Universalis

Change the church? How?

Unhappy with the archdiocese? Do you feel a burning desire to make changes in the Church, but feel continually frustrated? I'd like to share with you the following article. Think about it, pray about it, and ask yourself, what do you think God is calling us to do?

Building a Catholic Action Plan for Reform
by Peter Mirus, special to CatholicCulture.org
February 14, 2006

Among the concerns of many Catholics across the world is how to faithfully deal with a bishop who manages his diocese in a manner that undermines or offers little support to the teachings of the Church or its disciplines and norms. Many Catholics feel called to action, but nearly as many feel that they are without an action plan.

I’m one of those tortured souls who have been – especially at times – frustrated into immobility. However, I’m also one of the lucky ones who live in a community with many faithful Catholics. In the absence of this support, it is easy to feel like you are on an island, and the sheer agony of this aloneness has driven many to the point of despair. I’m keenly aware of the pain suffered by many of our readers, whose impassioned letters detailing their untenable situations have given me a window into their plight.

So what to do? Ask your parish priest how one may morally show disagreement with one’s bishop without exhibiting disobedience? Even with a good priest, this would be a very awkward discussion – and many people are without a sound spiritual director to turn to for consultation.

These are some of the frustrations that have been shared with me in person, over the phone, and through email. And yet no matter how incapacitated each one believes himself to be, almost every writer has in some way made a suggestion as to how we can begin the reformation of our episcopacy. There is much wisdom in our readership, and the following list of suggestions is as much a product of their reflection and authorship as it is my own.

The Problem of Anger, the Primacy of Prayer

The first step toward mobility is to free ourselves from that which binds us. To state it simply, we cannot allow anger to immobilize us. For both spiritual and strategic reasons, this is conflict that will not be resolved through angry actions or expressions.

St. Francis de Sales wrote:


Most emphatically I say it…on no pretext whatever suffer your heart to admit anger and passion. St James says, plainly and unreservedly, that “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” Of course it is a duty to resist evil and to repress the faults of those for whom we are responsible, steadily and firmly, but gently and quietly…. Correction given in anger, however tempered by reason, never has so much effect as that which is given altogether without anger.

It is unfortunate when anger robs one of his ability to pray. Certainly, if you feel that a bishop or priest does more of the devil’s work than God’s, you are indeed allowing the devil to work if you are so angry that you cannot sustain the interior life that is so vital to the life of the soul. As you have a greater responsibility for your own soul than for the soul of your bishop or priest, it is advisable to refuse to give in to anger, as you would to any other passion that can prevent you from having an unfettered relationship with God.

It might assist Catholics who struggle with this particular matter to reduce things to their essentials. The battle for sanctity and holy leadership in our clergy, particularly among the episcopacy, is a battle between good and evil. In other words, it is a war waged against God by the devil, in which we are merely instruments of God (to the extent that we are cooperative). Therefore, inasmuch as prayer, particularly of a contemplative nature is important to calming our passions and gaining perspective through reason, so it is also our most important weapon in the battle against evil. If we desire to do good in this conflict, it behooves us to try to find out in what way we will be of most use.

The Letter and the Boycott

The two most mentioned measures (after prayer, prayer, and more prayer) revolve around the power of the pen: as in, the pen that writes letters and writes checks.

In both the letter and the boycott there are strategic elements that must be included to produce the maximum effect. For a relatable example, I’ll talk about the much discussed issue of boycotting certain production and distribution companies in the movie industry. Let’s assume that a company has released some movies that are morally objectionable but also others that are good. If you boycott all films released (which I call a “blind boycott”), you have half the impact that you would have if you follow the strategy of boycotting the bad films and attending the good ones.

A case study: if Christians had decided to boycott all films distributed or produced by Newmarket Films because of past movies with “graphic sexuality”, we would have missed out on The Passion of the Christ. But the fact that many Christians went to see this film has raised the likelihood that major production companies will be willing to participate in such projects in the future. In the latest issue of Crisis, film critic William Baur writes that the authenticity of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is likely due in part to the success of The Passion.


