I admit that I've had the movie, Molokai: The Story of Father Damien, sitting around at home for months. I rented it from Netflix. It's a gorgeous movie with a star-studded cast, the acting superb, the cinematography wonderful, period clothing impeccable, script well-written, the events historically accurate. There's not a thing wrong with this movie. The problem? The subject matter.

Fr. Damien, who I just discovered was canonized less than two weeks ago by our holy pontiff (YES!!!!), was a Belgian Sacred Heart priest who worked among the lepers on the island of Molokai in Hawaii during the mid to late 1800s. When considering the topic of leper colonies--something I never thought much about, to be honest--it simply never occurred to me that children found to have the disease would be forcibly separated from their parents, wives from husbands, and so forth, never to be seen again. To be shipped off to Molokai was itself like death.

They were treated more like criminals than innocent victims of disease. The infected were hunted out, often by police and officials, and put into forced segregation. Torn from family and friends and lost in the grim strokes of despair and death, the unwanted existed in their damp seclusion....most of the patients' ceilings were only the canopy of the sky.*

To witness this barbarism even in movie form was simply heart wrenching. That's why it took so long to finish the movie.

Another effect of exile I had never considered was that of vice. Apparently, faced with one's inevitable demise and death, and lacking the mores and expectations of a larger society, many felt they had nothing to lose in debauchery. Fr. Damien, who volunteered and was not sent to live among the lepers, had all these difficulties to face and more. The only priest on the island, and disallowed to leave, he was not permitted to go to confession for long periods of time. Refused permission to board a steamliner with a priest (Fr. Modeste) aboard, and the ship not allowed to dock on Molokai, Fr. Damien was forced to make his confession while screaming from a rowboat. (This true event is portrayed in the movie.)

Though he repeatedly requested and prayed for not only a priest to come hear his confession, but also material and human aid for the more than a thousand sick and dying people on Molokai, he was refused time and again by his bishop and superiors. Although there were nuns and others willing to come help, they were refused admittance to the leper colony by the bishop and Board of Health, and money and materials were withheld from the saint and needy lepers. He had no doctors, no nurses.

Additionally, the protestants on the Board of Health had a hand in forcing Fr. Damien to remain on the island, supposedly for fear of spreading the disease. They thought that "by forcing him to stay he would leave  the settlement altogether. Jealousy had prompted them to destroy a hope that they would not fulfill themselves."**

Because Fr. Damien had no doctors or nurses, grave diggers, construction workers, maintenance men, farmers, teachers, and children were without parents, he became all these things. "Everyone looks on me as a father. As for me I make myself a leper with the lepers to gain all to Jesus Christ," the great saint said. His sermons began, "We lepers."

As if all this was not enough, he also established sodalities, a brass band, trained interested people in church music, evangelized voraciously the many non-Catholics (he baptized over a thousand people), administered the sacraments, established perpetual adoration, and built orphanages. Needless to say his favorite saint was the great missionary Francis Xavier.

Despite Fr. Damien's tireless efforts, his bishop said this, "I regret that the admiration for this work of charity is erroneous. I see with displeasure that the newspapers who admire you exaggerate by putting things in a false light."*** Both his provincial superior and his bishop were not only discouraging, they treated him horribly and undermined his efforts to do the Lord's work among people who needed so much help. Finally his superior, Fr. Leonor (depicted in the movie by Derek Jacobi) admitted that the bishop was "suffering from the disease of jealousy. Public esteem for anyone other than himself is his torment." The bishop did not wish donations to be given to Fr. Damien on Molokai but all to be lavished instead on him. Again we see how greed undermines God's will. But the provincial superior, Fr. Leonor, was no better. In fact as time went on the Board of Health relaxed somewhat in restricting Fr. Damien's movements, but Fr. Leonor continued to restrict him and severely limited his ability to go to confession.

Finally Fr. Damien contracted leprosy, a natural result of his coming into direct contact with the disease for so long. Adding insult to injury, he was accused of "impious activity," shall we say, in contracting the disease. This was completely without foundation, meant only to drag down his reputation.

It seems Fr. Leonor treated Fr. Damien with disdain until the great saint's death. As Fr. Damien lay dying (left), Leonor even refused to send him a crucifix for the leper's chapel. It is unfortunate that throughout Catholic history, despite physical and spiritual need, there have been too many bishops and prelates who care little for the salvation of souls. We need only read the lives of countless saints to see how many struggled with their superiors and bishops. We find ourselves living in another of these eras in which material and corporate logic trumps spiritual need, an era in which not only are we being deprived a crucifix but our entire churches are being stolen away. May the good Lord bless his very many faithful servants throughout our blessed Church's history. And may Fr. Damien, saint of the lepers, faithful despite all opposition, pray for all of us.

Thankfully by the time of his death he received some human assistance and increased supplies, and his reputation has of course been vindicated. The great saint was only 49 at the time of his death.

No description on my part could ever do St. Damien of Molokai or the movie justice. I highly recommend renting or buying the movie. Also, supplement your viewing by obtaining for $2 the From the Housetops periodical (link below) with a succinct but ample biography of this great new saint of the Church. He is yet another saint who, in the face of persecution from both his immediate superior and bishop, was able to build chapels, spread the Faith, and act as a true father as shepherd of all to a people without hope.    


*From the Housetops, Volume XVIII, No. 2, Serial No. 39, page 2. Note: I noticed that this particular issue is not linked on the website of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I bet if you give them a call they may send it to you or copy it for you. It is excellent. Here is the wikipedia entry on Fr. Damien: click here.
**Ibid, page 8
***All quotes are taken from historical account or from From the Housetops, not from the movie. 

Rest in peace Jack Quickmire, beloved member of St. Mary's Malaga.

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord
And let perpetual light shine upon him.
Through the mercy of God, may he rest in peace.
Amen.

This is a link to the photo archive.

It is a sad time in the history of our Church. Our Lady must surely be weeping.

Looking at these photos, my heart is breaking. I once attended mass at one of these churches while on our "mining tour" vacation. As I recall, it was the church in the photo on the right, St. Casimir's. They had perpetual adoration. It was a truly beautiful church. Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta had visited this church.

The people of this region (my husband's mother and other relatives among them) are and were hard working. Of course, many of the people of this area have been miners. Undoubtedly they sacrificed much for these houses of God. Many must have spent most of their lives in the deep recesses of the earth, and these beautiful churches, architecturally diverse and truly giving glory to God, was the one thing of beauty they must have had in their lives. That they were closed is a sin.

We put up this article last Oct. 27th--we did not write it ourselves. It deserves a reprinting. Take a look and see if it doesn't sound familiar. Even if you don't read the whole article, be sure to scroll down to the "Suppressing (Closing) Parishes" section, which we put in italics for you. You will see that the scandals and the agenda demonstrated by our current bishop are not new in the history of the American Catholic Church, only the latest attack on Holy Mother Church. Apparently, the power hungry nature of the American bishopric is notorious and long standing. We put in bold the most relevant information so you can easily skim. However we highly recommend you read it carefully. This article is so eerily familiar and gives important background to our current situation, despite its being written about 14 years ago. It may also be read here.

ZAP! YOUR CHURCH IS RENOVATED!
SLAM! YOUR PARISH IS CLOSED! Duane Galles

---

[The following article is drawn from legal opinions and pleadings in the files of the St. Joseph Foundation. The primary contributor is Duane Galles. The editing and a small portion of the text is Charles M. Wilson's and he accepts full responsibility for any flaws.]

We know that Christ's Church is not a democracy and we acknowledge that those who exercise the ministry of governance are not accountable to those they govern. We understand also that the faithful are obliged to follow whatever legitimate authorities determine as leaders of the Church, but the above two citations--and lots of others which could be used--tell us quite a lot about the way in which ecclesiastical authority should be exercised. Unfortunately, there have been times during the 2,000 year history of our Church when these principles have been honored more in the breach than the observance. Perhaps the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council had this in mind when they said:

"By the power of the Holy Spirit the Church is the faithful spouse of the Lord and will never fail to be a sign of salvation in the world; but it is by no means unaware that down through the centuries there have been among its members, both clerical and lay, some who were disloyal to the Spirit of God. Today, as well, the Church is not blind to the discrepancy between the message it proclaims and the human weakness of those to whom the Gospel has been entrusted. Whatever is history's judgment on these shortcomings, we cannot ignore them and we must combat them earnestly, lest they hinder the spread of the Gospel" (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, <Gaudium et Spes>, No. 43).

When we think about this, most of us will recall those sad moments in history when priests, bishops and even some popes were guilty of grossly scandalous conduct and showed themselves to be unworthy of their offices.

But we might also consider those times when Church leaders exhibited other less spectacular weaknesses such as capriciousness, arrogance, cruelty, duplicity, intransigence and authoritarianism. When linked to conditions which have frequently permitted the exercise of power with unrestrained discretion on the part of ecclesiastical authorities, we can rightly wonder if these flaws have not over time caused more harm to the Church and the loss of more souls than the excesses of the likes of John XII, Benedict IX and Alexander VI. It is this exercise of discretionary authority by bishops or their bureaucrats which has resulted in recent heated controversies over many issues, prominent among them being--especially in the United States and Canada--the renovation of parish church buildings and the closure of parishes.

Before proceeding to the consideration of these particular issues, it would be worthwhile to take just a glance at how episcopal discretion has been exercised in the United States and those parts of Canada where English is the predominant language. Going back to the end of the eighteenth century, we see that both had very few Catholics and that, coupled with the difficulties in communication, resulted in Rome taking a more or less "out of sight, out of mind" attitude. In sum, the day-to-day governance of the dioceses was, for better or worse, left almost entirely in the hands of the bishops.

