National Catholic Reporter    
 
Go to Search The center for the Catholic conversation... shaping the lives of 21st century Catholics

The radical witness of Houston's Casa Juan Diego; Tony Blair's new 'Faith Foundation'

 Print Friendly Version
 All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr.
  Friday, June 6, 2008 - Vol. 7, No. 38  

NOTE: John Allen is in Miami Thursday through Sunday to cover the annual conference of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Watch Allen's daily updates on this site for regular reports.

* * *

In a recent NCR cover story I described a phenomenon in Texas I called "Evangelical transfer," meaning ways in which the state's strong Evangelical Protestant ethos shapes the Catholic experience. (See Texas: new Catholic frontier NCR, April 18.) This week, I want to describe another "evangelical" face of Texas Catholicism, this time in the sense of lives lived in radical witness to the values of the Gospel.

Meet Mark and Louise Zwick, founders of the Casa Juan Diego on Houston's West side, a remarkable center of welcome and advocacy on behalf of the city's mushrooming immigrant population.

In Catholic circles around the world, Mark and Louise Zwick are probably best known for the Houston Catholic Worker, a newspaper and labor of love in which they blend deep Catholic piety with keen social analysis. The paper is legendary for tweaking American Catholic neoconservatives, and anyone sucked into their orbit; in 2004, for example, the Zwicks lampooned the work of a certain Rome correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, who, they felt, had been overly influenced by lunches in the Eternal City with prominent Catholic neo-cons. (In charity, they wrote at the time, they would refrain from saying that I was "out to lunch.")

On the streets of Houston, however, the Zwicks are famed not for literary production, but for love in action. One Wednesday morning in mid-February, Mark was showing me around the property when a mini-mob scene developed. A group of Hispanic men had clustered outside awaiting "Marco," and one by one they came forward to ask him, in polite Spanish, for various kinds of help. I watched as Mark found a jacket for one of the men to wear against the cold, a pair of shoes for another, and explained to a third how to get eyeglasses from Casa Juan Diego's free medical clinic.

Louise told me that this experience of living alongside the poorest of the poor, struggling daily to help meet their material and spiritual needs, fuels Casa Juan Diego's social advocacy.

"We see how the displaced people live," she said. "They're the ones who are uprooted by those economics, and we feel we have to write about it."

In one sense, the Zwicks resemble so many other white couples - in the argot of the Southwest, "Anglos" - who've relocated to Texas from the American heartland. Mark grew up in Ohio, Louise in Pennsylvania; Mark has a degree in psychiatric social work, Louise in library science. The two arrived in Texas in the late 1970s in search of new opportunities. That, however, is where the similarity ends, because the opportunities Mark and Louise sought had nothing to do with suburban living or professional advancement, but rather service in the tradition of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement.

Both Louise and Mark grew up Catholic, and both sensed the tug of the social gospel from an early age. In 1977, the couple and their two young children (at the time, a first and a third-grader) relocated to El Salvador, sensing that this would be a way to learn Hispanic culture and to experience another way of being Catholic. As it turned out, they arrived for the opening salvos of El Salvador's bloody civil war.

"We listened every day to the radio messages of Archbishop Oscar Romero," Mark said. "We assisted at the last Mass of Fr. Rutilio Grande," referring to a Jesuit and champion of the poor who was killed in March 1977. Although the couple was in the country for less than a year, Mark said, "It was really an intense religious experience, so we came back with the mindset that we would give our lives in service."

Afterwards Mark and Louise moved to McAllen, Texas, on the border with Mexico, to work with refugee and immigrant populations, and later relocated to Houston, working in a parish. Louise laughingly recalls that Mark used to say at the time, "If we had any guts, we'd start a Catholic Worker House."

The idea gnawed at the couple, and so it was that in 1980 the Casa Juan Diego was born. The original idea was to serve refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua who were streaming into the Houston area because of civil wars in Central America.

"The first thing we did was to rent the ugliest building in Houston," Mark said. "That's all you need to do. People with no place to go will come."

