Bishop Clark Takes Courageous Stand

I want to thank Bishop Clark for the courageous stand he has taken on behalf of gay priests in the Rochester Diocese. I share in the outrage of the Catholic community concerning sexual abuse committed by Roman Catholic priests. However, scapegoating gay priests is the wrong approach, and I applaud Bishop Clark's fairness in dealing with this issue.

Some bishops, in their eagerness to sweep the abuse crisis under the carpet, have issued harsh statements concerning gay priests and seminarians. If bishops truly believe that as many as 50% of priests may be gay, it is correspondingly reasonable to assume that as many as 50% of bishops are gay as well. I personally don't care if bishops or priests are gay or heterosexual, as long as they are not abusing children. Rather than focusing on sexual orientation, our bishops should instead be focusing on sexual maturity. Sexual immaturity can be present in either a homosexual or heterosexual. To single out one in favor of the other is not getting at the root of the abuse problem.

What is currently becoming very clear is that some of our bishops are guilty of hypocrisy, especially the ones who may be gay themselves. If a gay bishop is telling a gay priest or seminarian he is not welcome as part of the ordained, something is very wrong indeed. Bishop Matthew Clark is taking the right approach. Rather than focusing on sexual orienation, he simply wants to make sure that seminarians and priests in the Rochester Diocese are sexually mature.

The following is the courageous stand taken by Bishop Matthew Clark of the Rochester Diocese:

Rumors can be misleading
Bishop Matthew Clark

Catholic Courier
Rochester, New York
http://www.catholiccourier.com/
(Publication Date: 11-12-2005)

Some years ago -- at least 10, I think -- two of our diocesan priests told me that they are homosexual. They came in separately and, as far as I know, neither of them was aware of the other’s visit. I do recall that each said his decision to come out to me was prompted, at least in part, by something I had written in “Along the Way.”

In that particular column, I had referred to a priest from another diocese who told me he had finally told his parents that he was gay. He was elated that his parents took that occasion, so sensitive to him, to reaffirm their love and support of him. I wrote that this man -- whom I had known for years -- had never told me before that he was gay. Telling me that he had told his parents was the man’s way of telling me!

In any case, the two priests of our diocese told me that they are homosexual, and I am glad that they did. It seemed a great relief to them that their bishop -- to whom they are so closely bound in priestly identity and ministry -- should be aware of this important aspect of their personal reality. I know that I was deeply gratified that they entrusted me with that information. I had come to know and admire them through years of shared ministry. Their simplicity and honesty with me only deepened my regard for them.

In the years since, a few other priests -- religious and diocesan priests, here and elsewhere -- have chosen to tell me the same thing. In each case, I have admired their honesty and felt enriched by their trust and confidence.

Lately, I have thought a lot about these friends and prayed for them in a particular way. I have also prayed for priests who are gay but who are not ready or feel no need to tell me about their sexual orientation.

I have thought about and prayed for these men because I know that two recent developments have caused them a lot of pain. One is the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program now in progress. The other is a long-rumored document from the Congregation for Catholic Education about the admission of gay men as candidates for the priesthood.

Allow me to offer observations about some of the themes and concerns the confluence of these related but distinct elements have raised. My intent is not to deal with all of the questions that could be addressed. That would be impossible here. I wish only to encourage all to be patient with the process of the visitation and fair in the reading of the rumored document, if and when it is published.

1) The priests to whom I referred above love Christ, the church, their ministry and the people they serve. They take seriously their priestly obligations including that of celibate chastity. To read reports in the press, however unsubstantiated those reports may be, that homosexuals will be declared unacceptable as candidates for priesthood is a source of great pain for them and for all of us who know and love them.

2) The Instrumentum Laboris or guiding paper from the Seminary Visitation speaks about the role each bishop has vis-à-vis his seminarians: The bishop will ensure that the seminarians form mature and balanced personalities, are capable of establishing and maintaining sound human and pastoral relationships, are knowledgeable in theology and the living tradition of the church, have a solid spiritual life, and are in love with the church.

3) This wide range of goals or challenges for priestly formation applies to any candidate for priesthood, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The fundamental concern of formation for a life of celibate chastity is for sexual maturity, not sexual orientation. Good seminary formation needs to provide an environment in which both heterosexual and homosexual candidates can grow to commit themselves wholeheartedly, even joyfully, to chaste and faithful celibacy.

4) Critically important as it is, we should remember that formation for a life of celibacy is not the only, or even the primary, issue here. The task of seminaries is much wider than that. Their task is to form candidates toward intellectual, emotional, psychosexual, spiritual and pastoral maturity, regardless of the sexual orientation of the candidate.

I hope that these comments will be helpful to:

* homosexual priests who spend themselves each day in faithful, loving ministry to God’s holy people. We deeply value your ministry.

* to gay young men who are considering a vocation to priesthood. We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception.

* to all who may have been confused or misled by premature and narrow reporting of the visitation and rumored document. It is always better to deal with fact than with rumor and half-truths.

Peace to all.

Problematic Propositions from Eucharistic Synod

PROBLEMATIC PROPOSITIONS FROM THE EUCHARISTIC SYNOD
by Ray Grosswirth, M.A., M.Div

October 25, 2005

The Vatican Information Service (VIS) has released what it considers to be the most important propositions from the Eucharistic Synod. I have concerns with a few of them, and have highlighted these concerns in CAPITAL LETTERS following the actual propositions:

EUCHARIST AND THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE (Proposition no. 7)

"It is of vital pastoral importance that bishops in their dioceses promote a decisive revival in teaching the conversion that arises from the Eucharist, and that to this end they favor frequent individual Confession."
"The Synod strongly recommends bishops not to allow the practice of collective absolution in their dioceses, save in the objectively exceptional circumstances laid down in John Paul II's Motu Proprio, 'Misericordia Dei'."

A LOGICAL QUESTION TO ASK IS: CONSIDERING THE SEVERE CLERGY SHORTAGE IN THE UNITED STATES AND ELSEWHERE, HOW MANY PRIESTS HAVE THE TIME TO DEVOTE PERHAPS AN ENTIRE DAY TO FACILITATE MULTIPLE INDIVIDUAL CONFESSIONS? WHILE THE VATICAN MAY NOT APPROVE OF THE PRACTICE OF COLLECTIVE ABSOLUTION (COMMUNAL PENANCE SERVICES), WHAT DO CARDINALS RECOMMEND WHEN A PARISH PRIEST CAN EXPECT TO HAVE WEDDINGS AND FUNERALS ON ANY GIVEN SATURDAY (TRADITIONAL DAY FOR INDIVIDUAL CONFESSIONS)?

SHORTAGE OF PRIESTS (Proposition no. 11)

"The centrality of the Eucharist for the life of the Church means that the problem of the great shortage of priests in some parts of the world is felt very acutely. Many faithful are thus deprived of the Bread of life. In order to meet the Eucharistic hunger of the people of God, who are often forced to go without the Eucharistic celebration for considerable periods, it is necessary to implement effective pastoral initiatives.
"In this context, the Synod Fathers affirmed the importance of the inestimable gift of ecclesiastical celibacy in the Latin Church. With reference to the Magisterium, especially to Vatican Council II and to recent Pontiffs, the Fathers requested that the faithful be given adequate explanation of the reasons for the link between celibacy and priestly ordination, in full respect for the tradition of the Eastern Churches. Some reference was made to 'viri probati,' but it was decided that this was an untenable hypothesis.
"Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that, in offering the Eucharistic gift to all the faithful, the Christian quality of the community and its force of attraction have a decisive influence. It is particularly important to encourage pastors to promote priestly vocations, ... raise awareness among families, ... ensure (by bishops, with the involvement of religious families and maintaining respect for their charism) a more even distribution of the clergy, encouraging the clergy itself to a greater readiness to serve the Church wherever the need arises."

I FIND IT RATHER PARADOXICAL THAT ON ONE HAND, THE VATICAN ACKNOWLEDGES THE PRIESTHOOD SHORTAGE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE VATICAN ALSO DISMISSES A VIABLE SOLUTION - NAMELY, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MARRIED PRIESTS. THE SYNOD HAD A FLAWED EXPLANATION OF CELIBACY AS A GIFT. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IF A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR THE PRIESTHOOD IS CALLED TO A LIFE OF CELIBACY, THIS GIFT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED AND ENCOURAGED. HOWEVER, THE VATICAN FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO BE CALLED TO BOTH THE PRIESTHOOD AND MARRIAGE. (MARRIAGE IS ALSO A GIFT.) THERE IS THEREFORE ROOM IN THE PRIESTHOOD FOR BOTH CELIBATES AND MARRIED MEN. (THIS, IN FACT, IS THE TRUE TRADITION OF THE EARLY CHURCH, AS OPPOSED TO THE PRESENT POLICY OF MANDATORY CELIBACY.)

THE USE OF LATIN IN LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS (Proposition no. 36)

"In celebrating the Eucharist during international meetings, which are becoming ever more frequent today, in order better to express the unity and universality of the Church it is proposed: that the (con)celebration of Mass be in Latin (except the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful), the prayers of the tradition of the Church should also be recited in Latin and, where appropriate, Gregorian chants be sung; that priests, beginning in the seminary, be trained to understand and celebrate Mass in Latin, as well as to use Latin prayers and to appreciate the Gregorian chant; that the possibility of educating the faithful in this way not be overlooked."

THERE IS A DANGER IN OVEREMPHASIZING LATIN. IT IS INDEED A BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE. (I STUDIED IT AND HAVE AN APPRECIATION FOR ITS USE IN ANCIENT, MEDIEVAL, ROMANTIC AND CLASSICAL MUSICAL TEXTS.) YET, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE STUDIED SCRIPTURE EXTENSIVELY, FLAWS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE LATIN TRANSLATION (ST. JEROME'S) FROM THE ORIGINAL GREEK AND ARAMAIC TEXTS. WHILE LATIN SERVED THE CHURCH VERY WELL IN THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH AS A UNIVERSAL LITURGICAL LANGUAGE, AN EXPECTATION OF THE RE-LEARNING OF THE LANGUAGE IN TODAY'S MULT-CULTURAL SETTINGS IS UNREALISTIC AT BEST. RATHER THAN AN INTENSIVE EFFORT AT BRINGING LATIN BACK AS A SEMINARY EDUCATION COMPONENT, SEMINARIANS WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY HAVING TOOLS NECESSARY FOR THE REALITIES OF CONTEMPORARY PARISH LIFE.