Anyone who holds a position of authority, subject only to a distant and not overly concerned higher authority, is tempted to exercise power not in a spirit of service but often arbitrarily and sometimes abusively. We see an example of this in the nineteenth century when the American bishops, at the First Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1829, attempted by decree to overstate the obligation of obedience of diocesan priests to their bishops and, in effect, reduce them to the condition of religious priests with respect to their superiors. Although, thankfully, the Holy See did intervene to suppress that decree, the bishops resourcefully employed other means to achieve the same end.

Throughout the nineteenth century, the American bishops refused to erect canonical parishes and thereby prevented diocesan priests from acquiring the rights and security of tenure conferred on pastors by the universal law of the Church. Unlike priests in the Catholic countries of Europe, their American counterparts were canonically merely rectors of missions with delegated instead of ordinary powers which could be withdrawn at the pleasure of the bishops.

Indeed, then, the power of the American bishop over his clergy was awesome. He could appoint, remove, transfer and discipline them at will. He controlled their compensation and regulated their lifestyle to an extent and in a manner that no European bishop would have dared. The situation was such that even Pope Pius IX could joke about it. When asked one day by a supplicant for a favor, the pontiff reportedly replied: "What you ask is not in my power to grant, but there is an American bishop in town. Go ask him!"

Another contributing element was the fact that not only were the American bishops subject to little restraint by the Holy See, they were not subject to the type of influence which certain civil authorities could employ in Europe. Centuries of intricate relations between state and Church on that continent resulted in many constraints upon ecclesiastical authority that were never implemented in North America. One example was the right of presentation, or the right of civil governments to propose candidates for Church offices. Even the election of popes could be influenced, as happened in this very century when the Emperor of Austria exercised his right of veto and blocked the election of Cardinal Rampolla as pope in 1903.

An important and beneficial change took place with the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which instantly transformed the "missions" in North America into canonical parishes and thereby transformed their "rectors" into pastors, with all the protections of the law. An even more sweeping change flowed from the ecclesiology of Vatican II, which reemphasized the notion of authority as a ministry of service rather than one of power.

We see this reformed ecclesiology made present in the law in several ways. In 1967 Pope Paul VI in his apostolic constitution, <Regimini Ecclesiae Universae,> created the Second Section of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura to enforce the rights of Christ's faithful even against public ecclesiastical authorities. Sixteen years later, the revised Code of Canon Law, in contrast to its predecessor, codified the rights and duties of the faithful. Perhaps the most important of the 1752 canons in the new Code is number 128, which states that "Anyone who unlawfully inflicts damage upon someone by a juridic act, or indeed by any other act placed with malice or culpability, is obliged to compensate for the damage inflicted." This means that the arbitrary and capricious use of discretionary power is no longer acceptable under the 1983 Code.

The Effects Of The Reforms

While the reforms of Vatican II and the 1983 Code look good on paper, the sad fact is that one can see few positive changes on the parish and diocesan level. Aside from the historical reality that change sometimes takes place very slowly in the Church, our conclusion is that there are three reasons for this: (1) Since Vatican II, the concept of "collegiality" has become something of an obsession and the Holy See has been extremely reluctant to interfere-even when there are good reasons to do so-in diocesan affairs. (2) Too many bishops in the United States and Canada have allowed their authority to be undermined by "experts" on their staffs. (3) The canon 221, 3 of the 1983 Code stated that the "Christian faithful can legitimately vindicate and defend the rights which they enjoy in the Church before a competent ecclesiastical court in accord with the norm of law," but the Code says very little as to how this theoretical right can be put into practice.

There are others who have come to similar conclusions, not all of whom may share our theological views. One, for example, was Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak, Associate Professor of Religion and Religious Education at the Catholic University of America, who said;

"More than a few lay people have noted that their rights to participation in the Church have not always been better respected by the addition to the traditional clerical hierarchy of a new and larger body of "professionals" and "experts". It is an occupational hazard of bureaucrats to believe that they know better than the people in the field how things should be done. And if they turn to management theories elaborated for business and government for ideas on how to plan for the Church's future, it is not surprising to hear complaints that the Church appears much more like a giant and impersonal organization than like a living community of brothers and sisters-a complaint, by the way, that by no means is aimed only at episcopal or papal targets" (<Origins>, April 2, 1987, p. 378).

A prominent American canonist has added a legal dimension to Fr. Komonchak's observation and applied it to parishes, which are often the victims of those "professionals" and "experts."

"Parishes and other local congregations are not branch offices or local outlets of a central corporation, like banks or auto agencies or service stations. They are unique communities of Christian people. They are authentic Churches, just like those described in the New Testament (in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Corinth, in Ephesus), and they must be respected as such. The Church is "built up from below" by these local communities of God's people...

Sometimes the impression is given that the parishes exist for the sake of the diocese, when just the opposite is true. The organization and governance of the Church is most often stated and interpreted by those in diocesan offices. They subtly begin to believe that their functions are primary, and that they represent the first and most important level of the Church's life' since they are more immediately related to the bishop's authority. They gradually come to consider parish communities as derivative and secondary, almost as managerial units. They speak of planning for "clusters of parishes" or "pastoral zones of the diocese" (meaning that they are preparing to suppress or merge parishes) and of reorganizing local communities for reasons of more efficient use of personnel and financial resources. [In a footnote, the author adds, Economy and efficiency are praiseworthy, but the dignity and quality of local communities is even more important. Ed.] They relate to the local churches in the same ways that corporate executives of Safeway and McDonalds relate to their local stores.

No one is baptized in a chancery office. People enter the Church, grow in faith, give praise to God, and lend loving assistance to their neighbors in parishes and other local communities. These local congregations of the faithful have a proper and authentic autonomy which must be respected> ("The Vindication of Parish Rights," by James A. Coriden, <The Jurist> 54 (1994), pp. 23-24).

Much more along these same lines could be said, but we believe Frs. Komonchak and Coriden have adequately and fairly summarized, for the purposes of this discussion, the atmosphere that prevails in the majority of dioceses in North America.

Renovation Of Church Buildings

We must admit that church buildings are places of worship, not museums, and that hardly any, including St. Peter's Basilica, never undergo some changes. Even so, the many "horror stories" in our case files and those we have seen elsewhere confirm that most "renovations" go far beyond--and in some cases are even contrary to--the legal norms. And this is not a problem that has arisen recently. Almost twenty five years ago, the Holy See issued the following sound advice: "<Mindful of the legislation of Vatican Council II and of the directives in the documents of the Holy See, bishops are to exercise unfailing vigilance to ensure that the remodeling of places of worship is carried out with the utmost caution>" (Congregation for Clergy, Circular Letter <Opera artis>, April 11, 1971).

Virtually all renovation projects are grounded in what the parishioners are told are the needs of the reformed Vatican II liturgy. In fact, they are often motivated by erroneous interpretations of liturgical law arising from the Council's Constitution on the Liturgy, <Sacrosanctum concilium> (SC). Three key concepts of SC, it seems, are commonly misinterpreted and misapplied. This, in turn, has motivated the iconoclasm and destruction of so much cultural church property in the United States and Canada.

The first key concept which has been misinterpreted and misapplied is <participatio actuosa> of SC. It has been mistranslated as "active participation" which, in English, can imply that for participation to be genuine it must involve physical activity. For a proper understanding of the phrase, one can paraphrase the original Latin of the 1958 instruction, <De musica sacra>, to say that participation ought to be internal and, certainly, exercised with a spirit of piety and heartfelt affection. Given this understanding of the concept, "actual participation" might be a more accurate translation. In any event, the liturgical "establishment's" understanding has had pernicious consequences, such as the attentive assistance at Mass and participation in the changes in posture or responses being dismissed by some liturgists as inadequate. Thus, communion rails are destroyed, altars thrust forward like theaters-in-the-round, statues are removed and the Blessed Sacrament banished, since their presence would inhibit a maximum of activity, which inevitably deteriorates into mere busyness.

The second concept misinterpreted is that of <nobilis pulchritudo> (noble beauty) of Article 124 of SC, which has often been translated as "noble simplicity." In the name of "simplicity," altars have been smashed, statues trashed, paintings whitewashed, organs silenced and the ignoble--burlap vestments and crude ceramic vessels, for example--introduced into the temple to serve as its ornaments.

The third concept misunderstood is that of the common priesthood of the laity. In advancing this notion beyond its proper scope, some liturgists demand the abolition of any distinctions whatever between the sacred minister and the laity. Thus, any physical barriers between them are taboo. Communion rails are especially hated and any physical reminder of a "holy of holies" must go, so hordes of lay functionaries can swarm in and out of the "sanctuary."

In addition to the physical renovations themselves, the methods by which they are inflicted are of equal or even greater concern. The "process" leading up to the actual arrival of the bulldozers begins with the appearance of the ubiquitous "experts" and "professionals" who tell the people only what they are supposed to hear. Glossy, one-sided hand-outs are distributed at "listening sessions" while the people are assured that "no final decisions have been made." Usually, a renovation committee consisting of carefully selected parishioners emerges' to announce the final plans, while any alternative suggestions or proposals are stifled by whatever methods-gentle or not so gentle-that circumstances require. There are no credible estimates that we know of as to how much money has been wasted over the last thirty years on needless renovations of North American church buildings, but it must be in the hundreds of millions, or perhaps billions, of dollars.

To close this part of the discussion on a hopeful note, there is a rather remote but growing possibility that (if our prayers are answered) most of the renovations may eventually have to be undone. The first signs of a true "reform of the reform" may have appeared and are reported on page two of this issue. Should this come to pass, even more billions will be needed to set things right. But, we suspect, the people will not mind putting up the money.

