New Sunday Feasts

The Church needs homilies on the basic beliefs of our faith (the Church exists for the salvation of souls, not the salvation of the environment). The Real Presence. The necessity of coming to Mass EVERY Sunday. The necessity of Confession. Of Fasting.

The church needs people to think and take care of the universe that we are supposed to be taking care of. Using more than our share of the resources He has given us is a bigger sin than many I can think of. Abstaining from waste of course is a neccessity. Pollution is a sin. The US[ 6% of the population of the world ] using 50 % of the resources of the world is a sin.

We are stewards of the earth and destruction of the resources of the earth is a serious sin. Abstention from sin is a good committment for lent. [somtimes going to Mass is a waste of energy]

Well, again, when it fits the liturgical rhythms and the needs of the parish. Not just because of the needs of the pastor/priest, or because he's not too good at creating a good homily.

I'll agree that we stick with that ole lectionary anyday, focusing on Scripture. Theme Sundays could quickly degenerate into politics and that is not the direction we need to go, at least not in this country. On pregnancy, for instance, I think you'll find we already have mothers' day and fathers' day, which present enough difficulties for some, like those who can't have children. I know this will sound strange to some people, because I know the original writer here in this post meant well. But women, particularly, would not be interestsed in more emphasis on their bodies. There is already a sense that some Catholics would like a version of a catholic fertility rite and most women feel that our bodies are really a more private space than many other people understand. WE want the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar, not our bodies. Vatican II worked to get Scripture in place, and I sure will speak to keeping it there. If the problem is that your priest(s) is(are) not great homilists (as sometimes happens), then there are plenty of resources to supplement their preaching and bring Scripture more into your own life.

The Book Of Blessings, Approved for use in the dioceses of the United States of America by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and confirmed by the Apostolic See, has a whole section of blessings for families, for married couples, for children, for sons and daughters, for engaged couples, for parents before childbirth, for the blessing of a mother before childbirth and after childbirth, for parents after a miscarriage, for parents and an adopted child, on the oiccasion of a birthday, for elderly people confined to their homes. That's just the first chapter of an 800 page book. Certainly there's no mortal sin involved in doing the blessings yourself if you can't find a cooperative priest.

The "theme Sunday" person complains because sermons are boring. Another poster suggests a good way to overcome that problem. Form a small faith group that meets to read over, pray over, study commentaries, and discuss the lectionary readings each week. Better yet, do it in a jail or prison or in a nursing home or one of those old folks warehouses like that person does. Around here there is a theme every sunday. Abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex. There are also great lectionary study formats on the web. One of the best is from liturgy/slu.edu. One might also endow a chair in homiletics at one of the seminaries that turns out those boring preachers.

I'd love to see the book of blessings,it is overdue.[Who pays the late fees]. I would like to see three theme Sundays developed and accepted by the 'slightly separated brethren' as well.
1] The beauty of love in conception and birth and adoption [also to include inability to have children [as in my daughter's situation]],the negativity of birth control and the positive aspects of motherhood, the responsibility of conception.
2]The beauty of the world,creation,evolution,stewardship of the earth,use of all the resources properly. love of the earth as a creation more important than our individual creation or the creation of the church.Global warming is our problem and we can end it.
3]The sharing of the wealth of the world: There are parishes in US with budgets larger than the catholic church in some countries-indeed larger than the entire national budget of some countries.[that may be an exageration] As Bono said charity here is superceded by justice and justice is not voluntary. Parishes must tithe their own income to a sister parish.Indeed dioceses might well tithe as well to a poorer diocese.Many other Christian churches do it.The early church did it.

If enough emphasis is placed on these themes people will respond and changing the readings might be a major thing for the church,if I were a pastor it would not be a big deal.[just turn over a few pages.]But there has to be co-ordination.
What I am saying here is reinfocing the message three times a year so that the message really gets across and preferably with more than words.

Many parishes do support poorer parishes. My local parish gave 10% of its building fund to an inner-city parish. They are also (the?) major supporters of the Missionaries of the Poor in Jamaica. Other local parishes have similar relationships with other missionary orders and parishes, both abroad and elsewhere in the States. The dreaded bishop's appeal is tithing into a central pool that gets distributed according to need, in other words from the rich parishes to the poorer parishes. And this is not limited to the affluent area I live in now, but also to the rust belt town I lived in little more than a year ago.

The best way to encourage such sharing is by organizing mission trips, whether it be to provide manpower for construction (habitat for humanity), cleanup (New Orleans), medical aid (esp. international), or chatechetical programs (anywhere). If you establish the human connection, particularly with your parish priest and the priests and people you are trying to help you can (and probably will) see miracles.

As 123bow said, why complain about it, start something.