But Walden [Media] managed to persuade the always politically correct Disney to come in primarily as a marketer and distributor—only after Disney had promised to respect Walden’s faithful approach. Certainly, the success of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, which grossed more than $400 million worldwide, encouraged Disney’s involvement.
When it comes to both letter and check writing, I would encourage a similar mentality. Discourage what is bad, encourage what is good.


In terms of financial contributions, this strategy might entail refusing to contribute to general fundraising appeals where you are unsure where your money is going. Examine the different diocesan programs to see which ones are deserving of your support and which are not. Some parishioners have opted to make contributions to a very select group of diocesan, parish, and outside charities in order to provide approximately the same support to essential ministries and services without compromising the commitment to fidelity.

You might even donate to another diocese’s efforts. You can always send your financial support to seminarians in an African diocese in the hopes that they will someday be sending mission priests to your diocese. (Don’t laugh, it could happen.)

The letter writing process can be painful. In the reexamination of wrongs that you would like to express, emotions may surface that make it difficult to be calm, clear, and charitable. In keeping with the strategy of focusing both on the good and the bad, you need to hit both the highlights and the lowlights, without being personal. If you are having trouble thinking of something good to mention, you can always fall back on something relatively generic (like exhibiting concern for the poor) and go on to point out areas that require improvement (like faithfulness to liturgical norms and a commitment to orthodoxy in seminary training).

Freedom of Association

There is a lot of merit to the idea of forming or joining lay action groups that strive to bring reason to a disordered diocese. In one diocese that I know of, one such group put pressure on the bishop to prevent him from installing one of the recently ballyhooed sex-education plans that are emerging in many dioceses (“Talking About Touching” and the like). The bishop did not install such a program.

You have to be wary when joining such an organization to make sure that its goals are faithful to the Magisterium and that they plan to conduct their efforts with dignity and prudence. Many of the groups receiving the most attention have some sort of an axe to grind relating to one or more issues that are incompatible with Church teaching or discipline: women’s ordination, priestly celibacy, gay rights, a greater role for the democratic process in the selection and promotion of bishops, etc.

One of the beauties of our current age is that it is very easy to connect yourself to individuals and organizations that aren’t actually located in your particular area, but have experience that you lack. You can educate yourself and get good advice on all manner of issues. An example: research how to form a group that advocates the greater availability of Eucharistic Adoration. Another example: learn how to form a group that teaches the Theology of the Body and Natural Family Planning. If you have the will to undertake these kinds of tasks, you can contact groups that will help you.

Conclusions and Reflections

I wonder what immeasurable amount of good might be done merely by praying for good bishops and priests daily, writing one letter to our pastors and bishops every month, being more discriminatory in our charitable giving, and finding at least one small way to be involved in a good organization that works inside dioceses to promote a more faithful Catholic culture.

Of course, each one must act according to his vocation—and this is another reason why prayer is the first and most essential task in approaching reform. We need divine Wisdom to show each one of us how to act. “If any of you lacks wisdom,” says St. James, “he should ask God who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and he will be given it.”

Whatever your mode of action, don’t deprive yourself of the mystical by focusing on the physical. Use your spiritual eyes. Just as you see our crucified Savior rather than just a piece of bread and cup of wine, see the Mystical Body of Christ rather than just a parish or a diocese.

We are never more active or more social than when we are united to the Mystical Body. The more deeply we trust in Christ, the more deeply we enter this community. If we act apart from it we are adrift at sea, but vertitatem autem facientes in caritate crescamus in illo per omnia qui est caput Christus — “doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ.” (Ephesians 4:15)

From http://www.catholicculture.org/highlights/highlights.cfm?id=98

© Trinity Communications 2006.

"our Muslim brothers and sisters"

I read a ST news report on a statement by Archbishop Chia about the cartoon row, and I did a little pause when we addressed Muslims as "our Muslim brothers and sisters".

I of course believe in the human family, but this reference could be construed as patronising. I'm not sure if all Muslims are quite as willing as us to call others brother and sister. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I'm wondering if this statement was a slight gaffe by the Archibishop, or a deliberate wording. Or am I making an issue out of nothing?

