Comments for Crisis in American Catholicism http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com Exploring the causes of, and solutions to, this crisis Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:57:37 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Purpose of this Blogsite by rjjwillis http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-190 rjjwillis Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:57:37 +0000 http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-190 You ask pertinent questions, Father. In my experience many progressive Catholics have left the Church out of anger and despair; they spend their lives in social justice and humanitarian pursuits rather than butting their heads against a stubborn and self-perpetuating hierarchy. As you undoubtedly know, many others have started or become involved in organizations seeking diverse kinds of organizational change in our Church. You rightly question whether their work will lead to any loosening of hierarchical bonds, especially given the current papacy and the legacy of conservative bishops bestowed on us by John Paul II. When we are confronted with a closed system, like the present Roman Catholic ecclesiastical structure, we must choose a strategy that may force it to change, as it will not on its own. One effective measure would be to set up an opposing yet open system, one which will shine a light on the dysfunctions of the former one. This was done, hisitorically, by the Orthodox's "Great Eastern Schism" and by Protestants in their own "Protestant Reformation." Although I know little about your Independent Catholic Church, I suspect you and your confreres are attempting the same. A second strategy would be to whittle patiently away at the structure while putting oneself in a postion to influence it during times of crisis. I think here of the noteworthy aphorism of St. Ignatius: Go through their door to come out your own. From this comes the admiring, or condemnatory, appellation of being "jesuitical." Dan Berrigan stands for me as a good example of such a person employing just such a strategy. One might also use this strategy: Remain in the closed system, though located on its fringes. This has the advantage of still being identified with it, and the disadvantage that centrifugal forces may cast its advocates into exterior darkness. If one can stay connected, however, and if through that connection serious tremors may be sent through the system, it may be asked as the crisis increases to help the system toward openness. I think this strategy is being used by Len Swidler at ARCC, Bob Kaiser at TakeBackOurChurch, the Women's Ordination Conference, CORPUS and various other groups. Which strategy is best? Which will be in the long run more effective? I suspect we have to live into the answer. You ask pertinent questions, Father. In my experience many progressive Catholics have left the Church out of anger and despair; they spend their lives in social justice and humanitarian pursuits rather than butting their heads against a stubborn and self-perpetuating hierarchy.

As you undoubtedly know, many others have started or become involved in organizations seeking diverse kinds of organizational change in our Church. You rightly question whether their work will lead to any loosening of hierarchical bonds, especially given the current papacy and the legacy of conservative bishops bestowed on us by John Paul II.

When we are confronted with a closed system, like the present Roman Catholic ecclesiastical structure, we must choose a strategy that may force it to change, as it will not on its own. One effective measure would be to set up an opposing yet open system, one which will shine a light on the dysfunctions of the former one. This was done, hisitorically, by the Orthodox’s “Great Eastern Schism” and by Protestants in their own “Protestant Reformation.” Although I know little about your Independent Catholic Church, I suspect you and your confreres are attempting the same.

A second strategy would be to whittle patiently away at the structure while putting oneself in a postion to influence it during times of crisis. I think here of the noteworthy aphorism of St. Ignatius: Go through their door to come out your own. From this comes the admiring, or condemnatory, appellation of being “jesuitical.” Dan Berrigan stands for me as a good example of such a person employing just such a strategy.

One might also use this strategy: Remain in the closed system, though located on its fringes. This has the advantage of still being identified with it, and the disadvantage that centrifugal forces may cast its advocates into exterior darkness. If one can stay connected, however, and if through that connection serious tremors may be sent through the system, it may be asked as the crisis increases to help the system toward openness. I think this strategy is being used by Len Swidler at ARCC, Bob Kaiser at TakeBackOurChurch, the Women’s Ordination Conference, CORPUS and various other groups.

Which strategy is best? Which will be in the long run more effective? I suspect we have to live into the answer.

