is fitting to vote for someone who may support what the Church teaches as intrinisically evil. We would not be in the sad situation that voting focused on one issue can lead to.

However, my concern is not only with the past. It is also with the present.  Once again, I am hearing and reading that Catholics ought to be excited about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh , a Catholic, to the Supreme Court as it will raise the possibility of the overthrow of Row v Wade.

In the July 23, 2018 issue of America magazine, the

Editorial page stated that “anyone who recognizes the humanity of the unborn should support the nomination of a justice who would help return this issue to the legislative arena. Overturning Roe would save lives and undo a moral and constitutional travesty.”

That may or may not be the case but is that the only issue that people  who oppose abortion ought

to focus on in dealing with Brett Kavanaugh’s

Nomination? I do not think so and I think there can

be a case made that this nominee’s position on issues of Catholic Social teaching related to union rights, immigration, environment, and health care deserve deeper scrutiny, just as ought to have been the case for the candidates in the recent Presidential election.  In an enthusiastic effort to see Roe v Wade overturned and to have more

pro-life members on the Supreme Court or in

government, I think it is important to realize that there is much more to being pro-life  than being opposed to abortion. 

Civil marriage and the Sacrament of Marriage in the Catholic Church

Civil marriage and the Sacrament of marriage in the Catholic Church

The debate taking place across our nation and in the Supreme Court regarding the understanding of civil marriage has also drawn the attention and concern of Catholics. I think this debate is a clear example of the problems that surface when civil and religious issues are intertwined, when we don't apply the distinction between Church and State.

The reality is that long before the Catholic Church declared it a sacrament, people were committing themselves to marriage in civil ceremonies for hundreds of years. Even though the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is one of the seven sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ, it is clear from the history of the Church that this sacrament actually developed over hundreds of years, as did many of the other sacraments. In fact, the very understanding of what constitutes a sacrament in the Catholic Church developed over centuries. The designation of the present seven sacraments did not become official in Church teaching until the 12^th century.

I mention this development in this context because it suggests a way to clarify what is taking place in the national discussion at present. It is a debate about what constitutes civil marriage and who has a right to be considered married civilly. The debate is not about the Catholic sacrament of marriage. These are two quite distinct realities that unfortunately bear the same name, marriage. For a couple to be married civilly, what is required is that they prove that they are old enough, not presently married, acquire a civil marriage license and have their civil marriage promises accepted by someone approved by the government to do so, normally a justice of the peace. In essence, the civil government is in the business of granting civil contracts to couples under the name of marriage. These contracts assure both participants have legal rights and obligations in civil society. These contracts can also be dissolved by civil divorce.

People who are involved in sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church know that there is much more involved and a clear process for a man and woman entering such a marriage. They need to be free to marry in the Catholic Church, they need to promise to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the sacrament, they need to sign Catholic Church documents to that effect and they need to be married in the presence of a Catholic minister- deacon, priest or bishop, normally after taking part in some form of Catholic marriage preparation. They also must obtain a civil marriage license to assure that the marriage is accepted by the local government. Unless couples go through this process, their marriage will not be understood in the Catholic Church as a sacramental marriage. Couples entering into such sacramental marriages understand that their marriage is intended for life. The only way to dissolve such a marriage is through an annulment process that determines that a sacramental marriage never took place. They also understand that their marriage is rooted in their faith in Jesus Christ and in his teaching in the Catholic Church. Catholics who purchase a civil marriage license and have a justice of the peace witness the marriage are not celebrating and entering into a sacramental marriage.

With these differences in mind, it is clear that the debate taking place now over who can marry will not affect who can celebrate the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic Church. What it will do is determine who can enter into a civil marriage. If the Government or the Supreme Court decides that two men or two women can contract a civil marriage, that is all that will change. The Catholic Church and any other churches, Christian or otherwise, can still maintain their understanding and their regulations for marriage in their churches, synagogues, etc.

