This is a rather long offering. If you
have to stop reading at any point,
please make sure you at least read the
first two articles together.
VATICAN II
FROM BELOW – CONSTITUTIONAL CATHOLICISM
A TEN-STEP
PROGRAM TO A DEMOCRATIC PARISH – AND
CHURCH
One of
two provocative speeches presented by
Leonard Swidler, Professor at Temple
University, and a member of the ACC
Planning Committee. These were presented
in June 2010 at the European conference
of International Movement We Are Church.
IMWAC has endorsed ACC and plans to send
a visiting delegation to the Council in
2011-on the road to a similar worldwide
lay-called council planned for the
Vatican in 2015.
Surely the
idea of a Constitution for the Catholic
Church is a wildly bizarre secular
notion that is totally inappropriate for
such a sacred institution! Right? Well,
the bishops, including the bishop of
Rome, the pope, did not think so. The
very term "constitution" appears in
church documents, most recently in the
titles of several of the documents of
Vatican II, e.g., the "Constitution" on
the Church, the "Constitution" on
Revelation, etc. The term "constitution"
is used because the matter treated is
"constitutive" of Christianity. The term
"Bill of Rights" of course does not
appear in ecclesiastical documents
because it is a specifically
English/American phrase, but its exact
equivalent does appear from the pens of
both Pope Paul VI and John Paul II,and
long before that from the American
Catholic bishops.
I. THE
POPE'S CALL FOR A CONSTITUTION
During
Vatican Council II, on November 20,
1965, Pope Paul VI spoke of a "common
and fundamental code containing the
constitutive law (Jus Constitutivum) of
the church" which was to underlie both
the Eastern and Western (Latin) codes of
canon law. It was clearly what Americans
refer to as a "constitution." Thus was
born the modern idea of a Catholic
Church "Constitution," a Lex Ecclesiae
Fundamentalis-more about the Lex below.
In his address to the Roman
ecclesiastical high court, the Rota,
just one month after the promulgation of
the new Code of Canon Law (1983), Pope
John Paul II called specific attention
to the "Bill of Rights," "Carta
Fondamentale," in the Code:
The Church
has always affirmed and protected the
rights of the faithful. In the new code,
indeed, she has promulgated them as a "Carta
Fondamentale" (confer canons 208-223).
She thus offers opportune judicial
guarantees for protecting and
safe-guarding adequately the desired
reciprocity between the rights and
duties inscribed in the dignity of the
person of the "faithful Christian."
Another of
the democratizing moves Vatican Council
II made was to inspire the total
revision of the 1917 Code of Canon Law
in the spirit of democracy and
constitutionalism. Already on January
25, 1959, Pope John XXIII announced
simultaneously the calling of the Second
Vatican Council and the revision of the
1917 Code of Canon Law. Even before
Vatican II was completed, work was begun
on the writing of this Catholic
"Constitution of Fundamental Rights,"
the Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis. Father
James Coriden, a co-editor of the 1985
magisterial 1150-page folio-size The
Code of Canon Law. A Text and Commentary
(commissioned by the Canon Law Society
of America) and the Dean of the Catholic
Theological Union of Washington, D.C.,
wrote that "The origins of the Code's
bill of rights [the new 1983 Code of
Canon Law eventually absorbed the
fundamental "rights" articles of the Lex
Ecclesiae Fundamentalis, rejected by
Pope John Paul II] were not in a
Constitutional Congress, but its history
and development clearly reveal its truly
constitutional character."
As noted, it
was on November 20, 1965, that Pope Paul
VI said to the Coetus Consultorum
Specialis (Commission for the Revision
of the Code of Canon Law) that the
opportunity to provide a "constitution"
for the Church should be seized while
the 1917 code of canon law was being
overhauled in the light of Vatican II.
Two things
should be especially noted about the Lex
Ecclesiae Fundamentalis: 1) It clearly
was to serve as a "constitution" in the
sense that it was to provide the
fundamental juridical framework within
which all other Church law was to be
understood and applied. Like the
American Constitution, and all other
civil constitutions, if any subsequent
law passed were found to be contrary to
the Lex Fundamentalis, the subsequent
law would be void. 2) The Lex
Fundamentalis was to serve as a
fundamental list of rights of the
members of the Church, like the American
"Bill of Rights."
Concerning
the first point, the explanation (Relatio)
by Msgr. Onclin that accompanied the
1971 draft of the Lex stated clearly
that "since a fundamental law is
required, on which all other laws in the
Church will depend.... Laws promulgated
by the supreme authority of the Church
are to be understood according to the
prescriptions of the Lex Ecclesiae
Fundamentalis...laws promulgated by
inferior ecclesiastical authority
contrary to the Lex Ecclesiae
Fundamentalis lack all power."
Concerning
the second point, Father Coriden wrote
referring to the Lex Fundamentalis as
key portions of it were imbedded in the
1983 Code of Canon Law: "The bill of
rights is part of the bedrock upon which
is based the rest of our canonical
system....The Coetus's communication to
the Episcopal synod of 1967 described
the enumeration of rights of the
faithful as fulfilling one of the chief
purposes of the ‘fundamental code.'"
Already in 1967 the Coetus told the
Synod of Bishops in its ten guiding
principles the following:
The principal
and essential object of canon law is to
define and safeguard the rights and
obligations of each person toward others
and toward society.... A very important
problem is proposed to be solved in the
future Code, namely how the rights of
persons can be defined and
safeguarded.... The use of power in the
Church must not be arbitrary, because
that is prohibited by the natural law,
by divine positive law, and by
ecclesiastical law. The rights of each
one of Christ's faithful must be
acknowledged and protected.
A further
aspect of the Lex Fundamentalis is worth
noting here. From the inception of the
Coetus in 1965 until the press leak in
1971, its work was all done sub secreto.
Why it should have been so is not clear,
except that that was the way things had
always been done. However, after the
leak Msgr. Onclin held a press
conference in which he "recalled that
the draft text was only a working paper
which will probably be modified in
conformity with the wishes of the
bishops. These, in turn, may consult
priests and laymen, and the result will
therefore be a truly Church-wide
consultation."
