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.

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.

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.

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...

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).

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

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.

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?

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.

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!

Not reluctantly towards religious sisters, its just a novel concept for me to discuss (as a twenty-something young man, I really never considered a Sister as a spiritual director). We are completely agreed, it seems, when it comes to the differences between the three: Confession the sacrament; Spiritual Direction counseling of the soul; and Counseling of the mind. My objection to the priest-as-counselor is based on the fact that he should be first Confessor and Spiritual Director. Of course Spiritual Direction could be offered by the laity, but I do have some concerns about this angle.

Education, like most things, is good. But anything in excess is no longer good but an evil. It does not necessarily lead to questioning their faith. (A few notable priests that I like have multiple advanced degrees: from FUS's former president, an ex-lawyer, to Fr Benedict Groeschell, with degrees in psychology (IIRC).) Education when opposed to, or even merely ranked above formation, is what is dangerous to faith, not just of the priest, but for all the souls that will pass through his care. If a seminarian is faced with difficulties in faith, I would suggest concentrating on formation, perhaps even to the exclusion of studies for a time, not more studies.

On one hand, it may be hardly worth mentioning that I sometimes open the cafe with great hesitation to find out what the latest "most absolute of rules" is to someone or other. On the other hand, with all the flattening of rules to "absolute" on these threads, perhaps I should find consolation that something is more absolute than others. And I will at least agree that we are at least close to the most important stuff when we talk about the Mass.

I must note that I wasn't talking about guidelines not mattering. I wasn't even talking about the laity or even the voice of the laity. I was talking about the discretion of bishops. [Aren't they a part of the magisterium? I would have thought that more discretion might accrue to them because of that. Funny me.] Well first the Vatican. No question that they sometimes administer the Church on the basis of what we might call the Principle of Tolerance for Less Formality :-). And keeping people engaged is likely a purty good idea, so I understand their balancing act. Was it John XXIII who said he had to be pope "of those who had their foot on the pedal as well as those with their foot on the brake?" Could certainly apply to rubrics.

At the bishop level and the priest level, we agree that there is discretion. What I don't agree with is the use of the word "whim". I said nothing about whim, nor did I come close to that idea. But your use of it and the remainder of your talk on the priesthood did take me to a different understanding of a possible solution to the male priesthood numbers crunch issue for the future. We don't have to provide so many resources for education under this perspective you offer. We are really wasting money on eight years of education to ordination when we don't want priests (or bishops, oh my) to have so much discretion. And I see much of this in a new light. Where many of us see education as a solution, you are seeing it as part of the problem. Where I might worry that priests are not getting enough education in enough sujects to be on the frontlines and use their discretion, you are saying they don't need so much discretion if they see themselves properly and sacrificially, leaving out so much discretion. This is kinda interesting. It doesn't really impact me much because of my age and ability to negotiate the issues, but for the future, I would guess we could actually find the "right" guys (the "company man" type) and get them ordained in a couple of years, tops. Okay. It does sound pretty unattractive, so your other idea that it should be unattractive would likely be satisfied too. It's an interesting viewpoint. Are we finally on the same track?

The notion that the bishops have much, if any, discretion with respect to the liturgy is as new as, well, the new Mass. This is not the position of the Catholic Church, however. There are certain issues that the bishop does have discretion on (allowing communion in the hand, altar girls), but these are deviations from the desired norm. Then there are other issues which the bishop does not have discretion in, these include the texts of the Mass, who says/does what in the Mass, all this is very clearly laid out.

We need educated priests much less then we need holy priests, so yes I think we do over emphasize education. The priests need to be taught where they legitimately have discretion, so that they don't waste their energy establishing something "new" only to have it struck down.

BTW, I don't think ordination should be sped up, just more emphasis on proper formation over education. As a preist-friend of mine once said, a parish priest needs plumbing, car repair, and carpentry more than philosophy and theology, he'll get better use out of the practical skills. Now, the philosophy and theology are important, but not all important as some would have us believe. (hey look at St Joseph of Cupertino).

But a priest can learn plumbing etc. through their community college along with everyone else. My point is that we don't have to pay for all this anymore. When you think of all the resources that have gone into long years of education and formation with the assumption of some level of ministerial discretion (called ministry), we've really been wasting a lot of resources that could go for the poor.

Annie is so much more on target and so much more consistent in her humility and poignant expression of faith! *ht*, since you aspire, apparantly, to an intellectual understanding at least, PLEASE read the DIDACHE and other early church documents to come to a less rigid understanding of the place of rubrics-as-rules. In the sense of the early documents a rubric is less a restriction than an attempt to find an expansive liturgical practice based on an even more expansive liturgical theology. This is NOT a difficult document to find

Secondly, examine some of the records of the social and emerging ecclesuial contexts of the early church in order to come to a fuller appreciation of the manner in which Presbyters and Deacons incorporated the LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY into both the liturgical expression of faith and the development of a genuine Body-of Christ. Your notion of where and how "priesthood" came to be deposited as the primary ecclesial order really needs some education.