Perhaps it would be clearer if the civil government would simply refer to civil marriage as a binding contract between two persons. However, this can be a wonderful teaching moment for Catholics and other religious group. We can explain very clearly what is our understanding of marriage, sacramental for Catholics, with its spiritual and religious meaning in the Church. At the same time, we can allow civil governments to do what they judge is in the best interests of all people,including those with no religious affiliation. We simply need to make clear that the separation of Church and State applies. The State is not telling the Church what to do and the Church is not telling the State what to do.        April 2, 2013

Benedict XVI, the pluses and minuses

As we are about to experience the election of a new leader for the Roman Catholic Church, I have been reflecting on the papacy of Benedict XVI.  Like many others, I was shocked by his decision to resign the papacy. At the same time, I was delighted with his decision, and not simply because I was glad to see him depart. Rather, I think this was one of the most significant acts of his papacy. Here was a Pope willing to admit that he no longer had sufficient good health and energy to carry on in this most important ministry in the Catholic Church.  He was willing to say that the papacy is more important than the person who is presently holding  the office. He was comfortable breaking a 600 year practice of pope's holding on to the office until death.

I hope that Benedict's decision rings out as a loud and clear message to all in positions of leadership in the Church and beyond. I hope others get the message that no one is more important than the position they hold in the Church. I hope this leads to more leaders experiencing the freedom and humility to step down and let others take over their positions. This needs to be said not only to popes but also to bishops and priests as well as women and men in positions of leadership in the Church. 

Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, gave a different message.  He chose to continue his papacy despite his illness and frail health, being a suffering Pope until he died. I think there is a value in being a witness to one's faith in the midst of suffering. I am not sure it ought to be associated with someone in such a high position of leadership in the Church. John Paul II could have resigned when his health became frail and continued to be a witness to faith in the midst of suffering.  I think the position of leadership in the Church deserved someone who was able to continue to lead and make decisions from a stance of good health and clear thinking.  For that reason, I admire Benedict's decision more than John Paul II's decision.

Regarding the rest of Benedict's papacy, I will remember him for his publication of two wonderful encyclicals, "God is Love" and "Charity in Truth."  He chose to publish at the very beginning of his pontificate an encyclical extolling the message that the God we believe in is a God of unconditional love for all people, indeed a God passionately in love with all of us.  Given his background as a strong defender of Catholic doctrine, I found it reassuring that he would begin his ministry with such an encyclical.  I believe it sent an important message to all people as to what is paramount in our Church, a message that is overlooked by far too many people.

The encyclical,"Charity in Truth" was powerful in that it continued a long line of papal encyclicals presenting a powerful message of Catholic Social teaching, going back to Leo XIII encyclical "Rerum Novarum" in 1891. Benedict's encyclical was so strong in espousing the dignity of labor, worker's rights, the common good and the subordination of personal profit to the needs of others that some critics claimed that Benedict was affected too much by liberal influences in composing the encyclical.
Therefore these critics felt free to pick and choose what parts of the encyclical they accepted.

On the other hand, I will also remember Benedict in a not positive way for what he has attempted to do with the liturgical renewal of the Second Vatican Council, especially with the celebration of the Eucharist.  Along with many others, I was deeply disappointed with his decision to allow for the celebration of the Eucharist in the pre-Vatican II format. Even worse was his statement that Paul VI had not abrogated that way of celebrating Eucharist when he issued the Vatican II Order of Mass.

We have words of Paul VI himself stating his reason for not wanting the pre-Vatican II way of celebrating Mass to continue.  In a meeting he had with a friend, Jean Guitton,
Paul VI was asked why he did not allow the so-called "Missal of 1962" to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers who rejected the new Order of the Mass. Paul VI replied "Never. This Mass so called of Saint Pius V, becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council. I will not accept under any circumstances the condemnation of the council through a symbol. Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken. And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken."  This quote is taken from a wonderful book on the liturgy of Vatican II, written by Massimo Faggioli.