Suppressing (Closing) Parishes

Just as we admitted that places of worship cannot remain unchanged forever, we must concede that not every parish has a right to perpetual existence. Acknowledging this general rule, though, does not mean that we have to agree with every suppression decreed by every chancery.

There is one very important difference between renovating church buildings and suppressing parishes. Buildings, of course, do not in themselves have rights and the renovation, or even destruction, of a parish church does not alter the legal status of the parish, which has what is called a juridic personality. In other words, a juridic person in canon law is roughly equivalent to a corporation in secular law. And like a corporation, a juridic person has rights and duties under the law. The primary and fundamental right of any person, natural or legal, is to existence. Father Coriden puts it this way:

"Once a stable community of faithful people has taken shape, it has the right to canonical recognition (e.g., first as a mission or quasi-parish, then as a parish; c. 516). Once established as a parish, the community possesses juridic personality and is, nature sue perpetual (cc. 515, #3; 120, #1). In other words, the parish should remain in existence until overwhelming reasons for its alteration or suppression are clearly demonstrated."

After hearing about or becoming directly involved in parish suppression cases throughout the country, we have yet to see a single example of "overwhelming" reasons. Indeed, virtually all suppressions--and absolutely all which are contested by the parishioners--are justified on the basis of a shortage of priests, more efficient use of facilities, even distribution of people, financial considerations or other factors which have little or nothing to do with the vitality of the community.

Sometimes the reasons given for suppression make no sense at all. For example, the city of Clinton, Iowa, in the Diocese of Davenport used to have five parishes. In 1990, all five were suppressed and one "mega parish" was created in their place. The bishop's letter announcing and attempting to support the action said this:

"And yet, I see that the needs of the past, e.g., for ethnic parishes, are not the needs of today. In fact, the need for unity and united action are the paramount needs of today. (*Almost the exact same thing was stated in this week's Star Herald -Julie)

In other words, five parishes competing for people, funds and personnel is not what the Catholic community needs."

In truth, none of the five parishes was "ethnic" and all were vibrant communities of faith. No one in Clinton has ever understood why their city could not have more than one parish when other cities in the diocese (Davenport, Iowa City, Muscatine, etc.) continue to have several. No one in the chancery has ever been able to explain why either.

Although renovations and suppressions are different kinds of actions, the "process" leading up to them is often remarkably similar. The ever-present "professionals" and "expert consultants" arrive to "soften-up" the parishioners with unctuous assurances that "no decisions will be made without everyone having their say." Then, as in the case of renovations, all those who have opinions contrary to the outcome desired by the chancery are marginalized or excluded from the discussions by whatever means necessary. We have even seen instances where elderly parishioners were threatened with denial of Christian burial if they continued to object.

Should the consultation process produce recommendations which the bishop does not like, such as recently happened in the diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he simply rides roughshod over the procedures he himself established and decrees whatever he wishes.

In short, the decisions to suppress are utterly lacking in reasonable motives and the "consultation processes" lack even a scintilla of justice. The ultimate injustice occurs when a parish suffers the "double whammy" of being forced to renovate its church and then, several years later, being suppressed.

In Conclusion

In spite of the discouraging trends, there are reasons for hope. One of these reasons is that many of the courageous faithful who try to save their churches from the renovators or their parishes from the axe simply refuse to give up. Even when they lose, as often happens, their efforts are not wasted. We know of cases where renovations were prevented and parishes slated for suppression were saved because the "professionals" did not want to face another struggle which might even involve an appeal to Rome.

And who knows? With enough prayer and hard work, we may even see in our lifetime a system of appeal which will see cases decided on the law and the facts instead of ecclesiastical politics and influence peddling.

Fr. Romanowski says, "We need more adorers to achieve Perpetual Adoration at St. Mary's. For this week we will begin on Wednesday after 7:00pm mass."

Actually, we were impressed by the number of hours already covered. However there are more available. If you would like to see what hours are open and what might work with your personal schedule, please stop by the rectory or give Angela or Father Romanowski a call: 856-694-2576.

Remember, there is no greater privilege than being in the presence of our Eucharistic Lord. It is also the ideal setting in which to pray for the bishop's total conversion of heart, mind, and spirit; for the preservation of St. Mary's; for whatever personal intentions you may have; for the holy souls in Purgatory; and simply to praise and glorify Jesus Christ with your presence.

Spiritual reading is also appropriate in Our Lord's Eucharistic Presence. Catch up on your spiritual reading during Lent: Read the lives of the saints, bring your Bible, or try the beautiful Imitation of Christ. St. Therese of Lisiux's famous Story of a Soul is a favorite of many.

For your enjoyment, we would like to share the beautiful prayer of the Franciscan saint and cardinal, St. Bonaventure:

Prayer of St. Bonaventure (d.1274)

Pierce, O my sweet Lord Jesus, my inmost soul with the most joyous and healthful wound of your love, with true serene and most holy apostolic charity, that my soul may ever languish and melt with love and longing for you, that it may yearn for you and faint for your courts, and long to be dissolved and to be with you.  Grant that my soul may hunger after you, the bread of angels, the refreshment of holy souls, our daily and supernatural bread, having all sweetness and savor and every delight of taste; let my heart hunger after and feed upon you, upon whom the angels desire to look, and may my inmost soul be filled with the sweetness of your savor; may it ever thirst after you, the fountain of life, the fountain of wisdom and knowledge, the fountain of eternal light, the torrent of pleasure, the richness of the house of God; may it ever compass you, seek you, find you, run to you, attain you, meditate upon you, speak of you and do all things to the praise and glory of your name, with humility and discretion, with love and delight, with ease and affection, and with perseverance unto the end; may you alone be ever my hope, my entire assistance, my riches, my delight, my pleasure, my joy, my rest and tranquility, my peace, my sweetness, my fragrance, my sweet savor, my food, my refreshment, my refuge, my help, my wisdom, my portion, my possession and my treasure, in whom may my mind and my heart be fixed and firm and rooted immovably, henceforth and forever. Amen.

Since the Bishop's reconfiguration announcement, I have often wondered why so few parishes have really fought against their pending mergers. I think at least part of the reason is because people do not really understand the degree of harm these mergers will have on the faith of many parishioners. At St. Mary's, we know from our own experience and that contributes, at least in part, to the reason we will never stop fighting to keep our parish open.

St. Mary's history has not always been a pretty one, but it's important to share because it illustrates the magnitude of the impact of this type of "reconfiguration" on the salvation of souls. The information below is not intended as a criticism of the former pastors of St. Mary's, but simply to illustrate this point.

From its establishment as a mission in 1922 until it became a parish in 1961, St. Mary's did not have a resident pastor. A rectory was built when the parish was established and from that point on we have had a resident pastor.

One of our first resident pastors was a very personable German priest, who the parishioners loved very much. The only criticism that I've ever heard about him was that he drank a lot, and this did become a big problem. He installed a full bar in the basement of the rectory and, on weekends, he would go down to the docks in Camden or Philadelphia and bring groups of German sailors back to the rectory for rowdy parties. A friend of mine (and distant cousin) who grew up next door to the church remembers waking up on Saturday mornings to the sight of these sailors passed out on her front lawn. Large sums of money were taken from the St. Mary's bank account to pay for the alcohol and parties. At one point, one of the trustees took the checkbook from the pastor, but he apparently had another checkbook hidden somewhere and continued to spend the parish's money on alcohol.

I've heard stories of him being so drunk at parish functions that he could not even walk, but would have to crawl around on his hands and knees. The final straw, from what I'm told (this all happened before I was born), was when he was so drunk during some important, solemn Mass that he fell over backwards while saying Mass. At that point, a few parishioners complained to the Bishop.
 
The Bishop removed this German priest, and sent in an Irish priest to take his place as pastor. This new priest quickly alienated the entire parish. He made remarks from the pulpit that he "wasn't used to dealing with ignorant farmers," and that he was too educated to associate with the people of Malaga, because only two of St. Mary's parishioners had college degrees at that time.
 
He immediately disbanded all parish organizations, which included a very active St. Theresa's Society, Holy Name Society, and Knights of Columbus. In their place he allowed only the Legion of Mary (an organization of Irish origin). He seemed to dislike Italians, which would have included most St. Mary's parishioners at the time, and all things Italian. He began giving away (or at least trying to give away) the religious items of the church (including the tabernacle), most of which had been donated by parishioners, and replacing them with used items from inner-city Irish churches.
 
People believed he had been sent to St. Mary's by the Chancery as a punishment for having complained about the previous pastor, which everyone thoroughly regretted having done at that point. Everything came to a head when the reforms of Vatican II were implemented and the altar was relocated. This pastor wanted to cut a foot off the width of the marble altar, which the St. Theresa Society had purchased from Italy for more than $5,000 just a few years earlier, so that it would be easier for him to move around behind it. Parishioners sought help from the Bishop, but were told that they were attacking the church and that they were anti-Catholic, etc.  (Basically, the same lines we are hearing today.) Receiving no help from the Bishop and unable to reason with the pastor, one of the women from the St. Theresa Society finally just made the pastor an offer he couldn't refuse.
 
From that point on, he generally backed off, but the damage was already largely done. Disillusioned and feeling betrayed by this pastor, some parishioners left the Catholic Church altogether. Many others remained Catholic, but just quit going to church. Most of these have still not returned - this type of wound does not heal quickly or easily. In fact, the Treasurer of the St. Theresa Society, after it was disbanded, waited for approximately twenty-five years (until this pastor finally retired) before turning the Society's funds over to the church.
 
