Per Christum

A Chicago Catholic priest, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, known for praising Louis Farrakhan as a “gift of God to a sick, sick, world,” has threatened to “snuff out” John Riggio, owner of a gun shop, as well as legislators who support gun rights. Please check out the link to the story. The audio is here. The Rev. Pfleger, apparently well-known for his leftist leanings, is pastor of St. Sabina in Chicago.

I am not defending Pfleger, who seems to have been caught up in the activistic moment, bringing back a rush of memories of the 1960s I am sure, but it is possible that when he used the phrase “snuff out” he may actually have meant “flush out,” as in expose (as opposed to kill). After reading his words, this seems to be a possibility, although nonetheless, his tone and use of words suggests he is rather angry, and it is Chicago, so who knows! That Fr. Pfleger would not know that “snuff out” is street slang for “kill” is unlikely, but until more information comes out, I will give him a little benefit of the doubt. Either way, a supposedly inclusive priest threatening others is very troubling. In my opinion, just because Fr. Pfleger lives in a neighborhood where people kill each other in cold blood regularly (a tragedy, yes), doesn’t mean a legal gun dealer or legislators who support the second amendment should be “snuffed out.”

This has yet to make a major news outlet…could you imagine if a priest used these same words about an abortionist? It would probably be on CNN for 10 days straight. Could you imagine if the gun shop owner himself threatened to “snuff out” the protesters at his business that day? Cardinal George has his hands full with this one. Despite this, Fr. Pfleger seems to have done many good things at St. Sabina.

*By the way, this is the same Fr. Pfleger who back in 2002 threatened to leave the Church if Cardinal George ever transferred him to another parish.

**Fr. Pfleger reportedly said, “We must declare war on guns and anybody who buys or possesses a gun has to be an enemy to the community.”

A blessed Pentecost to all of our readers!

From the Book of Common Prayer:

O God, who on this day
didst teach the hearts of thy faithful
people by sending to them the light of thy Holy Spirit:
Grant us by the same Spirit
to have a right judgment in all things,
and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort;
through the merits of Christ Jesus our Savior,
who liveth and reigneth with thee,
in the unity of the same Spirit,
one God, world without end. Amen.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has apparently not invited Gene Robinson or Marty Minns to the 2008 Lambeth Conference. Robinson is credited with causing the current crisis in the Anglican Communion, and Minns is a bishop associated with Nigeria, functioning in the U.S. without approval by the Episcopal church.

So is this Williams’ solution? Just don’t invite a strong conservative and a strong liberal to Lambeth, and both sides will be happy. Judging by reactions to this move, neither side seems too happy.

By the way, Canon Kendall Harmon has a new blog address: Titus One Nine

Also, has anybody else noticed Pontifications is down? Is there a new address?

Is this too provocative for a Monday? Well, here goes anyway…

Here are a few questions I have about the use of inclusive language for God, which seems to be a growing trend in the mainlines, and in some quarters of the Catholic Church.

1. Is there a mandate from the pews for inclusive language, or has it been forced on the “ignorant masses” by an “elite” minority (a type of Academic clericalism perhaps?)?

2. Do more people feel excluded by the use of inclusive language than feel included by it, because most people seem to prefer the traditional designations for God? (The link, based on a poll of American Catholics, suggests the answer is YES, at least for Catholics).

3. What real effect does wealthy, white, educated, Christians using inclusive language on a Sunday morning actually have on those women, poor, and minorities who are “oppressed” by the system that gave us “exclusive” language? Or is inclusive language about making people feel “good” on a Sunday morning?

4. Why is it so many people get worked up about this in the Academy (lowering grades for using “he,” spending hours excising masculine references from a hymn, etc) but people in the pews I know (from a variety of traditions) don’t seem to give the first hoot about inclusive language?

I wish everyone a blessed (traditional) Feast of the Ascension. In most dioceses in the United States, the feast has been translated to Sunday. Unfortunately, while the Sunday date makes it easier for Catholics to attend Ascension services, it changes the biblical chronology, which places the Ascension 40 days after Easter.