Besides making clear that Paul VI did not want the pre-Vatican II Mass format to be used any longer, this passage gives a clear reason for Paul VI's position.  He saw the new Order of Mass of Vatican II as expressing the theology of the Council so to reject it was also to reject Vatican II.  That is precisely what the Lefebvre followers wanted.
Benedict XVI gave them and anyone else who requested it permission to use the pre-Vatican II Mass in an effort to draw them back into union with the Church. That was not enough for the Lefebvre followers so they did not return to the Church as a group.
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church now has these two quite distinct ways of celebrating Mass and each offers a different view of what the Church is.

The Vatican II form of celebrating Mass focuses on the entire community gathering to celebrate the Paschal Mystery of Christ made present. Clergy and laity join together,
facing one another and each has a legitmate role in the celebration. The use of the language and the customs and culture of the people is used to encourage active participation. This participation also is encouraged through the reception of Communion under the forms of bread and wine.  The theology of the prayers, especially during the Triduum of Holy week is more sensitive to our Jewish brothers and sisters.  The theology of the Mass is the theology of Vatican II.

The pre-Vatican II form of celebrating Mass focuses more on people worshipping God with the priest facing away from the people, praying in Latin. Participation of the laity comes in a much more silent way or by reciting responses in Latin. Involvement of the laity is limited to the male altar servers, assisting the priest. Communion is not offered under both forms. The prayers of the Missal speak more of the theology of pre-Vatican II days.

Sadly, as a result of this decision by Benedict, which was not supported by many bishops througout the world, we have the present situation of two quite different ways of celebrating Eucharist and at the same time two different understanding of what liturgy and the Church is truly meant to be.

As we now wait the election of a new Pope, we can hope and pray that someone who is totally committed to the renewal that was fostered by the bishops of the Church in an ecumenical council, Vatican II, will be chosen, guided by the Holy Spirit. Who that person will be is anyone's guess as I write. My hope is that he will be someone like Blessed John XXIII, who has the openness to the Spirit and the courage to make decisions that will truly promote the common good of all.

Hopes and Dreams for 2013

Hopes and dreams for the New Year 2013

How did 2012 turn out for you and what are your hopes for the new year 2013. A new year gives us an opportunity to reflect on the past, to learn from what happened and did not happen and to think and plan for this year for our individual lives, for our Church and other communities as well as for our nation and world. I have been struggling to come up with my own hopes for this New Year for myself, Church and nation. There is so much I long for in all areas and I can best summarize them by saying I long for the presence of two of the basic principles of Catholic Social teaching-- the dignity of every human, made in God's image, and the common good of all people. How we achieve these lofty goals is another matter. Here are my reflections to promote your thoughts.

In our Church and nation, we need to stand up more dramatically for life of all, from the moment that life begins within a mother to each person's last dying breath. We need to work with individuals, families, churches, states and our nation to make abortions unnecessary and undesired. To do this, we need to challenge males and females not to get involved in sexual activity until they are ready to accept the consequences of their actions. We need much more blunt and specific sex education for young people beginning very early in adolescence. Our Catholic Church needs to back off its rigid stance on birth control and leave those decisions to couples. We also need to make available whatever pre-natal and post-natal resources are helpful for parents and infants.
As the children begin to grow up, we need to do all we can to support them and make sure that parents have all the resources, physical, material and spiritual they need to raise their children in a healthy environment, through childhood, adolescence into adulthood. We also need to do all we can to assure that our children grow up, educated with appropriate moral values, whether Christian or otherwise.

In order to help children grow up into adulthood, we need to promote an environment in our cities and states that encourages moral living. To accomplish this, we need to do whatever we can to tone down if not totally eliminate the violence in our society, a violence that is far too prevelant in our nation. The recent tragedy of Newtown is one example of that violence as well as the many other mass and individual killings that continue to occur in our cities. How can we do this? How can we get to the causes of such violence in our society?