For example, your use of such abstract and wordy phrases of private confession, as the vaunted but little understood "dying to oneself", has very little to do with your presumed "unattractive" but, in fact, easy way-out-of-relational commitment definition of priesthhod. What is required to be an ordained priest is SO MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. Your say, "This is the glory of the priesthood" ... Oh please! What puerile nonsense. Have you actually been to city missions? to prisons? to cardboard 'houses' under bridges? to soup kitchens in winter? to hospital emergency rooms where people suffer from hypothermia and dehydration because they are the discarded Children of God? Os so, then you would know that what is wanted is an engaged human touch and a specific, concrete, and immediate presence that comes in the name of God without ANY JUDGEMENT or claims other than to be Christ present.

Try the REAL thing: dying to oneself as the ACTUAL denial of ego IN THE SERVICE OF ANOTHER with whom you establish a genuine, deep and RELIABLE relationship THAT HAS NO RETURN OTHER THAN THE WELLBEING OF THE OTHER - so much like motherhood, in fact! And THEN proclaim the value of the life of another; ... and THEN put yourself aside (ego claims, truth claims, LAW claims, JUDGMENT claims, and all the institutional artifice that establishes a SAFE identity). THEN and only then, pray that a community of faith will call forth the role of the priest given in Baptism and ONLY realized in the dual process of call and self-offering.

This is SO much closer to Annie's self-giving in her narratives than your constant claim to KNOW.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)

Elaine, Here you hit the proverbial nail on the head! Thank you for your very great understabding of It All...

I'm guessing it helps that the Holy Spirit has had lots and lots more years to whisper in my ear and hit me over the head! Lots and lots more years...and perhaps lots and lots more reasons!

I'll try to break this down for you.

The Mass is the central moment of the Catholic faith. It has such a high place because it is the Sacrifice of Calvary made present (in a bloodless manner). Our salvation by the Death of Jesus, God-come-Man, is the greatest mystery of our faith. That He gave us this Sacrifice on a daily basis all over the world is another central mystery. Both mysteries are present in the Mass.

The Mass (or Divine Liturgy in the Eastern Rites) has been governed by strict rules because it deals with the essence of our faith. (Lex orandi, Lex credendi certainly holds true in my experience.) It is only recently that these rules have been apparently discarded, despite being re-clarified again and again. Looking at the state of the Church and the lack of belief in the central mysteries of our faith (particularly the Real Presence), I conclude that ignoring constant instructions, or treating them as optional, on the liturgy tends to have negative consequences on popular belief. On the topic at hand, the homily must be given by a priest or deacon. This is reiterated in the GIRM (the General Instruction on the Mass), Canon Law, and was reiterated in Redemptionis Sacramentum, an instruction with full Magisterial weight issued by the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments. It is indeed possible to know that the practice in question is NOT allowed, period.

As for my understanding of the priesthood, I would tell you to look to the Catholic saints for the understanding of the priesthood: St John Vianney, St Francis Xavier, St Francis of Assisi (who refused ordination), St Joseph of Cupertino, St Padre Pio,.... Or watch this twenty minute video Fishers of Men. The Catholic priesthood exists for the salvation of souls, primarily through the Sacraments. The Catholic priest is not supposed to be a glorified social worker, but to be Christ, at all times, to all people. This puerile nonsense is the Catholic faith. I am sorry if you agree with your presiding bishop's prejudices as regards the Catholic faith, but this is not the place for them.

None of the claims I have made in this thread are my own, but those of the Catholic Church.

Havent been here in a while and stopped by. Caught this thread in the middle and had to see where it originated. It started with themed sundays and evolved into an understanding of priesthood. I noted the progression. As a priest on leave, my experience of themed sundays brings up negative feelings of special interests groups and always seemed to discount the beauty and interpretation of scripture and its relevance to the live of the community. As a priest and homilist, I never deviated from the scripture and always felt obliged to preach on it, even on those occasions when there were "speakers". I was immovable on this and all my pastors backed down because I had, for once, the documents, rubrics and canon law of the church behind me. People don't come to mass for a theme or hear a speaker or a pitch for the Bishops Fund. Hopefully, they come for spiritual nurturance and to praise God in the midst of the community with the scripture as the foundation.

Now for the priesthood and the relationship between priesthood and preaching. I recently caught a piece of what was supposed to be homily on EWTN. The priest went on for 20+ minutes about errors and misinterpretation of the famous "Truth." I wanted to through something through the TV. It had nothing to do with the scripture and sounded like a defense lawyer in a closing argument. I believe many priests are removed from the experience of the people in the pews. How people go back sunday after sunday sometimes amazes me. Faith AND Works. Holiness and relevant ministry. Being with the people, listening to the bereaved, the addicted, the marginalized, and the wounded. Brining hope to the despairing and encouragement to those walking the road to wholeness. In the ordinary works of everyday ministry we find the extradinary love of God through which saints are made. We don't have to levitate or fly like Joseph of Cupertino, but we should lift peoples spirits.

I better stop here.