]]> Comment on Purpose of this Blogsite by Fr. Jerry Brohl, COSF http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-189 Fr. Jerry Brohl, COSF Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:24:47 +0000 http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-189 Pope Benedict recently lifted the excommunication imposed upon the four Society of St. Pius X bishops ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. This society of pre-Vatican II clergy exhibited strength, courage and constancy in maintaining their commitment and dedication to the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic church. Benedict's lifting of their excommunication made me wonder about the commitment and dedication of progressive Roman Catholics to the vision of Vatican II. How far are progressive Roman Catholics willing to go to stand up for Vatican II? Do we have the same strength, courage, and constancy demonstrated by the Society? Of course, the Society has the benefit of an increasingly conservative and traditional trend in the church generally and the papacy specifically. Can progressives realistically expect that a progressive church and papacy is in the near future or on the horizon? Given the overall history of the church, isn't it more likely that centuries of conservatism are ahead? What is to become of progressive Roman Catholicism and the promise of Vatican II? Pope Benedict recently lifted the excommunication imposed upon the four Society of St. Pius X bishops ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988.

This society of pre-Vatican II clergy exhibited strength, courage and constancy in maintaining their commitment and dedication to the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic church.

Benedict’s lifting of their excommunication made me wonder about the commitment and dedication of progressive Roman Catholics to the vision of Vatican II.

How far are progressive Roman Catholics willing to go to stand up for Vatican II?

Do we have the same strength, courage, and constancy demonstrated by the Society?

Of course, the Society has the benefit of an increasingly
conservative and traditional trend in the church generally and the papacy specifically.

Can progressives realistically expect that a progressive church and papacy is in the near future or on the horizon?

Given the overall history of the church, isn’t it more likely that
centuries of conservatism are ahead?

What is to become of progressive Roman Catholicism and the promise of Vatican II?

]]> Comment on Purpose of this Blogsite by barney rooney http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-187 barney rooney Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:02:13 +0000 http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-187 Bob Congrats... just got your address... great blog. Fascinating, but not the easiest of topics, and [as with others] difficult to get participants; [that being said, I still wouldn't counsel adding sex and violence]. I feel the same way you do about the topic of discussion - I do not think the RC Church will disappear and I think those of us who have been on 'the inside' have something of an obligation to try to salvage the kernal of truth.... even in the face of severe, self-inflicted wounds. One of the avenues leading to the future would people folks like yourself who are ready, willing and able to help such salvage efforts by taking a good look at current thought as well not being cowed by Rome, merely because it is Rome. There are serious questions being asked of many 'institutions' across the globe. I just read a review of a book by a professor in an Israeli University suggesting the "Israel" and 'the Jewish People" are mythologies, not literal, historical facts. 19 weeks on the best selling list in Israel, the book is now over here. Talk about an 'assault' upon some particularly important concepts-taken-as-literal facts!! I do not suspect our Jewish brothers and sisters will "just close up shop" because such questions are raised in public. The same light is being focused on Rome as well; in fact, a similar light has been and will continue to be focused on our new President. Just as we wouldn't think of walking away from our country, there is no reason to jettison what is of truth and value in our religion. All the best to you and your equal half. barney Bob

Congrats… just got your address… great blog. Fascinating, but not the easiest of topics, and [as with others] difficult to get participants; [that being said, I still wouldn't counsel adding sex and violence].

I feel the same way you do about the topic of discussion – I do not think the RC Church will disappear and I think those of us who have been on ‘the inside’ have something of an obligation to try to salvage the kernal of truth…. even in the face of severe, self-inflicted wounds.

One of the avenues leading to the future would people folks like yourself who are ready, willing and able to help such salvage efforts by taking a good look at current thought as well not being cowed by Rome, merely because it is Rome. There are serious questions being asked of many ‘institutions’ across the globe. I just read a review of a book by a professor in an Israeli University suggesting the “Israel” and ‘the Jewish People” are mythologies, not literal, historical facts. 19 weeks on the best selling list in Israel, the book is now over here. Talk about an ‘assault’ upon some particularly important concepts-taken-as-literal facts!! I do not suspect our Jewish brothers and sisters will “just close up shop” because such questions are raised in public. The same light is being focused on Rome as well; in fact, a similar light has been and will continue to be focused on our new President. Just as we wouldn’t think of walking away from our country, there is no reason to jettison what is of truth and value in our religion.