Here we could
see the "democratic" thrust of Vatican
II moving forward in a deliberate,
sure-footed manner, neither rushing nor
hesitating. For sixteen years the
Vatican Commission (Coetus) worked
devising and re-phrasing the
Constitution (Lex), and as Msgr. Onclin
said, its natural momentum would have
made it available to ever wider circles
for their input. The fundamental reason
for this increasing openness was made
clear by the Vatican itself. As Peter
Hebblethwaite mentioned in his biography
of Pope Paul VI, the Vatican
instruction, Communio et progressio on
the implementation of the Vatican II
decree on the mass media was issued less
than two months before the Lex leak in
Il Regno. It made a clear argument in
favor of open government in the Catholic
Church:
The spiritual
riches which are an essential attribute
of the Church demand that the news she
gives out of her intentions as well as
her works be distinguished by integrity,
truth and openness. When ecclesiastical
authorities are unwilling to give
information or are unable to do so, then
rumor is unloosed and rumor is not a
bearer of truth but carries dangerous
half-truths. Secrecy should therefore be
restricted to matters involving the good
name of individuals or that touch on the
rights of people whether singly or
collectively.
II.
REPRESSION, AND YET....
Then,
unfortunately, not long after John Paul
II became pope in the fall of 1978,
The celebrated Lex Ecclesiae
Fundamentalis resembled a canonical
space rocket. It was launched under
papal auspices, gained rapid momentum,
rose high in the canonistic heavens,
came under sharp attack, underwent
repairs and mid-course corrections, and
came crashing to earth to an unexplained
demise, never to be heard from again....
The whole Lex project was put to death,
without explanation, in 1981, after it
had been approved by a specially
convened international commission
earlier in the year.
The long
slide into restrictions, repressions,
and silencing had begun, however, even
earlier:
1. Already in
the spring of 1979 the French theologian
Jacques Pohier was silenced for his book
When I Speak of God;
2. In July
the book on human sexuality by a team of
four American theologians commis-sioned
by the Catholic Theological Society of
America was condemned by the Vatican;
3. In
September the Jesuit General Pedro
Arrupe was forced to send a letter to
all Jesuits saying that they may no
longer publicly dissent from any papal
position;
4. All fall
severe accusations of heresy against
Edward Schillebeeckx were recurrently
issued in drum-beat fashion;
5. December
13-15, Schillebeeckx was "interrogated"
by the Holy Office in Rome;
6. That same
month writings of Brazilian liberation
theologian Leonardo Boff were
"condemned" (he was later silenced);
7. On
December 18, the Holy Office issued a
Declaration on Hans Küng saying he "can
no longer be considered a Catholic
theologian."
Thus, in
hindsight, the suppression of the
Catholic Constitution (Lex Fundamentalis
Ecclesiae) was no great surprise. Yet,
at the same time Pope John Paul II was
pushing Human Rights in the civil
sphere, and especially in international
politics. In a way, this was a
continuation of what Pope Paul VI had
earlier called "New Thinking." (This was
long before Mikhail Gorbachev in the
late 1980s borrowed the phrase "New
Thinking" to popularize his new approach
to Communism.) This "New Thinking" was
characteristic of Vatican II, and was
likewise supposed to characterize the
subsequent revision of church law, the
1917 Code of Canon Law.
Pope John
Paul II described this resultant shift
in thinking, this "New Thinking" of
Vatican II, thus when promulgating the
new Code of Canon Law [1983] for the
Latin Church:
1. The Church
seen as the People of God,
2.
Hierarchical authority understood as
service,
3. The Church
viewed as a communion,
4. The
participation by all members in the
three-fold munera [functions] of Christ
[teaching, governing, making holy], and
5. The common
rights and obligations of all Catholics
related to this, and
6. The
Church's commitment to ecumenism.
Father James
Provost added further: "In addition to
providing the basis for understanding
the new canon law, these elements set an
agenda for the church, an agenda which
might be considered to form the basis
for a kind of ‘democratizing' of the
church."
III.
AMERICAN CATHOLIC PRECEDENTS OF
DEMOCRACY AND A CONSTITUTION
Suffice it to
note that the American Catholic Church
has precedents in the fostering of
democracy by its first Bishop St. John
Carroll, and even more by Bishop St.
John England with his Diocesan
Constitution and Annual Convention.
There is yet another interesting
precedent for an important element of
Democracy, namely, Human Rights, the
knowledge of which was lost for many
decades. I am speaking of a Catholic
twentieth-century "Universal Declaration
of Human Rights" even before that of the
United Nations in 1948. In fact, it fed
into it.
In January,
1947, a committee made up of U.S.
Catholic laity and bishops appointed by
the "National Catholic Welfare
Conference" (the national agency of the
American Catholic Bishops) issued
nothing less than a "Declaration of
Human Rights," almost two years before
the United Nations proclaimed its
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
in December, 1948. In fact, the American
Catholic Declaration was handed over to
the "Committee on Human Rights of the
United Nations," the chair of which was
Eleanor Roosevelt. A comparison of the
"American Catholic Declaration" (which
with 50 articles is more detailed than
the UN Declaration with 30 articles) and
that of the United Nations reveals
amazing similarities, some passages of
the latter being even verbatim that of
the former.
The Catholic
document speaks of human "personal
dignity....being endowed with certain
natural, inalienable rights....The unity
of the human race under God is not
broken by geographical dis- tance or by
diversity of civilization, culture and
economy..." The U.N. document recognizes
"the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family.... Everyone is
entitled to all the rights and freedoms
set forth in this Declaration, without
distinc- tion of any kind, such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other
status. Furthermore, no distinction
shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or
international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs."
Here is a
chapter of American Catholic history
that was almost forgotten. After its
initial impact, no one seemed to
remember or record it, until 1990. And
yet this is a chapter of history that
makes one proud of being a Catholic -
and an American Catholic in particular.
The American Catholic Church here took
the lead in promoting human rights on a
world-wide basis and probably had a
significant influence in the drafting of
the United Nations' 1948 "Universal
Declaration of Human Rights."
Let me tell
you how this lost chapter of an American
Catholic contribution to Human Rights
and to Democracy came to light. Dr.
Gertraud Putz, an Austrian historian,
noted how accidental and labyrinthine
her discovery of the 1947 American
document was. She wrote that she had in
her research come across an article in a
1947 Austrian periodical, Die Furche,
with a German translation of what looked
like an American Catholic Declaration of
Human Rights, but with no reference to
the original.
