Homily for the Twenty-Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Homily for the Twenty-Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Homily for the Twenty-Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Homily for the Twenty-Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
I’ve shared a couple thoughts on Google+ about the issue of Fr. Frank Pavone being recalled to the Diocese of Amarillo by his bishop, Bishop Patrick Zurek. Instead of writing up a new blog post covering the same issues, I’m going to copy from what I’ve posted on Google+ into this post. Consider these open letters to Fr. Pavone and those who want to “free” him. To make it clear, I’m not going to cover the canonical issues with the Bishop’s letter, nor with any of the accusations that are floating around. I’m not a canonist (nor would I ever want to be one), and many of the accusations are ridiculous and not worth even mentioning.
First, to those who have the “Free Fr. Frank” page on Facebook:
Dear Free Fr. Frank folks,
I received your email today, and I’d like to respond. No, Fr. Frank Pavone is not being persecuted for being pro-life. No, every pro-life person in america does not need to stand up against his bishop, because it won’t do a thing to “TAKE ACTION FOR THE BABIES!!!” No, I won’t do anything that you want, like sending a letter to his bishop, the Archbishop of San Antonio (who isn’t the boss of the Bishop of Amarillo, sorry), Archbishop Dolan, or the Papal Nuncio’s office.
If you want to help Fr. Frank, stay out of it! If his bishop has some concerns about Fr. Frank, let them sort it out. If you want to help the pro-life cause, go do something! Go pray at an abortuary. Go help at a crisis pregnancy center. Get down on your knees before the Blessed Sacrament and pray to Our Lord and His Mother on behalf of the unborn and their mothers.
Ticking off Bishop Zurek, Archbishop Siller, Archbishop Dolan and the Papal Nuncio won’t do a darn bit of good for the pro-life movement. In fact, it would probably have the opposite effect.
Next, my advice I’d give to Fr. Frank Pavone, if I could:
I have a lot of respect for the pro-life work that Fr. Pavone has done, but I think Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture nails the issues with his fight against his bishop. As a diocesan priest, Fr. Pavone made the same promise I did: obedience to the diocesan bishop. Nowhere in that promise was anything about “unless I have a personal mission in life that I see as more important than being a diocesan priest.” Right now, the best thing Fr. Pavone could do is drop off the radar for a while and serve the Diocese of Amarillo as a diocesan priest, not the head of Priests for Life who incidentally happens to be a diocesan priest.
As an outsider to this particular argument, I don’t know the whole story (neither do those who want to “Free Fr. Frank”), just what Fr. Pavone and the Diocese of Amarillo have chosen to make public. That being said, as a diocesan priest, I take the promise of obedience very seriously, and you do what the the bishop orders unless he orders a priest to do something that is immoral. Fr. Pavone freely took the promise of obedience as a priest in the Archdiocese of New York, and later freely incardinated into the Diocese of Amarillo.
Being recalled to the diocese that he incardinated into is not an immoral act, especially if the bishop has some concerns about the ministry of a priest under his care. In fact, the bishop is doing Fr. Pavone great good if there are problems with how Fr. Pavone practices the priestly ministry. If there are no problems, then we need to trust that Bishop Zurek and Fr. Pavone will work out the differences that led to this conflict, and Fr. Pavone can get back to his pro-life work.
P.S.: I’m usually very open to allowing comments, but one thing I will not allow is bishop bashing. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and deserve respect for that reason alone. Yes, they’re fallible human beings, but that doesn’t mean I will allow speculation in my combox that one might be a Mason or influenced by politicians to go against Catholic teaching. So, thank you to all for your comments, but I’m closing this comment box and removing all comments on this post. I should have done that when I first posted, and will use this as a learning experience.
Homily for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Homily for the Twenty-Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
There are three things that have bothered me about how catechesis of Catholic children is done in much of the United States. First, we treat it like another class at school. Second, there is little to no effort to show the faith as something practical to their lives. Third, there is little to no parental involvement in the programs.
When I consider these three issues, they seem to be connected in my eyes. Instead of seeing catechesis as molding and forming their lives on earth in preparation for eternal life, it seems to be viewed as another class that has material that needs to be crammed into the kids heads. Just as math class gives the kids the concepts of mathematics, religious education gives them the concepts of Church teaching.