The Book of Blessings is readily available from several sources. The Liturgical Press for one. Amazon for another.
Why wait for poor preachers and a Church that doesn't conform to your idea of what ought to be emphasized? If you really care that the message gets across and preferably with more than words then you have identified a ministry that can be peculiarly your own. Don't wait for someone else to do it. You do it. If there's anything to it, it will blossom forth and grow. If not, well, it won't be the first time.

Annie. Do you think the Church does not control your body by the negative means? Life giving is a positive thing. Mother's day is a great feast invented outside of the church [A great day to receive a homily about mother hood from a celibate male not father -it would be a great day for a sermon by a mother.]
Does your church get into Time and Talent and Treasure? Nobody changed the readings but that is one 'theme Sunday' with a purpose and guess what the purpose is.

That's part of my point. For many people controlling their own or women's bodies (especially) is their idea of what a day-to-day Christian life is all about, instead of growing in the fruits or virtues. One could say that self-control, which is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, has to do with this idea. But it's such a small part for many of us--we just don't have a problem with self-control over our bodies to begin with. Self-control over other things is likely more the problem, like over gossip and judgment. And control of other's peoples' bodies is what many catholics focus on, people being people. much easier than looking at self of course.

I don't really think I need to be told that life giving is a positive thing, and if you're a man telling a woman that, a bit of shame on you. BE very careful not to patronize. Mother's day is a fine day and I understand the basic idea that it was invented outside the church and we all have a lifetime of good and not-so-good homilies on motherhood stacked up. Many churches do have homilies by mothers on Mothers' day--that hurdle has been crossed, and before someone objects, is "allowed" in this ever-so-careful church. There are lots of theme Sundays already, since many priests preach around things like Labor Day and 4th of July, anyhow. Yes, we have TTT weekends. In other words, enough for me already. I want the rhythm of the Church year insinuated into my bones and blood and the lectionary does that for me, year after year. Again, I appreciate that you mean well. But women already experience themselves as exposed before the judgments of other Catholics--this "show me the child" level of religiousity many people have and we've seen talked on here before. I've heard women worry that they are going to be asked to stand for a blessing when they are ovulating...and not that that is what's going to happen, but that's the feeling of exposure women have these days. In any case, women's bodies and souls and hearts and spirits can take a real beating through years of this scrutiny. Pregnancies fail, marriage relationships often are stressed and sometimes fail during this positive event, and domestic violence is at its highest, and most often aimed at women's bellies. And there's a lot to do when a baby is born even if all is good and not stressed in those ways. Women don't feel well etc. I don't really think they want what you want for them, even though, and I repeat, I understand that you mean well. Women usually have some group that is more involved, and I think it would be great if some church group of women did something individual for other women as a regular real part of their work; I just resent the idea that there be ever-more focus, even if meant positively. So many women miscarry, even if they carry at other times, and have little understanding of their grieving by other people. What we could do more is pray for those who are pregnant, those who miscarry, those who abort. That's just my feeling from knowing myself and other women for a long lot of years. Women who are pregnant need support and prayers, but it is otherwise a sensitive sometimes fragile time and I am suggesting women would also like privacy and NOT some catholic version of fertility rites.

Again, again, I know you mean well. And I would do better on this thread had it not come right back to women again. But I also am happy with what we have--the rhythms of repeated scripture, the priest breaking open the word, the theme of those readings. There is a security in returning to those rhythms that fit some of the other rhythms of life that women do seem to understand more deeply anyhow, and the rhythm itself can help heal. A good priest will know his people and will pull into what he says much of what they need anyhow. And if we are not getting that in some way, we can ask, or we can seek out different resources. That's what I like. More rare than we would like perhaps, but many priests do have a wonderful depth about them from years of ministry. There's no question that it usually takes men a longer time to get there than women, but some of them get there beautifully as they mature and mostly as they really age. Takes most of them a long time to ripen...anyhow, since you asked...

Annie, Thank you for your beautiful and knowledgeable comment about women and pregnancy. I just wanted you to know how much I enjoyed it, and how much it not only resonated with me (having been a young Catholic Mom of four) but it also reminded me of my best friend, a faithful Catholic Mother of six, a lector who somehow managed to perform that function at her precious, loved husband's funeral, after her six children had each delivered a short piece of the eulogy about their Dad. No one "understood" the "rhythms" of the lectionary better than that devout couple.