Jerry Falwell, founder of both Liberty University and the Moral Majority, passed away today. While I disagree with some of Falwell’s theology and comments (for example, his comments following 9/11), Catholics and Falwell share many moral and theological assumptions. Falwell has worked with many Catholics (and even non-Catholics), uniting against government-sanctioned abortion and other social problems. The Rev. Falwell was generally friendly to Catholics, leading some in his own tradition to accuse him of treason.

Eternal Rest grant unto them him, O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon them him.
May they he rest in peace.

I originally posted this on May 8, 2005, on my personal blog An Aid to Memory:

Don’t get me started on churches that faithfully celebrate secular holidays (like mother’s day) while rejecting Christian holidays as “unbiblical.” Nonetheless, I still enjoy secular holidays, and mother’s day is one of them. I think mothers are probably the most overworked and under-appreciated of all people, rarely getting any lauds and honors for their work. In fact, it is not exactly popular anymore to claim motherhood proudly. I have a great biological mother (and grandmother), and wish them the happiest mother’s day possible.

However, we Christians also have another mother: The virgin Mary, mother of our God and Savior Jesus Christ and mother of the Church. The Catechism describes Mary thusly (963):

Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. “The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer…She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.” “Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church.”

Then the catechism goes on to explain Mary’s role as mother of grace because of her total cooperation in Jesus’ work. The catechism then explains that this role as “mother of grace” is deeply connected to the work of her Son, lest non-Catholics get the wrong idea.

Thus Mary is our mother in many ways, and the prime example and icon of motherhood. I find this a great comfort since many people have lost their earthly mothers, and sadly I know someday I will lose mine, but we have a mother that will never leave us for any reason. With Mary as mother, who could be ashamed about being a momma’s boy? Happy Mother’s Day everyone. Happy Mother’s day especially to my two moms.

I have noticed an interesting thing happening over the last few years, among those of us in the blogosphere, and that is “blog-level” ecumenism. Hmm, in good academic fashion, I think I just coined a term (actually I used the same term in a previous post I am re-posting later).

At any rate, I am amazed how open, honest, and friendly (yet also feisty and sometimes nasty) blog-level discussions about religion can be. Sure, we have the occasional trolls who show up just to cause trouble, but for the most part we are engaged in discussing issues that more formal dialogues have failed to really address, and we include folks in the conversation that may be off the radar of those doing ecumenism at higher levels. What is happening in the blogworld is a new kind of ecumenical contact, even if we don’t initially recognize it as such.

As a refresher, Catholics believe ecumenism has a twofold purpose: dialogue and evangelization. According to Dominus Iesus, inter-religious dialogue is a part of the Church’s mission of evangelization (22). In other words, Catholics believe that we genuinely are to engage other faiths, and even learn from them, but also teach them about Christ. For more information on the post-Vatican II Catholic understanding of ecumenism, I suggest reading Unitatis Redintegratio (1964), Lumen Gentium (1964), Nostra Aetate (1965), Redemptoris Missio (1990), Ut Unum Sint (1995), and Dominus Iesus (2000).

Now, back to blog-level ecumenism: by “blog-level” ecumenism I mean informal and more formal discussions about religion on blogs, forums, and even podcasts. I am referring to common associations, group blogs, and forums (Blogs for Life, etc), and basically any way religious people interact through the internet. For example, look at the commenters here, and at other blogs. Over at Titus One Nine Anglicans, Baptists, Orthodox, Catholics, Non-denominational Christians, Pentecostals, Reformed, and many more, regularly interact with one another, and most even come back after fairly sharp disagreement. Note that I am assuming something substantial is happening here, and that all of our discussions, posts, conversations, and linking to each other actually serve a higher purpose in bringing us to some type of greater unity in Christ (see John 17). While I am by no means suggesting this is a new ecumenical system that deserves to be turned into a thesis, I think there is definitely something to our regular interactions. Let me throw out a few principles of blog-level ecumenism that I have noticed.

