Their statement says:

Therefore, as a Church of disciples of Jesus, we cannot exclude from the sacraments, for example, those divorced and remarried. This would contradict the praxis of Jesus in his manner of dealing with people. Thus we will continue to offer Communion to those divorced and remarried.

The signatories, who are from the deaneries of Uznach and Sargans, have studied the statements of the Second Vatican Council as part of a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the council. They write that the Church opened itself to the world at that time, but many of the council’s decisions have not yet been put into practice.

In March Bishop Vitus Huonder of Chur wrote in a pastoral letter that according to Church teachings, those divorced and remarried are not to be admitted to the sacraments. The clergy and pastoral ministers from St. Gall state in an accompanying letter that they intend to offer spiritual support to their colleagues in the diocese of Chur, so that the spirit of the Council live on and be “supported in solidarity” by them.

Meanwhile, the president of the German bishops’ conference, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, continues to work for the admission to Communion of those divorced and remarried, Kathweb reports. “We are working on this subject, and you may rest assured that I am in conversation on the subject at widely varying levels.” He acknowledges that the topic requires “patience and slow breathing.”

Last year, similar comments from Zollitsch met with a strong rebuke from Cardinal Joachim Meisner of Cologne, who stressed the indissolubility of marriage with reference to the words of Jesus. Zollitsch had called for reconsideration of the Church’s manner of dealing with people “whose lives have developed unfortunately in important matters.” He said that, “when nearly 40% of marriages in Germany end in divorce, then we must consider how to alter our pastoral practice for these people,” which he considers “a question of mercy.”

H/T: Justin Huyck

Jamison’s topic is religious order, but I think his analysis applies rather well to liturgical factions also. First, let’s hear Jamison in his own words. Then we’ll do the transfer to the liturgy wars.

Jamison writes of the old religious orders:

The old orders have great liberty of spirit; their members are rooted in the essence of the Gospel, in traditions of deep prayer and in the service of the Church. The problem is that this liberty of spirit can easily become libertarianism, with the Gospel redesigned and the Church marginalized. Religious in older orders often suffer from the vice of pride. They believe that their longevity means they know what the spirit of the religious life is and entitles them to sit lightly to the letter of their order’s tradition – and, in some cases, sit lightly to the Catholic tradition. We know best.

And of the newer religious orders:

Their distinguishing virtue is their dynamic fervor and their complete trust. They are living examples of Our Lord’s insight that “unless you become like little children you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” However, being childlike can easily tip into being childish, with an excessive reliance on rules and externals. In this way, gifted founders can keep people in subservience and damage well intentioned new members. New orders can fall into vanity and self-satisfaction. To an outsider, it looks as if they believe that the influx of new members indicates God’s blessing. We may not be old, they seem to say, but we are good.

Jamison also makes this comment about the new orders:

While the Holy See regularly sends apostolic visitations to religious orders to sort out a problem, the number of visitations to new congregations is surprising; while there are no published figures, my hunch is that the ratio is higher among new congregations.

While you’re still pondering Jamison’s analysis of religious life, I’ll go right on to the application of his analysis to the liturgy. By switching out just a few words, Jamison’s comments can be made to apply to liturgical factions in the Catholic Church. Mutatis mutandis, here would be Jamison on liturgical controversies:

The [older liturgical progressives] have great liberty of spirit; [they] are rooted in the essence of the Gospel, in traditions of deep prayer and in the service of the Church. The problem is that this liberty of spirit can easily become libertarianism, with the Gospel redesigned and the Church marginalized. [Progressive scholars, clergy, and lay ministers] often suffer from the vice of pride. They believe that their longevity means they know what the spirit of the [liturgy] is and entitles them to sit lightly to the letter of [the Church’s] tradition – and, in some cases, sit lightly to the Catholic tradition. We know best.

…

Turning to the [“Reform of the Reform” movement], their distinguishing virtue is their dynamic fervor and their complete trust. They are living examples of Our Lord’s insight that “unless you become like little children you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” However, being childlike can easily tip into being childish, with an excessive reliance on rules and externals. In this way, [their worldview] can keep people in subservience and damage well intentioned new [recruits]. [Liturgical traditionalists] can fall into vanity and self-satisfaction. To an outsider, it looks as if they believe that the influx of [young followers] indicates God’s blessing. We may not be old, they seem to say, but we are good.