Today, the vast majority of those served by Casa Juan Diego are still Hispanic immigrants, but now they're mostly from Mexico. They're no longer fleeing war, but poverty.

"NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement, launched on Jan. 1, 1994] unleashed 1.2 million farmers in Mexico alone who lost their land," Mark said. "They began to pour in during the '90s, and from then on it's become predominantly a Mexican population."

The Casa Juan Diego complex includes 10 buildings that offer a staggering variety of services: there's a shelter for men, for example, and another for women and children; there's a food and clothing bank, which distributes between 10 and 15 tons of food a week; there's a full-service health clinic, including dental care; and there are residences for sick and disabled people who need long-term care. Casa Juan Diego also pays between $500 and $1000 a month to support 70 other sick and disabled people who live in their own homes.

Casa Juan Diego is also a resource center in a staggering variety of ways. Louise said they field requests that run the gamut from, "Where can I find a Mass in Spanish?" to navigating complex interactions with the legal system. For example, Louise said, not long ago a woman arrived with the following problem: "My son, who's 19, is the only means of support for the family, and he likes to drive fast. There's now a warrant out for his arrest, and I can't work because I hurt my shoulder. Can you help us?"

Louise said that, in her view, a particularly pernicious aspect of current American immigration policy is the way it often drives families apart. She offered the example of a Guatemalan woman who had arrived in Texas with her children, and was deported when she went to an immigration office to apply for an ID card. Somehow she showed up at the door of the Casa Juan Diego after returning to Houston, Louise said, almost entirely on foot, in search of her children, from whom she's been separated for more than a year.

Casa Juan Diego doesn't charge anything for these services, and it doesn't even invite guests to send money later on, once they've settled somewhere. That doesn't mean, however, that they ask nothing in return.

"We don't accept money from the guests, but we tell them they do have to pay," Mark said. "One day in the future when someone in need crosses your path, like a flash from Heaven you'll know that it's time to pay for Casa Juan Diego."

None of their current operations, Louise explains, were really envisioned at the beginning; rather, they've developed organically in response to need. As she puts it, "We don't write five-year plans." Support for long-term disabled people, for example, arose from the experience of a growing number of immigrants who are forced to take low-wage, high-risk jobs, such as working on scaffoldings in Houston's booming construction industry, and who have no protection if they get hurt.

"Every day we get a call from a hospital social worker saying we have this person who has no family to take care of him," Mark said. "He's a paraplegic, or he's paralyzed, or he just needs a few months to get on his feet. There's no government support, there's no disability, no Medicaid, nothing. We take care of him."

Louise said Casa Juan Diego also works with a large number of battered and abused immigrant women, who tend to be especially vulnerable because they're reluctant to seek police protection or medical care. That's true on all sides of the borders, Louise said, pointing to Tecun Uman, Guatemala, a small city where Mexico deports its illegal immigrants, and where desperate women sometimes offer themselves as prostitutes for as little as 25 cents.

Moved by repeatedly hearing immigrants describe these realities, Louise and Mark also helped create centers of hospitality in Matamoros, Mexico, across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, and in Tecun Uman in Guatemala, in both cases with the support of the local bishops.

In the spirit of the Catholic Worker movement, Mark and Louise don't do all this as limousine liberals who commute in from the suburbs. They live at Casa Juan Diego with their grandchildren and a daughter who's sick, sharing the lives of their guests, all the way down to meals and clothing.

Casa Juan Diego has a Mass every Wednesday night, and guests are invited to share their stories of how they arrived in Houston. Perhaps the most awful accounts, Louise explained, come from guests who have described hopping a train to cross the border. Many times, she said, they've watched a friend or family fall asleep atop the train, fall off, and be sliced in half.

In Texas as in other parts of the United States, immigration is a divisive issue. While it's tough to argue with the humanitarian emphasis of Casa Juan Diego, its operations nevertheless sometimes stir the waters for a simple reason: they're breaking the law.

"It's illegal to harbor and transport an undocumented person, which we probably do ten times a day," Mark said. (Technically, he can't be sure of that, since Casa Juan Diego never inquires about someone's immigration status, but it's nonetheless a pretty good bet.)