-just honestly asking-

Feb 17, 2006
Insensitive to run cartoons: S'pore Archbishop

By Ken
Kwek
THE Catholic Church in Singapore condemns the publication of cartoons
satirising Prophet Muhammad that first appeared in the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten.

Archbishop Nicholas Chia said it was a 'deeply
irresponsible action and grossly insensitive' to Muslims' feelings.

In a
statement yesterday, he said the Catholic Church stood in solidarity with
Singapore's Muslims who were offended by the 'insensitive and provocative'
publication of the caricatures.

While upholding the principle of free
speech and expression as 'a fundamental human right and the basis for free and
democratic societies', he insisted that such freedom had to be exercised
responsibly.

Freedom of speech and expression imposed a 'serious
responsibility on those who claim it'. And it did not imply the right to offend
the religious sentiments of believers of any religion, he said.

'We view
the publication of the cartoons as a deeply irresponsible action and grossly
insensitive to the feelings and faith of our Muslim brothers and sisters,' he
said.

'We condemn all forms of incitement to hatred on the basis of race
or religion, and any form of denigration of religion.'

But he added that
the provocation caused by the cartoons 'does not justify the violent reaction of
some who have protested against them'.

...

Take Off Your Shoes

A recent convert came up to me to ask a question: If we say that the church is the house of God and is considered holy ground, why do we not take off our shoes at the entrance?

At that time, I dismissed the question but it came back to me again after visiting India, where the Catholics do take off their shoes at the entrances. In many of the churches there, there are no pews in the church hall. Worshippers arrange themselves neatly on the floor. Some bring small carpets or clothes to sit or kneel on.

This is a form of inculturation. If you think about it, wearing shoes into a house is very much a Western culture. In Asia, it is considered rude to wear your shoes into someone's house. In temples and mosques in Singapore, people take off their shoes before entering the place of worship. Why has no church called for the respect of such a local culture?

On the practical aspect, the removal of pews creates a lot of space in a church hall, which aids in solving the problem of overcrowding. Some pews with padded kneelers can be left in the back rows or the side for the elderly.

What are your thoughts on such a suggestion?

The Pipe Organ - the most fitting?

Should drums, pianos and guitars be allowed in mass worship, or should the pipe organ be the only one that is allowed? This question parallels very much the debate over whether some Latin should be reintroduced into mass. It puts into focus the two diverging sentiments of modern day worship: to freely express love and worship of God, or to seek the sacred, majestic and mysterious in tradition.

Br.Lawrence commented in another post the following:


You mentioned that the pipe organ is the "most perfect instrument". The Church recommends first and foremost that the voice is unaccompanied in liturgical music. The voice is the most perfect instrument because it is natural and created by God. To support the voice, the pipe organ is allowed and most fitting.

Why? Because it produces sound following the same principles as the human voice - the expansion of air that is pushed through pipes and expelled as a melodious sound. On this principle, the organ was felt to have the same natural tonality as the human voice and hence best suited to complementing the human voice.

Organ music in its own right is a later innovation and because it works like a human voice, it is tolerated in church. Otherwise, the Church still frowns on the use of all other musical instruments in church... This is because the human voice is the only fitting instrument used in praise of God and musical instruments can and often do drown out or obscure the human voice and the sacred texts which they sing in praise of God.

For the sake of clarity and understanding, I wish to put forward the following arguments one might have against the above.

The Church recommends first and foremost that the voice is unaccompanied in liturgical music.

1. If so, why has no liturgical committee or local church pushed for a completely unaccompanied celebration in Sunday worship?

Because it produces sound following the same principles as the human voice, the organ was felt to have the same natural tonality as the human voice and hence best suited to complementing the human voice.

2. Felt by whom? Isn't that subjective?
3. The violin also replicates and complements the human voice, some say better. Should that be allowed?
4. The flute as well as other wind instruments pushes air through pipes and expells melodious sound. What about these?
5. If a modern pipe organ were able to electronically reproduce the sound of the pipe organ perfectly, would it be allowed even though it does not 'push air through pipes'?