The re-purposing of his words is forced, but only a bit. Do you think it works?

Are liturgical progressives (I know, I know, they’re not all old people) too libertarian (still) in their redesigning of rituals? Prideful? Overly confident that they know the spirit and essence of the liturgy? Too light-handed with liturgical traditions?

Are liturgical traditionalists (again, they’re not all young) childishly attached to external rituals? Vain and self-satisfied? Overly confident that numerical growth means God is on their side?

awr

I wish I had had the USA Catholics per Parish data when I was on pastoral council. Below I have created a table from the CARA parish data to help think about parishes. The “average” parish has 3,277 persons in households registered in the parish. This is the easiest number to compare with your parish. There are likely an addition 911 unregistered people nearby who still identify as Catholic, and 1,264 who were once Catholic at some point in their life. So the parish’s total “Catholic” population is really 5,452.

Among the 3,277 persons in registered households, there are 1,225 who attend Mass less than once a month, another 1,047 that attend at least once a month but not every week, and finally 1,005 people who attend Mass every week. The group that is key to re-evangelizing the “whole” parish consists of 168 adults very involved in the parish outside of Mass. I have divided each of the cumulative circles by this number. For the total 5,452 Catholics, there are 32 Catholics per Involved Adult. For all the Catholics in households registered in the parish there are 20 Catholics per Involved adult.

Evangelization can be considered as strengthening and spreading both Catholic Culture (e.g. beliefs, values, practices) and Catholic Institutions (e.g. social networks).

With Andrew Greeley I believe religious culture works more like poetry (by inspiring and shaping our experience) than like prose (by systematically educating our minds). The good news is that Catholic culture is wonderfully rich, diverse and inspiring; the bad news is that one size fits all presentations of Catholicism tend to be boring rather than inspiring.

* Assumes those who attend Mass are registered in parish, generally but not exactly true

At this time, strengthening social networks is more important than strengthening culture. People who have social networks (families, close friends and small groups) in a congregation are healthier, happier and more willing to give of their time, talent and treasure. Beliefs and values acquired from sitting alone in the pews or childhood education do not seem to confer many benefits. The good news is that social networks spread and maintain culture; the bad news is we can no longer rely on Catholic family and ethnic social networks to grow and maintain themselves. The parish today has to build and strengthen social networks of families, friends and small groups.

What does strengthening Catholic culture and Catholic social networks mean for the different concentric circles of the parish?

Cultural Catholics: They were Catholics at some point in their life but now no longer identify as Catholic. Bad news: They are unlikely to come back since many have become members of other churches. Good news: Today, people feel free to draw their religious culture from more than one denomination, and to participate in social networks of more than one denomination. Although many of these Cultural Catholics may have rejected certain aspects of Catholic teaching (birth control, abortion) they likely retain some Catholic beliefs, values, spiritualities, and practices. Evangelization strategy: make the richness and diversity of Catholic culture widely available to the public through parishes where non-Catholics can network with Catholics in small groups led by Involved Catholics.

Lukewarm Catholics not in Parish Network: These are people who identify as Catholics but are not in a registered household. What sociologists know about “lukewarm” people is that they are ripe for having a conversion experience if they find something that inspires their interest (religion as poetry) in a group that shares that same inspiration. Evangelization strategy: present many different inspiring aspects of Catholicism (beliefs, values, spiritualities, practices) through small groups led by Involved Catholics.

Lukewarm Catholics in the Parish Network: There is an even larger group of the lukewarm Catholics that do not go to Mass even once a month who are connected to the parish network through registration. These could be attracted by social groups build around hobbies and other non religious interests. Evangelization strategy: create as many social groups with many different interests as possible led by the Involved Catholics.

Weak Practicing Catholics: These are people who attend Mass at least once a month but not every week. I considered calling them “mediocre” since the mediocre quality of our liturgies, and the mediocre quality of parish community life is probably responsible for their weak involvement. Evangelization strategy: improve the quality of our parish liturgies and improve parish community life through a greater number and variety of small groups.