That has sometimes made Casa Juan Diego a magnet for protest. Last year, the anti-immigrant Minutemen staged a rally in the parking lot of a Jack-in-the-Box across the street. (Mark laughed that he put a brief note about the rally in an issue of the Catholic Worker newspaper, and not long afterwards he got a phone call from Jack-in-the-Box's legal department making clear that the chain wanted no part of the Minutemen's agenda.)

Mark said that Casa Juan Diego has enjoyed strong support from the local Catholic community, including retired Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza and Cardinal Daniel DiNardo. In fact, he said, the archdiocese includes the Zwicks among a set of speakers for an annual "missionary day," so that each year they're assigned a couple of parishes in which to make presentations.

"It's given us not only exposure, but in a sense permission," Mark said, though stressing that Casa Juan Diego is independent of the archdiocese.

Every now and then, Mark said, they experience some push-back at the Catholic grass roots, but usually it's smoothed over. Mark recounted how one parishioner had complained that he didn't want "those Communists," meaning Mark and Louise, to come to his parish. The pastor, Mark said, calmed him down by saying, "It's OK. They may be Communists, but they're our Communists!"

Not every Catholic, of course, will share the political and economic views espoused by the Zwicks. Some would argue that the spread of free-market capitalism around the world, what the Zwicks call "neo-liberalism," has created middle classes in places such as China and India, lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty. Others might part company on some particulars of immigration policy, arguing that efforts to protect national borders are consistent with the tenets of social justice. That's the stuff of legitimate debate.

What is beyond all dispute, however, is that few Catholics anywhere put their money, and their lives, where their mouth is as consistently and completely as Mark and Louise Zwick.

The web site of Casa Juan Diego is: http://www.cjd.org

* * *

In so many ways, Tony Blair is not your typical Anglican convert to the Catholic church.

For one thing, of course, Blair is the former British prime minister. Almost as atypical these days, however, is the fact that Blair does not belong to the traditionalist wing of Anglicanism, meaning Anglicans disenchanted with the ordination of women and homosexuals, the blessing of same-sex unions, and other liberalizing currents, and hence usually most likely to contemplate the "Roman option."

Instead, Blair espouses a theologically moderate, socially engaged Christianity. By the standards of British politics, Blair is a social moderate, and his largely permissive positions on abortion, birth control and embryonic stem cell research have drawn strong Catholic criticism over the years. (Some outraged English Catholics have gone so far as to charge that Blair should not have been received into communion with the church, at least until he recants.)

Last Friday, I attended a press conference at the Time-Warner Center in New York to present Blair's new "Faith Foundation," a global inter-faith coalition designed to mobilize religious leadership to achieve social good. Most immediately, the Faith Foundation intends to enlist religious believers in global efforts to eradicate malaria, estimated to kill one million people each year, primarily in the developing world, and the vast majority are children. A related aim is to combat extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of religious belief.

Interestingly, Blair's Faith Foundation counts a slew of prominent religious leaders among its advisors - Sir Jonathan Sacks, for example, Chief Rabbi of England, as well as Reverend Rick Warren, Senior Pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. Yet there's not a single Catholic, though promotional materials say that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of England will join the advisory council after he steps down as Archbishop of Westminster.

To call Friday's press conference "high-profile" is an exercise in under-statement. It was hosted by CNN's Christiane Amanpour, and featured opening remarks from former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who said he had come to "wish my friend well." Richard Levin, President of Yale University, where Blair will be a visiting professor, was also on hand.

Eboo Patel, founder and director of the Interfaith Youth Core in Chicago and another advisor to Blair's Faith Foundation, provided the day's sound-bite.

"The worst mistake would be to think that the fault line of the 21st century runs between Christians and Muslims, or between theists and secularists," said Patel, a Muslim. "It's between pluralists and totalitarians."

That line was picked up by other speakers, so much so that it almost became an anthem - with Blair and his admirers clearly on the side of the pluralists.