Starlight, thank you. I feel a bit strange speaking too much for other women, so glad for hearing that this resonates with you. Perhaps we should have a special celebration to recognize our genius, integrated intelligence, and fruits etc. etc. I think sevenup would come. Do ya suppose HT would? HT? :0)

I'd feel like I was intruding. (I fairly reserved outside the virtual world, believe it or not). However, I would fully support (and maybe even help with behind the scenes work) any celebration of women and their genius (of course with the whole orthodoxy caveat) ;-)

Honestly, I think you really have a grasp on the reason that there are so few "theme" Sundays, The only point I would raise is that Mass already has a theme of its own, the re-presentation of Calvary, the Empty Tomb, and the Ascension. (oh and a rubrics issue: No, the homily is reserved to a priest or deacon. This is in the Ordo, the GIRM, and Redemptionis Sacramentum. Nor is a eulogy part of a Catholic funeral. That being said, there are loopholes: anything after the final blessing is not during Mass, and so a speaker or eulogy there is permissible, likewise it would be possible to have a eulogy at the grave before the ceremony of Christian Burial (or after, but very few would have the composure at that point in my experience.)

It's fascinating that you know "so much" HT, about eulogies--try to tell this "new information" to grieving families who have been to many, many Catholic funerals! I was present at this one, where the Cardinal sent his personal condolences, since he knew the widow, maybe that was one of the "loopholes" you speak about?

My own Father had eulogies at his funeral--a very Catholic Mass at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. This is the long-established "custom" of the "people" of this Country.

I have sung at funerals since I was a little girl, and, except for the "unknown", most people, even in pre-VII, days, were spoken about in some fashion, from the altar, hopefully by a priest who knew them. (It always seemed sad, cold, and empty when the priest did not.) After VII, it became customary to have those who "really knew" the deceased to get up and say a few words, so the family was consoled by having a real "knowledge" of the person at the funeral. As it happened. at this funeral, both the priest and the others who spoke knew the person who had passed on extremely well, because he had been active in the Church for decades.

If I am not mistaken, even your own Parish in Steubenville is not conservative enough for you, and you have to travel 30 miles out of your way to find a "pastor" who pleases you. For a person in his early twenties you speak as if you are quite knowledgeable, yet you cannot have the "knowledge and experience of time and place" that others have, even though the Internet is, in many ways, a great way to "travel". It is no substitute for "being there". I confess to my own inadequacies in that regard as well. Perhaps I realize them more, because I have visited, and revisited many states in all parts of the Country over time (on a very limited budget). I see how places, cultures, and even people and their ideas, can change. On site. Some places I have "come back to" don't even look the same as they did even 30 years ago, let alone 50 years ago! (And some have hardly changed at all.)

Not only that, but I realize I cannot change people. Their personalities have "styles". Some need the "security" of thinking in rigid systems of right and wrong, all their lives. (Sometimes I do, too; I still have remnants of that.) Others undergo changes with age and exposure to newer ways of thinking. Some are just frightened of this, for some reason, so that they never change. But often people do.

For me, these "earthquake" rearrangements never even began until after I had come back from my "imprisonment" in Europe (where my parents kept me for 2.5 years against my will, passport in Dad's safe, no freedom to travel alone, no driver's license, etc. after having one since age 16. Same treatment as my sisters, slightly younger. Insecurity on their part, somewhat understandable. But in Europe in the late fifties, a lot was going on. I lived in Madrid for nearly a year, learned to speak Spanish and absorb a lot of another 2 cultures, I worked at a small bank next to an Egyptian man for $80 a month one summer and I learned a lot from him, and I eventually worked at the Embassy in Paris for a year. So I learned a great deal that I benefitted from immensely, mostly that we Americans don't know as much about people in other countries as we think we do, and that they are human and have "lives" and concerns as well, and that their terrible poverty and day-to day existences are very REAL), and then had my four babies in a little more than 3 years (no twins), and finally, with some encouragement, was able to take out loans and return to school part-time with the babysitting help of a wonderful mother-in-law. I was then 28. So that was 40 years ago. I slowly studied psychology, partly to help me impart better parenting than I had received, and my children, despite all they have been through, are reasonably mature and responsible (and sometimes even happy) people.

You notice that there are plenty of "contradictions" in my life. I was jerked out of school (where I had scholarships) and taken to Europe (which, over the course of my life, I came to realize,reluctantly, had been a rich blessing.) I married the wrong man in a hasty decision (his fault or my fault? Over the years I came to realize it was mine; I was desperate to get out of Europe. But the "blessing"? Four beautiful children and an encounter over many years with a rich Northern Italian Culture and a real living "saint"---my mother-in-law, Catherine, who exemplified every good quality I wanted for myself, including humility, which I seldom exhibit.) There are many more "contradictions" like this in my life. And it is through learning to work through these, and accept them, and the people involved, in all their amazing complexities, that I see how God accepts US, in all our amazing complexities. That's where the "shades of gray" are.