Strong Practicing Catholics: These people attend Mass every week. However their very visibility can lead parish leadership to focus upon them and become self satisfied. They are the 20% that can get 80% of the parish staff’s attention. Evangelization strategy: turn Strong Catholics into Involved Catholics. Make some of them leaders and providers not just consumers of parish services.

Involved Catholics: This is the key group for providing leadership for the many small groups (hobbies, support groups, social groups, social justice, faith formation, and liturgical ministries) necessary for strengthening parish networks. Evangelization strategy: develop the leadership skills of Involved Catholics, and attract more people with leadership qualities from among the Strong Practicing Catholics.

Unfortunately the people recruited as Involved Catholics tend to be followers and helpers rather than leaders. They are usually recruited to assist the pastoral staff in the essential faith formation and liturgical ministries of the parish. Often they are not people who have “take charge” skills.

However, there are many people among the Strong Practicing Catholics who have leadership talents and skills derived from experiences like being a member of a religious order, educations in Catholic schools and colleges, involvement in a wide variety of parish programs across the lifespan, and leadership positions in their professions and in civic organizations. These people are interested in providing leadership. Sometimes they show up when there is a call for volunteers to staff new programs. However they quickly disappear when it becomes apparent the call is for helper not leaders; and that the designated “leaders” are well established helpers.

Lay Ecclesial Ministers: Besides coordinating the Involved Catholics in providing the essential ministries of the parish, Lay Ecclesial Ministers often supervise a one size fits all program that is intended to increase the level of parish culture. Often these faith formation programs use small groups to attract people with Involved Catholics as facilitators. At best these programs tend to attract several hundred people (mostly Strong Catholics); at worst they attract a few dozen (mostly Involved Catholics).

Giving More Services to Fewer People? This table supports my experience that parishes have strong motivation to forget about the eighty percent of the people who do not come to Mass every Sunday and focus upon the twenty percent whot do come. This core of the parish can be served well with the existing numbers and quality of Involved Catholics and Lay Ecclesial Ministers.

Or Evangelization? Any attempt to increase the levels of Catholic culture and social networks among the eighty percent of the parish that is not being well served would require not only many more Involved Catholics but more importantly Involved Catholics who are capable of leading a wide variety of small groups on their own. It will also require abandonment of one size fits all faith formation efforts in favor of fostering a wide variety of Catholic culture through various small groups and ministries.

What are your thoughts about this parish data? about evangelization at the parish level? about strengthening parish networks and promoting small groups?

Jack Rakosky, a regular reader of Pray Tell, has an interdisciplinary doctorate in psychology and sociology, and spent twenty years in applied research and program evaluation in the public mental health system. His current main interest is voluntarism, especially among highly educated people at retirement age.

O Lord, who are the author of ever-living life, and the source of all wonder and mystery, bless, recognize, and approve these words, these clauses, these holy and undefiled enunciations, we humbly pray, both dependent and independent, which we offer you first of all on behalf of your Church, that by the anticipation of their conclusions, long forestalled by the mysterious work of your servants who, holding to the truth, handed them to us, and by the sincere searching for their venerable antecedents, we, though pitiable in our ignorance and darkened by the stain of sin, may come circuitously to the understanding of that enlightening grace by which you make your miraculous salvation known to all who speak, hear, and rightly understand the sacredness of these, your most holy and auspicious words.

 “I heard from about a dozen priests by noontime, asking, What the hell did today’s Collect mean?”

O God, by whose grace,
though sinners, we are made just
and, though pitiable, made blessed,
stand, we pray, by your works,
stand by your gifts,
that those justified by faith
may not lack the courage of perseverance.

Here’s the Latin:

Deus, cuius gratia
iusti ex impiis et beati efficiamur ex miseris,
adesto operibus tuis,
adesto muneribus,
ut, quibus inest fidei iustificatio,
non desit perseverantiae fortitudo.

And here’s what the world’s English-speaking bishops approved, before Vox Clara and the Congregation for Divine Worship changed it:

O God, by whose grace we sinners are made just
and from our misery made blessed,
stand by your works,
stand by your gifts,
that those in whom there is the justification of faith
may not lack the strength of perseverance.

Xavier comments:

In the Vox Clara version, “though sinners” becomes a kind of dangling modifier hanging between grace and sinners. At the very least, the text should read, “we, though sinners, are made just.”