Blair was careful to say that his foundation does not seek "to subsume different faiths into one universal faith of the lowest common denominator." Nevertheless, it seemed clear that Blair's Faith Foundation reflects what one might call a "center-left" religiosity, with emphasis on tolerance, dialogue, and cooperation in the pursuit of humanitarian objectives.

What future the foundation may have is tough to handicap. From a purely Catholic point of view, however, it's at least worth noting that the church's most high-profile recent convert also seems a natural spokesperson for a more "progressive" or "liberal" form of Catholicism, at a moment when that constituency appears to be, in many other ways, on the ropes.

  ArchivesSignup for Weekly E-mail  
The e-mail address for John L. Allen Jr. is jallen@ncronline.org

Dear Robert B. Kaiser and

Dear Robert B. Kaiser and others,

I too once fancied myself a prophet of the "future of the Church in America," which usually meant parroting a lot of what my well-intentioned, eloquent liberal Catholic professors and friends in the ministry department had to say. And yet after more thoughtful reading and studying of the phenomenon of the "future/emergent/people's Church," I found that I was barking up a parched tree without very deep roots. I can think of a long list of things that would make Catholicism easier to swallow, more palatable, etc. And yet I don't imagine that Christ really ever wanted his scores of disciples sitting around, democratically voting on whether his teachings were too hard to stomach and maybe needed to be sanded down to accommodate the 'real life experiences' of the flock. Mainline Protestantism's precipitous decline and decrepitude seems to be strong evidence that a weak, shifting theology (predicated on people's transient emotions and 'real-life experiences' of church qua community of tolerant fellowship) reflects the natural tendency of humans to seek the path of least resistance. Sheep, if given the choice, would probably prefer that their pastor not put up fences at all. And yet the fences serve to protect and guide the sheep. "But wait," you may say, "we're adults here, not passive sheep or children! What is this, 1950??" Like I said, I've had a lot of thoughts -- often contradictory and fortunately abandoned -- about how I would fashion the Church if it were mine. But it is not mine, nor is it anyone else's in this democratic United States. It is Christ's Church, which has been handed over to Peter and his successors. That is a tough, demanding pill for us Americans -- us enterprising, thoughtful Americans and Europeans -- to swallow. And yet Roman Catholicism remains a stable, trusted rock in the world, especially among the young, the joyful, and -- how to put this gently? -- the geographical and numerical future of the Church. We established, middle-class white Americans fancy ourselves as the bellwether of the authentic, emergent "people's Church," the champions of the poor and marginalized and oppressed. And yet do these poor and marginalized show up to Call to Action meetings, women's 'ordinations,' and the Ignatian Teach-Ins at Fort Benning? Or are these gatherings typically populated by the aging, white "people's Church" crowd? These are not meant to be snide, but legitimate questions for reflection.
To dismiss Pope Benedict XVI's fame and draw as just one among several breezes in the air is to ignore that certain breezes bear truer -- and more refreshing -- scents than others. As many NCR readers' bete noire Richard John Neuhaus has pointed out, "Confronted by such truth claims, we necessarily ask, 'Sez who?' By what authority, by whose authority, should I credit such claims as truth? Answering the question requires a capacity to distinguish between the authoritative and the authoritarian." A brief look at history reveals whole communities of disaffected, disillusioned Catholics who would rather the successor to Peter 'get up to speed' with them. Many of them are our separated brothers and sisters who also find the Pope to be out of touch with 'real Christians'. And yet these separated communities -- and those disenchanted with Rome -- don't quite seem very much like what Christ called for when he instituted his Church 'in hanc Petram', now does it? Again, it's a tough pill to swallow.
Many younger praciticing Catholics simply are not taken up with pushing for a stylized conception of the "people's Church," because they already feel comfortable being in Christ's Church. This is, in a real sense, tied into the distinction between the authoritative and the authoritarian. And younger folks find Pope Benedict -- unimpeachably a man of Vatican II's texts if not its putative 'spirit' -- to be refreshingly authoritative despite frequent protests in NCR, and the academy, to the contrary. My point here is not to disparage, to deride, or to be unchristian to aging liberals who claim the future Church as theirs; sincerely. It is only to point out that many of the arguments made by writers and readers of NCR's pages simply do not reflect the attitudes of younger practicing Catholics, who strike me as the future of the Church much more than those allegedly represented by Mr. Kaiser. There is reason to be concerned, no doubt, as even Peter Steinfels has pointed out that today's Church is a different story. Those young liberal friends of mine who still drink of the nectar of bitterness and discontent in the Church have done themselves the favor of leaving the Church, usually by a casual, slow drift away; while I mourn their loss, and pray for their return to Christ's Church, it is hard for me to believe that they, and their aging disenchanted forebearers, are the so-called "future of the Church."