DIVORCED AND RE-MARRIED CATHOLICS AND THE EUCHARIST (Proposition no. 40)

"In keeping with the numerous pronouncements of the Church's Magisterium, and sharing the anxious concern expressed by many Fathers, the Synod of Bishops reaffirms the importance of attitudes and a pastoral actions that express attention and welcome towards divorced and re-married faithful.

"According to the tradition of the Catholic Church, they cannot be admitted to holy communion, being in a position of objective contrast with the Word of the Lord which conferred on marriage the original value of indissolubility. ... Nevertheless, people who have divorced and re-married still belong to the Church, which welcomes them and follows them with special attention that they may cultivate a Christian lifestyle through participation in Mass (though without receiving communion), listening to the Word of God, adoring the Eucharist, prayer, participating in community life, confidential dialogue with a priest or a master of spiritual life, dedication to living charity, works of penance, and educational commitment to their children. If, then, the nullity of the matrimonial bond is not recognized and objective conditions arise that render cohabitation irreversible, the Church encourages them to commit themselves to live their relationship in accordance with the law of God, transforming it into a firm and faithful friendship; thus they will be able to return to the Eucharistic table, receiving the attention laid down by time- honored ecclesial practice. But such relationships should not be blessed, so as not to create confusion among the faithful concerning the value of marriage.

"At the same time, the Synod hopes that all possible efforts be made both to ensure the presence, pastoral character, and correct and swift activity of ecclesiastical tribunals for causes of the nullity of marriage, and to dedicate further study to the essential elements of the validity of marriage, also bearing in mind the problems emerging from the profound anthropological transformations of our times, by which the faithful themselves risk being conditioned, especially given the lack of solid Christian formation."

I SHARE THE VIEW OF CARDINAL KASPER, IN THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS INTENSE STUDY AND FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS. IT CAN BE RIGHTLY ARGUED THAT THE ANNULMENT PROCESS HAS POSITIVE ASPECTS - MOST NOTABLY, THE PROCESS ALLOWS APPLICANTS TIME FOR REFLECTION ON THE REASONS THEIR PRIOR UNIONS FAILED, AND FOR REFLECTION ON THE SACRAMENTAL UNIONS THEY WISH TO PURSUE. HOWEVER, ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE, TRIBUNALS ARE NOT CONSISTENT FROM DIOCESE TO DIOCESE. (IN SOME DIOCESES, ANNULMENTS ARE GRANTED RATHER LIBERALLY, WHEREAS ANNULMENTS ARE DIFFICULT TO SECURE IN OTHER DIOCESES.) FURTHERMORE, THERE ARE VALID REASONS WHY SOME PERSONS CHOOSE TO REMARRY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. (SOME OF THESE PERSONS LATER SEEK FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH, EITHER THROUGH THE PROCESS OF 'INTERNAL FORUM' OR BY SIMPLY SEARCHING FOR A PARISH WHERE THE RECEPTION OF COMMUNION IS NOT PROBLEMATIC.)

ONE OF THE LARGEST COMPLAINTS I CONTINUE TO HEAR IS THAT DECISIONS ON THE VALIDITY/NON-VALIDITY OF PRIOR BONDS ARE BEING MADE BY THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN MARRIED (CELIBATE PRIESTS). OPINIONS VARY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A VALID CRITICISM.

AT A TIME WHEN MASS ATTENDANCE IN THE UNITED STATES IS APPROXIMATELY 30%, AND MASS ATTENDANCE IN EUROPE RANGES BETWEEN 10-20%, I THINK THE CHURCH NEEDS TO RE-EXAMINE ITS POLICY OF DENYING COMMUNION TO CATHOLICS WHO REMARRY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH WITHOUT AN ANNULMENT. (PERHAPS A BETTER STRUCTURED/MORE INTENSIVE PRE-CANA PERIOD MAY BE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO THE ANNULMENT PROCESS.)

ADMISSION OF NON-CATHOLIC FAITHFUL TO COMMUNION (Proposition no. 41)

"On the basis of the communion of all Christians, which the single Baptism already accomplishes though not yet completely, their separation at the Lord's table is rightly felt as being a source of pain. As a consequence, from both within the Catholic Church and from our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, the urgent request often arises for the possibility of Eucharistic communion between Catholic Christians and others. It must be made clear that the Eucharist does not designate and effect only our personal communion with Jesus Christ, but above all the full 'communio' of the Church. We ask, therefore, that non-Catholic Christians understand and respect the fact that for us, in accordance with the whole of biblically-founded tradition, Eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion are intimately connected, and thus that Eucharistic communion with non-Catholic Christians is not generally speaking possible. Even more so is ecumenical concelebration to be excluded. However, it should be made clear that, with a view to personal salvation, admitting non-Catholic Christians to the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, in certain particular situations and under specific conditions, is possible and even to be recommended."

THE MOST VALID POINT THAT CAN BE MADE IS THAT JESUS DIDN'T EXCLUDE ANYONE FROM THE TABLE. WHILE THERE ARE CERTAINLY THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS DURING THE CONSECRATION, THERE ARE NEVERTHELESS CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR JOINT EUCHARISTIC CELEBRATIONS. THESE CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE FULLY EXPLORED BEFORE BENEDICT XVI RELEASES A SYNOD RESPONSE THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY DIVISIVE IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY.

EUCHARISTIC COHERENCE OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS AND LAWMAKERS (Proposition no. 46)

"Catholic politicians and lawmakers must feel their consciences particularly aroused ... by the heavy social responsibility of presenting and supporting iniquitous laws. There is no Eucharistic coherence when legislation is promoted that goes against the integral good of man, against justice and natural law. The private sphere and the public sphere cannot be separated, placing oneself in a position of contrast with the law of God and the teaching of the Church, and this must also be considered in Eucharistic terms. In applying this guidance, bishops should exercise the virtues of courage and wisdom, bearing in mind actual local situations."

AS SOON AS WE BEGIN DENYING COMMUNION TO CATHOLIC POLITICIANS WHO STRAY FROM CHURCH TEACHINGS, WE CROSS INTO DANGEROUS TERRITORY. WE SAW THE RAMIFICATIONS OF 'COMMUNION AS A WEAPON' DURING LAST YEAR'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. JOHN KERRY WAS CHASTISED BY BISHOPS FOR HIS PRO-CHOICE STAND, WHILE BISHOPS READILY WELCOMED GEORGE BUSH AT THEIR DOORSTEPS, DESPITE BUSH'S QUESTIONABLE RATIONALE FOR OUR WAR WITH IRAQ.

IN CONCLUSION, I BELIEVE THE EUCHARISTIC SYNOD WAS A DISMAL FAILURE. THERE WAS NO NEW GROUND BROKEN. RATHER THAN USING THE OCCASION FOR POSITIVE DIALOGUE ON THE EUCHARIST AND VIABLE SOLUTIONS FOR THE PRIESTHOOD SHORTAGE, THE SYNOD WAS RATHER A VEHICLE FOR SIMPLY AFFIRMING THE STATUS QUO. IN SHORT, IT WAS AN OCCASION FOR MISSED OPPORTUNITIES.

A Misguided Appointment for Archbishop Myers

A MISGUIDED APPOINTMENT FOR ARCHBISHOP MYERS
by Ray Grosswirth, CORPUS Media Liaison

During the same week that our esteemed bishops in Rome voted down a proposal to allow for the ordaining of married men to the priesthood, the Vatican nevertheless appointed Newark's Archbishop Myers to the task of overseeing the process of bringing married Episcopalian priests into the Roman Catholic priesthood. (This sounds like a double-standard to me.)

While I certainly want to welcome our Episcopalian brothers to the Roman Catholic Church when they convert for the right reasons, I am also alarmed when we bring some of these men into the RC priesthood for the WRONG reasons. Two of the WRONG reasons are when Episcopalian priests state they are converting because a.) they were opposed to the ordination of Gene Robinson, because of his being openly gay; b.) they are opposed to the ordination of women in the Episcopal Church.

I will be the first to welcome a married Episcopalian priest, when he states that he is converting on the basis of faith. For example, if such a priest is drawn to the Roman Catholic Church because of our tradition, because of our manner of celebrating the sacraments, or because of simply being called by God, such a conversion should be celebrated. Perhaps an Episcopalian in such circumstances could help prove to the Roman Catholic hierarchy that marriage can indeed be compatible with ordained ministry.

As we know, the Anglican/Episcopalian church is in danger of schism. The scenario often depicted is that of conservative Episcopalians moving to the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Roman Catholics moving to the remaining Episcopalian Church. While this could certainly happen, it is not likely.

I continue to pray for the day when there is inter-Communion between our Roman Catholic and Episcopalian brothers and sisters. Until that day arrives, we should at least be praying for tranquility within our individual houses of worship. The road to such tranqulity must be paved with inclusivity.

Anyone who knows Archbishop Myers will immediately relate that he is one of the more conservative members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Therefore, if an Episcopalian priest should approach him, and announce he wants to become a RC priest on the basis of his opposition to women priests or gay bishops, I can see an immediate welcome by Myers. This would be very sad indeed.

Our bishops at the Vatican synod had a wonderful opportunity to embrace the ideal of optional celibacy. Sadly, they instead embraced the status quo. Having given marriage a second-place status to Holy Orders, our bishops further added insult to injury by stating that women or married Catholic men should not seek ordination. However, married Episcopalian priests are welcome to apply.

Let us pray for common sense amongst our hierarchy.

My Fantasy Debate with Cardinal Pell

MY FANTASY DEBATE WITH CARDINAL PELL
by RAY GROSSWIRTH, CORPUS NATIONAL SECRETARY

October 13, 2005
Dear Friends:

While I am encouraged over the fact that a few courageous bishops brought the topic of married priests to the synod table, we should not be surprised that Cardinal Pell is trying (in a very forceful way) to keep the policy of mandatory celibacy intact.

I often wonder what it would be like to debate someone like Cardinal Pell. Since the opportunity will probably never present itself, I interjected my own thoughts in the following article that contains quotes from the cardinal. (My comments are in capital letters.)