She then
wrote:
The difficult
search for the English text shall not
remain hidden from the reader. Through a
personal contact with Professor Johannes
Schwartländer of the University of
Tübingen, doubtless the most
knowledgeable scholar of the history of
human rights, I was directed to an
American human rights expert, Professor
Leonard Swidler in Philadelphia. The
accident that he-who at first also knew
nothing of the existence of this
Declaration-is married to a historian
with whom he discussed the matter made
it possible that she then took up the
search. In a letter dated April 18,
1990, she responded to my letter and
explained the diffi-culty in finding the
Declaration, for it had no listed author
under which it could be indexed.
However, the fact that Professor Arlene
Swidler precisely at that time was
giving a course on "American Catholic
History" at Villanova University led her
to search further, and she ended by
writing: "However, I am quite sure I
have found the important material by
paging through the significant
periodicals."
IV.
WHITHER NOW TOWARD A CONSTITUTION?
So, here we
are in 2010 in Europe, and in America,
the land which practically invented
modern Democracy, with the idea of
governing an institution not by the
decisions of some elite leaders, but
whose leaders are elected by the members
of the institution, who are guided by
Law, as expressed in a written
Constitution, which contains a list of
the rights of the members spelled out in
a Bill of Rights, which are enforced by
a separate judiciary, under a due
process of law. We know the blessings of
freedom and responsibility, of the rule
of law, for our ancestors suffered and
died so they, and we, could be free and
responsible. We also know that we all
must struggle every day to win freedom
again, and again, and again, endlessly,
for if we do not, it will suffocate and
die.
If we are the
beneficiaries of this freedom and
responsibility with its Constitutions,
Bills of Rights, Freedom and
Responsibility, and Law in the civil
sphere, why do we not see the need for
their blessings in the most important
dimension of our lives, in our
spirituality, in our religion? Oh, we
all know that we have been told that the
Catholic Church is not a democracy, and
this false sensibility has seeped deep
into our Catholic bones, but we have now
begun to learn that that claim is false.
We now know that the Catholic Church has
a long tradition with large elements of
democracy as part of its warp and woof.
Let me quote
Anthony Padovano once more:
The fact that
Americans cannot bring democracy or
these miracles to the Catholic Church at
large is the single greatest failure of
American Catholicism.... Democracy is
not only the key to all ecclesial reform
but the essential ingredient in global
social justice.
No less a
figure than Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel
laureate in economics, insists on two
observations of paramount importance. In
Democracy as Freedom (1989), he writes:
"No famine has ever taken place in the
history of the world in a functioning
democracy." Sen argues that the openness
of a democracy, its accountability and
its freedom of the press make it
impossible for governments to tolerate
famines.Famines are the legacy of
monarchical systems. A Church that is
proud it is not a democracy is a model
for totalitarianism systems. Sen argued
that no multi-partied democracy has ever
waged war on another democracy.
If Sen is
right and if democracy restricts famine
and war, then a democratic world will be
one in which social justice and peace
may be possible on a scale greater than
we have heretofore imagined. This is not
a time for the Church to boast that it
will never be a democracy.
We also know
that when we sleep the sleep, not of the
innocent, but of the passive, of the
non-responsible, that bad things do
happen to real people. We here in
Philadelphia, as in many other cities,
are still stinging under the blows of
the 2005 Grand Jury Report on Clergy
Sexual Misconduct.
Terrible
things have happened to our brothers and
sisters, and we did nothing to protect
them. We can say that we knew nothing
about it. Fair enough. But we can no
longer say that! We here at Old St.
Mary's Church have an extraordinary
opportunity to take up our
responsibilities that not many parishes
in this diocese are given. We are
extraordinarily blessed with a pastor
who has the vision, self-confidence, and
courage to call for us to come forth and
take up our responsibilities, to be
mature Catholics. With this blessing
comes a corresponding responsibility,
that it, from whom much is given, much
is expected.
There are
endless things that this parish can do
that will be of immense value to the
members and to many individuals and
groups outside it. We have a beautiful
church building. In fact, we have two!
Each has a fantastic historic tradition
that ought to be mined, taught, and
harnessed. Our location in the center of
the city, a stone's throw from the
Freedom shrines, puts us in a unique
situation to do creative things. With a
carefully thought through and written
Constitution and live participation in
those areas that are vital to a parish,
like a finance committee, a liturgy
committee, a music committee, an
outreach committee, lawyers committee,
education committee .... St. Mary's
should become a model which will both
draw to itself those Catholics starving
for spiritual vitality, and will inspire
others to imitate our structured
dynamism.
V. A
TEN-STEP PROGRAM TO A DEMOCRATIC PARISH
- AND CHURCH
In the wake
of the American Catholic clergy sex
scandal and two billion dollars already
paid out (and no end in sight!), and
several dioceses in bankruptcy, many
Catholics are asking themselves:
Whatever happened to the Vatican II
promise of a collegial Church (in plain
English: democratic Church)? Many
national Pastoral Councils of the 1970s
(e.g., Germany, Austria, France,
Netherlands....) moved in that
direction-including the astonishing
American "Call To Action" in 1976,
participated in by hundreds of thousands
of American Catholics-only to be laid
waste during the Romanizing pontificate
of John Paul II, and now his former
lieutenant, Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict
XVI. The response bubbling up is:
Leadership from above cannot be looked
for; Vatican II reform and renewal must
come from below, from the laity,
religious, and priests.
Here is a
modest, but I believe realistic,
Ten-Step Program "from below."
STEP 1.
PREPARE THE MINDS OF THE LAITY TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY
We must first
recognize that this is a very uneven
struggle against a structure that places
almost all the power in one set of
hands, namely, the bishop's. Hence, to
begin this democratic church movement
"from below" we need to have a pastor
and some parish laity of a Vatican II
mentality. Then "Father Goodpastor" and
the lay leaders need to devise a program
to raise the consciousness of the parish
to realize that all the parish members
must share the responsibility of making
their parish a mature Catholic
community. This might in various
parishes take anywhere from six days to
six years, and could include many
sermons, lecture series, gradual
development of parish structures, and
many other creative methods. The goal is
to get, if not all, at least the
majority of the parish to follow the
lead of the pope and all the bishops of
the world in Vatican II (1962-65) which
stated:
All [not just
the bishops or priests, but "all," that
is, the laity] are led to... wherever
necessary, undertake with vigor the task
of renewal and reform.... Catholics'...
primary duty is to make a careful and
honest appraisal of whatever needs to be
renewed and done in the Catholic
household itself.... Christ summons the
Church, as it goes its pilgrim way, to
that continual reformation of which it
always has need (Ecclesia semper
reformanda, Vatican II, Decree on
Ecumenism).
