Ora et Labora
28 June 2022
Dear and gentle reader:
It's been a few weeks since I last posted, due to my transfer to a new assignment in my diocese. I was called to leave the care of two small, rural parishes, to assume the care of two larger rural parishes near an urban area in my diocese. If you've ever moved, you know how stressful a move can be. There's the whole process of a move - packing, loading the truck, the travel, unloading, unpacking and adapting to a new environment. I've weathered it, am adapting, and slowly settling into my new digs. So far, I am quite pleased with my new parishes and with the kind response of the parishioners. I'm not so happy that the previous pastor let some things go, and left me unprepared in facing them.
In addition to the transition, there was also the news of several big events: the preparations for the "Eucharistic Renewal" here in the USA, the preparations in my diocese for eventual re-configurations of parishes & institutions through the paid services of a group "specialising" in such things; and the rulings of the US Supreme Court on abortion and gun control. I share my thoughts on these things with you below.
The "Eucharistic Renewal" here in the USA is a bit perplexing. It's in response to the results of the poll with found that nearly 70% of Catholics do not believe that the Holy Eucharist is Christ really, truly, and substantially present in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament. Most see it as a symbolic presence at best. That is quite sad. So, in response, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have instituted nearly 70 priests as itinerant preachers to travel to parishes, events, and institutions throughout the country to preach on the Eucharist. I cannot answer for my brother priests, but I know that I regularly preach on the Holy Eucharist, as a sacrificial banquet (the Holy Mass), and as a Sacrament to be received and adored (Holy Communion & personal prayer in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament). I'm not sure what effect, if any, these brothers will have in increasing the faith of the congregations to whom they will preach. Personally, I don't think that adding wandering preachers to the mix will help much, nor will additional "holy hours". Those things speak to those who already believe in the Holy Eucharist. Personally, I think that one thing that would help is if my brothers offered the Mass reverently, prayerfully, and attentively according to the rubrics set out in the Missal (not in a simple mechanical way, mind you), and by word and example encouraged their congregations to not just pray at Mass, but to pray the Mass. This is the full, conscious, and active participation called for by the Second Vatican Council, and even before that by numerous clergy. I wish success to my wandering brethren, but please, don't bother to come to my parishes.
The preparations in my diocese on the diocesan, vicarial, and parochial levels for eventual re-configuration of parishes and institutions is a bit more troubling. Yes indeed, we have fewer priests each year. This year my diocese did not ordain a single priest. Between now and next June, there are at least nine parish priests who can retire from parochial work, not to mention however many may die, leave, or be suspended for naughtiness. We aren't even close to "breaking even" with those kinds of numbers. In addition to that, a good number of our parishes have fewer than one hundred households registered as parishioners. If you've been working in parishes, you know full well that those numbers are often inflated. A registered household doesn't necessarily mean an active household. These tiny parishes sometimes are in close proximity to larger parishes which have more resources and programs, and often draw younger households away from the smaller parishes, leaving mainly the elderly, most of whom are on fixed incomes. That bodes ill for the survival of such parishes.
In this day and age in which many think nothing of driving a substantial distance for shopping, entertainment, sports activities, medical needs, or gathering with family & friends on a weekly basis, the future of smaller parishes seems to be going the way of the dodo. Add to that the dearth of priests, the dwindling contributions, and the increased costs of maintaining buildings & grounds, and the multitude of costs in running a parish - everything from insurance, repairs, utilities, maintenance, and salaries, and you have a deadly mix for many small parishes. This doesn't take into account that many small towns & villages are not growing, but shrinking in population, along with the rise of the "nones" (the "spiritual but not religious" sector) among the younger generations. I do not envy my bishop, nor any bishop today, having to face such heart-rending decisions as to which parishes remain open, and which to close.
My gripe about it all is the nagging question: do we really need to throw money at a company to assist the bishop, pastors, and congregations, in making these decisions? To me it seems to be a waste of resources which have been given by our people. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned in my thinking, but I think we could arrive at the conclusions on our own without the paid "expertise" of a company. Needless to say, I was not elated in hearing the news from my bishop. The clergy gathering in which this was delivered could easily have been an email and not consumed the better part of a day during a time in which I could have been unpacking and working with my parish staff in addressing issues in my own parishes.