It is helpful to hear so many people, including our national government leaders, reflecting on this matter and preparing to propose comprehensive measures to improve the environment in our nation. Surely, something needs to be done regarding the ease with which people can acquire guns in our society and any kind of guns. This has nothing to do with overturning the second amendment. It has a lot to do with bringing reasonable common sense regulations to the exercise of the second amendment. Just as we have the freedom to purchase and drive cars in our society and yet have to pass reasonable tests and obey traffic regulations, so we need to make sure that reasonable regulations are in place and observed regarding the purchase and use of firearms in our society. Most reasonable people do not think that semi-automatic rifles ought to be purchased and used by most people. Nor do ordinary people need high capacity magazines for their guns. And everyone purchasing a firearm ought to have to go through a thorough background check to prevent convicted felons and mentally instable persons from buying them. Previous regulations regarding semi-automatic weapons and background checks have allowed too many loopholes, such as private sales at guns shows.
This leads to another aspect of working to promote a healthy environment for the common good within our society, the matter of mental health. Sadly, too many states are closing down mental health facilities and thus leading to many mentally ill persons walking the streets instead of being supported and helped in an appropriate setting. Even more sadly, some of these individuals end up with guns that lead to killings on our streets, in homes, schools and elsewhere, like the recent tragedy in Newtown.

Another dimension of the violence in our society lies in the entertainment industry and the news media. While some studies have indicated that there is no direct connection between the violence on television, in movies and in Internet games, it is hard to believe that the violence has nothing to do with the behavior of those who are exposed to it. And the news media tends to exaggerate the significance of the violence by repeating its coverage over and over again. Do we really benefit from the twenty-four hour coverage of violence?

Looking at the twin issue of human dignity and the common good more broadly, we need to consider how our nation's attitude toward war and capital punishment further complicate the situation. If we are truly in the business as a Church and as a nation of wanting to promote the dignity of each person and the common good of all, we need to challenge ourselves regarding the approach we have taken toward both war and capital punishment for far too long.
There are indications that more states are moving to abandon capital punishment and replace it with imprisonment for life. Are we truly standing up for life when we kill one person because he or she has killed others? Can we not achieve an even higher goal by convicting those of heinous crimes to life in prison. That kind of sentence will lead the convicted to spend the rest of their lives reflecting on what they have done and possibly even leading to an experience of conversion of life within the prison.

There is always the possibility that some person may be unjustly convicted and sentenced to death. If that person is killed, there is no way to bring him or her back to life once the injustice has been discovered. Perhaps, most important of all, eliminating the death penalty will give a clear signal that we stand for life, even for those who have done horrible crimes, that we leave the end of life to God and nature.

The issue of our nation's attitude toward war is certainly a complicated one. Yet, we ought to be willing to address this issue and ask ourselves if we are too willing to engage in war, rather than use other means to resolve conflicts in the world. How many of these wars need not have been waged? What has been accomplished to promote the common good of all through the recent wars, beyond the killing not only of soldiers but innocent children, women and men? How much physical destruction has been brought to so many countries throughout the world? How much mental and emotional harm has come to all involved, soldiers and innocent people, harm that continues on years after combat has ended. Have the benefits from these wars outweighed the damage and the immense expense in money, resources and personal lives?

Ultimately, if we are going to promote a greater respect for life of every person and the common good of all, we need to look at the total picture and not focus simply on one or another issue. It is too easy to take simplistic answers to the complex issues facing us. Simply focusing on the elimination of any one issue will not work whether that issue is abortion, the death penalty, war, gun control or mental illness. Unless we are all willing to look at our attitudes towards all of these issues and others such as our financial system and immigration,(that deserve individual treatment at another time) we will never achieve the proper dignity of every human being and the common good of all in society. We need to work at these laudable goals as individuals, as families, as communities of religious groups, as cities and states in our nation, along with others throughout the world.

What can each of us do in this new year to further in some specific way the dignity of each person and the common good of our society?