Despite our differences, (and a divorce and his 2 remarriages) my children's Father (who is in his seventies and in a wheelchair now) also turned out to be loving toward them as a Parent all the way though. He continues to this day to be that way, helping them and his granchildren, which I truly appreciate (when I am not being envious) and communicating with them regularly. People do not have to be "perfect" to be Family, and to remain united in a spiritual way.

And in the Eyes of God I believe this is also true. We do not have to be "Perfect" to be Loved. A Mass does not have to "meet every requirement" (i.e. eulogy) to be a "proper Catholic Mass" no, if you had been there at my Friend's Funeral Mass, you would not have seen a more beautiful reflection of Catholic Faith, of what it means to marry and raise a wonderful Catholic Family of children, who already have gone out into the World to spread the Love of God and do Good Works (as each of my Friend's children have, each in his or her own unique way.)

Letters came to the widow from people who did not know the family, who were there in support of the Mass (choir, music, etc, who were new to the Parish) testifying to this very thing. There was Latin sung at the coffin as the Mass was ending. Everything was so fitting. It was indeed, a wonderful and celebratory liturgical ending to this kind man's extraordinarily good life.

Grieving is a process; and good Pastors, be they Cardinals, Bishops or Priests, adjust the "loopholes" you mentioned, to fit the sorrow and grief of their parishioners, not like the cold rubrics and rulebooks of some other Dioceses we could mention (but won't.)

No, sometimes, a little flexibility is needed. Yes, My Dear HT, sometimes you do push a button or two of mine, but you also make me think. And that is not half bad. As long as we are all in it for the knowledge, it's a Great Party, Annie!

I know from experience with funerals, as a homeschooled altar boy I frequently served funerals. Since entering college, I have buried my father, my great-grandmother, several family friends (and one personal friend outside the Church).

It would be just as easy for the priests to ask that the eulogy wait until after the blessing. All it would take is letting the family know that any eulogy will have to wait until that time, and then at that time calling up whoever will be giving the eulogy. If it takes so little to satisfy the liturgical rules of the Church, can we not give that little? (A eulogy, btw, is a much lesser issue than the homily, it is a matter of an improper act vs illicit act, but it is also one much easier dealt with, so long as the priest can guide those grieving according to the norms of the Church).

I am a stickler about the liturgy because the principle of "Lex orandi Lex credendi" holds true. Those who care enough to look at the rules of the Mass and how people can be accommodated within those rules are more likely to actually believe what the Church does vis-a-vis the Mass and Real Presence.

A sidenote: there is a parish in Steubenville that does pay careful attention to the liturgy, by I am currently six hundred miles away from there. (and once again its 8 miles to such a parish here, 30 to the nearest indult parish).

Oh, the other part about rubrics. May be that what is done has been done with bishop's "signing statement" (in lieu of knowing the right words or being interested enough to look them all up--don't have that kind of time in my life right now). Some dioceses work from statements that they can invite experts to speak to particular issues. Perhaps mothers are that for mother's day, at least in some pastors' minds. Just crazy talk, I know. But perhaps just in other dioceses than yours.

I agree that having a mother speak is a wonderful idea. Just not at the homily, as it is repeatedly been stated that the homily is reserved to those who have been ordained. Come to think of it, I believe you can add canon law to the list of other sources above.

As I said though, the priest can give a short reflection on the readings (everyone knows what the secular holiday is, but we never here a homily on the readings for that Sunday), and then, after the final blessing (which would also allow those who might have some difficulty with a talk on motherhood, ie those who cannot conceive or those who have recently lost their mother, to leave quietly) have a mother give a talk. (Or better yet have the KofC's Pancake breakfast with a speaker.)

I like to work within the rules, but there are ways to do many of the things people want without breaking any rules.

I think that there is a misunderstanding about rules and discretion in general that I would like to speak to. Rules are rarely absolutes, but are more guidelines to be assessed for the situation or individual with discretion. Some of them are more solid guidelines than others (more "rule" rules). I realize that you will disagree ad infinitum, and that I will wear out or run out of time before you-of-youthful-energy ever will, but there is a big lack of understanding in how organizations and those who work in them do their work. As with professional and administrative decision-making outside the church, there is a continual decision-making regarding most of church life. Priests and bishops are not best as cogs in a bureaucratic machine--doing just what they're told--but are only really valuable to spiritual life if they can make decisions on what is best in context. They implement policy based on people's needs within these guidelines. In other words, we hire people for their judgment, as much or hopefully more, than for their ability to read a rulebook. That is low level factory work (no offense to anyone, done it myself). That's why, in another context on these threads, I supported the comment of a priest that ministry is ministry--it IS compassionate--and not something called 'confessional leniency.' We have a lot of talk on here which sounds like people think a priest just bends rules because he doesn't have the personal strength to work with someone in front of him. That is odd thinking from a catholic perspective. and the metaphors of bureaucracy and factory that fit some of this talk are very non-compelling in reference to spiritual life. Think of it this way. Unless someone really has the personality of a "company man", becoming a priest would not be a very compelling proposition if an adult Catholic Christian man were not able to act as someone capable to turn policy into ministry, like human service professionals (doctors, psychologists) do in their work. It's really a dreadful job that you are offering to them in this perspective, not a vocation at all. It sounds like a lot of Catholics simply don't trust priests to act as they think they would act in a similar situation, so they do not want them to do what any professional does--all day, every day. Gee, I'm glad that my priests and pastors can work at a higher level than that...