Cardinal calls for keeping celibacy rule
NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated PressOctober 13, 2005

VATICAN CITY - A senior cardinal warned Wednesday that relaxing the Roman Catholic Church's rule on celibacy for priests would be a "serious error," countering calls by reformers that allowing them to marry would help resolve a shortage of clergymen.

WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE, CARDINAL PELL? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT OUSTING GAYS FROM SEMINARIES WILL CREATE AN AVALANCHE OF HETEROSEXUAL MEN WILLING TO PLEDGE LIVES OF MANDATORY CELIBACY? DO YOU THINK THE CURRENT WORLDWIDE AVERAGE RATIO OF ONE PRIEST PER 3,500 CATHOLICS MAKES SENSE? ARE YOU MORE CONCERNED WITH PRESERVING THE 'OLD BOY'S CLUB' THAN WITH HAVING INTELLIGENT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT INCLUSIVITY IN THE PRIESTHOOD?

Cardinal George Pell, archbishop of Sydney, Australia, delivered the strongest defense of celibacy yet to the Synod of Bishops, a meeting that gives Pope Benedict XVI recommendations on running the church.

Pell praised what he called the "ancient tradition and life-giving discipline of mandatory celibacy.""To loosen this tradition now would be a serious error, which would provoke confusion in the mission areas and would not strengthen spiritual vitality" in the developed world, Pell said.

EXCUSE ME, CARDINAL PELL, WHILE I PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF HISTORY. IF YOU ENROLL IN CATHOLIC HISTORY 101, YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THE "ANCIENT TRADITION" IS ACTUALLY THAT OF A MARRIED PRIESTHOOD. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR EXPLANATION OF WHY YOU FEEL THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MARRIED PRIESTS WOULD CAUSE "CONFUSION." HEAVEN FORBID IF WE SHOULD "CONFUSE THE FAITHFUL" (A COMMON EXCUSE USED BY MEMBERS OF THE HIERARCHY).

"It would be a departure from the practice of the Lord himself, bring significant practical disadvantages to the work of the church," he said in remarks from the closed-door meeting distributed to reporters.

The priest shortage has been a major topic at the synod, but there have been no explicit recommendations to relax the celibacy requirement for priests to combat it, the Rev. John Bartunek, a synod spokesman, said Wednesday.

I AM A LITTLE PUZZLED, CARDINAL PELL. "DEPARTURE FROM THE PRACTICE OF THE LORD HIMSELF?" COME ON, CARDINAL PELL, GIVE ME A BREAK! DO YOU KNOW, WITHOUT QUESTION, THAT JESUS WAS CELIBATE? IF HE WAS CELIBATE, WAS THIS HIS GREATEST GIFT TO THE CHURCH? I THINK NOT! SPEND SOME TIME WITH SCRIPTURE, CARDINAL PELL. (JESUS TAUGHT US HOW TO MINISTER, AND DID NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF GENDER OR MARITAL STATUS.)

Some liberal Catholics and church reform groups say removing the celibacy rule for priests would encourage more men to join the priesthood and alleviate the shortage, which has forced the closure of hundreds of churches and clustering together of others.

I FULLY AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT. IT IS NOT ONLY LIBERAL CATHOLICS OR REFORM GROUPS ADVOCATING FOR INCLUSIVITY IN THE PRIESTHOOD. SOME POLLS INDICATE THAT AS MANY AS 80% OF CATHOLICS WORLDWIDE WOULD SUPPORT AN END TO MANDATORY CELIBACY FOR PRIESTS.

At the synod, most of the bishops who have raised the shortage have suggested that the church better redistribute the priests it has.

REDISTRIBUTING PRIESTS? OUR FEW REMAINING CELIBATE PRIESTS ARE ALREADY STRETCHED TO THE LIMIT! CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MORE PRIESTS OVER THE AGE OF 90 THAN PRIESTS UNDER THE AGE OF 30, DO WE WANT TO SEND ELDERLY PRIESTS TO AN EARLY GRAVE BY ASSIGNING THEM TO PARISH CLUSTERS AND ASKING THEM TO EMBARK UPON EXTENSIVE TRAVEL?

Some Eastern rite Catholic prelates - who are allowed to marry - have told the synod that a married priesthood introduced different problems, such as the financial strain on dioceses providing for a priests' family.

THE PROTESTANTS ARE ABLE TO MANAGE. WHY CAN'T CATHOLICS?

In another major issue, ecumenical delegates to the meeting of bishops urged the church to more readily allow non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, saying it could help foster unity.

Catholic teaching says Communion can only be given to non-Catholic Christians under certain circumstances, primarily because of differing interpretations of the sacrament. They can receive Communion if they desire it, request it and "manifest the faith" that Catholics profess toward the sacrament.

WHAT WOULD JESUS THINK ABOUT THE RESTRICTIVE NATURE OF HOLY COMMUNION IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH? (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR THE SYNOD TO ADDRESS.) JESUS WAS ABOUT INCLUSIVITY AT THE TABLE. HE EVEN WELCOMED TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS, AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EXCLUDES NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS?

Per Lonning, the bishop emeritus of the Lutheran Church in Norway, criticized the synod's working document, which scolded non-Catholic Christians for erroneously seeking Communion in Catholic churches.

Lonning said the reference made him "very sad" and suggested that if the document's references to the issue are published as the "official voice" of the Roman Catholic Church, ecumenical progress could be set back.

IN CONCLUSION, CARDINAL PELL, I LOOK FORWARD TO A TELEVISED DEBATE WITH YOU ON EWTN. (OOPS! I ALMOST FORGOT THAT EWTN CONSIDERS ME TO BE A HERETIC, BECAUSE I PROPOSE SOMETHING RADICAL - NAMELY, INCLUSIVITY.)

My New Ventures with 'CORPUS'

It has been a while since I posted anything to my blog. This is due in part to the fact that I have been busy preparing for my new venture.

My three-year elected term as national secretary of CORPUS (www.corpus.org) is coming to an end. Beginning in November, I will be the 'media liaison' for CORPUS. In this capacity, my writing will continue and I hope to have some interesting material to add to this blog.

Before giving you the final article I wrote as CORPUS Secretary, I thought I would share with you the unfortunate censhorship that currently exisits in the Rochester Diocese. Sadly, I am no longer able to send e-mails to employees of the diocese, because new restrictions block out any messages dealing with reform initiatives.

I don't blame Bishop Matthew Clark for the censorship policy, because he has been consistently friendly toward me and fair-minded in his response to my work in the church reform movement. I therefore blame certain administrators.

The following is my article that was published in the September/October edition of 'CORPUS Reports.'

Some Reflections As I Leave the CORPUS Boardby Ray Grosswirth, CORPUS Secretary

Although this will be my final ‘Ray’s Musings’ column as CORPUS Secretary, this will certainly not be my farewell to CORPUS. I consider all of you to be the equivalent of an extended family, so don’t expect me to recreate the scene of Roy Rogers and Dale Evans riding into the sunset, singing “Happy Trails to You.” On the contrary, I look forward to serving CORPUS in other ways, such as continuing to write occasional articles, being a media contact and continuing to be a thorn in the side of some of our more pesky bishops.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my cohorts over the past three years. Russ Ditzel, our President, has been a wonderful motivator, and I thank him for the creativity and enthusiasm he brought to the Board, which was inclusive of his reaching out to other reform groups and multiple mainstream Catholic organizations. Bill Wisniewski, our Treasurer, was very meticulous in his working toward a balanced budget and was a consistent driving force behind many of the initiatives we tried to forge as a team.

As you know, working with a three-member elected Board was a new experience for CORPUS. There were certainly challenges along the way in terms of the many responsibilities. However, I am extremely grateful for the friendship and good working relationship that existed between Russ, Bill and myself.

It is an understatement for me to articulate the fact that Russ Ditzel, Bill Wisniewski and yours truly could not have managed alone. So, I also want to thank our staff, inclusive of David Gawlik, Stu O’Brien, Joe Cece and Anthony Padovano. Their time and devotion to CORPUS have been, and will continue to be, invaluable to our community. Beyond our Board and staff, I am extremely grateful to Allen and Sylvia Moore for all the time they have invested in the outstanding conferences many of us have experienced. (Putting a conference together is not an easy task, and I admire all that Allen and Sylvia do for us.) I also want to thank Bill Manseau for his passion and devotion to pension advocacy initiatives and for the creativity he has demonstrated in his efforts to draw those called to ministry together in new and exciting ways.
There are so many other people I need to thank, but naming all of them would amount to a very long article. So, I will simply state that I am extremely grateful to all the support staff and CORPUS members who have shared their time and talents with us. I hope everyone will continue to assist the new Board in November.

Having said my thank-you’s, I want to close with a short wish-list, which amounts to a few changes I would like to see in the Roman Catholic Church - changes that would give more input to people in the pews. My list includes three items: 1.) Diocesan Newspapers; 2.) Ordination Policies; 3.) Relations with Persons of Other Faiths.

DIOCESAN NEWSPAPERS

If we look for a single identifiable source of church-related news that is available to most mainstream Catholics, it is safe to say that we need to look no further than a typical diocesan newspaper. While I prefer a publication such as the National Catholic Reporter to a diocesan newspaper, we must recognize the fact that NCR is read by a very small percentage of Roman Catholics. (Of course, I would love to have editions of ‘CORPUS Reports’ in the hands of all Catholics in the United States.)

Sadly, many used to subscribe to the old saying, “I only know what I read.” Apparently, our bishops still feel there is wisdom in this outdated slogan. So, for the average Catholics in the pews, all they see is the top-down filtered news that is featured in our mediocre diocesan publications. This leaves little or no room for people in the pews to articulate their feelings on important matters, such as parish closings, parish consolidations, the clergy shortage, women’s issues, ordination policies, etc. Reform groups are also excluded from diocesan newspapers; furthermore, reform groups are prohibited from circulating literature in parishes.

Diocesan newspapers have no potential, unless bishops who control them allow their editors to explore all sides of divisive issues. Our bishops need to understand that our laity have become increasingly educated, and there will come a point when collective wisdom will result in diocesan newspapers finding such uses as fish-wrappers or garbage can liners.

It is time for bishops to stop the censorship of church-related news. Diocesan newspapers are a good place to start.