Celebrating Christmas in a Time of Tragedy, Dec.,2012

Celebrating Christmas in a Time of Tragedy, December 21, 2012

The weekend following the horrible tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, the Scripture readings for the Sunday Masses focused on the theme of rejoicing. Because Christmas was drawing near, as we entered the third week of Advent preparation, we were called to rejoice. Normally those are appropriate readings with an appropriate theme. However, I wondered what the preachers in churches in Newtown were going to do with those Scriptures in the midst of their horrible tragedy. What was there to rejoice about as people mourned the deaths of twenty young children and several adults?

Since I was scheduled to preach that same weekend in a church in the New Orleans area, I wondered what I would do with those readings. We were not facing such a tragedy at this time in our area. I thought of focusing on the theme of rejoicing and passing over the tragedy. That would have been an easy way out. However, my conscience would not let me ignore the tragedy of Newtown. We in the New Orleans archdiocese are part of the same Church as the people in Newtown and part of the same nation. I concluded that I needed to bring together the theme of rejoicing and the tragedy of Newtown and somehow apply the message to the people in our area. How was I going to bring together such a tragic event and the joyful preparation for the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ?

As I reflected on those issues, I realized that the very celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ and what it signifies contained the solution to me dilemma. As Christians we believe that Christmas celebrates the birth of God among us as a human being, the “Word become flesh” as the author of the prologue of John's Gospel writes or “Emmanuel”, God with us, as other Gospels declare. We fill the celebration of Christmas and the birth of Jesus with beautiful carols and songs, artistic presentations of the scene in Bethlehem, stories and poetry that idealize the event. However, when we look more closely at what Luke's nativity account describes, we see something quite different. We see a couple giving birth to a child in very poor surroundings, away from family and home, doctors, midwife or any medical support and the birth takes places in a stable, probably behind someone's house.

The significance of this description for Christians is our belief that Jesus, that Word become flesh, truly chose to involve himself in our humanity in its ordinariness or as I like to describe it, in the messiness of humanity. Certainly the description of the scene of his birth was humble, even poor, nothing rich in any material sense. And when we look ahead to the end of Jesus' earthly life, we experience a scene even more shocking—Jesus dead on a cross, crucified between two common criminals. As Christians we certainly believe that God was with Jesus at the time of his humble birth through the time of his crucifixion and death on the cross. God never abandoned Jesus nor his family nor his followers at any time.

This is the pathway for connecting the theme of rejoicing in preparation for the celebration of the birth of Jesus with the horrible tragedy of Newtown Connecticut and even with similar or lesser painful experiences for other communities, families or individuals. Just as God did not abandon Jesus and his followers from the moment of his birth through his horrible crucifixion and death, so that same God did not abandon the people of Newtown nor those children and adults in that Sandy Hook school that fateful day. Nor does our God abandon any of us whatever we face.

It is important to affirm the presence of God in this tragedy because, unfortunately, some have presented a different picture. Some dare to say that God abandoned that school and those children and adults because our nation has become too secularized, because we have taken prayer out of public schools and other gatherings. Regardless of how secular we are as a nation, God does not abandon us. God does not behave like a petulant adult or child who say that if you don't include me I won't include you. The God we believe in is always present in our lives whether or not we choose to acknowledge God.

It is also important to affirm God's presence in the lives of those children and adults at Sandy Hook school and in the surrounding towns. The life of Jesus and our faith tells us that God was with those children and adults even as some of them were being killed by that deranged young man. Our God continues to be with the children and adults who mourn the deaths of their family members and friends. A powerful example of the faith of the people and the presence of God in their midst was the prayer service mourning the passing of the deceased. Thousands packed the auditorium as minister after minister of so many different religious beliefs came forward and led the people in prayerful reflection, calling upon God's assistance, including the President of the United States.