1. Blog-level ecumenism lacks a bureaucracy - This isn’t the United Nations or World Council of Churches. There are no bureaucrats afraid of losing jobs or those who theorize about ecumenism more than they actually do it. Well, there may be a few of these in the blogworld I am sure (and it does take all kinds), but their voices are mixed in with folks from all backgrounds. I am not putting down official ecumenical efforts mind you, but I do think that the effectiveness of the WCC is seriously hindered by its bureaucratic (and leftist) nature.

2. People of all backgrounds are involved in blog-level ecumenism- Typically it is the mainlines, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Churches that are especially active in ecumenical work, and debates still exist in these churches as to the value of ecumenism. Unfortunately, the fastest growing forms of Christianity tend to get left out of official ecumenical efforts for a variety of reasons, partly because many distrust ecumenism (or at least the way it has been carried out in the past), or because those involved in formal ecumenical efforts don’t consider newer denominations to be legitimate, because of their conservatism or charismatic nature. However, this is not true with blog-level ecumenism. Anybody with a blog that accepts comments can be involved, whether they know it or not.

Since establishing Per Christum, our forums, and our Paltalk rooms, we have come into contact with thousands of Christians from many different denominations, some larger and older (Lutheran, Orthodox, Anglican, etc), some smaller, newer, and even “unofficial” (Messianic, Adventist off-shoots, “non-denominational). This is, in my estimation, ecumenism at its fullest because truly anybody can be involved. You don’t need an ecumenical officer or even another parish nearby to participate, you just need an internet connection and a few ideas.

3. Blog-Level ecumenism is generally diverse - Most bloggers are not academics or even ordained (although some are), but folks of diverse backgrounds who attempt to accurately represent their faith through dedication, commitment, and love of knowledge. In other words, they are everyday believers who regularly engage and work with other Christians (and even non-Christians), whether they actually believe in ecumenism or not. While official ecumenical efforts may be in the hands of professors or clergy, or perhaps a few other laity, all kinds of people participate in blog-level ecumenism. In a sense, everybody gets a voice, which means that a variety of experiences and life situations are regularly represented. Also, folks representing different perspectives within different churches are represented, contributing to the diversity. In the case of mainline bloggers, you have folks from all sides represented, meaning that you truly get an understanding of what is happening in each church. Without blogs, Episcopalians would likely have few places to go to find out what the “opposition” thinks about recent developments in that denomination.

4. Blog-Level ecumenism tends to give traditional religious persons a voice - I find that most bloggers are pretty traditional, i.e. accurately representing their traditions, although not all bloggers are. This conservatism could be a function of the conservative nature of younger Christians who use the internet. Regardless, most Catholic bloggers seem to be loyal to the magisterium (check out St. Blog’s for instance), and most Protestants seem proud to be in their traditions, rather than apologizing for them. For instance, Lutheran bloggers seem to really like Luther, and Calvinist bloggers have a strong fondness for Calvin.

Basically, in the blogworld, we get a real chance to actually engage Christians who accurately represent their respective churches. Why does this matter? First, it means you are getting an accurate picture of a particular faith. Second, honest and open discussion often results, even if the discourse is not as polite as that in more official settings. What I mean is that when I discuss something with friends, I actually prefer that they honestly tell me what they believe, and if we disagree, fine, because we can still remain friends and continue the discussion. If we both were to agree to some kind of nebulous middle that really didn’t accurately represent anything, what would be the point of even having a discussion? What would we learn from that? I would much rather have dialogue with an opinionated evangelical than someone who can only speak in nebulous doublespeak just to agree with me for an hour. Of course, other bloggers may disagree with my preferences, and actually prefer to find a less controversial middle ground, and this is ok, because such is the diverse nature of blog-level ecumenism.