We must
devise effective processes that will
raise the consciousness of the lay
parishioners to recognize and embrace
their right and responsibility to share
in the leadership and work of the
parish. How much more and in what forms
that work might need to be continued the
parishioners, lay and pastor, will have
to determine.
STEP 2.
DISCUSS AND DELIBERATE AMONG ALL THE
PARISH
THE MAKING
OF THE CONSTITUTION
Although
there obviously must be a smaller cadre
of parishioners (meaning pastor and
laity) who take the lead in organizing
this movement, the whole of the parish
must be seriously engaged in coming
together to discuss, deliberate, and
ultimately decide what exactly a parish
Constitution is and what their own
Constitution should contain. (Guidance
on how to go about this task can be
found at http://www.arcc-catholic-rights.net/resources.htm.)
This must be the decision of
fundamentally the whole parish
community, for all will have to live by
that decision. The effectiveness, and
the length of time needed, clearly will
be heavily influenced by the quality of
Step
1. Precisely
how this is to be carried out will be up
to the laity who come forward, along
with the pastor. Probably one or several
parish meetings to which all are invited
would be a minimum. Additional
possibilities might include mailing a
letter and information to all
parishioners. Whatever forms this parish
deliberation will take, it needs on the
one hand to include as full a
participation as possible, and on the
other hand realistically, only a
minority will actively participate.
Given the centuries of ingrained
passivity in the Catholic laity, we must
do the best we can, but in the beginning
it will be a challenge.
STEP 3.
THE NAME "CONSTITUTION"
Some may shy
away from the term "Constitution,"
thinking perhaps that it is too
"profane," too "secular." It need only
be remembered that the highest authority
in the structure of the Catholic
Church-the Pope and all the bishops
gathered together in an Ecumenical
Council-has used precisely that term for
its most important documents, e.g.,
Vatican Council II's "Constitution on
the Sacred Liturgy," "Dogmatic
Consti-tution on the Church," "Dogmatic
Constitution on Divine Revelation,"
"Pastoral Constitution on the Church in
the Modern World," and that Pope Paul VI
called for and set up a Commission to
develop a Constitution for the Church (Lex
Fundamentalis Ecclesiae). Moreover, this
Constitution is the document that will
constitute, that is, will give form to,
the parish community for as long as it
exists. By-laws (or the like) is much
too transitory a term to name this
literally "fundamental" reality which
will shape the parish's existence and
actions.
STEP 4.
WHAT SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT BE IN A
CONSTITUTION
It is
important to bear in mind that a
Constitution is to outline the vital,
the formative, elements of the
governance of a community, in this case,
the Parish. It needs to avoid details
beyond the essential, and concentrate on
the critical structures of governance.
Only a brief prologue should refer to
the underlying spirit of the
Constitution, being careful not to be
too specific theologically, for every
theology, no matter how brilliant,
sensitive, and Gospel-centered, is only
one way to articulate what it means to
be a follower of Jesus, and therefore
necessarily does not include other
articulations. It must include a clear
statement of the rights and
responsibilities of all parties of the
Parish, including such principles as
transparency, accountability,
representativeness, due process of law,
decision-making procedures, terms of
office, separation and balance of
powers.
Above all, it
is absolutely essential that the
Constitution be written. There is
nothing like having to choose the words
to write down-especially words that you
are going to have to live by-to help
clarify thinking. Further, when future
disagreements arise, as they inevitably
will, it is vital to have written
documents to refer to. This will
especially be the case when a new pastor
arrives! A written Constitution is
absolutely vital! I cannot emphasize
this enough. Many Catholics have had
wonderful parishes in the past so long
as "Father Goodpastor" was the pastor,
only to see it dismantled when he was
replaced by "Monsignor O'Hooligan." A
written Constitution may not be a
sufficient cause of a continued Vatican
II democratic parish, but it is a
necessary cause of one (more about that
below).
STEP 5.
LITURGICAL INSTALLATION
Once the long
process of consciousness-shaping,
dialogue, deliberation, and decision has
been lived through and a Constitution is
arrived at, a further step is very
important. One of the strengths of
Catholicism is the tradition of giving
everything important-and even things not
so especially important-a liturgy. A
Constitution that a parish is going to
live by is in fact a very important
sacred reality. It is a sacramental, and
hence deserves a solemn liturgical
ceremony.
The
Constitution ought to be printed and
framed in a fittingly solemn manner. A
liturgy with an appropriate set of
prayers, music, and gestures needs to be
designed by the parish liturgy committee
for the formal installation of the
Constitution. It is important that the
Pastor, the Parish Council, and other
officers of the Parish, as well as as
much of the entire Parish as possible be
present at the Installation Liturgy. For
the initial installation of the
Constitution, it would be well to invite
the bishop to be present as an observer
(his presence will help to forestall his
later sending an autocratic priest as
Pastor). The Pastor, Parish Council, and
other officers, as well as the rest of
the Parish members present, ought to
make a solemn public pledge to follow
the Constitution.
An
appropriate day should be chosen for the
annual liturgical re-commitment of all
to follow the Constitution-perhaps the
feast day of the parish's name. Such a
solemn liturgical installation, and its
annual re-confirmation, will keep the
Constitution present in all the
parishioners' consciousness, and go a
long way toward ensuring its continuing
viability.
STEP 6.
LIVE BY CONSTITUTION
It goes
without saying that the Parish must then
live by its Constitution. Much will be
learned in the very living with the
Constitution, including the possibility
that appropriate amendments will be
found to be important, perhaps even
essential. The discipline of so living
will also gradually re-shape and mature
the thinking and action of all members
of the parish involved, clergy and
laity, including the future generations.
Regarding the future, if a parish has
lived and grown with a Constitution for
five or ten years or more, it will very
difficult for a future "Monsignor
O'Hooligan" to come in (or even to want
to!) and dismantle it (again, more about
that below).
STEP 7.