With this focus on the material, there seems to be a lack of making the faith practical and desirable for the kids. Now, I’m not talking about merely having them do “social justice” days, which usually ends up being a community involvement track. That’s a good start, but what about seeing the importance of the Mass and devotional life? Some of the traditional prayers, such as the Our Father and Hail Mary, may be presented to the kids, but there is no concept of developing a prayer life. How about encouraging them to live the Church’s moral theology? The moral theology of the Church is where the theological rubber meets the road, but there seems to be no movement to encourage the kids to explore and live what the Church teaches morally. Same problems with communal involvement, sacramental life, and most other areas of Church teaching and life.
Of course, at this point, I’m sure some are saying, “Father, that’s your job to fix it if you see it’s a problem!” Yes, that’s true, it is my job, but there’s far more going on here than just Father falling down on the job. As the Catechism teaches:
The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. “The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.” The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable. Parents must regard their children as children of God and respect them as human persons. Showing themselves obedient to the will of the Father in heaven, they educate their children to fulfill God’s law. Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery – the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach their children to subordinate the “material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones.” Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them (CCC 2221-2223 – Emphasis mine)
Herein lies one problem I see with many kids at religious education: they’re being dropped off for their once-a-week-Christianity-fix, and never setting foot in the Church otherwise. They, along with their parents, almost never attend weekly Mass, and are there only if the kid is “performing” in the children’s choir. Religious education is being seen as free babysitting for an hour on Wednesday while “checking off” teaching the Catholic faith to their children.
The problem with our current model is that there is no reinforcement from the parents about the importance of the Catholic faith. Catholic parents are falling down on their “first responsibility,” as the Catechism phrases it. After all, it’s not important to the parents, so why should the kid take it seriously? Because the kids don’t take it seriously, and there’s no encouragement from the parents to take it seriously, anything the catechists present just go right over the kids’ heads. Unfortunately, this is what I see here in too many cases. School academics are taken seriously, sports are taken really seriously (to the detriment of everything else), but religious education is blown off.
How do we fix this? I don’t know. Is it possible to reach the parents and convince them to take their faith seriously? Maybe, but most of them have gone through a program very similar to what we have today, with similar results. They probably can’t tell you how many sacraments the Church has, nor more importantly how those sacraments influence their daily lives. Too many Catholics don’t know what it means to be Catholic.
This needs to be changed immediately. We can’t allow another generation to fall away from the Church. I’m open to suggestions on how to reach the kids and help them to know, live, and love the Church’s teachings.
Homily for the Twenty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Homily for the Twenty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
From the writings of St. Rose of Lima, featured in today’s Office of Readings:
If only mortals would learn how great it is to possess divine grace, how beautiful, how noble, how precious. How many riches it hides within itself, how many joys and delights! Without doubt they would devote all their care and concern to winning for themselves pains and afflictions. All men throughout the world would seek trouble, infirmities and torments, instead of good fortune, in order to attain the unfathomable treasure of grace. This is the reward and the final gain of patience. No one would complain about his cross or about troubles that may happen to him, if he would come to know the scales on which they are weighed when they are distributed to men.
This is something that I struggle with greatly. If things are going well, I’m happy as can be, but turn really whiny when difficulty arises. By whiny, I mean like a puppy that has to be closed off from the rest of the family when company comes over. Yeah, that whiny. On top of that, I get upset and angry. Not a pretty combination.
St. Rose was both a visionary and mystic, which gave her a far clearer view of the spiritual life than most of us have. She was far more acutely aware of the benefits suffering has for our spiritual development and well-being, provided we accept it and open ourselves to the graces God gives us. Due to the spiritual blindness caused by sin, we fail to understand how suffering is a good thing to be desired instead of a negative aspect of life to be avoided.
Of course, we see the effects of our spiritual blindness in what John Paul II identified as the Culture of Death. Anything that causes suffering, trouble, or difficulties in our lives is to be avoided – even to the point of killing innocent children through abortion and those elderly or infirm seen as “inconvenient” – and anything that promotes comfort in an easy and long life is to be encouraged, regardless of the consequences to others.
The challenge for us as Christians is to realize the spiritual growth and benefits of suffering in our lives, and to allow those tribulations to show the joy of God’s grace despite the suffering we face. Oh, and no whining, despite how much I want to.