And lastly, the rulings of the Supreme Court. Ah, what contentious issues! I want to state clearly, dear reader, that I am entirely "pro-life". I believe that every human life, in whatever stage of development is indeed sacred and that the right to life is inviolable. I advocate that for not simply the unborn, the ill, or the elderly, but for every single human being. In overturning Roe v Wade, and returning the issue to the legislatures of individual states in this Union, the Supreme Court has opened a can of worms. Firstly, I am glad that abortion is not a federal right, but to rely upon a popular consensus to determine who does or does not have the right to life is quite simply idiotic. Yet, that is what has been accomplished in leaving it to elected politicians, most of whom couldn't put together a logically argued position if they tried. Many are hailing it as a pro-life victory. I'm not so sure. While I am happy that unborn lives will be protected, I am troubled that there is very little societal or legal help for mothers who are and will be in need during crisis pregnancies and child raising. By and large our society and economic structures do not have adequate assistance for such people - things such as parental leave for both mothers and fathers, free day care so that parents can earn what is needed to provide for their family, fully accessible health care at little to no cost, and a host of other issues which touch on the dignity and rights of human beings. In a word, we are insisting that children be born into a society that is not pro-life. For me, this is not a victory, but a clear demonstration that the pro-life organisations in the USA had better step up and pressure the powers that be to start providing such necessities for mothers, children, and families. In a word, it forces us pro-lifers to put our money where our mouths are. There is so much work to be done in making our world into a culture of life. We need to hold men responsible for the pregnancies they produced, and help them to be not just biological fathers, but true dads to their children and share the responsibility of raising them. We need to make adoption less expensive (the legal costs alone are insane), and encourage the adoption not just of infants, but of older children, into loving, responsible families. We need better sex education - not just touting chastity, but stressing personal responsibility. We need societal and economic justice for all people with a preferential option for the poor. Yes, my dear reader, we are far from a culture of life, and cannot claim victory because of one ruling.
Oddly enough, on the day before the court's ruling on Roe v Wade, the court loosened gun restrictions, allowing open carry of handguns. I see reasonable gun control laws as a pro-life issue. To loosen responsible restrictions is, to me, not being pro-life, especially in this time of multiple mass shootings and all too prevalent gun violence. Yet, the USA has an obscene love affair with weapons, and the NRA and gun lobby resist every and any call for reasonable restrictions. I'd compare it to having a car and being able to drive. In order to drive a vehicle I must be prepared. I have to be of a certain age, and physically able to drive. I learn the rules of the road. I learn how to safely and responsibly operate the vehicle. I practice driving. Once that is done, I take a written and practical test, and if I pass, I receive my state issued license to drive. But that is just the beginning. If I drive, I must also have sufficient insurance to cover myself, the vehicle, and others on the road in case of accidents. I must also have a state issued registration and plates on the vehicle with the annual fee of renewing such. Then, and only then am I able to legally drive my vehicle. Now, if we do such things for a basic privilege of driving on the road, why can't we do such things for the owning and operating of a lethal weapon? You, gentle reader, may say "Oh Father, you silly man. It's all about the Second Amendment.". No, I didn't forget about that. If we hew to the founders intentions, as strict constitutionalists, then we have to admit that it speaks only of a well regulated militia, that is, state sponsored armed forces, such as the US military, especially the National Guard. Back in the founders day, it was indeed the men of the day, particularly those who hunted, who comprised the militia, which developed into today's National Guard. Now, I support responsible gun ownership and use, particularly for hunting enthusiasts. However, when I see folks toting assault rifles around in stores and public places, or packing a handgun on them, that makes me wonder, and it makes me frightened. I don't feel the need to carry a gun with me when I go to get groceries or gas up my car. To me, such an attitude is cavalier and basically says that my right to life is greater than others, and I'll take that right from you if I feel threatened enough to do so. Pro-life? Methinks not, dear reader. Maybe it's the pacifist in me, but I'd rather be an innocent victim of gun violence, than a perpetrator of such. I could go on, but I'll save that for another post.
These musings have been long enough as is, but I hope it gives us all the opportunity to deeply think about our responsibilities as members of the Church, as responsible citizens, as those who claim to support the right to life. Ora et labora, as St. Benedict wrote - Pray and Work! We must pray, and we must work to ensure that every single human life is respected, reverenced, assisted, valued, and loved, so that others and ourselves can flourish in a culture of life. That prayer and work, dear and gentle reader, is unending. Let us not rest from the task in reflecting the Reign of God in our society today.
As ever, dear reader, God bless!
Father P.
Comments
Post a Comment