5. Blog-level ecumenism is the future - This is a bold claim, yes, but I believe it is true. While I believe “formal” dialogue serves a purpose, ground-level discussions and cooperation seem to be very effective. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, high-level ecumenism is not nearly as comprehensive or inclusive as ground-level ecumenism. For instance, I know of a Baptist church, non-denominational church and Catholic parish that work together to help the poor locally, but these three churches are not in any “official” dialogue, nor will they likely ever be. This effect can be seen on blogs as well. Individuals are able to interact with such a variety of folks online, that is not likely to be duplicated “in person.” As more and more folks start blogs and journals, contact among different religions and Christian denominations is only likely to increase. If we approach this with a purpose, to move toward greater understanding, greater cooperation, and perhaps eventual unity, we will be better off.

6. Blogs offer a chance for us to come into contact with hostile individuals - I suppose not many folks would consider this a positive thing, but I think it is. Let me ask, “can you have ecumenical relations with someone if they don’t want relations with you.” Sadly, in official ecumenism you can’t. I suppose the Swiss Guard could theoretically kidnap that non-denominational pastor who hates Catholics and drag him to dialogue, bound and gagged, squirming in the pope mobile, but it wouldn’t produce much fruit. However, due to the nature of blogs, you can actually enter into some type of dialogue with those who aren’t open to it. Sure, at the start of hostile dialogue it may be like engaging a coyote who hasn’t eaten in two weeks, but over time, relationships may be built and attitudes softened. Even if not, at least perhaps both sides learned something.

7. Blogs offer a chance to form associations and work on common projects - If I wanted to start an ecumenical pro-life group in my area, I may get decent participation, or it may be a bust. However, imagine if you start something like this online. Instead of twenty people from 5 churches working together, you could have thousands from hundreds of churches working together. The Internet offers a great chance for networking and information dissemination that may not exist locally, not to mention including the widest representation of denominations possible.

Now, you may have a few objections, and so do I. I am throwing out some ideas here, not suggesting I am heralding the new direction of ecumenism. So here are a few objections I came up with:

1. Come on David, people on the blogworld hate each other, and fight, and fight for converts. How is this ecumenism?? - This is all true…but isn’t this how a lot of people really are? Are we suggesting that we cannot enter dialogue with those who might be a little grumpy or strong-willed? Is there nothing to be gained from discussing things with those who may oppose us? Besides, if we are really going to have open and honest discussions, that means we have to accept that we may not always get along perfectly with others, or receive the answers we always like. I remember reading about Family Systems theory, which deals with relationships among persons. The theory speaks of “self-differentiated” individuals, who have a clear sense of “self” and who can interact respectfully with others with whom they disagree. Self-differentiated individuals do not feel the need to “fuse” with others simply to get along with them. I think a lot of folks view ecumenism as a “fusing” effort. If we don’t come out without some type of common agreement, the result is failure. I disagree. There are many positive outcomes that can come from discussion with others, some representing a nanometer of progress, others perhaps a foot. This is why blog-level ecumenism is so exciting, because you are actually engaging folks whom you naturally would not engage, folks who may even be hostile. Even if someone hostile to Catholicism leaves with some accurate knowledge of Catholicism, or we leave with a better understanding of another’s faith, something good has happened. Traditional ecumenism rarely offers a chance for these types of interactions.