This connection between such a horrible tragedy and the birth of Jesus Christ does not lead to the kind of rejoicing that would include shouts of joy. However, there is reason to rejoice in the awareness that God was and is with those who have suffered through this tragedy. Our faith reminds us that those who have died are now rejoicing in a better life, beyond our human existence. We who continue on in this life can count on the presence of God to support and grace us as we face whatever lies ahead.

What can all of us throughout our nation do as we prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus and as we seek ways to support the people of Newtown, Connecticut? Surely we can keep all the mourners in prayer and offer whatever other comfort, including material gifts we wish to share, as many from across the nation are already doing. At the same time, I think there is something more challenging for the long haul that is worth doing, something that may help us to conclude that these children and adults did not die in vain. We can do something that is rooted in our understanding of the meaning of Christmas, of the coming of God to share our humanity. I am referring to is a commitment all of us can make to work to make our nation a safer and more peaceful place in which to live. One of the titles of Jesus and one of the things he came to bring was peace. We refer to him as the Prince of Pleace.

 

We as a nation ought to get into serious discussion and action regarding the causes and possible solutions of all the violence, killings and tragedies that take place far too often in our cities, on our streets and in our homes. There is no one single cause and there is no one single solution. However, there are things we can do to diminish if not eliminate the killings that are taking place.

Instead of responding to a call for armed guards in every school in our nation, as some are proposing, we need to consider action on the following and other topics:

1. An end to the sale of semiautomatic riffles;

2. An end the sale of high capacity magazines, with 30 or more bullets;

3.Close the loop hole of gun sales at gun shows without background checks;

4.Improve national tracking systems to make sure that people with criminal records or serious mental conditions are not allowed to purchase weapons.

5.Find ways to provide medical assistance for all with mental issues, instead of doing the opposite by shutting down mental hospitals and clinics in our cities.

6.Continue to work with communities that teach people how to deal with conflict in non-violent ways instead of resorting to violence and killing.

7.As a nation, pursue ways to settle differences with other nations or groups through mediation rather than through military action, including drone warfare.

Can we imagine what rejoicing there would be in our land if we achieved some or all of the above pursuits because there would undoubtedly be far less killing in our nation? Maybe there would even be some comfort, if not rejoicing, for the people of Newtown if action after their tragedy would lead to a reduction of violence and such tragedies. Christmas is truly the celebration of the coming of God, Emmanuel, in our midst, of the Word becoming flesh, of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. This is a time to rejoice. May the New Year bring us closer to a nation and a world that is more peaceful. Maybe, then, we will have something for which we all want to rejoice.

 My August, 2012 visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Twenty plus years after being on a sabbatical program with a Japanese Sister who told us "I grew up in the ashes of Hiroshima", I finally got to visit Sr. Teruko Onojima in her hometown  August 3 to10th. I was fortunate to receive housing in the residence of the Archbishop of Hiroshima at the Cathedral parish. I was able to take in the ceremonies that mark the anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The activities began with a Catholic Mass in the Peace Cathedral of Hiroshima on the evening of August 5, where I was introduced as a Catholic priest representing Pax Christi USA. The morning of August 6 began with an ecumenical prayer service at 6 AM in the Peace Park,  followed by a public outdoor ceremony  at 8 AM attended by 50 to 70 thousand. That evening  there was  a symphony's performance of a Requiem in the Cathedral followed by a moving ritual of lighting lanterns and floating them down the river adjacent to the Peace Park. Similar ceremonies took place in Nagasaki on August 9, including a service at the Peace Park followed by a candle light procession to the Nagasaki Cathedral culminating in a Mass.

During my visit, I spent time in the very modern Peace Museum in Hiroshima at the Peace Park. I  learned more about what happened on August 6^th, 1945 and especially  how the people of Japan have focused on promoting peace and the end of both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. I was impressed by the way children of Hiroshima are so involved in these activities, being educated and promoting peace.  I signed a petition they were holding asking for the end of nuclear weapons; they planned to send the signed petition to the United Nations.  Many children were present at the public service and formed a choir that added to the service.