If you don't think a bishop is competent to offer a "signing statement" or whatever it is called in the Church as compared with our executive branch, how do you think they are competent to do anything asked of them? I mean really, no discretion at all? What an unlovely direction to take one's life then. Professional life is valued for its level of discretion, and I can't imagine that the clergy want to be at a lower level of discretion than a semi-professional in the human services, for instance. they want to be church factory workers? Given this perspective, I would not encourage anyone to enter this life, unless it was the best they could do.

In any case, I checked with a couple of friends in a couple of dioceses where this is done, and they agreed with my memory that the priest has always been careful to clarify the dispensation or whatever, but that very occasionally (and in my memory and their anecdotal statments, that this was even only mothers' and fathers' days) this is just what they do. Obviously, not where you are. But if they are not even to be considered competent to make this decision, than they have no business doing much of what they are called on to do, and especially not to excommunicating anyone for anything. I started off writing on the cafe with more respect for their authority and abilities than I'm beginning to see others have! For me, I don't strongly care if a mother-expert or father-expert talks at the time of the homily or not--it's not in itself that big an issue to me--but the lack of understanding of how someone does ministry does matter to me. I have very little professional respect for the job you seem to be offering to priests and bishops. I REALLY do more than that in the first hour of most days.

Liturgical rubrics, historically and Traditionally, are among the most absolute of rules, as they pertain to the most important things (the great Mystery of our Faith, the Mass). It is a modern notion that the Mass is our creation, that the rubrics are just guidelines, that it doesn't really matter, so long as everyone is involved. To a certain degree this attitude is tolerated, for good or for ill, by the Vatican, but there are some issues that the universal Church needed to address because of local problems. Hence Redemptionis Sacramentum, a clarification on many issues. One of these issues(addressed in #64-68) is the nature of the homily. It is a liturgical act, proper to the principal celebrant of the Mass, a con-celebrating priest or bishop, or a deacon assisting at the Mass (in that order). It is also permitted, in special cases to bishops or priests unable to con-celebrate who are at the Mass. This is nothing new, the norms are pointed to in the footnote,
including both the General Instruction on the Roman Missal and Canon Law.

While the Bishop is chief liturgist in their own diocese, he cannot dispense with Canon Law or universal rulings of the Church at whim. Do Bishops and priests have discretion? Yes, but not in all things.

The priesthood is not a job or career. Those that treat it as such are abusing both the priesthood and the Church. The priest should not be in it for his own freedom or agenda, but for the salvation of souls through the Sacraments and teaching of the Church. Everything else is extra. His own agendas, beliefs, opinions, all must bow to what is best for the Church. Is this life unattractive? It would seem strange that the life of a priest should be attractive by worldly standards. That would mean we would have more worldly priests and few holy ones (as has happened before). So yes, I propose an unattractive way of life for the priest. To die completely to himself so that he might be more fully 'alter Christus', another Christ. This is the glory of the priesthood, this is what makes it so unattractive, to be another Christ, even if it means the Cross.

Lucky for the rest of us, Here Today is neither a priest nor Bishop, so we are likely to have a human priest or bishop to deal with when we need a preistly service. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm relieved.

Also, to those of you you who've been around for awhile, do you remember Chris? I could swear I'm hearing his voice on this thread. Hmmm. . .

Kate

Unfortunately, the rigid type person, the one who thinks that man was made for the law and not vice versa, is the one that would be chosen to be bishop. Thinking that one is always right does not neccessarily make it so. Time was when we used to say about the computer 'garbage in garbage out' the same can be said about education especially self education or brain-washing education. Thinking ,accepting and understanding can lead to right decisions more often following a rule book.

If I remember rightly what I've read, 'tis the same person. And would want to mention that we don't necessarily know the mature man from the young man :0)

Kate, every one else knows its still me.

Chris:

If you ever make it into the pristhood, I hope you remember that Catholics need a real priest who can feel their pain and their joy, and one they can call by name.