This is because the human voice is the only fitting instrument used in praise of God and musical instruments can and often do drown out or obscure the human voice and the sacred texts which they sing in praise of God.

5. Church choirs use perfect instruments but often drown and detract the congregation with complicated parts and their volume. Should all choirs that sing in parts therefore discouraged?
6. If a musical instrument were used in such a way that it truly complements and does not obscure the voice of worship, should this be allowed? Is this to you possible?

Marketing of Evil

In "The Marketing of Evil," I interview the co-founder of America's abortion movement, Bernard Nathanson. He founded the largest abortion clinic in the Western world, and co-founded NARAL, the vanguard group that got abortion legalized in New York in the 1960s. Most impressively, he sat around with a few others and literally made up the original marketing slogans, "freedom of choice" and "women must have control over their own bodies." Here's what Nathanson told me. Quote: "I remember laughing when we made those slogans up. … They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

In other words, they knew they were just conjuring up deceptive marketing messages.

Nathanson today admits he and his abortion colleagues lied left and right. They fabricated statistics and poll results and fed them to a willing news media. What's the most powerful abortion marketing slogan of all? "Women are dying." It just seems to trump all other points. In the years before Roe v. Wade, we always heard that 5,000 to 10,000 women were dying every year in the U.S. from illegal, botched abortions. This is what Nathanson and his abortion marketer cohorts were claiming. But it wasn't true – not even close – and they knew it.

Some people say, "Hey, Nathanson is a pro-lifer now, so how can you believe his criticisms of the abortion industry?"

If you don't believe Nathanson, do you believe the Centers for Disease Control? Do you know how many women actually died from illegal, botched abortions in 1972, the last full year before Roe v. Wade? According to the CDC, it wasn't 5,000 or 10,000, it wasn't even 1,000 – it was 39.


For the rest of this (long) article, go here: http://www.drjudithreisman.com

This article is found on a website: www.drjudithreisman.com. She is a researcher who blew the whistle on Kinsey's book in 1948, pointing out what should have been blatantly obvious.

Incidentally, I came across this website from another excellent Catholic website called: www.pornnomore.com, which is dedicated to helping those who are addicted to pornography, and those whose lives are affected by people addicted to pornography. The question concerned that led me to Dr Judith Reisman's site was related to whether masturbation for the release of sexual tension was okay.

I recommend this site to those who know someone caught in the cycle of sexual addiction.

Making Lemonade and Being Discerning Catholics

Saw this blogpost in Fr Aloysius Ong's blog that is so good that I've copied it entirely here. I hope he forgives me for not asking permission first, but I'd like to touch up the blog before inviting him to look. - chris

Came across a report from Zenit concerning the upcoming movie of the infamous (and the utterly self aggrandizing) Dan Brown's book 'The Da Vinci Code' and how despite its notoriety, is bringing about some interesting and positive enquiries for the Opus Dei, which is (ridiculously)portrayed as the main villian in the (stupid!) book and presumably in the movie.

Marc Carroggio, who oversees Opus Dei's relationship with the international media, told ZENIT that interest about the book and the film "is turning out to be a sort of indirect publicity for us." Carroggio added that, given the existence of the movie, there will be no fight against anyone. An effort is being made to take advantage of the great interest aroused to propose the figure of Jesus Christ, he stressed.

Hear! Hear! I have already sounded off to the catechetical coordinator in the parish to see if there is any opportunity to look into the area of pre-empting the (obviously) wrong impression that may arise from the upcoming movie, with a series of talks or presentation about this topic and other relevant issues to be given to the youths here. This is because, they were the most affected (including some young adults who seemed taken in by the need to find any fault with the Church so that they won't feel guilty with their strange sense of freedom in doing whatever THEY want) group of people who are unable to discern and sift through the nonsense this novel has churned up.

Even other local Christian groups have already put into place several activities and talks to address this! I'd say this is a very good opportunity for us to work together and bring about further closer ties in ecumenical efforts.