During the course of those twenty-five or so years, this pastor actually became very fond of St. Mary's and its parishioners. When he finally retired, he bought a house just a few streets down from the church. I remember back in 1997 or 1998, several years after he had retired as pastor of St. Mary's and shortly before his death, this pastor came back to say a Mass, during which he apologized for "nearly destroying the parish." At the end of the Mass, he knelt in the middle of the doorway and everyone had to touch his head on the way out of church as a sign of forgiveness. It was kind of weird, but I think it was good that he at least understood and tried to make amends for the damage he had done to St. Mary's and its parishioners.
 
The shame of the situation is that this pastor had driven so many people from the Church in the process of trying to "improve" the parish and implement his "vision" of what the parish should be. Yet even the scandal of his alcoholic predecessor did not cause anywhere near the amount of harm that he did by trying to improve the parish. Ironically, he is considered to have been a great priest by many people (mostly outside of St. Mary's) for really developing the Legion of Mary within the Diocese of Camden. While I have a great deal of respect for the Legion of Mary, this positive work that he did could easily have been accomplished without doing so much damage to the parish of St. Mary's.

I feel the same way about the Bishop's plan today. Many things can be done to "improve" the vibrancy of parish life without destroying parishes. If people lost their faith (at least in the Catholic Church hierarchy, if not altogether) because of the betrayal and marginalization felt when their religious organizations were needlessly suppressed and their religious items, donated by parishioners, were needlessly discarded, how much more so will it be when the parish itself is suppressed and the church itself is needlessly sold off. The previous blog post is just one example of how the faith of parishioners is being affected already.

The worst part is, for parishes like St. Mary's, which have already suffered at the hands of the hierarchy, closing the parish and church will just be the final nail in the coffin for so many of those who already left. The last attachment they have to the Church will be taken from them. No choir, however beautifully they sing, and no ministry, however convenient or useful, will fill that hole. Bishop Galante doesn't have twenty-five years to realize the harm he is doing - he won't have the opportunity to kneel in the back of the churches and ask forgiveness.

Despite St. Mary's difficulties over the years, however, we have persevered. No matter the challenges presented by pastors, obstacles imposed by bishops past and present, or even lack of parishioners' material wealth, St. Mary's remains. In fact, our willingness to fight for our parish, for our Diocese, and for our Faith epitomizes the difference between a weak parish and a strong parish.

My brethren, count it all joy, when you shall encounter various trials, knowing that the trying of your faith worketh endurance (James 1:3).

It has been a blessing to be strengthened by these tests of faith over the years:

Every one shall help his neighbor, and shall say to his brother: Be of good courage. The coppersmith striking with the hammer encouraged him that forged at that time, saying: It is ready for soldering: and he strengthened it with nails, that it should not be moved....Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee, and have not cast thee away. Fear not, for I am with thee: turn not aside, for I am thy God: I have strengthened thee, and have helped thee, and the right hand of my just one hath upheld thee. (Isais 41:6-10)

It is our belief that this most recent struggle is merely another chapter in the history of St. Mary's. In all of life's struggles we are blessed by God, and we offer our efforts to Christ Crucified, His Majesty, who is our Master. We certainly will not give up now. So we fight on!

We are late in posting Fr. Romanowski's piece from last week's bulletin. Here it is.


Our Lord uses St. Mary's for the salvation of souls. In the world of the twenty-first century, we are to be at the head of the battle against Satan and his evil forces. Those forces come in many different ways. There are the aggressive ones which are the easiest to face up to, namely the pro-abortion groups. The middle group is made up of those who pretend to be persecuted, namely those whose ancestors were really persecuted. They want to take full advantage of the easy pay-offs. And the most insidious are those who pretend to be the defenders of the persecuted. They wish to "help the poor," meanwhile staying rich themselves. These are the modern Pharisees. During the war [with Satan], they are known as collaborators.

We oppose all three groups and the others of a similar caste because they all are enemies of Our Lord and His Church. This is the reason why we are extending Eucharistic Adoration starting Monday February 23rd in the year of Our Lord. Those who have been so faithful through the past twelve or so years shouldn't mind adding an hour on to the schedule, I am sure.

We are continuing to fight the good fight that St. Paul outlines for us, from whom we are the continued recipients of intercession with God. Never forget the way to fight evil is only through the Power and Glory of Our Lord, who always sends His Spirit and His Immaculate Mother to protect us and show us the way to victory here and in eternity.

Lest we forget:

• Stations of the Cross each Friday during Lent at 7:00pm.
• What are Ember Days? These are days of fast and abstinence--one full meal. Meat is only allowed at the main meal except on Fridays, when no meat is allowed at all.
  
• Come to Mass or Eucharistic Adoration more during Lent and you'll continue to do so the rest of the year! 
• Marian Movement: 4th Tuesday of each month at 7:00 pm.
• Special thanks to all those who have contributed to the Save St. Mary's bake sale.
  

Praised be Jesus Christ,
Now and Forever!
Father Jerome C. Romanowski, Pastor

The bishop gave a thought-provoking sermon today at St. Joseph's Polish Catholic Church in Camden, NJ.


View Larger Map

Bishop Galante preached from today's gospel, Mark 2:1-12 (partial excerpt below):

And they came to him, bringing one sick of the palsy, who was carried by four. And when they could not offer him unto him for the multitude, they uncovered the roof where he was; and opening it, they let down the bed wherein the man sick of the palsy lay. And when Jesus had seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are forgiven thee.

My son and I stopped by to visit Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament today and were happy to see that Fr. Romanowski has begun Perpetual Adoration at St. Mary's. What a true privilege it is to have Perpetual Adoration of Our Lord. May God the Father have mercy on any bishop who is nonsensical enough to close a church--no matter the size--committed enough to have Perpetual Adoration of Our Eucharistic Lord. We will beg Jesus to protect our parish and others.

Don't get me wrong, St. Mary's continues to be packed at Sunday masses, but what difference does it make if there are thousands of people in attendance at a mass if those in attendance have no love or devotion to God? Any parish capable of the kind of Adoration that goes on at St. Mary's--three and four days a week for twelve consecutive years--is a special place.

How unfortunate it is that Bishop Galante believes social services are what constitute "vibrancy" when what we have at St. Mary's (and other parishes he has chosen to persecute) is true Christian community, authentic devotion to the Blessed Trinity, and genuine love for the Mother of God, Mary Most Holy, Tabernacle of the Infant Jesus. Please beg Our Heavenly Queen for her intercession for Bishop Galante, that he may be totally converted. All things are possible with God and Our Lady is our greatest advocate with Him!

I snapped a few pictures while visiting. Enjoy the slideshow.

This weekend we have many opportunities to attend Mass.  Monday is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, therefore we will have Mass on Sunday night.  On Monday, our Masses will be at 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM.  We will have Latin Mass on Sunday night. 

 

This all important feast recognizes the solemn Truth that Our Blessed Mother was conceived without sin.  This special privilege also blesses everyone in a prominent way because as a member of the human race whatever blessing comes to Our Blessed Mother flows into our souls.  This is a powerful Truth that encourages, or rather demands, that we express our gratitude to Almighty God by praying always to the Immaculate Virgin and Mother to avoid personal sin at all cost.  This devotion was emphasized by the apparition of Our Blessed Mother to St. Catherine Labouré in 1831 at France.  Blessed Virgin Mary asked that a medal be forged to commemorate this important event in the history of mankind.  The apparition of Our Blessed Mother at Lourdes to St. Bernadette Soubirous confirmed the need for devotion to this honor bestowed on the Blessed Virgin and thus to all of us.

When we live in the truth, we live in God, and we discover His Holy Will.  That Will unquestionably calls us, implores us, directs us to adore the Almighty through our relationship with the Holy Mother of God. 

 

When we see a diocese that only gives lip service to God's Mother and does not propagate devotion to the Patroness of the Diocese of Camden and the United States of America, we know that God is not pleased with that diocese.  Therefore, St. Mary's Shrine Parish is particularly blessed by the constant devotion to Our Blessed Mother.  Remember we have had for many years now the Perpetual Novena to Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal on Wednesday nights.  We also distribute the medal of the Immaculate Mother all the time and attach it to our scapular.  Come, join us in the crusade to bring the United States to its knees in giving honor and glory to God by our devotion to Our Blessed Mother.  What is engraved on the Miraculous Medal, the medal that Blessed Teresa of Calcutta gave to everyone who came to her for help, "O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee."

 

Praised by Jesus Christ

Now and Forever

 

Father Jerome Charles Romanowski, Pastor

This letter to the editor was in the Cape May County Herald a month ago, in direct response to the Council of Parishes calling for a halt to the diocesan destruction.

(In case you didn't know, Fr. Gregorio already accused the Atlantic City Press of being a prostitute in another letter to the editor. He must be moving on to the next one, now. Is Fr. Gregorio sort of like the Flyer's Dave Brown? Remember him?



As I recall, he was the last to play for the Flyers (not the NHL--that was Craig MacTavish) without a helmet. The guy was nuts. He was not the best player in the world skill-wise, but he was the one they'd send in when they were losing the game because he was a fighter and could attempt to incur penalties on the opposing team. In other words, cause distraction and confusion in a last ditch effort to salvage the game. It was a lot of fun to watch, if ya like the "old time hockey." But often when you were watching him in action you knew it was because the Flyers were losing. But I digress!)