SET UP NON-PROFIT OWNERSHIP
I realize
that the Austrian and German
religion-state systems labor are
burdened with a relatively fused
relationship between the two, which is
different that in America and Canada. I
also recognize that unfortunately the
civil laws regulating tax benefits for
charitable donations are not as
favorable in Europe as they are in the
U.S. Nevertheless, I want to urge
European Catholics to seriously
investigate the idea of parishes setting
up a Non-Profit Organization-a 501(c)(3)
organization in the American
system-especially for any new
donations/expenditures. The Non-Profit
Parish Organization (NPO) could be set
up to sponsor social-justice work, youth
work, construct buildings, schools, buy
a parish hall, send out relief workers,
missionaries, students.... All the
assets of whatever form purchased
through this Non-Profit Organization
would belong to the Parish and be
disposed according to the founding
document, based on the Parish
Constitution.
If
parishioners have a secure say in the
disposal of their parish's various
goods, they, of course, will be much
more inclined to donate to this Parish
Non-Profit-Organization. This is not
just a so-called "gut-feeling" or hunch
on my part, but is in fact documented in
recent research by highly respected
Catholic scholars reported in an
extensive article in the Los Angeles
Times.
Modest
tithing is especially noticeable among
Roman Catholics, who give to their
parishes about half as much as
Protestants. In 2003, Protestants gave
2.6% of their income to their churches
and Catholics gave 1.2%, according to
studies conducted by Empty Tomb Inc., a
Christian research and service group
based in Champaign, Ill. Why?
The avoidance
of tithing reflects the sense of
ownership parishioners feel toward their
churches-or more precisely, the lack of
it. "The heritage in Catholic thought
that still hangs over people is that
they are just customers and the clergy
really owns the church," said Dean R.
Hoge, a professor of sociology at
Washington, D.C.'s Catholic University
of America, whose specialty is churches,
and is a co-author of a seminal work on
church giving: "It's almost like we just
go there; we don't own the store," said
Hoge, whose research team surveyed 625
congregations in five mainline
denominations across the nation. He said
many Catholics think "the priest will
give us what we need, and we'll tell him
what we want."
Thus, setting
up a Parish NPO would not mean less
funding at the disposal of the parish,
but more. The money needed for normal
running expenses would continue to come
from the Church Tax and go directly
Catholic Church and thence to the parish
in the normal fashion. However, for all
new activity, whether, as suggested a
moment ago, to sponsor social-justice
work, youth work, construct buildings,
schools, buy a parish hall, send out
relief workers, missionaries, provide
student scholarships, or whatever, the
money would be given to and distributed
through the NPO. These will be
activities and monies which otherwise
would not exist!
To
re-emphasize, the setting up of the NPO
would not take money away from the
parish, but greatly increase it
precisely because of what Professor Dean
Hoge's research made clear: Because the
parishioners will have a direct voice in
what happens to the money they donate,
they will in fact donate more than they
would have otherwise. Further, the laity
will also consequently become much more
active in the parish. As important, or
perhaps even more so, as the financial
value of this Non-Profit Parish
Organization grows, it will
automatically support the responsible
functioning of the parish Constitution
on into the future.
Again, I
realize that not only are the civil tax
systems different in Europe, and hence
will have to be worked with carefully,
but also that there is an even weaker
tradition in Europe of making charitable
donations to the Church. This
psychological barrier will also have to
be overcome. No one has said that the
goal of a democratic Catholic Church
would be easily attained!
STEP 8.
CONSTITUTIONAL PARISH NETWORKING
A
Constitutional Parish, once attained,
will doubtless be a flourishing parish
for it will automatically draw on all
the talents of all members-just how
flourishing will depend on the
combination of the talents of the
parishioners (including preeminently
those of the pastor and lay leaders),
the care with which the Constitution has
been planned for and structured, and the
wisdom with which the Parish has grown
in living it.
Consequently
the Constitutional Parish will become a
magnet for other parishes. (One must
also, sadly, reckon with the
possibility, even likelihood, of a
negative envy being generated in some
clergy.) However, the Constitutional
Parish must, for its own survival, also
become an "Evangelizing" Constitutional
Parish in the literal sense, that is, it
needs to spread the "good news" of
creating and living by a Parish
Constitution so that other parishes will
go down the same path.
If there
develop two, three, four, or more
Constitutional Parishes in a diocese, it
is critical that they learn from, and
support, each other. They will need to
form a Network of Constitutional
Parishes-including the "Evangelizing"
work of increasing their number. As
their numbers grow, the likelihood of
any of them receiving a "Monsignor
O'Hooligan" as pastor will
proportionately shrink. The Network
should be prepared to go to the Bishop
and the Diocesan Personnel Committee and
lobby for a "Father Goodpastor"
successor in their fellow Constitutional
Parishes. The Constitutional Parishes
must counter the ancient Roman tactic:
Divide et impera! Divide and conquer! by
taking to heart the saying of my
compatriot from Philadelphia, Benjamin
Franklin: Either we hang together, or we
will hang separately!
STEP 9.
NEGOTIATE WITH BISHOP/PERSONNEL
COMMITTEE AHEAD OF TIME
However,
without waiting for a Network of
Constitutional Parishes to develop, the
Parish Council (which includes the
pastor) should in good time arrange to
meet with the Bishop and Diocesan
Personnel Committee to negotiate with
them ahead of time a serious role for
themselves in the choice of the
successor of their pastor. They must
insist on the retention of their
governing Constitution. Clearly they
will want to do all this only after they
have lived by their Constitution for
some time and built a solid reputation
in the diocese. Clearly also, their hand
will be greatly strengthened if they do
not go into the meeting alone, but with
supporting members of other parishes.
That is another reason why it is so
important for a Constitutional Parish to
be an Evangelizing Constitutional Parish
and work hard to create a Network of
Constitutional Parishes. Here also is an
additional reason for developing a
vibrant and productive NPO. The
substantial character of the Non-Profit
Parish Organization will likewise
obviously have a significant influence
here-money talks!
STEP 10.
PUBLICIZE
We know from
civil society that freedom of the press
is critical to make democracy work. We
Catholics also learned that lesson at
Vatican Council II when freedom of the
press was one of the main engines
pulling the Catholic Church out of its
Medieval and Counter-Reformation
mentality into that of Modernity.