But what about the general public? Or the general parishioner, the Sunday Catholics and those who go through life with whatever they see fit to suit their theology or principles (if they even have one)? Here is where a wise answer from Marc Carroggio can give us some food for thought:

"The novel is essentially parasitical: The author makes a name for himself by attacking a major cultural figure, and he presents it as art. If the plot did not center on Jesus Christ, the book would lose its appeal. I think that the best response is simply to help people to know Jesus Christ. I suspect that in the coming year, many people will be moved to read the Gospels or a book about the life of Jesus Christ. They will be drawn to consider the great themes of faith, which give light to the most difficult questions of human existence. For me, these are all ways of turning the lemon into lemonade."
Turning lemon into lemonade. Another wise and simpler way to say, "If life gives you a lemon, make lemonade!" A positive manner to approach a seemingly notorious problem that seems to a have mind of its own, running roughshod over all sense of order and reality. Then we also have Rom 8: 28 to give us that reassurance that evil or anything that goes against the Christian sense will eventually be overcome by God's own will and power for those who continue to place their trust in Him.

I'm sure there are some of you out there who are wondering why can't we, the Church, sue Sony-Columbia for defamation. After all the name of the Church and in particular the Opus Dei have been maligned. Another wise stance from Marc:

"Suppose a movie revealed that Sony-Columbia was not what we had always thought but was a secret group of assassins run by the Mafia, but included a disclaimer that it was just fiction. Somehow I doubt their lawyers would be satisfied. I am sure they would threaten a suit. Still, legal action is like an icon of institutional conflict. It would be "Opus Dei vs. Sony-Columbia." To me that just sounds almost surreal. As I said earlier, the only thing Opus Dei is going to do is to make a declaration of peace."

Ironic isn't it? In the business world, especially in entertainment, anything goes - if you can make it stick! Fairness? No such thing!

So, do we SEE the movie? The following again will be a good rule of thumb:
"An interesting question is whether this movie should be only for adults. Any adult with a minimum of education can distinguish reality from fiction. But when history is manipulated, you cannot expect a child to make proper judgments. Merely adding a disclaimer that says 'Fiction' is not enough. Just as we protect children from explicit sex and violence, it would seem to make sense to protect them from violence that is more subtle and thus more insidious. I think it is reasonable to be concerned about this question. Besides thinking about profits, one should also think about possible negative influences on the young. As I said earlier, this is not the time for sowing disharmony among persons, nations and religions, but rather understanding."
Should YOU see the movie? By all means go ahead! Just check your brains outside the cinema and enjoy the braindead nonsense it serves up with usual cinematice wizardry that we come to expect these days. After that, go for coffee or tea or whatever fancy your palate and discuss the merits of the director's choice in casting Tom Hanks as the hero of the plot and why must 'Da Vinci' be used and not 'Leonardo'... ;)

An SFX Musical

This is a belated post, and one I apologise for, because this wonderful event is so deserving of praise.

On December 22nd, I attended a concert at the Victoria Concert hall that was organised by the St. Francis Xavier Youth Choir. I am admittedly a great fan of the choir, but they truly outdid my expectations.

I can't remember all the songs they did but I remember especially their wonderous and rousing rendition of 'When you believe' from the movie Prince of Egypt, replete with the glorious Hebrew section in the middle. The first half of the concert included performances by several other choirs as well (Edward Baccharus Choir; Catholic High Choir; etc.).

The second half was to be something which I had not a clue about - a Musical. The only two other church "musicals" I have attended left me with mixed feelings about how it would turn out. However, whatever reservations I had were completely blown away by their excitingly choreographed and musically inspired rendition of the life and mission of St. Francis Xavier. In my opinion, no church musical should ever be staged from now on unless they are helmed by a choir.

Our very own John Goh played St. Francis, and the songs were beautifully written, beautifully original, and beautifully sung. The acting was simple and minimal, but that let the costumes, choreography and lyrics shine through. Simply superlative. My absolute congratulations to John, Dennis, and the choir; I believe St. Francis would have been proud of you. I know I am.