Now most of this letter is the "same old same old" and not worth reading. You know...we're all just "emotionally attached" to our parishes (as if all we needed was to be a little less hormonal) and there's a priest shortage and no one will ever enter the seminary again, blah blah blah. As if any of those reasons were legitimate. But here's something we haven't heard before (quote):

Again if you were the bishop, and you knew that the average diocesan priest today is 64, and that only 12 men are in all stages of seminary theological training, and that many times that will retire or die by 2015, what would you do? What will the average age be in 2015? By then, the bishop will be forced to do another, even more painful consolidation. Fair-minded people are saying this bishop had the courage to do what two or three previous bishops should have done since they had the same demographics.

Three things will be addressed here, not necessarily in order. First, as you can tell, one of the primary themes of this letter is, "If you were the bishop, what would you do?" Of course, none of us are the bishop nor will we ever be, but I for one can answer this question definitively nonetheless. Here is my answer, Fr. Gregorio. Ahem. Here goes.

 If I were the bishop, I would:

A. Pray daily for the continual conversion of my own heart and mind, the hearts and minds of all entrusted to my care, and for the conversion of all lost sheep fallen away from the Church especially. In this and many, many other ways, I would evangelize.

B. Trust in the Blessed Mother of God, who has never and will never fail her children. I would pray to her for an increase in vocations to the priesthood and religious life. The vocations are there. (We see them beautifully growing in other diocese, orders, and in the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, for example.) God never stops planting them in the hearts of his children. Sometimes they're just buried in muck and not able to grow.

C. I would institute vocational programs and initiatives like other diocese do (look at St. Louis!) to inspire and embolden young men and women to explore, ascertain, and go after their God-given vocations!

D. I would set an example of holiness that inspires those under my care.

E. I would be--personally--extremely accessible. (Again, look at the St. Louis and the example of the walks with the bishop.)

F. The actions of the institutional diocese would be transparent not secretive, honest and not misleading, and the sentiments and concerns of the faithful would not be belittled, but instead taken seriously and answered. An honest man never has anything to hide.

G. I would not take down half the churches in the diocese, whether or not I had ulterior motives, whether or not there was financial incentive, whether or not I preferred McMegachurches, whether or not I felt that small parishes did not have the right to exist, whether or not I had a supposed "priest shortage," whether or not I was involved with con artist Raffaelo Follieri. As bishop I would be well aware that these churches are not mine, but that I am meant to shepherd souls and not manage real estate. As a bishop I would consider it my job to build up the body of Christ, not dismantle and undermine it.

H. I would consider the history of the Church in this country and realize that Catholic priests were basically circuit riders up until very recently, and that traveling two miles down the road or more to the next parish is not a hardship for anyone with a job in the "real world." (Heck, most of us are lucky if our commutes are under an hour. And look at the Byzantine priests! These guys travel back and forth many, many miles.) I would remind my priests that, according to the Holy Pope St. Pius X, that "priest" and "hard work" are synonymous, anyway.

I. I would promote the traditional Latin mass and traditional Catholicism generally because the undiluted Truth is what all young people hunger after.

J. I would promote Eucharistic adoration and, in the diocesan offices, a chapel available for perpetual adoration. In this way I could go to the Eucharistic Lord for guidance in all things, as could all diocesan employees, at anytime. (After all, if Follieri could have a chapel in his office, why not the Diocese of Camden?)

K. I would ensure that all seminary education that seminarians received was solid and in accordance with teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Faith. If they are wanting, I would remove necessary instructors or have them change their content. If necessary I would again do as Pope St. Pius X did and instruct seminarians myself, if necessary. I would not allow any "nonsense" (as a good priest I know often likes to say) to creep into seminary education or parish religious education.

L. I would not send priests away from the diocese if I truly believed there was a shortage.

M. I would not institute a lay-led initiative that would certainly undermine the sacred responsibilities and authority of priests.

N. If I realized that my actions were in error, no matter how far into them I was and no matter how hard it seemed to turn around, I would repent, publicly confess my mistakes, beg Our Lord's forgiveness, and start on the right path immediately. There is never, ever any shame in stopping wrong action in favor of righteous action, so changing course is always an option. Some of the greatest saints in the history of the Church have been repentant sinners, and indeed this is what gives us all hope, right?

There certainly may be things I've missed, but these things I would do for sure if I was bishop.

Secondly, if the past three bishops should have done something they did not, then they must have been mistaken in their judgment somehow. How and why should we now assume that our current bishop, Bishop Galante, is correct? Why should we trust him if the past three bishops' judgment was lacking?

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Fr. Gregorio points out that Bishop Galante will be forced, in 2015--seven years from now--to do "another, even more painful consolidation." Hmmm. That's interesting. So the "consolidation" that we are seeing now is not the end, according to Gregorio. There is more to come. This warrants an announcement.

Notice so many spearheading the movement to save our Faith from immanent destruction are under 50, even under 40. Here's an article that explains why.

Here's a snippet (for more read the entire article below). Catholic leaders are saying that:

"Young people are leaving the Church in droves because of its refusal to conform to the times!" As a young person, I tell you this is rubbish.  It is a smokescreen.  I do not dispute that there are many young, "enlightened" Catholics who have left the Church with these reasons on their lips.  But they are using these reasons as excuses to mask the real problem:  They have either lost their faith or they never really had it.  The need in this case is not for accommodation, but for conversion.  These young Catholics have never been taught that Christianity is not about self-fulfillment, it's about self-denial; it's not about worldly power, it's about humility; it's not about control, it's about obedience; and it's not about some misguided, gender feminist idea of equality, it's about Truth.


I Was Robbed!
by Leila Miller     

I was robbed.

I am a "Generation X" Catholic, raised and catechized in the tumultuous aftermath of Vatican II.  I was a victim of "renewal" and experimentation gone awry, and so were my peers.  With great regret and without exaggeration, I contend that the results have been catastrophic for my generation.  It is my firm belief that the overwhelming majority of young Catholics don't have even an elemental understanding of their Faith.  As a direct result of that ignorance, young Catholics are leaving the Church in a steady stream (or, dare I say, tidal wave?).

It's not entirely accurate to say that I left the Catholic Church (though I considered it), but it's clear to me now that for most of my young adulthood, I was not in the Catholic Church.  Let me give you an overview of my upbringing, which will sound familiar to countless young Catholics.  I was born in the late 1960s into a believing and practicing Catholic family, and my sister and I were taught by our parents to love our Faith.  Barring illness, we attended Sunday Mass and holy days of obligation without exception.  We attended public schools, but we were enrolled in weekly CCD classes at our parish every year.

By the time I began religious education, memorizing the Baltimore Catechism was out, and feeling the "experience of Christ" was in.  My parish priest, I believe, could not have known how the new, more "enlightened" philosophy of catechism would affect the moral development of those in his charge; at the time, he was simply caught up in the so-called "spirit of Vatican II," and was being obedient to what were considered Vatican II "mandates."  Meanwhile, my parents, like the other parents, trusted that religious education classes would teach us the Faith.  Sadly, that never happened.

In general, the volunteer CCD teachers were good-hearted parishioners who probably tried their best with the vacuous material they were given.  Looking back, I can see that a couple of them must have been alarmed at the "new and improved" methods, and wanted to teach us the fundamentals of our Faith; for example, one year a teacher made us memorize the Ten Commandments; another year (9th or 10th grade, I believe) I heard the word transubstantiation for the first and last time.  Aside from these rare moments, I assure you that precious little substantive information was imparted to us youngsters; the countless hours I spent in religious education were missed opportunities.

I can tell you in three phrases the content of a decade of catechesis:  God is good, Jesus loves you, and love your neighbor.  (All very good and true, don't get me wrong, but if you read your Bible you'll see that that's only half the Gospel.  And sometimes half of the truth is more treacherous than an outright lie.)  We were shown a lot of cartoon slide shows depicting Jesus and his parables, and I have nice images of multiplying loaves, the Good Samaritan, and Jesus' empty tomb.  I don't remember anything particularly Catholic about the presentations, aside from a foray into the sacraments when it was time for First Communion or Confirmation.  (But if you'd have asked me to explain what a sacrament was, I couldn't have told you.)

We weren't taught any Catholic prayers, although we all knew the Our Father from Mass attendance, and in my case from nightly prayers.  I learned the Hail Mary along the way, but for many years I knew only the first half.  We never discussed the lives of the saints, or even mentioned their names for that matter.  (Sitting at Mass, I could never figure out who this "Paul" fellow was who wrote so many letters!)

I am thankful at least that I was born before the last vestiges of Catholic tradition could be stamped out, and in the 1970s some of the more pious and beautiful hymns were still often included in the Mass.  Songs like The Church's One Foundation, Immaculate Mary, and At That First Eucharist were powerful to a child, and they have stuck with me to this day.  The dramatic, colorful Bible story books I read at home also presented an unshakable image of a just and mighty God and his glorious and majestic Son.  These haunting melodies and images, combined with my parents' faith and the common themes of my religious education did instill some important truths in my heart:  I never wavered in my belief in God Almighty and in the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of His Son.  Just who or what the Holy Spirit was or did was anybody's guess, although I did recognize that the Holy Spirit was one of the Persons of the Trinity -- whatever that meant.  (I believe this particular bit of knowledge came from the repetition of another traditional hymn, which spoke of "God in three Persons, Blessed Trinity."  Since traditional hymns are no longer sung on a regular basis, I can only surmise that young Catholics today are learning less than I did!)