Without it, Vatican II would have been
as much of a disaster as Lateran Council
V (1512-1517) was. Its failure in the
fateful year of 1517 contributed
significantly to Martin Luther's
launching the Protestant Reformation in
that very same year. As I suggested
above with the term "Evangelizing"-that
is, spreading the Gospel, the "Good
News" of a Constitutional Parish-simply
as an insurance policy, the
Constitutional Parish needs to publicize
itself as broadly and creatively as
possible (including internationally on
the website of the Association for the
Rights of Catholics in the Church! (http://www.arcc-catholic-rights.net/
).
The
Constitutional Parish must not only do
good things, it must also be seen doing
good things because of their democratic,
constitutional structure. They must
become known for doing good things as a
Constitutional Parish. This is not
pride, but self-defense! As the
Constitutional Parish becomes
increasingly known for doing good
things, it will encourage other parishes
to likewise become Constitutional
Parishes, thereby gaining the support of
numbers and the Network, but also by
burnishing its reputation, the
Constitutional Parish will make it
increasingly difficult to dismantle
their Constitution, especially at the
critical juncture of the change of
pastors.
CONCLUSION
As in society
in general, a governance structure will
be what the governed allow. If most
Catholics in an area believe that a
shared responsibility governance
structure, a Democratic Church, is not
possible, it will not happen, regardless
of what Ecumenical Councils or Popes
have said supporting such. The first,
and perhaps most challenging, task is to
convince large numbers of the Catholic
community that a democratic constitution
for the parish (indeed, also for the
diocese and universal Church) is in
keeping with the Gospel and Catholic
tradition. Then, after Step One the rest
of the nine steps are obvious, though by
no means easy.
The critical
issue is whether or not a Constitutional
Parish can survive beyond its "founding
pastor." As I noted at the beginning,
canon law and the reality on the ground
stack the chances against it. That is
why Steps Five through Ten are vital.
They are not individual guarantees
against the eventual destruction of a
Constitutional Parish, but as each of
them is carried out, they will
proportionately improve the chances of
survival of the Constitutional Parish.
Beyond a
Constitution for the Parish, there is
also the need for a Diocesan
Constitution, and eventually a Universal
Catholic Constitution, as Pope Paul VI
called and worked for. This journey to a
Diocesan, and especially a Universal,
Constitution of the Catholic Church will
doubtless be long, arduous, and probably
also serpentine. But it is a journey
that a growing number of Catholics
increasingly feel must be undertaken.
Those of us so convinced now have not
only the privilege, but also the
responsibility, to push on in the
journey, even though we personally may
not arrive at the final destination.
What is obtainable in the near future,
however, at least for some fortunate
ones of us living in parishes with a
"Father Goodpastor" are first, a Parish
Constitution and secondly, a Parish
Non-Profit Organization.
Now that you know, you are obligated!
***
Related to the formula for overthrowing
dictatorships in the last post, the
following article asks the question:
Will the Vatican be the Last Wall to
Fall?
One watched with fascination
at the eruption of the
democratic impulse in Egypt,
an extraordinary
effloresence after 32 years
of a brutal dictatorship.At
this point one does not know
how the whole scenario will
play out.The very articulate
Egyptians we have seen on Al
Jazeera, the BBC and the CBC
exhibit a sophisticated
analysis of the very clever
dance and machinations of
Mubarak himself and the dark
prince Omar Suleiman, his
right hand man described by
Robert Fisk as "a ruthless
man who will not hesitate to
use the same state security
police as Mubarak."
Egyptians know too well the
depredations of this awful
regime---the secret police,
the torture and corruption.
When
we look at the Roman
Catholic Church we of course
see nothing like the
terrible physical brutality
but triste dictu we do see
another totalitarian regime
set in place by Pope John
Paul ll, Karol Wojtyla and
his Mozart playing,
gentlemanly accomplice the
present pope, Josef
Ratizinger.
Catholicism has not seen a
comparative period since the
turn of the twentieth
century when an intellectual
lockdown known as the
Modernist period derailed
the Church for forty years.
Here we saw the heresy
hunting of reformist
theologians, the shocking
creation of a secret curial
organization the Solidatium
Pianum, a veritable spy
agency under the notorious
Undersecretary of State,
Umberto Benigni. All liberal
and progressive teachers
were targeted and removed. A
Modernist Oath was then
imposed on the ordained and
bishops and not rescinded
until 1967. And it must be
remembered that one of the
modernist heresies condemned
was DEMOCRACY.
Before
his death in 1984, the
theological giant of
twentieth century Karl
Rahner described the
pontificate of Pope John
Paul ll, then in its
infancy, as an "ice age" in
Catholicism. Since then
under his enforcer Josef
Ratzinger the ice has only
thickened. This reactionary
period from 1979-present has
seen the reformist direction
of the Second Vatican
Council (1962-65) betrayed.
Centralization and
bureaucratization advanced,
regional and national
episcopacies were
denigrated. In a purge which
would do the Inquisition
proud it is estimated that
over one hundred theologians
have been silenced. John
XXlll and Pope Paul Vl
banished none. Docile
bishops have been appointed
on the basis of their
excessive loyalty to Rome
and their own promises never
to raise the issue of
celibacy and women priests.
As Fr. Richard McBrien,the
distinguished Church
historian quipped: "They
answer to a constituency of
one---Rome." The considered
theological ideas of the
best-educated Catholics in
history have been totally
ignored. One man's stubborn
convictions, those of John
Paul ll, have been declared
orthodox. This "creeping
infallibilism" has stifled
Catholic thought. Finally,
ecumenical relations have
dried up in the wake of the
present pope's embarrassing
insistence in Dominus Iejus
that Roman Catholicism is
the one true faith.
One could go on and list the
sad-making aspects of the
Wojtyla-Ratzinger
restoration but it is
obvious that it has failed.
In the more educated parts
of the globe, these twin
pontificates have deeply
alienated Catholics. The Pew
Research Centre has pointed
out the massive exodus of
thirty million Catholics in
the United States. The
neuralgic sticking points
have been the failure to
come to terms with the
equality of women and the
Church's perceived
shortcomings on the area of
homosexuality and sexual
ethics. Needless to say, the
pedophilia crisis,
exacerbated by the cover-ups
of the excessively loyal JP
ll bishops have played their
parts.
Catholic reform groups have
persistently called for
changes in governance and
accountability and refuse to
be patronized by the
clerical minority.