Kate

Even Isaac Asimov's robots are more human and "Christian" than heretoday's clergy. The prime rule of robots was "do no harm to humans". This principle inherently ascribes a responsibility for compassionate reflection and discretion, absent from your definitions and mentality. "Liturgical rubrics, historically and Traditionally, are among the most absolute of rules".(Note that 'history' does not warrant a capital "c" but (T)radition does. How telling)

If "To a certain degree this attitude (that the rubrics are guidelines) is tolerated". How does this statement relate to the "...most absolute of rules" statement? The official Church hierarchy is in violation of its "most absolute of rules"?

"All must bow to what is best for the Church. Is this life unattractive?" Yes, heretoday, it is, that Church is unattractive, that mentality is unattractive that "formation" of clergy is unattractive, inhuman and unChristian.

I single out one are in which there is no discretion and know I'm making robots of the clergy? (And yes, a pillar of the Church gets a capital "T").

Are there major problems with members of the hierarchy refusing to following these rules? Definitely (particularly in CA). Does it make it right? NO.

"A man has no greater love than this, to lay down his life for his friends." The priest does that in the submission of his will for the good of the Church (the whole Church, from pope to catechumens). It is a little martyrdom. It requires formation, not piles of degrees. This way of life is distinctly Christian, it seeks to imitate Christ.

Chris,

The priest lays down his life for his parishoner by answering the phone at 3 a.m. when a family member has been hit by a car, by going to the hospital to give last rites, by walking the family through planning the funeral service, and yes, making liturgical exceptions where appropriate. That is how the preist lays down his life. In SERVICE to his parishioners. It's an awesome responsibility. I pray that you will not take on such a responsibility lightly, because so far, you don't seem to understand the vocation.

Kate

Hmm, I have underplayed that the priesthood is a life of service, thank you for pointing that out. However, service is not the whole of the priesthood (read the beginning of Acts 6), nor is service limited to the priesthood. What singles it out then are the constant nature of their service and the Sacramental role as alter Christus.

You're right, I have a barely scratched the depth of meaning of the priestly vocation. With six to ten years of formation ahead of me, however, I do think I have built a solid foundation to build on.

HereToday, I think you should feel happy that people are trying to follow your thinking. I'm kinda into this priestly formation stuff now that you've dragged me into it. Okay. If we leave out the piles of degrees (?) seminarians get before ordination, what is the formation to be like? You still want eight years of something. I can't imagine you want them to pray all day (generally considered a bit much). The only thing I can put together from your thinking on these threads is that you would want them to live like in a monastery, working and praying and being directed (I assume we could tuck Catholic Plumbing 101 into this style of formation as well). Would that be about right? I'm hoping that we won't go for complete silence in there, since it would be harder to see in that time how they do in community with responsible use of their tongues and reconciliation regarding its misuse. Is this close to your thinking?

Like in a monastery, but one attached to parishes. (a little real world experience is often needed). They can study, both philosophy and theology, but the focus should be on prayer and service, living as they ought to live after seminary. Could this be done in the current seminary system? Probably, with a lot of work. Some religious orders do a much better job of it than others (and generally better than dioceses).

(We could also drop a lot of focus on social sciences in favor of actual experience with people.)

Actually, Social Sciences are an excellent abstraction of Human Experience. Historical reflection terrifies the conservative sense of confidence which tends toward being a mile wide and an inch deep.

Humans Grow In Virtue Not By Being Forced To Repeat Virtuous Actions But By Freely Choosing Such Actions

Historical reflection, you say. Very well, let's reflect on the history of social sciences., I say. What, historically, did social sciences tell us about pedophiles in the sixties to eighties? Rehabilitation was possible. So Bishops abandoned the traditional approach (a life of prayer and penance in a monastery), and "rehabilitated" pedophiles were cleared by the social scientists to return to ministry. (oops, so much for the experts)

The priesthood is about the salvation of souls, not counseling. (but I beat the dead horse...)

So... it is really the social scientists who are responsible for the priestly abuse of boy children and the coverup. That is a new angle.

No, but they share the culpability, even if they manage to escape the responsibility here and now. And its nothing new, just nothing you will hear on the news.

Fr. Andrew Greeley, a practicing Sociologist, writes that he persistently warned the Church Hierarchy about the explosive potential of their actions. The growing base of understanding surrounding the human psyche has led to many breakthroughs in the maintenance of normalcy. We pool all of our gifts to to retrieve the stray sheep back into the fold.

Humans Grow In Virtue Not By Being Forced To Repeat Virtuous Actions But By Freely Choosing Such Actions

True, L2L, but unfortunately, there was a period when the "state of the art" in psychology/psychiatry" did not know its limitations, and pastors/bishops actually "believed" that these priests could be rehabbed. (But after the initial failure they should have understood that this was not the case, instead of "experimenting" on innocent children.)