ORDINATION POLICIES

I truly believe that the Roman Catholic Church will continue on a path to self-destruction, unless our hierarchy wakes up to the fact that mandatory celibacy simply does not work. Furthermore, as long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to exclude women from the priesthood, it will be the last of the large institutions to practice the sin of sexism.
Many political pundits have predicted that two of the leading candidates for the 2008 presidential election will be Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton. Just imagine: two women running for the highest office in the land, while the Roman Catholic Church continues to treat women as second-class citizens.

During my three years on the CORPUS Board, I have come to know a multitude of holy men and women who should, by all accounts, be the current leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, I have become increasingly frustrated over the fact that the faithful are being led by a hierarchy whose members are inclusive of many sexually-frustrated and paranoid bishops and cardinals. In fact, I would dare to say that Jesus might ask the following question: “How can such a group of inept men be placed in positions of leadership?”

Jesus challenged the religious authorities of his time. We are called to do no less. At a time when parishes are either closing or clustering, people in the pews need to realize that they need not be passive pawns in the game of chess in which bishops have taken on the role of kings. At the very least, we have a God-given right to demand that our bishops be pastoral in their practices. We also have the right to demand that all who are called to the priesthood (regardless of gender, marital status, or sexual orientation) should have their calls validated, as opposed to being shown the exit door by the powers-that-be.

RELATIONS WITH PERSONS OF OTHER FAITHS

Many of us have grown up with the teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Fortunately, Vatican II opened the door to a new understanding of ecumenism, whereby hope emerged for dialogue with our Anglican, Protestant, Eastern Rite, Orthodox and Evangelical brothers and sisters. Furthermore, we came to embrace the Jewish people as our biblical ancestors and we found paths to dialogue with the Muslim community as well.

To be fair, some progress has been made since Vatican II. In fact, it is encouraging that Pope Benedict XVI has indicated that he wants to continue dialogue with non-Catholics. However, it is my hope and prayer that in the spirit of true dialogue, there will be some listening on the part of our pontiff, for he just might learn the wisdom of other faiths that practice inclusivity on a regular basis. For example, he might find out that marriage works just fine for priests in the Eastern Rite, just as it does for Protestant ministers and Jewish rabbis. Perhaps in such a dialogue, he would even be impressed with women ministers who are wearing clerical collars.

CONCLUDING THOUGHT

As stated in my introductory remarks, I look forward to my continued membership in CORPUS. I want to thank all of you for the opportunity I had during the past three years to serve our community in the capacity of an executive Board member. The rewards have been many.

Let us continue to pray for a church that truly models the ministries of Jesus Christ.

The Forced Resignation of Thomas Reese

The big news over the past several days was the forced resignation of Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of 'America' magazine. My e-mail in-box was flooded with a vast array of articles on this sad development, which was actually in the works for the past five years under the supervision of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

My personal belief is that this is just the beginning of crackdowns by our new pontiff. If I had to guess, the Vatican will be going after the National Catholic Reporter and John Allen next. The only saving grace for NCR is that it is operated by the laity. (There is not much our pontiff can do, except threaten NCR editors with excommunication.)

My reaction is simply that we should not be fooled by the smiling face of Benedict XVI. There is perhaps wisdom in the old saying: "Beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing." Underneath the shining white robes of Benedict XVI is none other than Joseph Ratzinger the inquisitor.

Sadly, we will probably begin to see paranoia on the part of diocesan newspaper editors, whereby only the positions of the Vatican will be reflected in articles. It will be at that point when the church will be Roman Catholic in name, but communistic in structure. (Dictators are already in place.)

If there is any doubt that the Inquisition is alive and well, one needs to look no further than Benedict XVI. Let us pray for much needed intervention by the Holy Spirit.

Fortunate to be in Rochester

There are many days that I contemplate leaving Rochester in favor of a warmer climate. This may indeed a possibility for me as I move closer to my retirement years. Yet, I must say, from a Roman Catholic perspective, that I am fortunate to be in the Rochester Diocese, due in large part to the 'pastoral' leadership of Bishop Matthew Clark. Being in another diocese with an ultra-conservative bishop would be problematic at best. (One only has to read daily newspapers to gain a sense of how much turmoil and discontent there are in many dioceses throughout the United States and beyond.)

If you have read some of my web articles, you are aware of the fact that I am an advocate for inclusivity in the Roman Catholic priesthood. In many dioceses, priests who have entered into marriage are allowed to do no more than sit in pews on any given Sunday. They are not allowed to be eucharistic ministers, lectors, serve on committees or teach. Furthermore, many were forced to move out of their originating communities, so as not to cause scandal for the faithful (a rationale often cited by bishops). Part of my recent decision to pull out of my parish liturgical ministries (at least temporarily) is due to my desire to be in solidarity with those who are excluded from the table because of flawed church policies.

In many dioceses, there are still no altar girls. Furthermore, women are not allowed to touch sacred vessels, and in some dioceses, women lectors are rare. (I wonder what Jesus would think about this!) To add insult to injury, even when women are occasionally granted permission to preach by their bishops (unfortunately rare), enterprising conservatives in the pews write hateful letters to the Vatican.

In many dioceses, priests, deacons, women religious and parish employees are not allowed to speak out when their bishops act inappropriately, under penalty of what is often referred to as 'canonical punishments.' Furthermore, diocesan newspapers are not allowed to print alternate views to existing church policies. (When reformers such as myself are shut out of diocesan newspapers, we have no choice but to take our writings to mainstream media outlets.)

A well-known theologian recently stated the following to me: "You are very fortunate to have Matthew Clark in Rochester. He is a saint amongst bishops." I must agree with this assessment. Sadly, the days of pastoral bishops are coming to an end, especially considering our current pontiff was the former head of the notorious Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the office of the Inquisition).

Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) has stated that he would rather have a smaller church if necessary. He just might have his wish come true when members of the faithful who seek more inclusivity take the exit door. (I still have hope that the Holy Spirit will give Benedict XVI some much-needed advice.)

Notes on Papal Funeral/MSNBC Inquiry

I watched the funeral of John Paul II this morning and was admittedly very moved. It served as a reminder that as much as I loved the man for the world peace he worked tirelessy for, it is simply a shame that he wasn't more open to the roles of women, married men and gays in the church.

As the pontiff's casket was brought before the throngs of people gathered for this morning's Mass, there was thunderous applause (applause well-deserved). When the funeral was over, commentators puzzled over a daunting question: who could possibly step into his shoes?

If the election had been yesterday, the likely successor would have been Cardinal Ratzinger or Cardinal Arinze (both ultra-conservative). However, the momentum for an italian pope continues to build, which means that it could be entirely possible that the conclave will be inspired to elect Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi of Milan. Christoph Schoenborn of Austria is being mentioned with increased frequency as well. (My hope still rests in Cardinal Danneels of Brussels. However, I would be O.K. with either Cardinal Terramanzi or Cardinal Schoenborn, for all three of these men are on record for supporting talks on optional celibacy.)

A reporter from MSNBC e-mailed me this morning. She noticed in an article I wrote that I would be opposed to the election of Cardinal Arinze. She wanted to know if I would support any candidate from the third world. My response was that I would be delighted to have a third world pope, as long as he was open to the possibilities of reform. Tragically, Cardinal Arinze made headlines two years ago when he announced he was convinced that condoms were not effective in preventing AIDS. (In the meantime, 25 million Africans are dying of the disease. My position is that Arinze's plea for abstinence is not having noticeable results.) Arinze has also publicly stated that he is not open to discussions on optional celibacy or the ordination of women.

As much as I loved John Paul II for his efforts toward world peace, there are lingering issues that need addressing. One of the little-known facts of Vatican II is that Pope John XXIII was open to discussion on the issue of optional celibacy. However, following his death, his successor (Paul VI) had a spokesman announce over the public address system that celibacy would not be discussed in the concluding sessions of the council. Tragically, John Paul II stifled the discussion as well.

While I continue to mourn the loss of John Paul II, I also pray that the next pontiff will take a close look at the current ministry needs of the church. As the number of Catholics continues to increase, the number of clergy is steadily decreasing. This is why I have been working tirelessly on the celibacy issue.

I will be patient and see what transpires during the conclave that convenes on April 18.

The Pontificate of John Paul II

THE PONTIFICATE OF JOHN PAUL II
by Ray Grosswith, M.A., M.Div

I share in the world's sorrow as we mourn the loss of John Paul II. Because of my extensive writing during his papacy, I have naturally been asked by reporters to analyze the past 26 years.

Regretably, I never had an opportunity to sit down and chat with the late pontiff. If I had the honor, I have no doubt I would have found him to to be personable. Yet, at the same time, I am sure he would not have been pleased with my activities in the reform movement. Nevertheless, I wish the opportunity had presented itself for me to explain to him that the work I do is based upon the inclusive ministries modeled by Jesus. Sadly, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, under the pontificate of John Paul II, overturned many of the reform initiatives of Vatican II.

During this period of mourning, I wish with all my heart that I could give John Paul II a glowing review of his past 26 years as pope. However, if I am to give an honest assessment, I must list both the positives and negatives as follows:

There are areas where John Paul II has done extraordinarily well, and there are areas where he unfortunately turned the clock back to an earlier period.

A. THE POSITIVES

John Paul II has consistently been a champion of the cause for world peace. When all is said and done, historians will give him much credit for improved Jewish-Catholic relations and for his role in the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. Although I have been critical of many of the pontiff's administrative policies, it has been difficult for me to become angry with him, for my Judeo-Christian roots serve as a reminder of the role he played as a young priest in the Polish underground during the period of Nazi occupation. (Many Jews today can attribute their lives to the heroic actions of John Paul II in World War II Poland.)

THE NEGATIVES

Sadly, John Paul II turned the clock back in terms of his treatment of women in the Church. Although he stopped short of declaring infallibly that women cannot be ordained, he nevertheless stated that this is a closed issue and that Catholics are not to discuss it. He would simply not listen to reason on this issue, even when history and theology were used as tools for discussion.