Theologians who have been
browbeaten by Rome are
finding their voice. As
reported on February 4 144
theologians (now up to
254)from Germany, Austria
and Switzerland have made
similar demands to Rome.
They deeply resent the lack
of collegiality, the
imposition of bishops and
the collective refusal to
plumb the "sensus fidelium"
(how the faithful are
thinking). Dialogue, the
hallmark of Vatcan ll has
been replaced by monologue,
In Ireland Boston's Cardinal
Sean O'Malley told an
association of priests that
the Irish church had a
decade, at most, to avoid
falling over the edge and
"becoming like other
European countries" where
religion is marginal to
society. But O'Malley and
others have to realize that
the criticisms and demands
for reform are rational.
Open the church up to
greater lay involvement. Do
not squander the gifts of
the baptized.
As we watch democracy on the
march in Egypt, Catholics
here struggle to regain
their own neglected and
repressed voices. A medieval
monarchical model, heavily
clerical no longer suits our
times. According to the 2001
Canadian Census there were
12,974,402 Catholics in
Canada. 2008-2009 Diocesan
figures had a total of 7,546
diocesan and religious order
priests in Canada. The rest
constitute the laity. The
Roman Catholic Church is a
lay organization with a
roman/medieval governance.
The
universal practice of the
church, its basic democratic
thrust should have evolved
even further than Vatican
ll's insistence that
collectively all the
baptized are the People of
God and anyone in a
leadership position should
be chosen by all. This was
well expressed by Pope Leo
the Great in the fifth
century: "Let the one who is
going to rule over all be
elected by all." In 2011 we
still have the same old
tired undemocratic
imposition of bishops on the
People of God. Remember
priests no longer take the
oath against Modernism and
Democracy at their
ordination. Perhaps it is
time to "read the signs of
the times", look at the
recent events in Egypt and
begin the democratization of
the Roman Catholic Church.
The Tablet in an interesting
editorial (Jan 29,2011)
opined that perhaps the
"structure of sin" lays
within the Church's internal
architecture. Now there's an
idea worth pursuing.
The repressed desire for
democracy whether in the
Arab or the Catholic world
speaks to a dignity too long
trampled and abused. The
spark of divinity is within
all of us and as Meister
Eckhart said God is a great
underground river that no
one can dam up and no one
can stop."
***
All economic systems have
religious implications.
FInancial Journalism and The
Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo
By Carl Bloice -
BlackCommentator.com Editorial
Board
In a good novel, writes blogger
Randy Mayeux, "we can find
quotes that speak to the issues
of the age." He's referring to
the much acclaimed "The Girl
with the Dragoon Tattoo" and its
relevance to the state of
financial journalism in real
life today. "Read it, and think
about the financial reporting
(and, really, most `journalism')
in this country over the last
two-three years," he says.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/414/414_lm_financial_journalism.php
***
It was
recently reported that the
number of priests worldwide had
risen. Read the following
article for an interesting take
on the statistics.
Article on the priest
situation from Catholic News
India.
Great attention has been
paid over the last week to the
Vatican’s announcement that the
gross number of priests in the
world has risen in the last
decade. On our own site, the
story rated the highest number
of visitors on the day of the
announcement and across the
world, the story gained
extensive exposure.
Without being as cynical about
the announcement as the 19th
Century British Prime Minister
Benjamin Disraeli might suggest
that we be (”There are lies,
damn lies and statistics”), the
figures merit more considered
assessment if they are to reveal
what the real condition of the
Church’s clergy is.
The abiding question about any
claim that a number is growing
is “growing relative to what?”
If anyone who has a business
were told their profit had grown
or the owner of a piece of
property were told it had
increased in value, the real
question for both is: in
relation to what?
Has the value of the property
increased ahead of or behind the
rate of return on shares or
money? Has the profit on the
business provided its owner with
an appropriate rate of return on
the investment that created the
business in the first place?
Simply saying that the price of
property has risen or profits in
a business have increased
without these qualifiers is not
really very helpful.
So, the number of priests has
risen in the last decade. But
relative to what? The number of
Catholics has risen in the same
time by 128 million according to
the Vatican’s own figures. Even
if the number of priests has
risen by 50,000 (as the growth
reported for the previous year
suggests) in the last decade,
that still represents half the
rate of growth of the Catholic
population the priests are
ordained to serve.
Relative to the number of
priests needed to serve the
growing Catholic population, the
number of priests has actually
declined. The Church was better
off, in relative terms, a decade
ago.
But the questions about gross
numbers need to be even more
searching. Where are the large
populations of Catholics and how
are they faring in ordinations?
What is the median or even
average ages of the clergy and
how do they compare with a
decade ago?
Are the Vatican statistics
including those priests who have
left active ministry but are not
laicized? Many leaving
priesthood today don’t bother
with applying for laicization
because it takes so long and the
Vatican is very reluctant to
grant it. So priests leave, take
other jobs, may get married but
still appear in the books,
misleadingly, as priests.
With a few exceptions - India,
Thailand and Korea in Asia and
Nigeria and the Congo in Africa
- the number of priests per
Catholic is going south.
The spread of the clergy
worldwide is very uneven. In an
aside to an Australian bishop on
his Ad Limina visit to Rome,
Pope John Paul II lamented that
Italy alone had 35,000 priests
and asked what impact they made
when other countries with large
populations of Catholics had so
few. Italy has about nine
percent of the world’s clergy
for just on three percent of the
world’s baptized Catholics. The
Philippines has just on 2.2
percent of the world’s priests
for 4.5 percent of baptized
Catholics worldwide.
The Western world, as is widely
known, is witnessing not just
the decline in gross numbers of
priests but their rapid aging as
well. In Australia, the average
age of priests is nearly 70
where it may be little more than
half that in some developing
countries.
In other words, unless figures
are set in their real and
relative contexts, they aren’t
very helpful.
But these statistics prompt even
more basic questions. What are
we talking about when we use the
word priest? What is at the core
of a priest’s ministry? Compare
that to what priests actually
do. What are the things priests
do that in many places around
the world that are done by
unacclaimed and unordained lay
people? What are the terms of
access to priestly ministry and
why are they restricted to
celibate males?
Aren’t there plenty of
ministries in the Church -
teaching, financial and staff
administration, service of the
sick and poor, introductions to
the Christian faith as
catechists, etc - that should
have a way of being recognized,
celebrated and commissioned as
part of the service of the
Church to the faith community
and beyond?