I was also able to be on a bus trip from Hiroshima to Nagasaki with Sr. Teruko and twenty-five members of her parish. The bus trip helped me see the beauty of Japan with its many waterways, hills and rice fields. I also listened to the stories of the men and women on the bus, translated by Sr. Teruko, about their reasons for taking part in these services. One story I remember was that of the man who lived in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. As he related, "I missed the tram that morning. I am alive today while my schoolmates are dead."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki have both been rebuilt and stand as very modern and clean cities, Hiroshima with over one million people and Nagasaki with approximately 500,000. I am grateful for this experience and the conviction I am left with is this. Japan learned from the horrors they inflicted on others and that were inflicted on them. Their new Constitution, in article 9, forbids Japan to go to war. They are not a threat to other nations. Sadly, some in Japan and some in the USA want Japan to modify article 9 so that the noncombatant military of Japan can join forces with American troops in any future wars we may wage.  So far the government and people of Japan have stood firm. Would that other nations and peoples would learn the same lesson of the horror of war and nuclear weapons! Would that more people would take it upon themselves to work for alternatives to war in dealing with conflicts in our world!

 Peace, Louie Arceneaux, c.m.

The Church I love

As a lifelong Catholic and priest for forty six years, I love being a member of the Catholic Church.  There is a great deal about being Catholics that delights and encourages me. I appreciate the fact that the Catholic Church is rooted in humanity, through the Incarnation of Jesus and through his life, death and Resurrection. I find the sacraments and the Liturgy of the Church comforting. I find the full Catholic Social Teaching of our Church, rooted in the commitment of Jesus to the lowly, children and the poor. I am grateful that there is so much in the long history of our Church to keep us connected over centuries with saintly women and men who have gone before us and to so many different cultures throughout the world. I belong to a religious community of apostolic life, the Congregation of the Mission, that is one of many religious congregations in the Church. I even see value in the organizational structure of our Church that connects parish communities to dioceses and dioceses to national conferences and national conferences to the universal Church. I see value in clergy, religious and laity working together to promote the unfolding of God's reign in our world. I could go on with other positives about the Church that I love.

However, I am terribly saddened and even angry over some of the actions of the hiearchy, especially some bishops and popes, in recent years. The leadership of our Church has just proclaimed a year of faith, wants to promote a new evangelization and has been speaking out for “religious freedom” for the Church. Those are worthy declarations and goals. Unfortunately, I experience the actions of our leadership leading to the opposite rather than bringing more faith filled people into the Church. Here are some specific examples.

The bishops of the United States promoted a campaign this past summer before our national elections on “religious freedom.” They expressed a concern that our government is doing things to prevent religious freedom in our Catholic Church, specifically regarding birth control and the definition of marriage. Certainly, religious freedom is worth standing up for. However, it is just as worthy to grant “religious freedom” to the many Catholics and other people who have a different understanding of the legitimacy of birth control and the definition of marriage. While making their stand on “religious freedom,” it was sad to hear and read of bishops who were threatening Catholics with eternal damnation if they dared vote for someone who allowed birth control, allowed people to make their own choices about abortion and had a different understanding of civil marriage.

In the interests of religious freedom for all people, why could not the bishops forcefully declare what is our Catholic definition of marriage and what we expect of people who want their marriage to be accepted in the Catholic Church? In fact, that is the present position of the Catholic Church. Anyone who wishes to enter into a Catholic marriage must accept the Catholic Church's understanding of marriage. The Catholic Church does not accept the limited understanding of marriage that civil law in the United States accepts and we have had no problems over the years with this approach. If civil and state governments choose to broaden their understanding of what constitutes a civil marriage to include members of the same gender, that is the right of the government, generally after receiving the vote of the majority of the governed. This marriage issue is an excellent example of the value of keeping Church and State separate. The State need not tell the Church or any religious group what must be an acceptable religious understanding of marriage and the Church need not tell the State what is their acceptable understanding of marriage. This is how freedom ought to be exercised.

