Happy Memorial Day!
Mass in Kingman will be held in Church today.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Three Offices
There are three offices (munera / duties) that define the life of the Church and the life of a priest. We see these in the life of Jesus. Canon Law says a priest is to offer care to all the souls in his parish. This includes non-Catholics. This strikes fear into my heart as I consider the three duties of the pastor.
1. Prophetic - to teach - the first duty of the church and the priest is to proclaim the Good News. By preaching the Word of God conversion is made possible and faith is stirred in the hearts of the people.
2. Priestly - Sanctifying - Jesus offered his life on the cross and from this fountain flows the life of the Church which we receive in the sacraments. The Priest sanctifies the people by providing the sacraments to them. A pastor has the duty to prepare people for the sacraments and to help the people receive them.
3. King - govern / shepherd - The priest is called to govern the people of God. He looks after them in their needs and comforts them in their sorrows. This includes care for the poor and sick.
1. Prophetic - to teach - the first duty of the church and the priest is to proclaim the Good News. By preaching the Word of God conversion is made possible and faith is stirred in the hearts of the people.
2. Priestly - Sanctifying - Jesus offered his life on the cross and from this fountain flows the life of the Church which we receive in the sacraments. The Priest sanctifies the people by providing the sacraments to them. A pastor has the duty to prepare people for the sacraments and to help the people receive them.
3. King - govern / shepherd - The priest is called to govern the people of God. He looks after them in their needs and comforts them in their sorrows. This includes care for the poor and sick.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Holy Orders
There are three levels to the sacrament of Holy Orders
Deacon
Priest
Bishop
When an unmarried man is ordained a deacon he makes three promises.
1. To pray the liturgy of the hours every day
2. To forsake the natural right to marriage
3. Obedience to the ordinary of his diocese and his successor.
Deacon
Priest
Bishop
When an unmarried man is ordained a deacon he makes three promises.
1. To pray the liturgy of the hours every day
2. To forsake the natural right to marriage
3. Obedience to the ordinary of his diocese and his successor.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Advice to priests from the bishop
I would like to propose to you points for a review of priestly life and ministry, which can also serve as an indication of areas where we either need to begin or to strengthen our efforts:
- Am I a positive and cheerful presence to individuals and groups of people?
- Am I kind and gentle in my dealings with others, especially with those who are the “lost sheep” among those to whom I minister?
- Am I patient with imperfections in myself, others, and circumstances of life?
- Am I slow to judge, give the benefit of doubt, excuse the behavior of others?
- Do I have an attitude of gratitude for instead of thinking myself as entitled to?
- Am I attentive to the spiritual and material needs of others, ever ready whatever day or time of day to respond to them, even anticipating them?
- Do I give the time, energy, creativity and resources in my own ministry and in forming collaborators in ministry appropriate to the importance of …
- … making the celebration of Sunday Mass spiritually fruitful for me and the congregation (giving attention to ars celebrandi, homily, music, hospitality)?
- … taking advantage of opportunities for faith formation (for example, when registering new parishioners; marriage preparation; parent sessions for Baptism, First Penance, First Holy Communion, Confirmation; RCIA; PSR; adult education)?
- … giving special care to the sick, dying, grieving, children, youth, newly-married, those preparing for marriage, and inquirers into the faith?
- Do I devote sufficient time to personal prayer, priestly fraternity, relationships with family and friends, study, recreation, exercise, and rest?
- Am I a positive and cheerful presence to individuals and groups of people?
- Am I kind and gentle in my dealings with others, especially with those who are the “lost sheep” among those to whom I minister?
- Am I patient with imperfections in myself, others, and circumstances of life?
- Am I slow to judge, give the benefit of doubt, excuse the behavior of others?
- Do I have an attitude of gratitude for instead of thinking myself as entitled to?
- Am I attentive to the spiritual and material needs of others, ever ready whatever day or time of day to respond to them, even anticipating them?
- Do I give the time, energy, creativity and resources in my own ministry and in forming collaborators in ministry appropriate to the importance of …
- … making the celebration of Sunday Mass spiritually fruitful for me and the congregation (giving attention to ars celebrandi, homily, music, hospitality)?
- … taking advantage of opportunities for faith formation (for example, when registering new parishioners; marriage preparation; parent sessions for Baptism, First Penance, First Holy Communion, Confirmation; RCIA; PSR; adult education)?
- … giving special care to the sick, dying, grieving, children, youth, newly-married, those preparing for marriage, and inquirers into the faith?
- Do I devote sufficient time to personal prayer, priestly fraternity, relationships with family and friends, study, recreation, exercise, and rest?
Friday, May 13, 2011
Marriage: the core of every civilization
It was one of the more uncomfortable moments in my life.
Outside of St. John the Evangelist Cathedral in Milwaukee, where I, as archbishop, was celebrating Sunday Mass on an otherwise magnificent Wisconsin autumn day, were a couple dozen very vocal protestors, representing some off-brand denomination, shouting vicious chants and holding hateful signs with words I thought had gone the way of burning-crosses and white hoods.
This frenzied group, taunting the people as they left Mass, were rabid in criticizing the Catholic Church, especially her bishops, for our teaching that homosexuals deserve dignity and respect.
To be more precise, this group was yelling at us because, they objected, the Catholic Church was so friendly, welcoming, and defensive of gay (they used other foul words) people. They waved placards explicitly quoting and condemning #2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which affirms the dignity of those with same-sex attraction, and warns against any form of prejudice, hatred, or unjust discrimination against them, and insists that homosexual acts, not persons, are not in conformity with God’s design.