I went through my school years believing I was a strong Catholic -- in fact, as I got older I would often identify myself as "devout" -- and after my high school graduation I chose to attend a Jesuit university, in part to increase my chances of meeting and marrying a nice Catholic man and raising children in a strong Catholic home.  I made many Catholic friends during my years at Boston College, many of whom were products of Catholic elementary and high schools and most of whom were, like me, practicing Catholics. Just touching on this subject brings up many difficult emotions in me, but it is hard to overstate the tragedy occurring at most Catholic universities across the country -- namely, the betrayal of  parents entrusting a child to a college that identifies itself as "Catholic" while it allows and even encourages fiercely anti-Catholic beliefs and practices to permeate the campus and poison impressionable minds.  I do not know one Catholic who grew in his or her Faith at B.C.  Indeed, many who entered Boston College as practicing Catholics graduated indifferent or hostile to Catholicism.  I assure you that Satan is having a good time at B.C. and universities like it.  Though modern sensibilities may scoff at this notion, I don't mean it metaphorically.

Anyway, to give you an idea what all of those years of religious training and formation amounted to, allow me to throw out a short list of terms that, for my first 28 years, had no meaning to me:

Sacred Tradition	Mass Cards	Scapular
Sanctifying Grace	Benediction	Pentecost
Magisterium	Act of Contrition	Four Marks of the Church
Sacramentals	The "Glory Be"	Joyful/Sorrowful/Glorious Mysteries
Corporal Works of Mercy	Apostolic Succession	Four Last Things
Indulgences	Perpetual Adoration	Spiritual Works of Mercy

In my experience, most Catholics of my generation are unable to explain or even recognize the above.  And to follow are some terms that may sound familiar to my post-Vatican II peers, but that they don't understand correctly and/or believe for a second:

Purgatory	Communion of Saints	Papal Infallibility
Transubstantiation	Mortal and Venial Sin	Immaculate Conception

The attitudes of my Catholic peers are no mystery.  Confession?  Sure, great sacrament -- I'll get there one of these years (wink, wink).  No pre-marital sex?  No artificial contraception?  Yeah right, get real!  Evangelize?  Are you kidding?  Why?  After all, Buddhism, Islam, New Age, Christianity -- they're all equal paths to God.  Who are Catholics to say they have the truth?  A mature spirituality requires the understanding that everyone can be right!

In general, Generation X Catholics don't feel any obligation to live as the Church teaches, and I promise you that they do not fear the fires of Hell, nor do they believe in Purgatory.  (But really, how could they?  They've gone to Mass faithfully for decades and never heard such topics discussed, much less defended!)

The culture we live in is merciless when it comes into contact with a poorly catechized Catholic.  American society today is designed to destroy one's faith, as objective truth and moral absolutes are rejected concepts.  When modern, "enlightened"
catechesis echoes the messages of the culture, and when those charged with informing the Catholic conscience and transmitting the Faith take an "experiential" rather than informative approach, what can you expect?  You can expect exactly what was taught.You can expect young Catholics who believe "conscience" means "opinion" and you can expect subjective feelings and personal experience to supplant objective truth.  In fact, the prevailing philosophy of my peers is that there is no one "truth" -- truth is whatever we want it to be.  You have your truth, I have mine.  (Kind of puts the lie to Christ's definitive statement, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" doesn't it?  It also doesn't sound like anything worth dying for -- those silly martyrs!)

We reap what we sow, and when pop-psychology all but replaces sound catechesis the results should not surprise anyone.  The practices and beliefs of my circle of Catholic friends tell a sad story.  Pre-marital sex?  Yes, with a series of different partners.  Contraception?  Of course -- it's a virtue.  Living together, a.k.a. living in sin?  It's a non-issue.  (One Catholic friend did go so far as to find a "compassionate" priest who consented to give her absolution before she moved in with a man!)  Active homosexuality?  A lifestyle choice.  Abortion?  Sad, and we don't like it, but it's a woman's private decision -- too bad her partner didn't use a condom.

Most of my Catholic friends attend Mass sporadically or not at all.  Some get their spiritual guidance from gender feminism (which is a fiercely anti-Catholic movement) and/or New Age philosophies. Overall, the Catholic call to holiness is an unfamiliar concept to them, and I do not for a moment attempt to exempt myself from this scrutiny.  Confession is a sacrament that was never emphasized (I made my first Confession at nine years of age while sitting on a priest's lap), and after my first couple of confessions during grade school, I never went back; I shudder when I think of how often I received Holy Communion unworthily.

So how is it that a Catholic who went to Mass every Sunday and went through all the proper catechism programs at her church could continue on unconcerned while carrying several serious sins on her soul?  I do not offer this as an excuse for doing wrong, but you must understand my actions in the context of what I was taught.  My generation of Catholics grew up with a keen understanding of God's infinite love for us.  We knew that His mercy could not be exhausted, no matter how badly we behaved.  But at the same time, we heard almost nothing about God's justice.  That while God is perfectly merciful, He is also perfectly just.  Somehow, that part was lost, or suppressed.  I guess no one wanted to hurt our feelings with Church teaching; for example, that by persisting in serious, unrepented sins, we could damn ourselves to an eternity in Hell.

Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate.  The gate that leads to damnation is wide, the road is clear, and many choose to travel it.  But how narrow is the gate that leads to life, how rough the road, and how few there are who find it!" (Matt 7:13-14)  Jesus mentions Hell over a dozen times in the Gospels, but our teachers and priests only presented us with the Jesus of the Beatitudes, or the Jesus who continuously forgave sinners.  We were never reminded that Jesus forgave repentant sinners, those with contrite hearts and the intention to sin no more.

The God presented to American Catholics today is the Rodney Dangerfield of gods:  He gets no respect.  Today, God hardly needs to be worshipped, since He's our buddy, our pal, our equal.  No need to fear Him or stand in awe, no difficult obligations on our part -- we need only feel the warm fuzzies He showers upon us, until we die and He takes us instantly to Heaven.

Such was the image that my generation got of God our Father.  But what would we say of any other father who asks no obedience, forgives every sin unconditionally and automatically, with no requirement for an apology or recompense?  We would call him a wimp, a pushover, a sap, a fool.  Good and loving parents don't reward bad behavior and disobedience.  They set down boundaries that a child, for his own good, must not cross.  Should that child choose to persist in disobedience and wrong-doing, good parents don't expand the boundaries to encompass his bad behavior, they hold firm and hope for his repentance precisely because they desire his happiness and success.  They do not cease to love him, even as they let him experience the consequences of his poor choices.  Such it is with God and sinful man.  He loves us infinitely, but He cannot force us to love and obey Him against our free will.  None of this was explained to post-Vatican II Catholics.

Although many of my peers will leave the Church and Christianity altogether, many will do as I did.  That is, I never once considered forsaking Christianity, nor did I question Christ's divinity (I felt strongly that to deny Christ would be blasphemous and a sacrilege).  But I was guilty of presumption.  I thought that because of my "deep faith" I could continue in one or another mortal sin and God would forgive me, or make an exception on my behalf.  I just knew he would respect my "conscience!"

I never did disagree with the Church's stand on controversial issues such as abortion or homosexuality.  I had even heard, almost by accident, some of the Church's arguments against artificial contraception, and they made sense to me.  I thought the Church was probably right on this issue (how magnanimous of me!), but of course I could never be expected to actually go along with this teaching!  I did plan to learn Natural Family Planning one day, sure, but certainly not now, in my young married years.  After all, God understands.

Though I presumed on God's mercy, I still believed in moral absolutes, and I never went the way of moral relativism; in fact, another young mother and I spent a year and a half writing an editorial column for our state's largest newspaper in which we rejected moral relativism and defended the concept of objective truth.  This friend, Kim, had spent six years as a gender feminist and New Ager, but motherhood combined with writing our column eventually led her back to Christianity and into a local Bible church.              (Read Kim's story here)

Kim had been a lapsed Episcopalian and I was a waning Catholic, so we had never really had religious discussions until then; but because of my strong belief in an objective right and wrong, I was attracted to what she was telling me about the Bible church.  These evangelicals stood firm on moral issues and were not afraid of offending anyone with Christian moral truths.  I couldn't say as much for the Catholic parish I was sporadically attending, where moral courage was sadly lacking and politically correct sermons and liturgies were the norm.  A Church that sought to blend in with the culture was not the kind of religious community I wanted.  I was raising children in a scary society, and I needed support from others who believed as I did and who would be a refuge from the "pagan world."  In my disgust with what American Catholicism had become, I flirted with the idea of leaving it for the Bible church.

Let me back up here and fill in some details.  Shortly after I graduated college, I became engaged to Dean Miller, a nice agnostic Jewish boy (so much for my attempts to find a Catholic husband!).  My identity as a Catholic was strong enough that I had come to this relationship with certain non-negotiables:  I would never get married outside the Church, and any children of mine would be baptized and raised Catholic.  Dean (who, ironically, attended a Catholic high school) respectfully and unselfishly agreed to my conditions, and we were married a year later in a Catholic church by my childhood priest.

Over the next four years, I gave birth to three beautiful babies.  As you might imagine, this provided me with any number of excuses for not going to Mass on Sundays, and almost never on holy days.  Of course, when one does not understand what takes place during the Mass, it is easy to become lax about attending.  During those years, I lived in two major cities and had done a bit of "church-hopping," trying to find a parish I liked.  I became disillusioned by the seemingly endless (and lame) attempts to make the Mass "hip" and entertaining.  All of the hand-holding, applauding, trite songs and political correctness was a monumental turn-off for me.  I felt no reverence, no awe; there was nothing in these Masses to snap me to attention, to take me out of myself and focus my mind and heart up to God in His Heaven.  I wasn't "getting anything out of it."  (Like so many others, I did not fully comprehend that one doesn't go to Mass to "get something out of it" -- one goes to worship God.)  When I did get myself to church, I felt as if I were "putting in my time," mechanically fulfilling an obligation.  I often ducked out right after Communion.

