I was (mostly) gently upbraided by one of our parishioners after mass yesterday. I wouldn't want to say anything which would identify him, so I can't give the full context of our conversation here, but we were speaking about something where the question would naturally arise, Are you vaccinated yet? So I asked him.
And he refused to answer.
This is my homily for yesterday, which was the celebration of the Ascension of the Lord for the Chicago Archdiocese (and most US dioceses). The readings for the day are here. Sorry for being a day late; come to think of it, I'm usually a dollar short, too.
We found out a few weeks back that our pastor was being transferred, and we would be getting someone new. New to us, that is. We are still waiting to hear who he will be. It is a little past the time when pastoral assignments are normally announced, but the past year and a half have not been normal times. There are a lot of things to be taken into consideration, and we understand that. But there are always things people hope for (and hope against!). So I would like to discuss some of the things I hope for in a pastor.
In Illinois, our governor has announced that we're able to enter the next phase of our COVID journey. The state is calling this next phase the "Bridge Phase". It is supposed to be the bridge between restrictions and pre-pandemic normal life. Depending on what activity one wishes to do, the restrictions have been eased up slightly. Or considerably. Or not at all.
The bridge phase went into effect yesterday. Among the main provisions:
I think Jim raised a good question about how do we determine what is a pre-eminent evil. I have a totally different framework for discussing this and so I am starting a new thread.
As a social psychologist trained in both psychology and sociology I see analysis of evil at the individual and societal levels to be totally different. As a psychologist trying to understand individual behavior it useful to know that variable A actually effects variable X at the individual level when everything else is held constant or randomized in the laboratory. However in the social world variable A may contribute very little to variable X because it functions in one way at one level of variable B and maybe another way or not at all at some level of variable C. In others words how we change a society can be very different from how we change individuals within that society.
At the individual level, the taking of the life of another
individual is obviously the pre-eminent moral evil. It can only be done when our own life or third party’s life is threatened, and then only as a
last resort.
In the case of abortion, the church automatically
excommunicates an individual who procures an abortion. This is reserved to the
bishop, who in many cases delegates this to any priest with faculties to hear
confession.
If the bishops are so concerned that the faithful clearly understanding that abortion is a pre-eminent moral evil why are they not focusing upon Catholics who actually have abortions.
Why not make the process of getting the abortion excommunication lifted a lengthy, time consuming and very public process as in the early church? Many abortions would not happen if Catholics realized that abortion is more than another form of birth control (which many Catholics practice while going to communion) but rather something that is deeply evil.
Of course many Catholics who have abortions
would decide simply to leave the church rather than go through some repentance program. Other Catholics would
simply say that this proves the Church is against women. The bishops have made a
“prudential” decision that it is better to attack a few usually far distant
politicians than to confront the problem in their own diocese and parishes. But
how is that any different than Catholic politicians who make similar “prudential”
decisions in the political world? Bishops! Remove the beam in your own eyes!
NUCLEAR WARFARE. There is no doubt in my mind that in the
period of the cold war, nuclear warfare was THE pre-eminent evil. Vast numbers of
people may have died and vast areas of the world may have been destroyed, and
the consequences might have lasted for centuries even millennia.
Many people voted against Goldwater because the Democrats
raised the specter that he might lead us into nuclear war. That issue has receded into the background
with the breakup of the Soviet Union, but voting against Trump because
of his instability was justified by this pre-eminent life issue alone.
CLIMATE CHANGE. While this will take a longer time to happen,
it results could be just as devastating as nuclear warfare. More importantly
there is no quick fix to prevent it, as there is in the case of nuclear disarmament. People may disagree about the extant and the
timeframe for climate change, but voting against Trump is also justified
on this pre-eminent life issue alone.
PANDEMICS. While a global pandemic once looked like a far off issue, right now it is the pre-eminent life issue. We came very close to a
global health meltdown. In fact with the rate of virus mutation we could still
end up with an even far more devastating pandemic. If not with this virus type then
with the next type. We must organize our country and the world against pandemics. I think Trump lost the election on this pre-eminent life issue.
So we have THREE PRE-EMINENT LIFE ISSUES all of which threaten the world with mass destruction and mass loss of life that could last for decades, maybe even a century. Note I have kept to human life issues. I have said nothing about social and economic issues. They have a clear impact upon quantity as well as the quality of human life. How do we prioritize these three human life issues and relate them to abortion
Francis has FOUR PRINCIPLES for pursuing Peace and the Common Good. The third is Realities are more important than ideas
There also exists a constant tension between ideas and realities. Realities simply are, whereas ideas are worked out. There has to be continuous dialogue between the two, lest ideas become detached from realities. It is dangerous to dwell in the realm of words alone, of images and rhetoric. So a third principle comes into play: realities are greater than ideas
This is a very scientific approach. How we evaluate these three pre-eminent life issues will in fact depend upon a lot of data, analysis and good theories. We are not going to find the answers from theology. Good and wise people are going to disagree about what resources we should devote to each life issue.
How do these three pre-eminent life issues relate to abortion? The answer is simple. Abortion would cease completely if individuals simply stopped choosing abortion. Catholics are not forced to have abortions. All these other social pre-eminent life issues depend heavily upon government action. Abortion is one that could be solved by individuals at the personal and community action level. Why make it the chief priority of government?
Of course as a Democrat I think that raising the minimum wage, supporting unions, free college education, universal health care, universal child care, paid family leave, paid sick leave are all pro-life issues. All of these create an environment in which people are encouraged and supported to have children, and therefore less likely to have an abortion.
Why when I can vote for these three Pre-eminent Life Issues as well as encourage more people to have children would I ever consider voting for someone who might or might not have appointed a Supreme Court Justice, who might or might not overthrow Roe vs. Wade which might or might not end abortions. That sounds more like playing the lottery than being a responsible citizen.
What follows are some miscellaneous thoughts about the letter sent by Cardinal Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Holy See's prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), to Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The letter addresses the highly-publicized intention of some American bishops to have the USCCB issue a consistent set of guidelines on the worthiness of pro-choice Catholic politicians to receive communion.
To the best of my knowledge, the actual text of Ladaria's letter has not been made public, but some reporters have seen it. My analysis and comments are based on the story in America by Gerard O'Connell, the magazine's Vatican correspondent. NewGathering readers interested in additional commentary on this topic may read Jack Rakosky's post here.
Francis has given the American Bishops some more work. Perhaps it will keep them out of trouble
Therefore, after having taken all things into consideration, and by apostolic authority
I establish
the lay ministry of Catechist.
9. I invite the Episcopal Conferences to render effective the ministry of Catechist, determining the necessary process of formation and the normative criteria for admission to this ministry and devising the most appropriate forms for the service which these men and women will be called to exercise in conformity with the content of this Apostolic Letter.
Earlier this year the Pope determined the women could be given the permanent ministries of Lector and Acolyte. So the bishops will have to do the same things as above for both those ministries.
It a good time to think about how our parishes might look if with had laity instituted in all these of these ministries.
Think about your parishes and parishes with whom you are familiar. How many of these might their be, what might be their duties, how might they related to one another, various ministries in the parishes, priests and deacons and various paid people in the parish, e.g. the choir director, pastoral associates, business managers, etc. What relationship might they have to parish schools? RCIA?
Should all these ministries be mostly voluntary as is the case with deacons, or should we institute a lot of our paid parish personnel into these ministries?
Do you have any concerns about turning limited term appointments to reader, Eucharistic ministers, and religious educators into more permanent ministries? What are the advantages and disadvantages to this?