All the best to you and your equal half.

barney

]]> Comment on Precis: Equality of Women: The New Testament by rjjwillis http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/articles/equality-of-women-the-new-testament/precis-equality-of-women-the-new-testament/#comment-179 rjjwillis Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:23:22 +0000 http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/?page_id=37#comment-179 I agree, L. Pat, with your remarks; indeed, I refer to all of these events in my article. I find it difficult to understand how the Church can consider it's arguments about the exclusion of women from the priesthood to be valid, either scripturally or communally. I think of John Lounibos's remark about Helder Camara, Archbishop of Recife, Brazil. He heard him say (I quote from memory): since a woman was the mother of God, I see no reason why a woman cannot be a priest. I agree, L. Pat, with your remarks; indeed, I refer to all of these events in my article. I find it difficult to understand how the Church can consider it’s arguments about the exclusion of women from the priesthood to be valid, either scripturally or communally. I think of John Lounibos’s remark about Helder Camara, Archbishop of Recife, Brazil. He heard him say (I quote from memory): since a woman was the mother of God, I see no reason why a woman cannot be a priest.

]]> Comment on Precis: Equality of Women: The New Testament by Pat Carroll http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/articles/equality-of-women-the-new-testament/precis-equality-of-women-the-new-testament/#comment-178 Pat Carroll Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:41:38 +0000 http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/?page_id=37#comment-178 I have often thought, and also taught, that the first people commissioned to proclaim the word, the good news, were women. In the Gospel of John the Samaritan woman goes to tell all her neighbors who didn't associate with her previously what she saw and heard about the one who "told her everything she'd ever done. " By her witness others came to believe. More cogently, in the Gospel of Luke, especially, women were the first witnesses to the Resurrection and were sent to tell the apostles. Generally. in the Gospel of John the folks gathered in the upper room were disciples, not just the apostles. It was upon these disciples, both men and women, that the spirit of PENTECOST was breathed. I have often thought, and also taught, that the first people commissioned to proclaim the word, the good news, were women. In the Gospel of John the Samaritan woman goes to tell all her neighbors who didn’t associate with her previously what she saw and heard about the one who “told her everything she’d ever done. ” By her witness others came to believe. More cogently, in the Gospel of Luke, especially, women were the first witnesses to the Resurrection and were sent to tell the apostles.

Generally. in the Gospel of John the folks gathered in the upper room were disciples, not just the apostles. It was upon these disciples, both men and women, that the spirit of PENTECOST was breathed.