2. Isn’t it wrong to speak of all Christian discussion as ecumenism. Aren’t there different levels of effectiveness? I mean, some Christians devour each other online - I contend that any contact and discussion is at least a start, although those without thick skin obviously should avoid the more difficult discussions, and I admit for my sanity, I do avoid certain websites and blogs. Obviously, those of us that see the online world as an ecumenical effort need to enter into any discussion (online or otherwise) pastorally. In psychology we speak of four ways of dealing with others. They are assertive, aggressive, passive, and passive-aggressive. An aggressive response is overbearing, hostile, and sarcastic. A passive one is sitting back and letting things happen, e.g. agreeing with someone when you really don’t to avoid any kind of conflict. A passive-aggressive response is sneaky and undermining, and includes agreeing with someone to his face, while sabotaging efforts secretly through procrastination, etc. I saved the proper response for last: assertive. Being assertive means standing up for what you believe in respectfully, without resorting to aggressive behavior. You let others know your feelings while respecting the feelings of others. I think an assertive response is the best, and most helpful in any dialogue. An assertive person is willing to admit commonalities, but also honestly discuss differences. Some discussions are passive, others aggressive, and many assertive. I think that if we can assume the best in others (as Christians should), we can carry out assertive conversations, and respond to aggressive, passive, and passive-aggressive discussion in an assertive way. I admit I do not have the tenacity to remain assertive in certain environments, so I avoid them.

Also, I think we also have to get over the assumption that is becoming more common in our society, which is that if you disagree with someone you are “being mean,” “hostile,” or possibly even committing a hate crime! In my opinion, this attitude is not a very adult way of thinking. While aggressive and threatening behavior is mean and hostile, assertive behavior is different, and some folks seem to have trouble differentiating the two.

3. But…so many bloggers are so amateurish and uneducated, shouldn’t we just let the high-ups deal with ecumenism, theology, and all that stuff? - Actually, some of the greatest saints throughout history were pretty “amateurish.” Plus, sometimes a person labels another as amateurish simply because a)she disagrees with what is being said, or b)because the “amateur” didn’t go into debt 20,000 dollars to get an advanced degree that allows you to work at Starbucks (I am describing myself lest anybody take offense!). Again, this is why blog-level ecumenism is so darn great, because you don’t have to be a recognized theologian or scholar to get involved. In Unitatis Redintegratio, the fathers of the Second Vatican council exhorted “all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism”. Notice that this include all Catholics, from pope down to janitor, and even down further to us religion teachers!

So basically, I see a future in Christian dialogue and discussion online. I think we are witnessing a revolution right before our eyes. Just as the internet is transforming other areas of life, it is transforming our ecumenical efforts as well. Plus, I have seen blog interactions result in increased dialogue, a better understanding among persons of different faiths, as well as nudging non-Catholics into full communion with the Catholic Church, meaning this type of ecumenism is faithful to the magisterial understanding of ecumenism. Plus, it is just plain interesting to read blogs written by all sorts of people…did I mention that?

SUBJECT: RELIGION!!!

Apparently, the leadership of the CEC has not learned much from the events of the past 12-18 months. I just received — unsolicited — an e-mail from a long-time CEC priest in the Southeast who yesterday announced that he and his congregation were moving from the CEC to the newly formed Communion of Christ the Redeemer (CCR).

Within hours — literally within hours — the CEC leader in his state demanded the return of his ordination certificates, denounced him as a vow-breaker, and has already begun efforts to seize his church’s property. And this against a man who has served as a priest for more than a decade.

For crying out loud, people, WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED???

WHEN WILL THIS NONSENSE STOP???

What is to be gained by this continued persecution?

When will the current leadership in the CEC realize that they bear enormous responsibility for the events of the last 18 months?

You know, I’ve heard a lot of talk about “healing” and “moving forward” and even admission of “communication breakdowns”, etc. But I don’t see the actions suiting the words.

Francis Beckwith, president of the Evangelical Theological Society, has become Catholic. Please read the link for information from Kacy Sandidge, convert to Catholicism and student at Baylor, where Beckwith teaches. As Kacy has seen his reception into the Church firsthand (and Dr. Beckwith was gracious enough to comment on her blog), I think we can assume that Beckwith becoming Catholic is fact and not rumor.

Kacy does a good job explaining why Beckwith became Catholic, fending off James Whites accusations. White seems to dismiss those strong evangelicals who become Catholic. He says:

As any review of the current body of Roman Catholic “conversion stories” will bear out, fair, balanced, insightful representation of the facts related to sola scriptura, Papal primacy, the Mass, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, etc., is utterly lacking. Emotional appeals to “the ancient church,” mythical references to the “unity” of Rome (those actually inside the communion and familiar with its rancorous disputes cannot help but chuckle at those blissfully naive, breathless commentaries), and the warm feeling of “coming home” to the Church (almost never anything about conversion to Christ) are the keys to successful conversioneering.