Rated 2 by 3 users. see individual ratings

You believe that Jesus would

You believe that Jesus would not want "to accommodate the 'real life experiences' of the flock." But isn't that exactly what Jesus did when he said, "Who among you with an ox fallen in a ditch would not pull him out on the Sabbath?"

Every day life an d its demands of compassion--not to mention practicality--trumped the most sacred law of them all.

Not yet rated.

Dear amdg~ Your posting

Dear amdg~ Your posting claims not to denigrate those of the liberal bent. Nevertheless, your words betray otherwise and risk simply alienating rather than elucidating thus missing the value of your position. Unlike you I have evolved from a rather traditionalist catholic to question, doubt, critique and yet adhere to what I consider the fundamental: that Christ was/is God; that He came to incorporate us all in some sense into his divinity, and to demonstrate the innate beauty, fragility and lovableness of earth, persons and the way of life founded, grounded in intelligence, good will and love as we return all to the father.

I really don't think that dissent is all about making the church "easier to swallow" in the way you describe. It is about the kind of change that makes the church more 'believable' a)in the sense of contemporary reality; b)in those elements which are of belief in the meaning of faith and c) calling, acting and demonstrating within and without that the message of Christ is believed by itself and has not been sacrificed (except largely in rhetoric)for the expediency of control and institutional self-preservation. A church that is, like Christ, love-able.

One would be a fool to reject the necessity for order and a degree discipline for consistency. Similarly, one would be a fool to reject or ignore the multi-dimensional traditions:liturgy, intellectual assets, historical lessons etc. Equally one would be a fool to think or to hold that the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic church' has not itself evolved and needs to evolve further. One would also be a fool to think that one holds all the answers, whether in dissent or adherence.

You see 'younger folk' perceiving Benedict (and presumably his vision of church)as 'refreshingly authoritative'; some yes of course. I see 'younger folk' perceiving Benedict (and the church) as irrelevantly authoritarian. I suspect that we are both partially right, partially wrong. Personally, I see the church in its current state and vision as unsustainable and as having jeopardized, if not lost, its historical, moral, intellectual and social credibility. And, I am not sure that that is not a bad thing. I do not pretend to have the answers, but I am sufficiently confident in Christ's love for me and the church (whatever it really is) that I will not
cease to raise my hand and contend that there is something wrong.

I also believe that there is much to learn from protestantism and other faiths. I have faith that we will all some day be very much surprised to learn how much broader God is than the images,and yes idols, we have all fashioned and used as protective mantles and wielded as weapons.

Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

I think anyone who seriously

I think anyone who seriously thinks the white western Catholic of any stripe is the future of Catholicism is delusional. The future of Catholicism lies in Africa, South America, and the Orient. All three of these areas see Catholicism differently and it will be interesting to see how these theological differences are eventually settled. The time when the least shall be first is upon us.

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

A liberal who espouses only

A liberal who espouses only liberal thoughts and trends is as stupid as a conservative who always tries to opt for the traditional teachings of the church. Intelligence demands that we take a look at both sides and opt for the path that will help us progress to giving some comfort to these who suffer and are burdened.