Greeley appears to have recognized this incredible failure far ahead of many of his colleagues. It was the same period where psychiatrists were still believing that alcoholics were people who were suffering from "an insufficiency of oral fixiation due to breast feeding," etc. and other such Freudian-derived ideation. (Believe me, I read something very close to that in a contemporary book in the early seventies---long after AA was having great success with many alcoholics without being concerned with their early oral fixations...unfortunately, there does not yet appear to be an equivalently effective program for true pedophiles, although much sexual abuse is (and was) often accompanied by achohol abuse.)

I wonder how much of this "recycling" of pedophiles was because pastors or personnel directors mistakenly believed the priests would not offend if they could only be cured of "alcoholism", not realizing that their priests were sexual offenders. This does not excuse their failure to recognize the problem; it only makes it more important that they realize how complex the issues are. (Because they are ongoing; they have not completely ceased.)

Problem. Problem. Pedophilia did not start in the 1960s. Historical reflection would show the depth of the problem in Catholic culture for centuries, problematic whenever an institution is left to deal with itself. Pedophilia "surfaced" because Catholic culture no longer could control the reaction of indivduals, families, lawyers, and journalists. It will re-surface if those external forces are not kept strong to open a culture that wants to close in on itself.

Now, I do understand your point about "rehabilitation" and the early problem of bishops willing to try what seemed to be offered by social science. But it was also social science that very quickly turned again and said that rehabbing pedophiles was not working. There are at least no claims of infallibility in social science--it has to stand up to more science or it won't stand in the long run. Church culture would stand for centuries, or for time and all eternity, without both internal and external change forces.

No, but before 1960, and the psychologists' advice, the official course of action was clear: Put them away, for a life of prayer and penance. Any sexual offender in the priesthood. The entire moving priest scandal ignores the culpability of some of those who are among the biggest critics of the hierarchy. As you say, social science realized it messed up, and as the reactions changed, the rate of abuse appears to have dropped.

Social Sciences are not the panacea that some believe them to be. Nor are they exclusive in having insight to the human psyche. Philosophy and theology have much to teach us there as well, and it is this angle on the psyche that is needed more by those seek to carry on the Catholic faith.

My friend, the official course of action was not different before and after 1960 in the most obvious of ways. Happened in my own parish and I'm sure that of many of those of the older readers on here. Suddenly growing rumors in the parish...maybe some incident or other...or a priest so popular with young people that quiet eyebrows were raised..parents began asking their children "odd" and stumbling questions but generally subtle questions (to young people so naive as to not understand anything but some discomfort)...and the priest suddenly moved to another parish...and a year or two or three later, rumors floating back of "some trouble" and eventually the priest be moved to another diocese. It was in the 1990s that our parish scandal surfaced with an aging priest forced to leave the active priesthood and finally, the "knowledge" of what was going down in the 1950s became known "officially." It is way too easy to say that pedophilia was all some sinful response of priests to the looseness of the 1960s. This is a very old problem in the church, and has to do with things like power and access and a culture that protects itself first and its people second (or never). Along with most people, I never heard of the church doing anything but moving priests to a new place. that doesn't mean that no other action was ever taken, but not to any real extent. MOvement to "putting someone away for a life of prayer and penance" was the exception. I would even guess more likely if the situation had to do with an affair with an adult woman than a predatory attack on children. The first has always been the worst of sins, and the second generally protected behavior.

Social science is not a panacea of anything, nor is that "awful" thing called education, and I can't think that anyone on these threads has ever said anything close to that. Education is based on the opposite model--keeping putting things on the table. Supposing the people are better off uneducated is a very strange idea. What education does is give one more and more tools to evaluate for him/herself what is experienced, more to work from. Where you get ideas like that people are saying social sciences are "exclusive in having insight to the human psyche" to a bunch of people of faith AND education (again, both at once!) is strange at best. You sometimes seem to be carrying on a discussion with yourself more than the rest of us! If you remember, I am on the side of more education, and wasn't the one of us choosing less philosophy and theology rather than more plumbing and car maintenance or whatever--that was you. You yourself noted the need for an understanding of human development, which even as just one topic, seems particularly lacking from much of the perspective you are offering on behalf of traditionalists.