A most recent example of how the hierarchy of the Church says one thing and practices another is the way they have dealt with Fr. Roy Bourgeois, MM. He has publicly come out in support of the ordination of women in the Catholic priesthood. The Vatican has declared this a topic that we ought not to even speak about, declaring it a defined teaching that women cannot be ordained priests. Despite the fact that Catholic Biblical scholars and theologians have studied the matter and concluded that this is not so clear cut as the Vatican would like it to be, Popes and bishops have declared it so. Is this the way to promote religious freedom?

The reality is that many Catholics, indeed many Catholic priests and probably even some Catholic bishops think this is a topic worth continued discussion. Many would like to discuss this topic publicly and yet are afraid that they would be treated in the same way that Fr. Roy has been treated these past four years by Church hierarchy. Fr. Roy chose to go public even to the point of participating in the ordination of a woman to the Catholic priesthood. Because of that action, he was declared automatically excommunicated from the Church in 2008. Since that time efforts were made to pressure his religious community, Maryknoll, to expel him from the community if he would not recant from his position on the ordination of women. Fr. Roy said he could not recant because he would be going against his own informed conscience by doing so. Maryknoll did not choose to expel him. This October, the Vatican took matters into its own hands and expelled him on its own authority and informed the Maryknoll leadership, who in turn informed Fr. Roy that he was out. There is still some question about the authority of the Vatican to intervene in the life of a religious community and expel a member. However, the Vatican decided that it could do what it wanted because it is the highest authority in the Church. How do we reconcile this with the promotion of religious freedom?

What makes this situation so striking is that the Vatican chooses to take such a strong and definitive stand on a matter of doctrine that is debatable in the eyes of many Catholics. At the same time, the Vatican has taken a much milder stand on a matter of moral behavior of its members, namely in the matter of clergy and bishops involved in pedophilia cases over the years. It appears that one can go against serious moral teachings of the Church to the point of harming and in some cases destroying the lives of other people and yet remain in full membership in the Church. However, when one challenges some doctrinal teaching of the Church that is another matter.

How does this kind of behavior speak to people of faith in this year of faith? How can this behavior help to promote a new evangelization and bring more people into the Catholic Church? How are young and intelligent women of faith going to be kept or welcomed into the Church when they are told that they are not even supposed to talk about the possibility of their sharing in the priesthood in the Church? How are inquiring young men going to be welcomed into the Church and to pursue priesthood when they are told that there are certain topics they cannot even talk about, such as ordination of women?

How are young married couples going to continue in or join the Catholic Church when they are told that the celibate hierarchy of the Church knows more about what constitutes legitimate forms of family planning than they do? How are homosexual men and women going to continue in or join the Church when they are told that the only way they can be Catholics is if they commit themselves to celibacy for the rest of their lives, that there is no debating any other form of behavior for them?

To conclude, what do these issues have to do with the Catholic Church, with Faith, with religious freedom and with a new evangelization? It appears to me and many I share with that there are many more fundamental issues of our Catholic Faith that we ought to focus on while leaving others open to debate and differing views. We can promote our wonderful teaching on the importance of religious freedom and the formation of conscience, while allowing individuals to exercise that freedom. We can promote as strongly as we desire our wonderful teachings on the sacraments in the Church and still allow discussion on the possibility of extending the sacrament of Holy Orders to others besides celibate males. We can teach and continue to demand that all people who wish to marry in the Catholic Church accept our Catholic understanding of the sacrament of marriage while allowing civil governments the freedom to define civil marriage as the governed choose. In this way, we will truly be promoting the Catholic Church in this year of faith and we will be showing others what we stand for as Catholics while not imposing our views on others, especially when there are even differences within our Church on many of these issues. Rev. Louis Arceneaux, C.M. E-mail a.66528@yahoo.com