Because I was raised to never miss Mass, I felt guilty for skipping it so often (as well I should have, considering the gravity of the sin!).  I half-teasingly blamed Dean for my not getting to church, but he wouldn't let me get away with such scapegoating.  He and I knew I had no one but myself to blame.  Though my actions were inexcusable, allow me once again to explain my state of mind during these years.  I had grown up in a culture that had, with amazing rapidity and nonchalance, thrown all of the old value systems out the window.  Nothing was sure and eternal anymore, and it had gradually become unacceptable to believe in a right and wrong.  The idea of sin was deemed positively medieval, and  "morality" became a dirty word.  "Getting one's needs met" was the focus of each individual's personal growth, with the question being,  "What's best for me, and what makes me comfortable?"

Of course, Christ's message to the world is exactly the opposite.  We Christians must die to self, take up our crosses in suffering and sacrifice, and do the will of our Heavenly Father.  The Catholic Church in America seemed to me to have forgotten this message, and was all too eager to fit right in with the culture.  Instead of the Church going forth in courage to influence and change the world, the world was influencing the Church.  Worshipping and glorifying God seemed to take a back seat to worshipping and glorifying ourselves.  I knew enough about Christ's message to recognize that a serious gulf existed between what the Pope and the Bible were saying and what American Catholics were hearing.  At some point, the American Church and the world became almost indistinguishable in my eyes.

Case in point:  The only moral challenges given to the faithful from the pulpit were (and are) calls to help the poor, or admonitions against racism and sexism.  But it was obvious to me that every good atheist, pagan or non-believer out there was saying the same thing.  So why bother being a Christian?  Why get out of bed on Sunday morning and go to Mass when I could turn on any news program or TV series and get the same message?  Young Americans generally are sensitive to social justice issues, since we've been immersed in a culture that never ceases to speak out on such things.  To this day, when I hear yet another social justice homily, I want to yell out:  "We get it!  We get it!  But what we never hear about is the need for personal morality!  For repentance!  For conversion!  For holiness!  What we don't understand is our Faith!  Teach us!  Challenge us!  Help us get to Heaven!"  Have too many leaders of the Catholic Church in America forgotten that their mission is to save souls?

The abuses and trials one must endure at Mass today are legendary among the faithful, and it was just such instances which helped fuel my estrangement from the Church.  For example, I have been at Masses where I have been driven to distraction as I read the words of Sacred Scripture in a missalette while the lector read a distorted "inclusive language" version of the same text.  My intelligence has been insulted as I've witnessed the disappearance of words like "brothers" and "men" from both liturgy and song -- apparently the political correctness police have decided that I as a woman am either too stupid or too fragile to understand that such words include me, too.  I have sat through an Easter Mass where the priest donned a bunny suit for a homily/skit, and balloons were tied to the pews.  And I have sat with my mouth hanging open as I heard one priest use that morning's gospel reading to condone homosexuality.  After a while, it didn't seem worth it anymore; I could no longer see the point to attending Mass.  Looking back, it is clear that I had lost respect for the Catholic Church.

Which brings me back to my flirting with the idea of leaving for a Bible church.  I had listened to my friend Kim tell me about the powerful and courageous sermons she heard week after week at her non-denominational church.  The pastor spoke out against the immorality that surrounded Christians today.  He spoke of right and wrong, and he used Sacred Scripture to show his flock the proper way a Christian should conduct himself.  The evangelicals at this church did not pretend to blend into the culture, they were fighting against it, in a loving, Christ-centered way.  They kept their eyes on God.  And the faithful were actually instructed in Christianity!  Kim was attending Sunday services, weekly Bible study, a doctrine class and a Christian parenting class.  She loved it because her soul was being fed, and for the first time she understood what it meant to be a Christian!  What a contrast to what I was experiencing in my Catholic parish.  No wonder a good portion of her church's congregation consisted of ex-Catholics -- young ex-Catholics like me, who were raising families.

Maybe this is a good place to debunk a myth that desperately needs debunking.  One of the classic lines from liberal, dissenting Catholics is this:  "The Church needs to change its outdated teachings and must ordain women, replace the patriarchal language in the liturgy, allow divorce and remarriage, sanction birth control, masturbation, homosexuality, abortion [and so on, ad nauseum].  Young people are leaving the Church in droves because of its refusal to conform to the times!"

As a young person, I tell you this is rubbish.  It is a smokescreen.  I do not dispute that there are many young, "enlightened" Catholics who have left the Church with these reasons on their lips.  But they are using these reasons as excuses to mask the real problem:  They have either lost their faith or they never really had it.  The need in this case is not for accommodation, but for conversion.  These young Catholics have never been taught that Christianity is not about self-fulfillment, it's about self-denial; it's not about worldly power, it's about humility; it's not about control, it's about obedience; and it's not about some misguided, gender feminist idea of equality, it's about Truth.

But for all of the young Catholics who leave the Church because it is not politically correct enough for them, there are equal numbers (mainly those who have begun families) who are leaving for opposite reasons; namely, they feel the Church has become too liberal, too morally lax, too reflective of the secular culture.  These Catholics are filling the pews of fundamentalist and evangelical churches, whose leaders hold fast to Christian morality, and where the Ten Commandments are still understood to be commands, not suggestions.  These young adults are searching for an anchor in a world gone mad.  They are searching for Christ and a high standard of Christian morality, and they don't believe they can find either in the Catholic Church.  (Ironically, by leaving the Catholic Church, they are actually walking away from the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and leaving the faith that holds the highest and most difficult moral code of them all!)

I leaned toward a Bible church because of the moral courage I knew I would find there, because of the pride in Christ Jesus that so permeated the place, and because I would receive instruction in my faith, not an apology for it.  Yet if you ask a liberal, dissenting Catholic why Catholics are leaving the Church, they'll tell you it's because we haven't gone far enough in liberalizing the Faith!  It's as if they're saying, "Let's neutralize Christianity completely, ignore our heritage and traditions, throw out the sacraments, deny the existence of Original Sin, disclaim the divinity of Christ, drain the Faith of any truth or meaning, and then the churches will be bursting at the seams!"  It makes you wonder if the people so hell-bent on liberalizing the Catholic Church are acting out of love for the Faith or acting out of a desire to destroy it.

Nevertheless, by February of 1995, I just wanted out.  I was ready to send out a trial balloon to my mom, to see how she would react to my inclination to leave the Church.  I specifically did not approach my dad first, as I knew he would be heartbroken at the thought; but because my mother was raised a Protestant (she came into the Catholic Church when I was three), I thought she would be easier to talk to.  Mom is a very rational and stoic person, and she is known for giving sound advice.  After I popped the question:  "How would you feel if I left the Church for a Bible church?" she gave me the answer that would change not only my life, but the lives of many others as well.  She said, "Before you leave, you should find out what it is that you're leaving."

She then proceeded to give me some of the reasons she had left Protestantism.  For instance, she said it never made sense to her that Protestants place all their belief in the Bible alone.  The question for her became, which Bible?  There were so many different translations, and everyone had a different view on which version was authoritative.  She was also wary of non-denominational churches in general, and she talked about "the cult of the personality," or the tendency in such churches for the congregation to rally around a well-liked, dynamic pastor who usually had a new and "brilliant" interpretation of Scripture.  He would be the reason that they came, and if that particular pastor left, the congregation would leave with him.

Everything she said made sense to me, and that evening my thoughts of leaving Catholicism were at least neutralized.  The big blow came a couple of weeks later when my mom, in her matter-of-fact way, presented me with a book.  It was the kind of book I had never seen before.  The kind of book I never knew existed.  It was a book of Catholic apologetics.  It was Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism .

Some people may roll their eyes in disbelief when I say that I never knew such a book existed.  I don't blame them -- even I cannot believe that it never occurred to me that someone out there might find it necessary, useful, even noble to defend the Faith!  It seems so silly to me now.  How could I have been ready to jump ship to a Bible church without even investigating the doctrinal issues involved?  Why did it never even cross my mind that a Church of 2,000 years might be able to present an argument on her behalf?  Maybe it's because in my lifetime as a Catholic, I had never heard anyone defend the Faith.  No one had ever given me any reasons why Catholics were right, why we had the fullest truth.  The only thing approaching an apologetics argument was my parents' statements that ours was the oldest Christian church.  That we Catholics were here first!  During my childhood and adolescence, I remember being quite proud of that fact.  Too bad no one ever elaborated on that point.

But once that glorious book was placed in my hands, it was all over.  I was excited, amazed, impressed that someone had taken the time to spell out the differences between Protestants and Catholics, not mechanically and neutrally, but passionately and full of love for the Catholic Faith!  And Mr. Keating used the Bible itself to illustrate the truth of Catholic doctrine!  It only took reading a few pages of this wonderful book to not only keep me Catholic, but to set me on a path of knowledge that has led my soul to burn for the Faith.  Sound dramatic?  It is!  Thanks to two years of study and the grace of God, I have found treasures that I never dreamed possible in this world, and yet I have come to understand that I have only dipped my little toe into the vast and glorious ocean that is Catholicism.

Over the next several months, my friend Kim and I engaged in a series of friendly, but extremely intense, theological debates. We went back and forth about issues such as Papal authority, the Real Presence, Mary, sanctification of the soul, and the implications of the Inquisition.  We gave special attention to the two doctrines that separate Protestants and Catholics:  sola scriptura (the Reformers' belief that the Bible is a Christian's only authority) and sola fide (the Reformers' belief that we are saved by our faith alone).  At times it was like the blind leading the blind, but I used the best arguments for Catholicism I knew at the time, and Kim got a hold of the best apologetics that Protestantism had to offer.