]]> Comment on Purpose of this Blogsite by rjjwillis http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-19 rjjwillis Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:06:04 +0000 http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-19 Thoughtful response, Wayne. Thanks. I can say some things in reply: 1) Have I done a statistical analysis? No. But we know enough about groups to make an educated guess. In a normal population 18% inhabit the far right, 18% the far left; the remaining 64% (the silent majority) cluster around the middle, from the 18th percentile to the 82nd. That is most likely what the Church looked like before Vatican II. When a major change happens in a group, the population response changes. Right after Vatican II, large numbers of priests and religious left, unwilling to live in a Tridentine world that persisted. Then Humanae Vitae disregarded the pope's own birth control commission, and a large majority of American Catholics (and in other countries too) defied the pope: they practice birth control to the same extent that non-Catholics do, as much as 80% in the U.S. This increase in the left soon generated an increase on the right: we got a conservative Paul VI, a stubborn monarchist in John Paul II, and the spawning of a growing conservative movement with the likes of Michael Novak, George Weigel, the Legionnaries of Christ, and Latin Mass advocates. In this kind of situation, the left and the right increase in population, draining off people from the middle majority. Just think of our Country after 9/11: "our country right or wrong." Then think of it in view of the debacle in Iraq: "bring our troops home." In our Church at this time, both the left and right are strenghtened, and the middle not able to control the action. Given this analysis, I do not agree that the Church in the present is responding to the will of the majority; rather, the authorities are responding to the demands of the far right and its determination to regain firm control and exact obedience. 2) You imply that, like don Quixote, I am tilting at windmills, a lonely warrior bound to fail. Am I alone? No. Consider the proliferation of advocacy groups on the change side of the American Church: Call To Action, Voice of the Faithful, Women's Ordination Conference, Take Back Our Church, SNAP, to name just a sprinkling. Will I effect any meaningful change in the Church hierarchy? Heavens, no! People in power don't give it up either easily or readily. They will continue along as always, looking out for themselves and using the Church as their ticket to power and prosperity. So why am I doing what I am to bring about change? I do so because the only real change will come from below, from the People of God. With education, with a growing self respect, with an internal knowledge that they are the Church and that the hierarchy exists only to serve them, the Church, then those in hierarchical power will find that the real power does not belong to them and that they better get with the People of God or face irrelevance. The crisis in the American Church today is this: its bishops are increasingly irrelevant and they won't admit it. The American church has no leadership. 3) Does not the assumption of power by the far left generate a backlash? Of course. Does not the assumption of power by the far left produce its own kind of tyrant? It certainly may. Does not the reaction against the leftist tyrant often enpower a righteous tyrant on the far right? Certainly. What stands in the way of this circle of tyranny? Only the People of God: "wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am;" "I will be with you all days to the end of the world;" "fear not, I do not leave you orphans." We must believe that Christ overcomes tyrants, even ecclesial ones. 4) Why not forget the group and just live one's own life? I find that the most piercing and pregnant of questions. I go back and forth on that one. On the one hand, I don't need the organized church, I don't need the hierarchy, and I don't need local congregations of Catholics. I can lead a very happy, fulfilling, and God-centered spirituality without any of these trappings. On the other hand, I feel a strong call to "love one another as I have loved you." I need to reach out to others, to share with them what I may, including my belief in Christ and His People. Many friends say, in effect, "forget it;" I can't. Thoughtful response, Wayne. Thanks. I can say some things in reply:
1) Have I done a statistical analysis? No. But we know enough about groups to make an educated guess. In a normal population 18% inhabit the far right, 18% the far left; the remaining 64% (the silent majority) cluster around the middle, from the 18th percentile to the 82nd. That is most likely what the Church looked like before Vatican II. When a major change happens in a group, the population response changes. Right after Vatican II, large numbers of priests and religious left, unwilling to live in a Tridentine world that persisted. Then Humanae Vitae disregarded the pope’s own birth control commission, and a large majority of American Catholics (and in other countries too) defied the pope: they practice birth control to the same extent that non-Catholics do, as much as 80% in the U.S. This increase in the left soon generated an increase on the right: we got a conservative Paul VI, a stubborn monarchist in John Paul II, and the spawning of a growing conservative movement with the likes of Michael Novak, George Weigel, the Legionnaries of Christ, and Latin Mass advocates. In this kind of situation, the left and the right increase in population, draining off people from the middle majority. Just think of our Country after 9/11: “our country right or wrong.” Then think of it in view of the debacle in Iraq: “bring our troops home.”
In our Church at this time, both the left and right are strenghtened, and the middle not able to control the action. Given this analysis, I do not agree that the Church in the present is responding to the will of the majority; rather, the authorities are responding to the demands of the far right and its determination to regain firm control and exact obedience.
2) You imply that, like don Quixote, I am tilting at windmills, a lonely warrior bound to fail. Am I alone? No. Consider the proliferation of advocacy groups on the change side of the American Church: Call To Action, Voice of the Faithful, Women’s Ordination Conference, Take Back Our Church, SNAP, to name just a sprinkling. Will I effect any meaningful change in the Church hierarchy? Heavens, no! People in power don’t give it up either easily or readily. They will continue along as always, looking out for themselves and using the Church as their ticket to power and prosperity. So why am I doing what I am to bring about change? I do so because the only real change will come from below, from the People of God. With education, with a growing self respect, with an internal knowledge that they are the Church and that the hierarchy exists only to serve them, the Church, then those in hierarchical power will find that the real power does not belong to them and that they better get with the People of God or face irrelevance. The crisis in the American Church today is this: its bishops are increasingly irrelevant and they won’t admit it. The American church has no leadership.
3) Does not the assumption of power by the far left generate a backlash? Of course. Does not the assumption of power by the far left produce its own kind of tyrant? It certainly may. Does not the reaction against the leftist tyrant often enpower a righteous tyrant on the far right? Certainly. What stands in the way of this circle of tyranny? Only the People of God: “wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am;” “I will be with you all days to the end of the world;” “fear not, I do not leave you orphans.” We must believe that Christ overcomes tyrants, even ecclesial ones.
4) Why not forget the group and just live one’s own life? I find that the most piercing and pregnant of questions. I go back and forth on that one. On the one hand, I don’t need the organized church, I don’t need the hierarchy, and I don’t need local congregations of Catholics. I can lead a very happy, fulfilling, and God-centered spirituality without any of these trappings. On the other hand, I feel a strong call to “love one another as I have loved you.” I need to reach out to others, to share with them what I may, including my belief in Christ and His People. Many friends say, in effect, “forget it;” I can’t.