Of course, White misses the point. White assumes that everyone who converts is going to do so the way he would, which is to turn matters of faith into a point-by-point system of plusses and minuses. Besides, even if a convert laid out excellent reasons why he accepted purgatory or the Marian dogmas, I doubt White would consider them “fair, balanced [or] insightful,” because if the arguments were so great, the person likely wouldn’t have ever converted to Catholicism to begin with. When I became Catholic, I admit the reason I explored Catholicism was because of the utter failure of Anglicanism to have any authority whatsoever. Joining one of the myriad Protestant denominations I encountered on the internet wasn’t exactly the solution to this crisis of authority. In fact, only two churches were on my “short list” at this point, Catholic and Orthodox, because both had two things going for them: they existed before the Protestant reformation, and both made the claim that they had authority through Apostolic Succession, and my studies of history convinced me these were legitimate claims. As an Anglican, I already believed in 95% of the Catholic Marian dogmas, and in purgatory (thanks to C.S. Lewis). The biggest issue really was papal infallibility, and after I studied the actual dogma and what John Paul II said on the matter, I became convinced I could handle that.

Yes, we converts like the idea of an ancient church. I mean, who wouldn’t? After all, Jesus lived on earth 2000 years ago, and it makes sense that if the gates of Hades would not prevail over his Church, he would have insightful and devoted followers in the many centuries following his ascension. And yes, we converts like “coming home,” but White forgets that evangelicals becoming Catholic have already converted to Christ! While some evangelicals believe that when a person goes from Catholic to Protestant, he becomes “saved” from a pagan religion, Catholics do not believe this. Converts understand that they were saved in their evangelical churches, and that they met Jesus there, but they believe they have come to something deeper and more full when becoming Catholic. Yes it is a process of continued conversion, but I am not sure many evangelicals agree with the idea that conversion is an ongoing process.

So, many evangelicals become Catholic for a variety of reasons, some intellectual, some emotional, some purely spiritual. Perhaps Catholicism, because of its spiritual diversity, touches people on so many levels (as opposed to just intellectual). This is part of Catholicism’s appeal really. We have our intellectual and systematic theologians (St. Thomas), we have our mystics and contemplatives (St. John of the Cross), we have our strong leaders (John Paul II), we have our workers among the poor (Mother Teresa), and we have saints and sinners from all regions, races, time periods, and states of life. It makes sense that those becoming Catholic would do so in a holistic way, but I assure you, the thoughtful evangelicals I know who have become Catholic have done so with a strong intellectual understanding of controversial Catholic dogmas. Welcome to the Catholic Church Dr. Francis Beckwith.

**Note: Tiber Jumper has a good post on the matter, including some responses from around the blogosphere.**

Today, May 2nd, is the feast of St. Athanasius, the strong-willed bishop who stood against Arius and Arianism at all costs. Only, he, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and a few others remained Nicene when the whole world, according to St. Jerome, “groaned to find itself Arian.” However, Athanasius prevailed. He is remembered today as an ardent defender of the Trinity, and a doctor of the Church. His tombstone reads, Athanasius contra mundum, Athanasius against the world!

Uphold thy Church, O God of truth, as thou didst uphold thy Servant Athanasius, to maintain and proclaim boldly the catholic faith against all opposition, trusting solely in the grace of thine eternal Word, who took upon himself our humanity that we might share his divinity; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.

A fellow teacher recommended I show the movie Facing the Giants to my students. His daughter had the movie, and he was willing to loan it to me for a week while she wasn’t using it. When he said, “I have your lesson plans for the week” I admit I didn’t hesitate too much, knowing that the year is winding down as the stress is upped.