Rated 4 by 5 users. see individual ratings

John Allen fails to mention

John Allen fails to mention the Zwick’s excellent book, "The Catholic Worker Movement: Intellectual and Spiritual Origins". The Catholic Worker movement is more than austerity and charity. Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day served up rich intellectual and spiritual meals. We have much to learn from them as I point out in my review of their book "Blowing the Dynamite of the Church: What Can VOTF Learn from the Catholic Worker Movement?" http://www.votfcleveland.org/article5.html

Jack Rakosky

Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

I am not always in agreement

I am not always in agreement with Robert Blaire Kaiser but on the issue of liberal Catholocism I think that he is very much right. Here in Canada I am noticing that the sounds of complaint at the poor service provided by the church is becoming much more vocal not at parish meetings or in the chatter after Mass but around the table in the coffee shop and especially in family homes. In many cases it is being led by the grandmothers whose children and grandchildren are finding themselves abused and pushed around as they approach their local parish for the sacraments. Using the sacramental policies that many of our parishes have adopted today, Mary and Joseph would have had no chance even for an appointment for information for their childs circumcision two thousand years ago. I think that the liberal Catholic church is very much alive and well it just does not hang around the church door anymore. I worry however that when grandma gives up, the generation after her will be lost forever.

Rated 4 by 3 users. see individual ratings

I agree. Our son,

I agree. Our son, daughter-in-law, and 2 children now attend a local "Apostolic" church because our pastor said they would have to go through the RCIA program before he would baptize the children because she was not Catholic.

Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

Dear acoolmom007, What

Dear acoolmom007,

What other body, corporation, or organization would allow you to become a member without first introducing you to its practices, its beliefs, its teachings? If I were your daughter-in-law, I would welcome RCIA instruction so as to be better informed about what, precisely, I was baptizing my children into. I fear that your son and daughter-in-law will drift from the local "apostolic" church soon enough, too, for lack of a comprehensive, compelling -- and occasionally demanding -- set of beliefs.

Not yet rated.

Er, how much of RCIA does

Er, how much of RCIA does your priest require an infant to attend before being baptized? I think an excellent case can be made for the priest mentioned to be required to go back and attend seminary again, if he doesn't comprehend such basic teaching as baptism. No Christian denomination I know of has ever required parental conversion before someone can be baptized.

Not yet rated.

Dear Crazy Diamond, Given

Dear Crazy Diamond,

Given that RCIA is for adults, my priest does not require any infant to attend RCIA classes. I do know this, however: when the parents care about what their child is being baptized into, when a new-born's baptism is more than just something you do to make the grandparents happy, parents honor themselves and their children by recognizing that they are assenting to *something*. The main point of my previous post was that Catholicism, like any good Confession of faith, places demands on people. The recent collapse of two close friends' marriage (one Catholic, one Lutheran) dealt heavily with credal differences, chief among which was, "in what faith are our children to be raised?". I know for a fact that they didn't address that question before marriage, and can't help but wonder if they would still be together had they faced those tough questions earlier. One shouldn't be surprised if a priest asks the parents to think long and hard about the parental sacrifices attendant to a mixed-faith marriage, especially when one -- or both -- party's faith is very important to them. Which is why I would *welcome* a priest asking me to look at what I am -- what we are -- baptizing our children into.

For Catholics who make the plea, "Can't we all just get along and stop this bickering about the credal distinctions among Christians?" I would ask this: Why not just baptize your child in a non-Catholic church that does not place doctrinal and ethical demands on them? My sense is that most Catholics' response to this semi-serious question is: "Because, well,... because I want him/her to be *Catholic*!" Then my serious second question is, "And...why is that important to you?" Thinking about this question gets at the heart of why a Catholic priest has every right -- and responsibility -- to care about the dispositions of parents of those he is ordained to baptize.

Not yet rated.