]]> Comment on Purpose of this Blogsite by wayne magnoni http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-18 wayne magnoni Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:01:37 +0000 http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-18 This statement in one of your paragraphs piqued my interest: "One group wishes for, and strives to realize, a return to the Tridentine church that had existed since the 16th Century. A second group longs for the realization of Vatican II in practice, a realization that has been frustrated by recalcitrant Church leadership. Yet a third group simply longs for peace and would simply like the nightmare to go away." Have you done a statistical analysis on these points of view? Isn't the Church simply responding to the majority, a group with essentially communal values, that prefers the magesterium, and more than a modicum of dogma, to any sort of ecumenical approach? Doesn't the majority (you propose democracy) just love this sort of black-and-white approach to religion? Aren't you, my dear Don Quixote, just tilting at windmills? Don't we simply have to define Christianity for ourselves and live with it? Wouldn't a Catholic Revolution near as likely produce some horrendous aberration like Robespierre, a reign of terror, and then some Napoleon Benedictus of the sort we already have? Isn't the human spiritual need too complex to be satisfied by any groups decisions? Don't we already have the relevant principle, the primacy of the individual conscience? Why not just take what you want, and ignore the rest? Works for me. Wayne Magnoni This statement in one of your paragraphs piqued my interest:

“One group wishes for, and strives to realize, a return to the Tridentine church that had existed since the 16th Century. A second group longs for the realization of Vatican II in practice, a realization that has been frustrated by recalcitrant Church leadership. Yet a third group simply longs for peace and would simply like the nightmare to go away.”

Have you done a statistical analysis on these points of view? Isn’t the Church simply responding to the majority, a group with essentially communal values, that prefers the magesterium, and more than a modicum of dogma, to any sort of ecumenical approach?

Doesn’t the majority (you propose democracy) just love this sort of black-and-white approach to religion?
Aren’t you, my dear Don Quixote, just tilting at windmills? Don’t we simply have to define Christianity for ourselves and live with it? Wouldn’t a Catholic Revolution near as likely produce some horrendous aberration like Robespierre, a reign of terror, and then some Napoleon Benedictus of the sort we already have? Isn’t the human spiritual need too complex to be satisfied by any groups decisions? Don’t we already have the relevant principle, the primacy of the individual conscience? Why not just take what you want, and ignore the rest? Works for me.
Wayne Magnoni