I don't think there is any question that the bishops wanted (and were willing to pay big bucks for) psychological treatment for something that is not often amenable to it. I think that most people will assume that at that point they probably felt some relief that there was an answer to an age-old issue of predatory behavior. That isn't really what they are being assessed as wrong for. They are judged harshly for putting these priests right back with children again and again. Then covering up their actions, again and again. Then, as the complaints became legal, suddenly turning legal and protecting the church from all else. it has taken an enormous amount of work and pain for the lowly laity to even begin to make an impression on them for their actions of putting the institution before the people, even the children. Some of them are still sure that they don't need to get on board with a similar institutional response to correct these problems, such as Bishop B. Do you want to raise the issue again of why there are many vocations in that diocese? I put on the table that as a lay person, I have to ask if safety and a protective culture is a part of the reason for an increase in vocations there. I say that not out of any meanness to good young traditional men who believe good things, but because if it isn't put out there, then we may just end up the fools again. It isn't them I'm questioning in terms of their present good ideals. It's choosing a diocese where they come first and are protected first. With what I know as an older person--and if I could know that as a younger person--I would seek out the toughest standards to work under so that the whole world would feel safer that I am acting well in my own ministry. That's what the smart good young person would do in the present situation. To be a part of the solution for the present and future.

Actually, I generally like the idea, since an emphasis on the quality and meaning of community life seems to make a big difference in the (overall) kind of priest we have. I have an (overall) preference for order priests myself over diocesan for that very reason. Living with a lot of people seems particularly good for men's development since relationship is otherwise not as practiced in their lives. I like them attached to real people and parishes obviously for the same reason, and because they actually have to brush up against the other gender, oh my.

I also, obviously, am happy that we can give them a little more education than you seemed to be suggesting, and even in theology and philosophy! :0) But think you over-rate any emphasis in seminaries on social sciences. Seminarians and priests (neither) are at all fluent in these areas, and particularly need them more in clinical areas given their work with people. But again, since there are getting to be fewer and fewer of them, perhaps necessary (as has already happened generally and certainly with women) to rely on lay clinicians and spiritual directors to do most of that work anyhow either in or "outside" the church, so perhaps your scheme would even work in that area of their education.

Anyhow, enjoyed the discussion!

You're right, seminaries and their students are not proficient, but dabbling is worse then no real study. If they are to study such subjects it should be what directly pertains to their ministry, (educational psych and development courses for teaching orders, the psych courses from a nursing program for hospital chaplains, etc.). If counseling is a major focus of the order (which is a different field than spiritual direction and confessors, but I digress), then a full degree should be earned.

How about we require seminarians to live in community with both men AND WOMEN. Separate bedrooms of course, but cooking, cleaning, chores, etc. in common. That would probably really help them to work in parishes and the world.

No, most young men need to be pulled out of the mixed environment to be able to form themselves for chastity (from personal experience ;-)

Formation is not about forming the outer behavior alone, but the inner most soul. In a mixed environment both young men and women behave differently than they do in same-sex groupings, largely they are putting on some sort of false face for the other sex. To get them to truly open up so that formation can take root, distractions should be eliminated as much as possible.

Let's put it this way: if one is always guarding against temptations to chastity, he cannot truly be open to anything in the presence of temptation. (and this works both ways, mixed education has been shown to produce poorer results, particularly for the girls).

There is an issue of single-sex education which is important to note and consider. However, it's not the whole response, just a part of it. However, what actually happens in the present isolated system is that young men develop some very awkward attitudes about women. Not just young women with whom they are likely to have issues they need to address in terms of sexuality. But women in general. They can go away and work on chastity for years, then return to a gendered society and have exactly the same issues they had to start with (or worse ones), so the separation is also not working. The Vatican has apparently been working to make sure that their association even with women as spiritual directors or professors is limited or non-existent, even though there are legions of older priests who will say that they never learned some things, like what unconditional love or healthy relationships or nurturing or forgiveness is until they worked with a woman as a spiritual director. So, if the young men need time to "develop chastity," then what do they do to learn healthy relationships among adult believers? How do they work with women in some way that is not patronizing and marginalizing, and especially to mature women? How would they have a clue how to work with women when they say they are so different?

What they are doing now with younger men is not working. They are becoming more awkward with women rather than less so, which is one of the reasons women increasingly go elsewhere for spiritual direction. ...One of the reasons I'm glad that I'm the age I am--with more mature priests around...for as long as they last...which should be at least as long as I last.

This is a very excellent observation, Annie, and true in my experience, with very few exceptions. Women are really being deprived in the Church, as long as a male priesthood is not being socialized to feel easy and comfortable around women, or if only around a "certain type" of women. Your comment about not being "patronizing and marginalizing" is dead on--that attitude is rife among males within the Church! I have had it with being patronized and marginalized---that is NOT what Christ came to do with HALF of society!! There are many communties where that does not happen and where true Gospel values are being acted upon and this is not happening. The Gospels "model" Christ specifically approaching and being kind to a divorced woman, a woman taken in adultry, a woman who annointed his feet with oil, a woman who sat at his feet and listened to him, various women of all types, and a woman who announced that He had risen. Christ did not patronize or marginalize, yet that is all the Church seems to do, quite often at the Parish level, in my observation.