Never have I faced such a vitriolic crowd, blasting the Church for simply following the teaching of Jesus by loving and respecting people regardless of anything, including their sexual orientation.
When a reporter asked me for a comment, I replied, “They’re right: we do love and respect homosexual people. These protestors understand Church teaching very well.”
I’ve been recalling that episode often of late, because now I hear Catholics, — and, I am quick to add, Jews, other Christians, Muslims, and men and women of no faith at all — who have thoughtfully expressed grave disapproval of the current rush to redefine marriage, branded as bigots and bullies who hate gays.
Nonsense! We are not anti anybody; we are pro-marriage. The definition of marriage is a given: it is a lifelong union of love and fidelity leading, please God, to children, between one man and one woman.
History, Natural Law, the Bible (if you’re so inclined), the religions of the world, human experience, and just plain gumption tell us this is so. The definition of marriage is hardwired into our human reason.
To uphold that traditional definition, to strengthen it, and to defend it is not a posture of bigotry or bullying. Nor is it a denial of the “right” of anybody. As the philosophers remind us, in a civilized, moral society, we have the right to do what we ought, not to do whatever we want. Not every desire is a right.
To tamper with that definition, or to engage in some Orwellian social engineering about the nature and purpose of marriage, is perilous to all of us. If the definition of marriage is continually being altered, could it not in the future be morphed again to include multiple spouses or even family members?
Nor is it “imposing” some narrow outmoded religious conviction. One might well ask just who is doing the “imposing” here: those who simply defend what the human drama has accepted from the start, a belief embedded in nature and at the core of every civilization — the definition of marriage — or those who all of a sudden want to scrap it because “progressive, enlightened, tolerant culture” calls for it.
Sadly, as we see in countries where such a redefinition has occurred, “tolerance” is hardly the result, as those who hold to the given definition of marriage now become harassed and penalized.
If big, intrusive government can re-define the most basic, accepted, revealed truth that marriage simply means one man + one woman + (hopefully) children, in a loving family, then, I’m afraid, Orwell’s works will no longer be on the fiction shelf. As someone commented to me the other day, “Wouldn’t it be better for our government to work on fixing schools than on redefining marriage?”
And resistance to this rush to radically redefining the ingrained meaning of marriage cannot be reduced to an act of prejudice against people with a same-sex attraction.
Outside of St. John the Evangelist Cathedral in Milwaukee, where I, as archbishop, was celebrating Sunday Mass on an otherwise magnificent Wisconsin autumn day, were a couple dozen very vocal protestors, representing some off-brand denomination, shouting vicious chants and holding hateful signs with words I thought had gone the way of burning-crosses and white hoods.
This frenzied group, taunting the people as they left Mass, were rabid in criticizing the Catholic Church, especially her bishops, for our teaching that homosexuals deserve dignity and respect.
To be more precise, this group was yelling at us because, they objected, the Catholic Church was so friendly, welcoming, and defensive of gay (they used other foul words) people. They waved placards explicitly quoting and condemning #2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which affirms the dignity of those with same-sex attraction, and warns against any form of prejudice, hatred, or unjust discrimination against them, and insists that homosexual acts, not persons, are not in conformity with God’s design.
Never have I faced such a vitriolic crowd, blasting the Church for simply following the teaching of Jesus by loving and respecting people regardless of anything, including their sexual orientation.
When a reporter asked me for a comment, I replied, “They’re right: we do love and respect homosexual people. These protestors understand Church teaching very well.”
I’ve been recalling that episode often of late, because now I hear Catholics, — and, I am quick to add, Jews, other Christians, Muslims, and men and women of no faith at all — who have thoughtfully expressed grave disapproval of the current rush to redefine marriage, branded as bigots and bullies who hate gays.
Nonsense! We are not anti anybody; we are pro-marriage. The definition of marriage is a given: it is a lifelong union of love and fidelity leading, please God, to children, between one man and one woman.
History, Natural Law, the Bible (if you’re so inclined), the religions of the world, human experience, and just plain gumption tell us this is so. The definition of marriage is hardwired into our human reason.
To uphold that traditional definition, to strengthen it, and to defend it is not a posture of bigotry or bullying. Nor is it a denial of the “right” of anybody. As the philosophers remind us, in a civilized, moral society, we have the right to do what we ought, not to do whatever we want. Not every desire is a right.
To tamper with that definition, or to engage in some Orwellian social engineering about the nature and purpose of marriage, is perilous to all of us. If the definition of marriage is continually being altered, could it not in the future be morphed again to include multiple spouses or even family members?
Nor is it “imposing” some narrow outmoded religious conviction. One might well ask just who is doing the “imposing” here: those who simply defend what the human drama has accepted from the start, a belief embedded in nature and at the core of every civilization — the definition of marriage — or those who all of a sudden want to scrap it because “progressive, enlightened, tolerant culture” calls for it.
Sadly, as we see in countries where such a redefinition has occurred, “tolerance” is hardly the result, as those who hold to the given definition of marriage now become harassed and penalized.
If big, intrusive government can re-define the most basic, accepted, revealed truth that marriage simply means one man + one woman + (hopefully) children, in a loving family, then, I’m afraid, Orwell’s works will no longer be on the fiction shelf. As someone commented to me the other day, “Wouldn’t it be better for our government to work on fixing schools than on redefining marriage?”
And resistance to this rush to radically redefining the ingrained meaning of marriage cannot be reduced to an act of prejudice against people with a same-sex attraction.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)