Article from CN: St. Francis Xavier’s 500th birth anniversary celebrated with sell out concert

SINGAPORE – In celebration of the 500th birth anniversary of its patron saint, the St. Francis Xavier Youth Choir staged its first public choral concert at the Victoria Concert Hall on Dec 22 last year. The Youth Choir also staged a colourful musical on the life of St. Francis Xavier titled “Hidden, I Will Show Him”.

The Edward Becheras Choir of Catholic High School and the Edward Becheras Vocale also lent their voices to the evening of spiritually-inspired music, which was attended by Archbishop Nicholas Chia and Archbishop Emeritus Gregory Yong. The Youth Choir’s mission is to bear witness to Christ through music and song.

Each year, it celebrates the anniversary of its patron saint with a concert in the hall of their parish of St. Francis Xavier. This year, however, as it is a milestone anniversary, parish priest Father Anthony Ho suggested having a public concert which also serves evangelisation purposes. The 880 tickets were snapped up just two weeks after they were put on sale.

The $16,500 raised from the ticket sales went to the Assisi Home and Hospice, as the Youth Choir’s aim for the concert was purely to use song to share the Word of God using the life of St. Francis Xavier as a role model.

The Youth Choir won its first Gold Award (Senior Youth Category) at the 21st Century International Choral Festival at Genting Highlands, Malaysia, in December 2003. It was set up 18 years ago under the director of Denis Leong, who is also the choirmaster of the Edward Becheras Choir.

Sermons in Mass

Every aspect of the mass is important. Thus no part can be removed nor is any part lesser in importance, theorectically.

If one actually take note, every part of the mass is ritualised with fixed prayers to say. Except the sermon, where there is some opportunities for individual creativity and interaction by the priest to give their 15 mins of preaching and sharing of their spiritual knowledge.

However, what I find very frustrating is that lack of good sermons. Perhaps it's the quality of oratory skills or perhaps the sermon lacks content. Whichever the reason, usually I find it boring and meaningless.

I speak for myself, but how often do we find priests struggle to find anecdotes or some far-fetched internet stories to fit into the theme of the week? Or how some priests read off word-for-word from their scripts. Or worse, some old-timers think they can just rattle off without preparing.

In this modern society, with information overload and for some intellectuals who have some bible knowledge, I believe such sketchy and surface interpretations of the readings are unacceptable and insulting to the congregation.

Faith-teacher, please speak with conviction and with depth of thought and substance, for the people are looking forward to good sermons to kick-start their week and to be motivated about life. They want to hear God speak to them through the readings and they need you to explain to them how the scripture can inspire them.

Indeed Saint Paul said that when we are young, we need baby food. But I suspect that the majority of the congregation had come of (spiritual) age and is ready for more substantial spiritual knowledge and inspiration. I would even go as far as to say the people would love to know how to interpret the bible from the priest's point of view so that in the future, they themselves can read the Sunday or Daily Missal and let the scriptures inspire them without the spoon-feeding by the priests.

Don't get me wrong, I am not looking for any pomp or fireworks, nor am I looking forward to any Anthony Robbins or Adam Khoos to give us those motivation talks. What I am looking for is something simple and relevant. I can look into my life and ponder on how God have been relevant and present in my life if and only if I know how to interprete those Testaments of my forefathers. And I would only know how to interprete them if and only if I am guided by these teachers who stands at the rostrum.

Thus, standing at the rostrum and giving a half-hearted sermon is certainly serving injustice to the thousands who faithfully attend mass.

Priests resist condom use in HIV-hit Tanzania

Priests resist condom use in HIV-hit Tanzania - 23/01/06

A new school science syllabus in Tanzania that incorporates the teaching of how condoms should be used has been described by Roman Catholic bishops as “unacceptable”, in spite of the spread of HIV-AIDS, writes Frank Jomo for Ecumenical News International.

“Introduction of the [teaching of] use of condoms in schools, apart from being sinful, is indeed justification and opening the door for immoral lifestyles,” Cardinal Polycarp Pengo, the archbishop of Dar es Salaam, said in a statement issued by Tanzania's Episcopal Conference this month.

It continued: “Teaching children, some as young as 12 years old, the use of condoms is disastrous.” Development workers vigorously disagree.


Read the rest of this article at ekklesia.