I am personally very upset that John Paul II would not discuss the issue of optional celibacy. Although married priests were a tradition in the Roman Catholic Church through the year 1139, John Paul II felt it was necessary to keep the policy of mandatory celibacy in place. This has placed the Eucharist in jeopardy, because there are simply not enough celibate clergy available to celebrate Mass for the increasing multitudes of Roman Catholics. (The current ratio is one priest per 3,500 Catholics throughout the world. Optional celibacy would solve this problem.)In conjunction with the celibacy issue, John Paul II was ruthless in his treatment of priests who entered into marriage. Not only were they stripped of their canonical ministries, but they were not allowed to participate in any parish lay ministries as well. Sadly, many married priests were also stripped of their pensions and were asked to move out of their dioceses. Consequently, our pontiff has made married priests feel as though they are common criminals, when in fact was all they did was follow their call to God-given relationships with their wives.

It was very disturbing for me to have John Paul II treat gays and lesbians as outcasts during his pontificate. Rather than exploring the sexual abuse crisis in an honest way, he chose to put the blame on homosexuality. Sadly, many in the gay and lesbian communities now feel ostracized by the Roman Catholic Church.

FINAL ANALYSIS

Although John Paul II was a champion of human rights throughout his pontificate, this justice unfortunately did not translate to increased roles for Catholic women, the acceptance of gay and lesbians, or discussion of the issue of optional celibacy for priests. The next pope will need to address these issues and work toward a church that is more inclusive.

MY REPORT CARD FOR JOHN PAUL II

1.) He gets an 'A' for his work toward world peace.

2.) He gets an 'A' for his work on Jewish-Catholic relations.

3.) He gets a 'B' for his relationship with cardinals and bishops.

4.) He gets a 'B' for his work on ecumenism.

5.) He gets a 'B-' for his relationship with the clergy (priests, deacons).

6.) He gets a 'B-' for his encyclicals.

7.) He gets a 'C' for his approach to liturgy.

8.) He gets a 'D' for his treatment/understanding of women.

9.) He gets a 'D' for his approachh to the modern world.

10.) He gets a 'D' for his work toward inclusivity in the church.

11.) He gets an 'E' for his treatment of gays and lesbians.

12.) He gets an 'E' for his treatment of priests who entered into marriage.

13.) He gets an 'E' for his understanding, or lack thereof, of the current ministry needs of the church.

By my calculations, the above makes John Paul II an average ('C') pope.

By all accounts, John Paul II was a very good man. I therefore have no doubt that the angels in heaven welcomed him with open arms. I simply pray that the next pontiff will return to the reform initiatives that were carefully crafted during the many sessions of Vatican II.

A Reflection on Terri Schiavo's Death

A Reflection on Terri Schiavo's Death
by Ray Grosswirth, M.A., M.Div

When the news of Terri Schiavo's death was announced on March 31, I found that my feelings fluctuated between those of relief and sadness. On one hand, I am relieved the media circus and political wrangling are over; on the other hand, I am saddened over the family struggle that permeated the 15-year debate over Terri's well-being.

Whatever one's feeling were throughout this long ordeal, I pray there will be reconciliation between opposing sides during this period of mourning. At the very least, we should pray there is no violence from radical elements within the religious right.

Having witnessed Terri's ordeal play out on our television screens the past few weeks, I can't emphasize enough how important it is to articulate one's health-care wishes in writing. It appears that Terri Schiavo indicated verbally to her husband that she did not want to be kept alive by extraordinary means if she were in a vegetative state. However, because her wishes were never formalized via either a health care proxy or living will, the result was a family feud in which Mrs. Schiavo became a political pawn, whereby the religious right argued for her life and others argued for her right to die with dignity.

I find that I can't sit in criticism of either Terri Schiavo's parents or husband. My position has always been, and continues to be, that we can't honestly judge a life and death health-related situation unless we are actually involved in the decision ourselves. Obviously, there was strong love between Terri and her husband, just as there was strong love between Terri and her parents.

I am perhaps angry over this case because of the fact that the religious right has placed itself in a position of judgment, whereby they felt it was in Terri Schiavo's best interest to be kept alive via her feeding tube. The question I have is: "Was it in Terri's best interest, or was it in the best interest of the religious right?"

Sadly, the media gave us mixed medical information about Terri Schiavo. Consequently, we did not know the full extent of her brain activity. Her parents told us she was able to recognize them. Her husband stated that she was essentially brain-dead. If there is one blessing in all of this, it is that both sides have agreed to an autopsy, which should help us toward better understanding of the medical parameters of this tragedy.

During the final stages of my graduate theological studies, I served for a year as a chaplain in St. Mary's Hospice in Rochester, New York. I can therefore testify to the compassionate treatment that is given to persons in the final stages of life. I have every reason to believe that Terri Schiavo was treated with the very same compassion and that she died in peace and comfort.

May God's grace touch all who now mourn the passing of Terri Schiavo.

A New Gospel of Mary Magdalene

A NEW GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE
by Ray Grosswirth, M.A., M.Div

INTRODUCTION

If I had written this during the period of the Inquisition, there is no doubt I would have been condemned to a terrible fate. In today’s day and age, there are still those who might label me as a heretic for writing what follows. However, please keep in mind that this is simply a product of my imagination. It is designed to give you a perception of Mary Magdalene that will perhaps lead the Roman Catholic hierarchy to consider the many ways it has tarnished the reputation of a saintly women who can rightfully claim the title of ‘Apostle to the Apostles.’

THE SETTING

The date is approximately 5 A.D. and the setting is a small desert community in the vicinity of Nazareth. During this year, Mary Magdalene was born. While little is known of her parents, her birth was short of miraculous, for the same three wise men who came from afar to visit a child in Nazareth several years earlier, also decided to visit this baby girl - once again, guided by a star.

From the time Mary Magdalene was a little girl, she displayed a keen intellect and was full of questions. She also managed to disguise herself, so that she could worship with her male childhood friends in the Nazarean synagogue, which was approximately five miles from her home.

MARY MAGDALENE’S FIRST ENCOUNTER WITH JESUS

In the year 15 A.D., Mary found herself seated next to a teenage boy, who at that time was approximately 15 years old. His name was Jesus. To her surprise, he boldly challenged the rabbis who were responsible for educating the young concerning their faith. He spoke about following his Father’s will and the need to pay attention to those in need. After astonishing those present in the synagogue, Jesus walked out quietly, fearing that his elders might physically oust him.

Mary decided to follow Jesus through the exit door, whereupon she removed her disguise. As one can expect, Jesus was quite stunned to learn that the person who was seated next to him in the synagogue was indeed a young girl, who at this time was only 10 years old. Both Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a lengthy discussion about the courage Jesus displayed by challenging his neighborhood’s religious authorities. Jesus in turn had a good laugh over Mary’s courage concerning her disguise that allowed her to worship with her male counterparts.

Jesus took a liking to Mary and told her he hoped she would seek him out when she arrived at a marrying age. After several years had passed, Mary indeed began to wonder about the whereabouts of Jesus, the childhood friend who had befriended her.

MANY YEARS LATER

In the year 25 A.D. (Jesus was approximately 25 years old and Mary Magdalene was approximately 20 years old), Mary began to hear stories about a young man who worked as a carpenter in the city of Sepphoris. Sepphoris was a fairly large city dominated by the Romans and Jesus managed to use his carpentry skills to suit the material needs of the Roman aristocracy who ruled much of the surrounding area. Jesus managed to find a safe balance in such an environment by working quietly at his craft and sneaking out of town at night to deal with many issues of faith and the special bond between himself and his Father - a relationship he would not fully understand until several years later.

On a particularly chilly afternoon, Mary Magdalene wandered into Sepphoris. She went from house to house, inquiring about a man named Jesus. Just as she began to feel her journey was fruitless, a man appeared behind her and placed his cloak over her her so that she could be free of the frigid air. To her astonishment, it was Jesus of Nazareth. They instinctively hugged, for they had both sensed that a combination of fate and God’s will would eventually bring them together.

Jesus and Mary talked non-stop for several hours, for they had several years of lapsed time to piece together. When their conversation ended, Jesus told Mary that after his earthly father (Joseph) died, his mother (Mary) encouraged him to seek out his spiritual Father’s will. Although Mary Magdalene did not understand this quest, Jesus assured her it would make sense in the near future.

JESUS AND MARY MAGDALENE ARE MARRIED

Jesus and Mary went on to develop a very close relationship. This relationship became formalized in the ritual of marriage, which took place in Sepphoris. The chief local rabbi officiated and Mary, the mother of Jesus, attended the couple. (During the first two years of their marriage, Jesus and Mary had two children.)

When Jesus was thirty years old, and Mary Magdalene was 25, they began to hear about John the Baptist, who was preaching about the need for repentance. Jesus instinctively knew he had to see him. He kissed Mary goodbye and told her he would return immediately after visiting John. (It was at this point that Mary began to realize that Jesus was following the will of his Father and that his meeting with John the Baptist would forever change him and their relationship.)

THE MISSION OF JESUS

After Jesus was baptized by John at the river Jordan, he immediately set out to return to his wife (Mary Magdalene). Along the way, he was tempted in the desert by Satan. Having rebuked Satan, he returned to Mary, whereby he revealed the full will of the Father to her. Part of this will was to gather up disciples, so that news of the Kingdom of God could be spread throughout the ancient world.

After Jesus gathered his disciples, they traveled with him, along with their wives and children, city by city, until they finally reached their ultimate destination of Jerusalem. It was here that a clash of values would come to a climax between Jesus and Roman authorities.

Contrary to popular belief, there was very little friction between Jesus and the Jews who resided in Jerusalem. For all intents and purposes, Jesus was Jewish and had no reason to alienate his own people. Yet, because a select few of the Jewish leaders feared that Jesus might antagonize the Romans over his preaching about the Kingdom of God, they enticed Judas Iscariot to keep an eye on him. Although most Jews continued to support and befriend Jesus, Judas nevertheless put events into place that were foreshadowed in early predictions by Jesus.

THE PASSION

Sensing that his time was near, Jesus met privately with his wife (Mary Magdalene) and Mary (his mother). While they begged him to come with them to Sepphoris, they also realized there was a purpose to his being in Jerusalem. After a long sorrowful conversation, Jesus instructed both Marys to take care of his children and to make sure they stayed out of harm’s way. (Mary Magdalene made provisions for the children to travel to Sepphoris, while she and the mother of Jesus remained for the events that were to follow.)