I applaud your reasoning and

I applaud your reasoning and desire to see people better informed, amdg,I just think it isn't germaine to the issue at hand. The mother wasn't going to join the Roman Catholic church, period. RCIA was a totally inappropriate precondition for baptizing her (and her Catholic husband's) child, since she wasn't joining anything. That requirement places the emphasis of baptism on the parents and not [what the Holy Spirit does for] the child. The same objection holds if parents are baptizing a child in order to placate grandparents, but it seems to me that from a Catholic perspective neither is a reason for a priest to deny baptism to the child. From a Catholic perspective, baptizing the child does an objective good for that child regardless of the actions of the parents later, or whether they have any comprehension at all of what they're asking of the Church. Denying the child the opportunity, for whatever reason, is still denying the child. Denying a sacrament to a child in order to leverage the parents is not appropriate, and I think a good case can be made for sending that priest back to seminary for a bit of re-education. Not that the diocese could probably give him the time off, of course... :)

Full disclosure: I am the Protestant half of a mixed marriage, and I certainly agree that people wanting to get into mixed marriages should be questioned a lot more closely by the clergy to make sure they know what they're getting into (not that most clergy really have a clue, but hey, at least they could give it a better shot). We were sort of exceptions to the usual fare, since both of us could probably teach the equivalent of an RCIA for either of our Confessions. So we made sure we got asked those questions, and we probed pretty thoroughly. Most mixed marriages happen between people who are so uneducated or so spiritually immature that they can't imagine what sort of problems could come up, and every effort should be made to try to get those folks to think first.

One practical aspect to your question, "why not just baptize your child in a non-Catholic church...?" is that for quite a few mixed marriages, my own included, one half does not recognize the validity of infant baptisms. I had no objection to our children being baptized Catholic as infants because, as far as I'm concerned, they haven't been baptized at all. When the priest asked "What do you ask of God's Church?" my wife said "Baptism" and I said "help in raising [them] in a loving Christian community." No RCIA required.

Not yet rated.

Only the daughter-in-law was

Only the daughter-in-law was not Catholic. I am not Catholic, but all my children are because I support my husband in the promise he made to the Church when we married that he would do his best to raise the children in the Catholic faith. It seems to me that the requirement that both parents be Catholic is some kind of authoritarian move on the part of one pastor.

Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

I just would like to point

I just would like to point out that there is no evidence of 1.2 millions diplaced peasants in Mexico due to NAFTA. A careful analysis of the evidence by World Bank economists, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/Pubs/TradeNote18.pdf, concludes:

"Given this evidence, it would be a stretch to conclude that NAFTA was the force depressing incomes of poor corn farmers in Mexico. To be sure, farmers were afflicted by a severe decline in the purchasing power of maize – but it was a trend that pre-dated NAFTA by a decade or more, and only temporarily interrupted by the devaluation of the peso in late 1994. Moreover, Mexico’s
volume of maize production actually rose after NAFTA in 1994, and primarily because of the efforts of farmers – mainly poor and subsistence -- producing rainfed maize. Finally, the subsidized corn coming into Mexico from the US after NAFTA had no measurable impact on the Mexican price that was any different before NAFTA."

Jacques Crémer

Rated 0 by one user. see individual ratings

The World Bank is far from

The World Bank is far from an unbiased source in this matter.

Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

Tony Blair had a little

Tony Blair had a little change of direction. He attended the same church [Priory I think ] where John Henry Newman and a bunch of others joined the church in the 1850's. John Allen can stick his wet finger in the wind and think he feels a breeze but the second largest and fastest growing denomination in the country is rejected Catholics. I think they are holding their breath. I'd be willing to pay for an auditory test for all the bishops. If Rome says send money they send it. If Rome were to say receive communion standing on your head, the bishops would hear quite well but their concept of collegiality is 'yes Your holiness'. The church needs an ambassador to Rome.more than the US needs an ambassador from Rome.

Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

Mr. Kaiser, I sorry that you

Mr. Kaiser,

I sorry that you seem to think that the Church is "excessively clericalized" when there are lay people employeed in every type of ministry at the parish and diocesan level and many pastors who give their lay directors virtually total control over the programs in which they work. And if there are millions of these people who would come back if the Church conformed to what they want (rather than what is willed by Christ) why are they on the Internet instead of being in their parishes and/or lay movements to try and enact the change they want in a positive way?
I would say that "neo-cons" and "liberals" are both on the ropes because the new wave rising is authentic Catholicism, which trancend these labels.

Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

Perhaps John meant to say

Perhaps John meant to say that Catholic progressive ACTIVISM is on the ropes. That, I think, would be accurate. However, if John is actually suggesting that most Catholics are traditionalists who are in agreement with the hierarchy on issues like contraception, celibacy, woman's ordination, etc. then he's spent a little too much time in the Vatican. Liberalism is alive and well within the Church. Unfortunately, it's just not quite as outspoken as before.

Rated 4 by 3 users. see individual ratings

James O'Connell When Blair

James O'Connell

When Blair came into office with a whopping majority, he could have raised taxes: people were ready to spend money on public causes, especially to help the poor and to improve the welfare state. But he shied away from doing that and thought he was holding Middle England for the Labour Party. Similarly, he could have broken with Bush's unwise policy but the conventional wisdom was to stay with the U.S. He has now left behind a broken part, a continuing war and a successor who has little political deftness.

James O'Connell

Rated 4 by one user. see individual ratings

FAR be it from me to say

FAR be it from me to say that John Allen doesn't have his wet finger to the breeze when he says here that liberal Catholicism is "on the ropes." Not sure what breezes he is testing, but my guess is that he's relying a bit too much on what is sometimes called "official" Catholicism, and looking at the kind of Catholics who turned out recently in DC and NYC to cheer Pope Benedict. That's one kind of breeze. ThThey

I am feeling other breezes, seen mainly in comments expressed on the Internet by fed-up Catholics, some of the 30 million self-professed ex-Catholics (as reflected in a recent Pew Foundation report) who find official Catholicism so alien to the way they started thinking about the Church during and after Vatcan II. They are writing me email notes to enthuse over my action plan for the future of the Church in America +disguised as a novel. (Cardinal Mahony: A Novel, available if you ask for it at Barnes and Noble or your local public library, or off my website

"If only the Church moves in this direction," they say, "we'd come back." By this direction, they mean: "If we had a voice, a vote, and citizenship in what the clergy keep telling us is OUR Church." In this kind of Church, there'd be room for everyone, right, left, and center. You don't have to be a liberal to want an accountable Church. And that, to me, is the future of American Catholicism. Allen (and NCR, which called my book a primer for "liberal Catholics) don't find many more traditional Catholics calling for "a voice, a vote, and citizenship" in the Church, so they assume that such a call is nothing more than "a liberal" cry in the wilderness. I challenge that. I know of no polls that could confirm my intuition, but I suspect that a good many traditional Catholics (including some quiet members of the clergy, even some bishops) would like to see what I like to call "a people's Church" (as opposed to our now-excessively clericalized Church). AND I would add this: that many of the 30 million self-styled ex-Catholics would like to be part of a people's Church, too.

Robert Blair Kaiser

Rated 4 by 8 users. see individual ratings

I think he just means that

I think he just means that on a number of issues dear to the hearts of liberal Catholics, Vatican officials have in recent years made resounding "no" statements. Each one has been a disappointment, a "blow" if you will. In the analogy of boxing, enough blows will send an opponent "to the ropes" for a more defensive stance, but his comment hardly implies that the movement has been "knocked out".

Not yet rated.

I love you. I love your

I love you. I love your voice. I love your books. Blessings on your head!!

Rated 4 by 2 users. see individual ratings

John, if Tony Blair is a

John, if Tony Blair is a "liberal" Catholic, then why did he join in George W. Bush's very neo-con invasion of Iraq? Blair was the fig leaf that covered this naked, imperialistic, ill-concieved and ineptly executed war. He looks more like George Weigel than Daniel Berrigan.

Steve

Rated 3.8333 by 6 users. see individual ratings

Because 'liberal' and

Because 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean different things in different arenas. Tony Blair is a 'liberal' Catholic, as in he would be at home with the theological opinions on this site. I believe the Labour Party is also 'liberal' (although the lines across the pond are exactly where they are here in the States, and the peace element seems to lie primarily in the Liberal Democrat party).

In other words, you can blame people, not ideologies.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

Not yet rated.