]]> Comment on Purpose of this Blogsite by rayosun http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-15 rayosun Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:33:40 +0000 http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-15 As your elder by one year, and a fellow ex-priest, I urge you, Bob, to "respect your elder." When you say, "Personally, . . .however, I find the Church meaningful and helpful only to the extent that it assists me and others in drawing close to God. I am willing to lend my efforts to see if the Catholic Church has the desire for, and capacity for, once again being the community of the followers of Christ," I wonder. I recommend that you explore my http://JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/ web site.There I argue that far from representing Jesus, as it claims to do, the Catholic Church replaces Jesus. It truly "uses his name in vain" to attract, hold onto, and use its members for its own glory, not to teach what Jesus taught. As your elder by one year, and a fellow ex-priest, I urge you, Bob, to “respect your elder.”
When you say, “Personally, . . .however, I find the Church meaningful and helpful only to the extent that it assists me and others in drawing close to God. I am willing to lend my efforts to see if the Catholic Church has the desire for, and capacity for, once again being the community of the followers of Christ,” I wonder. I recommend that you explore my http://JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/ web site.There I argue that far from representing Jesus, as it claims to do, the Catholic Church replaces Jesus. It truly “uses his name in vain” to attract, hold onto, and use its members for its own glory, not to teach what Jesus taught.

]]> Comment on The Misuse of Scripture to Abuse Homosexuals by Robert Reilly http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/articles/the-misuse-of-scripture-to-abuse-homosexuals/#comment-13 Robert Reilly Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:20:27 +0000 http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/the-misuse-of-scripture-to-abuse-homosexuals/#comment-13 Hi Bob, Interesting article; I find your argument cogent. Some of your points are similar to those made by Jack Rogers in his book "Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality" Westminster John Knox, 2006. Also, you might be interested in a motion picture now circulating entitled "For the Bible Tells me So" (available thru Netflix in Feb.) which deals with the same questions. A recent review of the film in our local paper noted that it does not deal with the Roman Catholic position "perhaps highlighting how moribund that discussion is within the world's largest Christian tradition." Regards, Bob Reilly Hi Bob, Interesting article; I find your argument cogent. Some of your points are similar to those made by Jack Rogers in his book “Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality” Westminster John Knox, 2006. Also, you might be interested in a motion picture now circulating entitled “For the Bible Tells me So” (available thru Netflix in Feb.) which deals with the same questions. A recent review of the film in our local paper noted that it does not deal with the Roman Catholic position “perhaps highlighting how moribund that discussion is within the world’s largest Christian tradition.” Regards, Bob Reilly

]]> Comment on Purpose of this Blogsite by rjjwillis http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-12 rjjwillis Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:57:12 +0000 http://rjjwillis.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/purpose-of-this-blogsite/#comment-12 Dr. Sharpes' comments hit at the purpose of this blogsite. I accept that the Christian community may be a political artifact; I also accept that it may be based on ancient myths and legends. I also accept that it may be irrelevant to him and to many educated people in the modern world. But I do not accept that it is irrelevant to millions of believing Christians today. It may be an historically conditioned political structure, but it is our hierarchical church; it may be mythological, but it is our myth. On this blogsite, I am writing for those people for whom our church and our myth still hold some meaning and fascination. Whether they should or shouldn't find such there, I do not address. Personally, I find inspiration in, and helpful for living the example of, and message of Jesus. I value Him and am grateful for what He gives to my life. The Church, however, I find meaningful and helpful only to the extent that it assists me and others in drawing close to God. I am willing to lend my efforts to see if the Catholic Church has the desire for, and capacity for, once again being the community of the followers of Christ. Dr. Sharpes’ comments hit at the purpose of this blogsite. I accept that the Christian community may be a political artifact; I also accept that it may be based on ancient myths and legends. I also accept that it may be irrelevant to him and to many educated people in the modern world. But I do not accept that it is irrelevant to millions of believing Christians today. It may be an historically conditioned political structure, but it is our hierarchical church; it may be mythological, but it is our myth. On this blogsite, I am writing for those people for whom our church and our myth still hold some meaning and fascination. Whether they should or shouldn’t find such there, I do not address.
Personally, I find inspiration in, and helpful for living the example of, and message of Jesus. I value Him and am grateful for what He gives to my life. The Church, however, I find meaningful and helpful only to the extent that it assists me and others in drawing close to God. I am willing to lend my efforts to see if the Catholic Church has the desire for, and capacity for, once again being the community of the followers of Christ.

]]>