On what would come to be known as Holy Thursday, the disciples and their wives, along with Jesus and Mary Magdalene, gathered for a Passover meal. Jesus instructed all gathered to break bread and drink wine in memory of him. He also warned them that future generations would try to exclude women from such a meal, but at the same time, encouraged them to press ahead, despite warnings they might receive from religious authorities.

THE RESURRECTION

As the Gospel writers Mark, Matthew, Luke and John have testified, Jesus was crucified by the Romans and buried, and he rose again on the third day. However, what was not related by the four Gospel writers is the fact that Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene for a reason. It was not only because she was his beloved wife; it was also because he sensed that the voices of women would be squashed by future generations. He also sensed that male religious authorities might turn Mary Magdalene into a sinner for their own sinister purposes. Jesus therefore chose Mary to spread the good news of the resurrection, in the hope that Mary’s place in history would be preserved as ‘apostle to the apostles.’

MARY MAGDALENE REDEEMED

As Jesus predicted, the reputation of his beloved wife (Mary Magdalene) would be tarnished for many centuries, due to the male-dominated church that emerged bearing his name. It wasn’t until the year 1969 that the Vatican finally announced to the world what most of us knew already: Mary Magdalene was not a sinner; she was rather apostle to the apostles and continues to be a model for all of us.

Having read my imaginative account of the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, you may be wondering what my motives are. My primary purpose is to articulate a dignity to Mary Magdalene – a dignity that was denied her by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church for close to 2,000 years. Recent scholarship has shed new light on her remarkable life. We can now say with complete certainty that she was not the sinner as depicted in numerous paintings from the medieval period. We also have come to learn that following the death of Jesus, Mary Magdalene continued to spread the good news of the resurrection.

Sadly, when the fathers of the church decided to formulate what has come to be known as doctrine, part of their process was to eliminate references to women who were instrumental in building the church of the first century. They further placed Mary, the mother of Jesus, on a pedestal, identifying obedience as her most noble trait. Thanks be to God, we have finally come to recognize the genuine humanity of both the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (who I have theorized to be the wife of Jesus).

Whether or not one subscribes to the theory of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene, I like to think there is universal agreement on the fact that she was perhaps the best example we have in the Gospel tradition of what it means to be a true disciple. The Vatican was perhaps successful in covering up this fact through 1969. However, now that we know the truth, we should be praying to Mary Magdalene every day for guidance in a church that is on a road to self-destruction. I pray that she and all the good women in our church reclaim the inclusivity that was willed to us by Jesus of Nazareth. An exclusive church cannot survive. Noone understood that more than Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

In Defense of 'The Da Vinci Code'

I can't say that I am surprised by the Vatican's condemnation of 'The Da Vinci Code.' It is just another example of the paranoia that permeates the psychoses of our cardinals in Rome. Admittedly, there is an element of humor with all this hysteria. First and foremost, the Vatican should realize by now that when they instruct the faithful not to read something, it will only enourage more people to buy the book. So, anyone who hasn't read 'The Davinci Code' will certainly pick up a copy now. Secondly, the Vatican is unwittingly providing great pre-publicity for Ron Howard's movie version of 'The Davinci Code.' (I am assuming it will be released in 2006, with Tom Hanks in the starring role.)

The Vatican's condemnation is reminiscent of 'The Inquisition' of the medieval period. If 'The Davinci Code' had been written during that period, it woud have certainly found itself on the list of 'forbidden books.' Since millions of Catholics now possess a copy of 'The Davinci Code,' it is unlikely the Vatican will send its henchmen after readers who refuse to burn their books. (Sadly, victims of the Inquisition suffered torture and worse for simply possessing books deemed to be inappropriate by the supreme pontiff.)

It is important at this juncture to state that 'The DaVinci Code' is a work of fiction. Yet, the assumptions and theories presented by the author are highly relevant, as they relate to current debates in the Roman Catholic Church. Certainly, as the priesthood shortage continues to be a center-stage topic, there seems to be overwhelming interest in the sexuality of Jesus. This translates to the corresponding issues of married priests and the ordination of women.

Since many of my friends and co-workers have read this book, they have naturally asked me if I believe Jesus was married. Correspondingly, I have been asked if I feel he was married to Mary Magdalene, as the author of this book implies, in addition to the intriguing idea of Jesus and Mary having raised children. Finally, since Opus Dei is mentioned in the book, I have been asked for my impressions/opinions of the organization.

Whether or not Jesus was married cannot be proven one way or another, simply because our resources are limited. Scripture lacks the proof we need to solve this mystery. Yet, this doesn't mean that we need to throw our hands in the air in a state of despair. Just as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was an unexpected surprise, it is entirely possible that first century documents are buried somewhere that could shed new insights into the personal life of Jesus. At present, I stand by the assumption that it is entirely possible that Jesus was married, considering that he lived with, and traveled amongst married members of the Jewish community.

If Jesus was married, it seems that Mary Magdalene would be the primary candidate for his wife. Although the Roman Catholic hierarchy tried its best to discredit her for many centuries, careful scholarship has shed new light on her role as an apostle to the apostles. When the male disciples fled, following the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus, it was Mary Magdalene who stayed by his side. Furthermore, the author of 'The DaVinci Code' presents the possibility that Mary Magdalene was the mysterious person seated next to Jesus in Leonardo DaVinci's painting of 'The Last Supper.' Thus, minus a chalice in the painting, Mary comes to represent the living 'Holy Grail,' which becomes further manifested by the bloodline traced to Mary & Jesus. Again, all this is conjecture, but not to the point of dismissing it as fantasy.

How wonderful it would indeed be if persistent scholarship were to definitely prove that Jesus was married - whether it was to Mary Magdalene or someone else. This would place our hierarchy in the embarrassing situation of having to explain why it enforced mandatory celibacy for so many centuries. (The idea of the pope with egg on his face is a rather amusing conception.)

Finally, I wish to offer some closing thoughts about Opus Dei, since the organization is mentioned in 'The DaVinci Code.' To be fair, I am reluctant to categorize Opus Dei as a cult. I would simply describe them as extremely conservative, and I can't say I would endorse their practices. Their website is rather misleading, in that it implies Opus Dei is simply an organization that combines faith and work in the context of devoted membership. Yet, their spirituality can perhaps be best described as reminiscent of the Tridentine era, whereby a theology of suffering and self-sacrifice are the driving forces of their members. They are also passionate in the protection of the status quo, and are therefore closed to progressive ideas.

I have not personally gone out of my way to investigate Opus Dei. However, I thought CNN did a wonderful job last year, whereby anchor Anderson Cooper provided two interpretations of Opus Dei. In brief, a former member of the organization criticized methods of self-inflicted suffering that are used, such as beating oneself with a spiked instrument. (This is supposed to allow a person to experience the suffering of Christ.) On the other hand, a defender of Opus Dei stated that reports of self-inflicted suffering are exaggerated.

In the final analysis, Opus Dei is not for me. However, interested parties are certainly welcome to explore the organization. As with any group or association, I would hope that any prospective member will research all the parameters.

Whether or not one subscribes to the theories presented in 'The DaVinci Code,' we can at least be thankful for the questions and insights that are emerging as a result a book that has captured the imaginations of a multitude of readers.

Our esteemed cardinals at the Vatican need to get a life. If they have nothing better to do than pick on a book, perhaps the pope can find a more lucrative project for them.

Celibacy: The Elephant in the Room

The topic of priestly celibacy has correctly been called 'the elephant in the room.' While I don't blame celibacy for the sexual abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church, there is every reason to believe it is a contributing factor.

It would be extremely helpful if American bishops removed the 'fear factor' from public dialogue on discussions relating to the Roman Catholic priesthood. However, the reality is that some bishops will go to any length in an attempt to suppress or squash open and honest dialogue on an outdated poliicy that continues to place our sacramental system in severe jeopardy.

To cite an example of suppressed conversation, Archbishop Timothy Dolan has forbidden public discussion amongst priests on the topic of clerical celibacy in Milwaukee. (When petitions were circulated nationwide in favor of optional celibacy, 185 priests from Milwaukee were the first to sign.) In the meantime, my contacts in Milwaukee have informed me that Archbishop Timothy Dolan has threatened to punish any priest who publicly states he is in support of optional celibacy. (You may also recall that he disciplined a pastor for allowing a meeting to take place in his parish on the issue of the ordination of women, and Dolan further threatened to shut down the diocesan newspaper for covering the meeting.)

When priests are not allowed to speak to reporters about the issue of optional celibacy, when diocesan newspapers are not allowed to print stories about optional celibacy, and when priests face removal from their ministries for pursuing honest and consensual relationships, it is no wonder that we are seeing so many problems emerge in today's church climate.

We have an excellent 'religious issues' reporter in Rochester, New York and I would love to see her do a story on the celibacy issue. Yet, the reality is that I would have a very difficult time getting local priests to speak with her on this topic. I suppose there is potential for a story about the imposition of mandatory celibacy, and related problems it causes for married persons such as myself who are called to the priesthood. However, this in itself would not make for a very interesting story. What would make the story powerful would perhaps be interviews with priests who made commitments to celibacy, but are nevertheless called to relationships.

My sense is that the only Rochester priests who would be willing to talk to a reporter are those who would defend the discipline of mandatory celibacy, for priests making such statements of defense would not find themselves in trouble. However, the sad reality is that as much as I like and respect Bishop Matthew Clark, I have no doubt that he would discipline any local priests who spoke to reporters in favor of optional celibacy. (The Vatican would require him to discipline priests in such a case.)

Tragically, everyone realizes that celibacy is the 'elephant in the room.' However, noone in a position to make an impact on the topic is allowed to speak about it. I want to extend my sincere thanks to the Milwaukee priests who had the courage to articulate their desire for change. It is indeed a shame that Archbishop Timothy Dolan saw fit to threaten them with the hammer of hierarchical authority.

Much Debate on New Book: "Priests in Love"

It was called to my attention this morning that the Beliefnet website is currently hosting a debate of the book, "Priests in Love." (There were 728 postings as of this morning.)

I will need to read the book in order to offer a fair objective analysis. However, the topic should not be surprising to those of us who have studied and written about the topic of priestly celibacy.
Per the following book review, "Priests in Love" is not about sexual abuse. It is rather an honest look at 'consensual' relationships that many priests are engaged in. (I personally don't fault any priests who are in relationships of this sort.)