There is no “we pray” in the Latin. What happened to “translate in the most exact way” (Liturgiam authenticam)? And surely, if one felt the need to add to the prayer (remember the “paraphrase” accusation against the old ICEL), the non-existent-in-Latin “we pray” should have gone after the first complete phrase: “stand by your works, we pray, stand by your gifts.” The conclusion is paraphrase, pure and not so simple; 2008 is “exact” and superior both in rhythmic cadence and comprehensibility.

Now that the text is out, the reader raises some difficult questions worth considering:

The rite has things that concern me — principally, a tendency to impute emotions onto the mother that she may or may not be feeling, and an idealized picture of pregnancy. For instance it is entirely possible that the woman is not feeling “wondrous joy” at her pending motherhood.

Furthermore, does this rite assume that all births will be to healthy children? Just before the prayer mentioned above is a prayer that says “grant a healthy birth that is the sign of our rebirth one day into the eternal rejoicing of heaven.” What does this rite then say to the mother if the birth is not healthy? What is the priest to do if at the time of the blessing, it is already known that there are medical problems for the fetus? Does the birth of a child that is not healthy signify some flaw in our “rebirth one day”?

Finally, on page ten is this prayer: “It has pleased our heavenly Father to bless this community with the gift of new life. Today we join in offering heartfelt thanks to almighty God for this (these) newly conceived child (children), created in the image and likeness of God.” Will there be a parallel rite of mourning, for the inevitable circumstances (statistically speaking) where there is a miscarriage?

To provide only a rite for joy and no rite for grief is a pastoral disaster waiting to happen.

Peter Maurin

Cofounder of the Catholic Worker (1877–1949)

Peter Maurin was born in the ancient Languedoc region of southern France. One of twenty-three children in his peasant family, he was educated by the Christian Brothers and breathed in the atmosphere of Catholic populism before emigrating to North America in 1909. For twenty years he tramped through America, performing various kinds of manual labor. All the while he was devising an intellectual synthesis in the area of Catholic social philosophy.

Maurin believed the problems with society came from the detachment of social values from the Gospel. His program was a “personalist revolution,” based on the idea that one should begin at once to live by a new set of values. Nevertheless, he found it hard to translate his ideas into actions on a scale larger than himself.

This changed in 1932 when he met Dorothy Day, a Catholic convert, who had been seeking a sign as to how to combine her religious faith and her commitment to social change. In this rough-hewn Frenchman, she believed she had found her answer.

The result was the Catholic Worker—a newspaper and a movement aimed at promoting the radical social message of the Gospel and building “the kind of society where it would be easier to be good.” Maurin lived to see his ideas put in action, but his active years were limited. Disabled by a stroke, he fell silent and died on May 15, 1949, at the age of seventy-two.

“The future will be different if we make the present different.”

—Peter Maurin

By special arrangement, Pray Tell is featuring weekly excerpts from Give Us This Day, the new prayer resource from Liturgical Press. PrayTell readers receive a free vinyl cover with a renewal or new subscription to Give Us This Day. Use promotion code TDPTBVC for Standard Print or TDPTBVCL for Large Print when you subscribe.

We are pleased to share here the front matter, introduction, and first chapter of Rausch’s book. Chapter 1 deals with “the loss of the eschatological imagination,”  illustrated with examples from the liturgy.

Excerpt from Eschatology, Liturgy, and Christology

I think that nowadays the Catholic Church is not an institution   for respectable people. … The fact that [the abuse scandals] could happen, the extent of the denial, the cover-up, the hypocrisy, the cruelty… When I was   a child I wondered why priests and nuns were not nicer people. I thought   that they were amongst the worst people I knew.

E.J. Dionne, though not happy with the bishops’ recent direction -

I wonder if the bishops realize how some in their ranks have strengthened the hands of the church’s adversaries (and disheartened many of the faithful) with public statements … that threaten to shrink the church into a narrow, conservative sect.

is in for life:

I’m sorry to inform the [Freedom From Religon Foundaion] that I am declining its invitation to quit. It may not see the Gospel as a liberating document, but I do, and I can’t ignore the good done in the name of Christ by the sisters, priests, brothers and lay people who have devoted their lives to the poor and the marginalized.