The phone calls were intense, and they would leave us physically and emotionally drained.  A couple of our conversations lasted seven hours!  After about six months of this mini replay of the Reformation, we hit what we call "the brick wall" and we agreed it was time to stop talking about theology for awhile, as we were frustrated and getting nowhere.

Meanwhile, my husband Dean was being sucked into all this "God talk" whether he wanted to or not (I was so excited about what I was learning that I discussed it with him when he let me).  Together, Kim and I had "discovered" the Old Testament prophesies which so clearly vindicate Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah, and I excitedly pointed out these passages to my dear Jewish husband.  I'll never forget the almost panicked look in Dean's eyes when he reluctantly admitted one night that it appeared Jesus might actually be the Son of God.

In their own journeys to faith, both Dean and Kim had one overriding principle:  They were searching for objective truth.  They didn't make their faith decisions based on their own opinions or what "felt right."  They weren't looking for what was comfortable, they were looking for what was true.  And of course that's what God asks of each of us.  Just as the Savior took up His Cross, we are each expected to take up our own, following in the footsteps of Truth Himself, even if it costs us our comfort, our security, even our very lives.

In Kim's quest for Truth at all costs, she kept praying and studying, even after we hit our "brick wall."  She gave the Catholics one last chance to prove themselves by reading Patrick Madrid's now legendary book, Surprised By Truth , in which eleven converts -- many of them Protestant ministers -- give their reasons for becoming Catholic.  In three nights (she calls them the darkest nights of her life), she was shown the Biblical and historical truth of Catholicism.  Six months later, at great personal cost but with great joy, Kim did what was previously inconceivable to her:  She received the Sacraments of the Church, and is now a devout Catholic.  Within a year, and after an initial reluctance, her husband announced his own intention to convert.  And with great rejoicing and all gratitude to God, I can report my husband Dean's profound conversion as well.  (Yep, I got a Catholic husband after all, and a devout one at that!)

Some other fruits of my "conversion"?  I have returned to confession after more than fifteen years, and I now reap the graces of that wonderful, previously unknown sacrament.  Mass, which I once avoided, is now an other-worldly experience for me.  Contraception?  Gone, with great benefit to my marriage.  I continue to uncover the treasures of Christ's Church, and Kim and I now teach the Faith to others.  I guess you could say that in Catholicism I've found the secret of the universe, and nothing can compare to its majesty.

Which brings me back to a sadness.  How easily I could have lost it all!  How easily my friends and contemporaries have lost or could lose a Faith they never really understood.  Feel-good, inoffensive, nebulous psycho-babble catechesis doesn't provide an even minimal foundation of faith, and a faith built on such a weak and erroneous foundation could not withstand even the smallest challenge.  For proof of this, note that fundamentalist Christians have successfully pulled millions of Catholics out of the Church just by quoting a few Bible verses out of their proper context.  And at the other end of the spectrum, feminists and New Agers lure Generation Xers out of Catholicism simply by loudly and repeatedly applying snide labels to the Church, such as "patriarchal," "oppressive," "reactionary," "judgmental," "irrelevant," etc.  A poorly catechized Catholic is virtually helpless against these tactics.

So, just what did I learn on my own that I never learned in religious ed.?  Almost everything, but here are some of the biggies that shocked me:  I learned that after Christ's ascension into Heaven, He did not leave us floating out here alone on Earth with just a book to try to interpret individually until He comes again (and since the vast majority of humanity was and is illiterate, why would He?).  I learned that the Catholic Church is the one Church explicitly founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter, the first pope, and that the Bible is a product of the Catholic Church (and thus subject to her interpretation).  I learned that as Christ promised, the Holy Spirit has been protecting and guiding the successors to Peter and the Apostles for all these 20 centuries.  I learned that, because of this promised guidance, the teaching authority of the Church cannot err when speaking on issues of faith and morals; the Church does not, has not and will not change such teachings because she cannot!  The deposit of faith has remained pure and intact since public revelation ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.  I learned that the Church has always rightly claimed to be the protector of Christ's Truth, with the authority to proclaim, explain and apply that revealed Truth to the world.  I learned that submission to Church teaching is submission to Christ.

I learned that the crown jewel of Christianity, the Eucharist, is clearly evident in the New Testament, and that it was brilliantly prefigured in the Old Testament by many different writers, thousands of years prior to Christ's institution of that sacrament.  It's no wonder, then, that the earliest Christians and all of the Church Fathers were staunch believers in the Real Presence, and were thoroughly Catholic in the rest of their doctrine.  The writings of the Fathers would stun any Protestant, and most Catholics as well!  I learned that the seven sacraments of the Church were explicitly instituted by Christ and are the direct channels of God's grace into our souls, the surest links between Heaven and Earth.  I learned that God did not make it difficult for man to find the Truth, provided that man seek the Truth.

The thing that shocked me most of all?  Everything I mentioned above can be proven biblically, historically, and through an exercise of reason.  Catholicism is not a religion of blind faith.  Kim and I have played devil's advocate for every controversial claim or issue regarding the Church, and the Church has won every time -- in fact, the Church's case gets stronger and more exquisitely beautiful every time it's tested!  Yet young Catholics were never told any of this.

As I said at the beginning:  I was robbed and my peers were robbed.  The loss is incalculable, as how do you count the cost of even a single lost soul?  As for blame, well, there's enough blame to go around, and I am fully aware of my own culpability in all of this.  I could have asked more questions, and I could have sought to do God's will as best I understood it, but in many cases I did not.  I have had long discussions with my parents, and they have willingly accepted their share of the blame as well.  But if I were giving a prize for biggest subverters of the Faith, it would have to go to liberal, dissenting Catholics, especially those in positions of power within the Church, be they theologians, bishops or catechetical directors.  They have witnessed an entire generation raised up in complete ignorance of the Faith as a result of catechetical failure, they see wide-scale rebellion and disdain for Church teaching and authority, and yet they still push to further liberalize the Church, pushing more and more people out of the Light and into darkness.

When I hear of dissident movements such as Call To Action and We Are Church, and when certain bishops, priests and sisters support and even lead these causes, I am indignant.  While these so-called "progressive" Catholics work to undermine the Faith and  fall all over themselves apologizing for the teachings of Holy Mother Church, I just wonder when any of them is going to apologize to me?  Or to my contemporaries?  When will they apologize for putting a  generation of souls in jeopardy?

Maybe they should be reminded of the Second Epistle of St. John, verses 9-11:  "Anyone who is so 'progressive' that he does not remain rooted in the teaching of Christ does not possess God, while anyone who remains rooted in the teaching possesses both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you who does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house; do not even greet him, for whoever greets him shares in the evil he does."

Or how about St. Paul writing to the Galatians (1:8-9):  "For even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel not in accord with the one we delivered to you, let a curse be upon him!  I repeat what I have just said:  If anyone preaches a gospel to you other than the one you received, let a curse be upon him!"

Here are Jesus' words on the subject:  "Whosoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea" (Matt. 18:6)

Catholics -- be they priests, bishops, religious, theologians or laymen -- who do not profess loyalty to the Holy Father and the Magisterium should have the integrity to identify themselves as Protestants, for that is what they are, i.e. they exist in a state of protest against the Roman Catholic Church.  And those influential Catholics who have so obviously lost their faith have no business teaching or influencing the next generation.

I am not so naive or despairing to believe that even wide-scale apostasy among American Catholics at every level will destroy the Church.  We know from Christ Himself  that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against His Bride.  So even though we needn't be concerned with the Church's survival, we should all concern ourselves with the Church's primary mission on earth: the salvation of souls.  Too many souls have been allowed to slip out of the Church due to catechetical neglect, and it's time to stem the tide.

Perhaps the first step in reversing this trend is to throw ourselves at the mercy of God, begging forgiveness for the mess we've made in His Church and His world.  Second, we must pray for the conversion of those within our Church who seek to undermine the very Faith they claim to profess.  Third, each Catholic must take it upon himself to learn the Faith, and then commit himself to a life of proclaiming the Truth to others -- this is the "new evangelization" by the laity advocated by His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

Finally, I humbly propose a Catholics' Bill of Rights, to be handed out to every new Christian along with his baptismal candle.  Maybe it could go something like this:

You have a right to your Catholic heritage.  You have the right to hear the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.  You have the right to have the Faith of the Apostles transmitted to you unfiltered and undefiled.  You have the right to be catechized by an instructor who must first be required to profess his loyalty and obedience to Rome, and who humbly submits to all the teachings of Christ through His Church.  Anything less is not only nonsensical but scandalous, and might lead you away from the truth of the Church.  You have the right to expect Catholic orthodoxy in all Catholic classrooms and institutions, and you have the most blessed and merciful right never to hear radical feminism or pantheism taught as if it had anything remotely to do with Catholicism.  You have the right to remain Catholic.  If you give up that right, it will be your free will choice and not the result of poor or scandalous catechesis.  (In other words, you have the right to know what you're leaving before you leave it.)  And finally, you have the right to be indignant if you look back 28 years from now and realize that most of these rights have been denied you.

Praise God, my joy at having found the Faith is greater than my righteous anger at those who had a hand in keeping it from me for so long.  I know that I cherish my faith so dearly precisely because I almost lost it.  I know that God's ways are not man's ways, and I am forever grateful that He chose this way to lead me back home.  I only pray that He might somehow lead my contemporaries back home as well.


Leila and her husband have five beautiful children.
You may send her email at this address.
Leila@lisaslighthouse.org