My argument continues to be that some priests are called to a life of celibacy, and some are not. Whether or not priests called to relationships can in fact live celibate lives remains an interesing paradox. (I would much rather see priests in such a dilemma pursue a normal, consensual relationship than resort to anything 'unnatural' as a result of sexual frustrations. Therefore, it should be no surprise there is great interest in this book, for it seems to present an honest picture of priests who fall in love, yet find the need to keep the relationships secret as a result of their commitment of mandatory celibacy to their bishops.)

A married priest recently told me that he and his wife had a 'secret' relationship for seven years when he was a parish pastor and she was a nun with the Sisters of St. Joseph. (This book will hopefully get the message out that there are many of these relationships - relationships that are driven underground due to the oppressive policy of mandatory celibacy.)

Here is the book review:

PRIESTS IN LOVE: Catholic Clergy and Their Intimate Friendships
Review taken from Continuum Catalogue, T&T Clark International, Religion Spring 2005

"Although it reads with the ease of a novel, the power of this book is inestimable for furthering a productive dialogue on the sexual issues facing the Catholic Church precisely because it gives voice to real people, real priests, and their companions. These lives challenge any reader to re-examine her or his own life, sexual ideas, and moral compass. After reading it, I decided that it should be dedicated to the Pope and be required reading for every bishop." Richard Sipe, author of Celibacy in Crisis: A Secret World Revisited

"No one has captured with greater understanding and insight the personal, human struggles of priests coping with mandated, institutionalized celibacy than Jane Anderson. This moving and compelling book, both gracefully written and grace-filled, is destined to shake the foundations of obligatory celibacy." Donald Cozzens, Sacred Silence: Denial and the Crisis in the Church
In the 1960s and '70s , thousands of Roman Catholic priests left the active ministry to get married. Nothing like this had been seen on this scale since the French Revolution, and before that since the Reformation. Now a different phenomenon seems to be at work: priests who have formed long-time, intimate sexual friendships. These men are not pedophiles or sexual abusers. They are adult, mature men who can no longer find a rationale for a life of obligatory celibacy and enter into responsible sexual relationships. Some of them are straight, some gay. Based on interviews, conducted over a nine-year period, with 50 Australian priests, Priests in Love tells the stories of these priests and their friends. It deals with the moral, psychological and social challenges they face on the less traveled road of social change.

Jane Anderson, mother of four teenage children, received her PhD in anthropology in 2004. She lives in Yakamia, Western Australia, and has been actively involved in Australian Catholic life for over twenty years.

Voices of "Priests in Love"

"If truly the command of God is to love, then I feel our love is where God can be found. As for celibacy, it's an injustice insofar as it is mandatory, and God can't be found in that kind of contradiction." - Fr. Abe

"Promises are conditioned by their contexts and are not absolutes in themselves. If the context loses its validity, so then does the promise. I made it originally in good faith, with the understanding of the situation I had at the time. But eventually the context changed, and my faith in the purpose, place, and even probity of the promise dissolved." - Fr. Thomas

"I am definitely in favor of celibacy - for those who freely opt for it as a way of loving God. The vow of celibacy is only for a few. Theirs is a noble choice and a clear sign that they are men/women of deeply sensitive love. But celibacy should never be required of persons as part of a package deal for priestly ordination." - Fr. James.

How Would You Like to be Pope for a Day?

As the world focuses on the health of Pope John Paul II, there has been much speculation about who will step into his shoes. The selection of the next pontiff will rest upon a very basic question: Who will best suit the present needs of our church - a long-term pope or short-term pope? Those leaning toward a long-term pontiff tend to favor Milan's cardinal. In terms of a short-term pope, names often mentioned are Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Arinze (both ultra-conservative).

In conjunction with Cardinal Ratzinger, reformers such as myself worry about the amount of damage he could do the church, even during a short period. Skeptics raise the question: How much damage can he possibly do over a couple years? My answer is: Someone like Ratzinger could inflict much damage, even during the course of one day. For example, he could conceivably declare infallibly that women may never be ordained, or he could declare infallibly that Christ willed celibacy for priests (which would obviously be both a doctrinal and theological error on his part).

Being somewhat of an imaginative person, I created an unlikely scenario, and then asked two corresponding questions: 1.) What could a bad pope do in one day? 2.) What could a good pope do in one day?

Many of us who are are old enough to recall the infancy days of television can remember a game show that was called, "Queen For A Day." The show began with the host screaming in a loud voice, "How would you like to be queen for a day?" Pre-picked contestants were then invited to come to the stage and tell various tales of woe. Whoever gained the most sympathy, as a result of votes registered on an applause meter, became crowned and received an assortment of prizes. The scenario may seem silly by today's standards, but the show was extremely popular in the 1950s.

As I thought about this game show, I began to wonder if the Vatican would score higher ratings if it were to sponsor a weekly broadcast entitled "Pope For a Day." In such a scenario, contestants would be invited to appear on live television, whereby they would be expected to articulate what they felt they could accomplish in a 24-hour period. In such an 'unreality' show, cardinals and bishops would not be allowed to vote, for they would obviously select the candidate who stated he or she would do nothing except protect the status quo. Therefore, those eligible to vote for a 24-hour pontiff would be priests, deacons, nuns and laity.

The more I thought about "Pope For A Day," I was reminded of another television program that is currently drawing large audiences. It is simply called, "24." It centers on a day in the life of a government agent, whereby each of 24 episodes focuses on one hour of the day. This format would work very nicely with "Pope For a Day." In brief, the winning contestant would have his or her day divided into 24 televised hours, with each hour dedicated to a particular task or decision by the new pontiff.

As I pondered further on this unlikely situation, I tried to picture myself as a winning contestant. I then had to decide how I would divide my 24-hours. While I am sure I could come up with some projects to fill my day, there are a few preliminary items that would take precedent: 1.) I would get rid of the rite, "Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest." (Why should we need such a celebration, when there is an abundance of married priests?) 2.) I would declare all prior ordinations of women as valid and reverse their excommunications, and would then ordain as many qualified women as possible in my allotted day. 3.) I would order all celibate priests who are long overdue for vacations/relaxation/medical attention to take some time off, whereby married priests would serve as substitutes. 4.) I would end mandatory celibacy for priests. 5.) I would ordain married men, in addition to women, as already mentioned. 6.) I would end the antiquated annulment process, in favor of a type of responsible marriage preparation that would not discriminate against divorced persons. 7.) I would order each diocese to provide suitable pension programs for all priests, whether they be celibate or married.

I wonder how many of us have pondered over what we would do differently, if we had brief control over the Vatican. Ultimately, however, Roman Catholicism should not be about power. Instead, we should be focused on ministry. Nevertheless, we are hindered in our ministries, due to roadblocks anchored in cement by the powers-that-be. It seems that the Vatican is more interested in control and would rather allow priestless parishes than consider a more inclusive clergy as a solution. Unless our pontiff and cardinals are willing to consider the prospects of change, it is not only priestless parishes that will be of concern, but perhaps parishes without the faithful as well. Then the scenario will be: Who would like to be a Catholic for a day?

Concerning Church Structures and the Faithful

As I reflected on the word 'structures', it has traditionally come to have two meanings in the context of Roman Catholicism: 1.) It can obviously refer to the buildings that house our worship communities; 2.) It can also refer to the hierarchical pyramid that is responsible for the leadership of our Church. Both types of structures have their benefits and liabilities. For example, we take great pride in our places of worship, while at the same time, cringe when expensive repairs are needed. We can also take pride in our structural leadership when we are moving in a positive direction, or we can become quite angry when one of our bishops or cardinals takes action that may be perceived as an abuse of power.

I have a strong sense that our priests and laity occasionally feel lost amongst our immense structures, whether they be our buildings or a large contingency of bishops and cardinals. We are then faced with the question: Is the Church about structures or people?

When considering the buildings that house our worship, we can find grand structures throughout the world, many of which have been standing for several centuries. Since these holy places were built by our ancestors, we tend to take great pride in maintaining them for as many years as possible. When new places of worship need to be built, as in the case of our ancestors, we tend to shop for the best materials and construct worship spaces that reflect our current theological/environmental/pastoral realities.

I am the first to admit that I stand in awe when I am in the midst of a beautiful worship space, whether it reflects either an earlier era or a contemporary design. Yet, at the same time, I find that I often reflect back to the humbleness of Jesus and the leaders of our earliest church communities. I then have to wonder what Jesus would think of the immense cathedrals and worship spaces we have constructed over many centuries. Would he be impressed, or would he scold us for paying more attention to structures than the needs of believers? Perhaps this is a stretch of the imagination, but I truly believe that Jesus would tell us: "The simpler, the better." In many respects, it is perhaps the small faith communities that best reflect the house churches that were commonplace in the first century. Yet, even in large communities, perhaps we need to pay more attention to our ministries than grand architectural designs that cost us millions of dollars. If we are building massive granite or marble structures at the expense of the poor, the sick and the needy, there is much wisdom that can be gained by reflecting on the Beatitudes: Blessed are the poor..........................."

As we discuss structures in terms of our hierarchy, we can clearly see the potential for the misuse of power. To the credit of Vatican II, priests and laity are only beginning to find their rightful voices. One only needs to read textbooks printed prior to the 1970s to notice the familiar pattern in which church history was written. Generally, we would read about the long succession of popes, cardinals and bishops who made significant contributions to the development of our church. Vatican II finally recognized that our priests, women religious and laity have contributed much to our history, although they were deliberately kept out of written accounts. This is beginning to change, thanks be to God!

By focusing on church structures, whether they be buildings or members of our hierarchy, we do a great disservice to the faithful priests, nuns and lay men and women who have been the cornerstone of Roman Catholicism since its inception. Without the people, there would be no hierarchy, and there would be no buildings. Yet, at the risk of sounding disobedient, we have somehow allowed ourselves to be subservient to our bishops and cardinals. Our clergy and people in the pews have much to offer, in terms of gifts, time and spirituality. Yet, as long as we are led to believe we are only good Catholics if we continue to support our structures, there is only going to be friction between ourselves and the powers-that-be.

If the Roman Catholic Church is to become a better place, it must become more inclusive. In order for this to happen, we must become a community that cares more about people than structures. In this regard, our hierarchy needs to pay attention to recent polls conducted amongst our clergy and laity, rather than dismissing them.

In the final analysis, we will still need our structures. However, when they overshadow the basic needs of believers, the Kingdom of God remains an unfulfilled dream. I therefore continue to pray each day for a Roman Catholic Church that is more inclusive, and for a Roman Catholic Church that puts more worth in the faithful as its cornerstone, as opposed to a piece of granite.

A Puzzling Paradox

Since 2002 , I have been puzzling over a paradox that has become increasingly clear as the pedophilia crisis in the Roman Catholic Church continues to capture headlines. In brief, it is interesting to note that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church went to great lengths, over the course of several decades, to protect pedohiles. Paradoxically, at the same time, the Vatican has been quick to punish good priests who have simply entered into marriage out of genuine love. Is something wrong here?

When one examines this paradox closely, it becomes perfectly clear that our hierarchy has serious hang-ups concerning sexuality. To understand this better, we need to go back to 1139 and the corresponding Inquisition which was to last several decades. (Some would argue that the Inquisition never ended.) While several attempts were made to mandate celibacy prior to 1139, whereby the solitary life of monks was held up as a model, the year 1139 was the pivotal year whereby celibacy was not only emphasized, but mandated under harsh terms. With the advent of the Inquistion, it was discovered that secret marriages were still taking place, whereby Inquisitors sought out such unions and dished out what they perceived to be appropriate punishments. Consequently, the married priesthood was gone, but not forgotten.

During the several centuries Roman Catholicism has lived with mandatory priestly celibacy, the hieararchy has thrived in an environment of secrecy. To ensure this secret society, a priest going through the ordination rites routinely made, and continues to make two promises: 1.) obedience to his bishop and 2.) commitment to a life of celibacy.

Through my involvement with CORPUS, I have come to know many priests who have entered into marriage. Unlike the Church hierarchy, you will note that I don't use the term "former priests." While some have elected to go through the process of becoming laicized, others have found ways to continue their priestly ministries. When our hierarchy continues to use celibacy as the determining factor as to who can and who cannot be called a Roman Catholic priest, I am inclined to believe our Magisterium needs to reflect back to the first century Church. In fact, a scenario I continue to picture is that of Peter returning to us for a convocation of priests. I have a sense he would ask a simple question: "Where are your wives?"

How does the Magisterium expect us to take its members seriously when it continues to operate under the umbrella of secrecy and silence on the pedophilia issue? Perhaps more import, how can some of our cardinals and bishops protect guilty priests and at the same time punish good priests for either desiring healthy relationships or entering into marriages?

Through enforced celibacy, members of our hierarchy are contributing in an indirect way toward the suppressed sexuality of priests who are not called to a celibate life. This can lead to problems, some of which are just beginning to surface. This is not to say that celibacy is the cause of pedophilia. Yet, an environment of enforced celibacy can be both attractive to a potential pedophile and a springboard for illicit behavior.

My remarks are in no way designed to insult the many wonderful priests in our ranks who are genuinely called to a life of celibacy. We owe a debt of gratitude to these faith-filled men who continue to serve unselfishly. Yet, I continue to worry about those who commit themselves to a life of celibacy, when in reality they are not called to this way of life; some are able to adjust and others are unable to commit in a healthy way.

When a priest chooses to marry, he should not be required to apply for the laicized state. In fact, some choose not to, thereby incurring the wrath of the powers-that-be. Here lies the paradox: A pedophile priest is bounced from parish to parish, protected by the hierarchy. However, a priest who chooses to marry is forced out of his ministry.

My goal is not to replace celibate priests with married ones. Rather, there is room amongst the ranks of the clergy for celibate men, married men and women. As long as the Pope continues to require a celibate, all-male clergy, the present climate of secrecy will continue and Jesus will continue to weep.

The Question of Being in Union with Rome

As tension in the Roman Catholic Church intensifies, I have been examining the question of what it means to be a Roman Catholic. More specifically, I have been challenged by conservative Catholics in recent weeks and have been repeatedly asked: "Are you in union with Rome?"

There is no debate about my being a Roman Catholic. I subscribe fully to the Creed and try to live out a sacramental life to its fullest. I attend Mass every Sunday, and am active in my parish as a lay minister. Yet, I continue to be challenged by divisive issues.

For the past several years, I have been openly challenging our hierarchy on far-reaching issues, whereby I have been advocating the following: 1.) ordination of married men; 2.) the welcoming back of priests who entered into marriage; 3.) ordination of women; 4.) full inclusion of gay and lesbians; 5.) abolishing the annulment process; 6.) liturgical reform; 7.) freedom of expression on Church policy matters. Many of my campaigns concerning these issues have been articulated either in writing or public forums. Therefore, I have essentially moved from private dissent to public dissent.

If being in union with Rome means following the practices of our faith, there is no question of my being a Roman Catholic. Yet, if being in union with Rome means subscribing to all the teachings of the Magisterium, I suppose my membership in the Roman Catholic Church is open to question.

I maintain my right as a Roman Catholic to challenge any teaching of the Magisterium that deviates in any way from the original mission of our Church. Furthermore, when the Magisterium chooses to remain silent when the faithful desire dialogue, my position is simply that it is the hierarchy that has fallen out of union.

When we examine our faith and practices, we always need to keep Christ as our focus and role model. The living Christ continues to be a model of inclusivity for us, inviting us to be a Church that embraces all, whether members be male, female, married, single, gay or straight.

In recent weeks, I have been accused by conservatives of trying to turn the pedophilia crisis into a celibacy issue. I continue to maintain that I certainly don't blame celibacy for pedophilia. However, an all-male, celibate environment may be an attractive secret society in which pedophiles can hide. Nevertheless, I have tried to distance the two issues, despite accusations I have received to the contrary. Although I try not to be accusatory, I have been very open of accusing conservatives within the hierarchy of turning the pedophilia crisis into an excuse for gay-bashing. Therefore, if any blame is to be placed, our hierarchy needs to examine its policy of pointing its finger at the most vulnerable in times of crisis.

Despite all the historical and theological arguments I continue to present in support of an inclusive priesthood, voices of opposition continue to remind me that I must follow the teachings of the Magisterium. In this regard, my consistent response has been that celibacy is neither a matter of doctrine or faith; it is rather a policy issue. Even the Council of Trent allowed for the change in this policy when circumstances required such change.

Another question I am consistently asked is: "How far are you willing to go?" Concerning the corresponding issues of celibacy and Holy Orders, I am willing to go the limit, even if it means ordination by a maverick bishop. (Any such bishop should feel free to contact me.) If we are to initiate change, we occasionally need to take a bold step, despite the looming threat of excommunication. Contrary to what some conservatives may think, my goal is not to sabotage the Church, but to make our Church more inclusive.

Several years ago, when I was a single person, members of my parish community submitted my name to my bishop, recommending me as a candidate for the priesthood. I was deeply honored that I was called forth by my community, much in the same way early priesthood candidates were chosen. So, I went through the interview process and was accepted into a discernment group for men over 40. However, along the way, I met and fell in love with Brenda. We were married in 1994, yet my call to ordination continues. I received an M.A. in Theology and an M.Div from St. Bernard's School of Theology and Ministry; yet the rule of mandatory celibacy stands in my way. Despite the voices of conservatives who would like to see me move on to another Church, I am staying and continuing to work for change.

While I don't presume to speak for the Holy Spirit, I like to think that the Third Person of the Trinity is with us as we try to build a better Church.

Marriage as Impediment to Ordination

While marriage continues to be celebrated as a sacramental union in the Roman Catholic Church, our hierarchy also refers to marriage as an impediment to priestly ordination. What the Church is essentially saying is that marriage is a blessed state as long as married parties keep their distance from the priesthood, thereby preserving the Holy Orders for celibate men.

In consideration of our hierarchy's disciminatory practices, I continue to voice three questions: 1.) How many married men, called to ordination, end up frustrated due to the fact that their gifts are stifled by the very same Church they wish to serve? 2.) How many priests who have entered into marriage would continue their vocations in the Roman Catholic Church if marriage were not an 'impediment'? 3.) How many women continue to feel as though they are second-class citizens in the Roman Catholic Church due to the fact that the doors to ordination are closed to them?

Having addressed my support of womens ordination and the plight of married priests in many of my prior writings, I would like to take this opportunity to address a situation I find myself in. This is to say that I am a married person, called to ordination. Yet, our hierarchy continues to remind me that my marriage is an 'impediment' to the ordination I am called to. This raises a very deep and emotional theological/spiritual question: "If, after several years of discernment, I have come to realize that the Holy Spirit is calling me to priestly ordination in the Roman Catholic Church, can it possibly be true that our hierarchy is putting handcuffs on both the Holy Spirit and me by preventing my ordination from taking place?

For now, I am continuing my fight within Roman Catholicism on issus of reform. Whenever I get discouraged, I constantly remind myself that it is the sacraments, liturgy and tradition that keep me grounded in the Church. Yet, I continue to have a constant struggle concerning my gifts, which are suppressed by the powers-that-be. It is for this reason I occasionally get frustrated by the lay ministries I am restricted to, as meaningful as they can be. As I continue to realize I am being called to preside, preach, anoint, baptize, officiate at weddings & funerals, etc., I can't say I will always be a Roman Catholic, unless the voices demanding Vatican III and an inclusive priesthood are heard within a few years.

In relation to my struggle, I have been in dialogue with an independent bishop. He is in need of priests and has encouraged me to come on board, whereby considering my theological and ministry degrees, ordination could conceivably commence within a very short time-span. Ironically, I would need to go through four years of formation in my diocese to become a Roman Catholic deacon, despite my M.A. and M.Div. (Deacons are only required to receive an M.A.). In this context, a Roman Catholic bishop in another diocese informed me that if the celibacy rule changes, it is most likely the first married priests would come from the ranks of the diaconate. So, he encouraged me to become a deacon, whether or not this is my calling, with the expectation this could be a stepping stone to the priesthood. Yet, my position on this is simply that if one discerns carefully, the diaconate and priesthood are two separate callings. (The diaconate is primarily an ordained ministry of service and the priesthood is highly sacramental in its character.) It is to the priesthood that I am called.

At least for now, I remain a Roman Catholic working toward change. However, if the Holy Spirit leads me elsewhere, I guess I will need to be open to that possibility.