More than 20 years ago, a priest
now in his late 80s asked me a
question: “Michael, do you know
what the two issues were that
Paul VI reserved to himself and
would not allow their discussion
on the floor of Vatican II?”
I replied that I didn’t know,
that I was nine years of age
when the Council began and 12
when it closed.
“Contraception and clerical
celibacy,” he replied. “And what
are the two things that
bedeviled the Church since?
Female anatomy and the nature of
ministry.”
Celibacy was slated for
consideration at the 1971 Synod
of Bishops but got bumped off
the agenda in favour of social
justice and produced the
groundbreaking document Justice
in the World. It has been the
fountainhead of extensive action
and reflection in the Church
ever since.
But maybe it’s time to put
ministry back on the agenda.
Father Michael Kelly SJ is
executive director of UCA News.
He has worked in radio and TV
production since 1982 and as a
journalist in Australia and Asia
for various publications,
religious and secular.
***
And, finally, from the
Huffington Post, the following
letter to Glen Beck from Jim
Wallis. It was originally posted
in September 2010.
Dear Glenn,
I think we
got off on the wrong foot. I
listened to your speech last
Saturday and heard a lot of
things that we agree on. In
fact, I have used some of the
same language of our need to
turn to God, and the values of
"faith, hope, and charity"
(love). What I would like to
find out, and others would too,
is what you mean by that
language. Until last weekend,
you have consistently described
yourself primarily as an
entertainer, and the public has
known you as a talk show host.
But last Saturday, you sounded
more like an evangelist or
revivalist on the steps of the
Lincoln Memorial. I know we
disagree significantly on many
issues of public policy, but you
said that people can disagree on
politics and still agree on
basic values and try to come
together. Maybe we should test
that. Instead of my being up on
your blackboard and a regular
target of your show's rhetoric,
why don't we finally have that
civil
dialogue I invited you to months
ago?
Your speech on the Mall
suggested and even promised a
change of heart on your part, so
why don't we talk? Here are a
few things I think we could talk
about.
First, I've been asked by people
in the media if it matters that
you are a Mormon. I
unequivocally answer, no, it
does not. We don't want more
anti-Mormon bigotry any more
than we want the anti-Muslim
bigotry now rising up across the
country. By the way, you should
speak to that (against it). On
Saturday you talked about the
fact that our nation has some
scars in our past. I think one
of those scars is the historical
persecution and bigotry that
many Mormons have faced, as well
as Catholics, Jews, and Muslims.
But, as you said, instead of
dwelling on the bad things of
the past, we need to learn from
them and look to the future. The
best way to do that is to make
sure we all stand for religious
liberty and tolerance, and are
careful not to denigrate anybody
else's faith tradition,
experience, or language. If you
are ever in need of an
evangelical Christian to speak
out against anti-Mormon
sentiment directed at you or
others, I am here to help.
In an
interview the day after your
rally you said that you would
like to "amend" your statement
in which you accused President
Obama of being a racist and said
he had a deep hatred in his
heart for white people. I
commend you for that. But a
simple and straightforward
apology would have been better.
All of us say things we
shouldn't sometimes, but you
have consistently
mischaracterized the president's
faith.
You also said in that interview
that you would like to have a
conversation about it. I'd like
to do that.
I also
think it would be a good thing
to stop attacking people and
churches you label as "social
justice Christians," not just
because I'm tired of being on
your blackboard, but because I
think you genuinely
don't
understand the concept
and how central it is to
biblical faith, and how
essential to the whole gospel. I
am sure there are those who have
misused the term, just as there
are those who will co-opt any
good label that exists. If
"social justice" were truly code
for Communism or Marxism or
Nazism, as you have suggested, I
would be right beside you in
condemning it.
In his opening sermon at
Nazareth, Jesus gave his own
mission statement when he
declared, "The Spirit of the
Lord is upon me, because he has
anointed me to bring good news
to the poor, he has sent me to
proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the
blind, to let the oppressed go
free, to proclaim the year of
the Lord's favor." Those were
his very words, Glenn, including
the stuff about releasing
captives and freeing the
oppressed -- language you have
been pretty critical of. In
fact, the end of Jesus' famous
sermon in Luke 4, about
proclaiming "the year of the
Lord's favor," was a direct
reference, according to most
biblical scholars, to the "year
of Jubilee" in the Hebrew
scriptures, which called for a
periodic freeing of slaves,
cancelling of debts, and
returning land to original
owners. It was written into the
Torah as legal code and not just
left up to individual charity.
It was about "social justice"
and even "redistribution" -- two
of the least popular words on
your show. You regularly
criticize other people's
"versions" of Christianity. How
about Jesus' version of
Christianity?
I thought you might be changing
your own mind a bit when I heard
you lifting up the legacy of Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. and
associating yourself with him on
the 47th anniversary of his
eloquent "I Have a Dream"
speech, given from the very
place you stood on Saturday. I
was encouraged by that because
Dr. King was the archetypal
social justice Christian and the
primary teacher for many of us
on the social implications of
biblical faith. His personal
faith led him to fight for
racial and economic justice --
social justice. I hope you read
many of his words before you
spoke on the anniversary of his
great speech, because we can't
claim the mantle of King without
also embracing his message. You
seemed to affirm King's
assertion that racism was not
simply a private moral issue but
one that required response
through federal action and
legislation. I'd like to talk
with you about the rest of
King's dream. If King was right
about racism, could he have also
been right about poverty and
war? I didn't hear much about
King's words on either of those
issues in your speech on
Saturday.
And let's talk about salvation.
You have emphasized that you
believe strongly in personal
salvation, as opposed to
"collective salvation." As an
evangelical Christian, I also
believe deeply in personal
salvation -- it is the
foundation of my faith. But we
need to ask ourselves, what are
we saved for? Is salvation just
about getting a pass into
heaven? Is it just for us? Or is
it also for the world, and being
a part of God's work and
purposes in the world today?
When I read a passage like
Matthew 25 or Amos 5, I believe
it's clear that God won't hear
my prayers if I don't care for
the least of these, or I refuse
justice to those in need. You
spoke about charity at your
rally on Saturday. Throughout
the Old Testament it is clear
that God requires compassion and
charity from individuals, but
God also requires justice from
society. We agree that personal
charity is important, but the
God of the Bible is also a God
of justice. His prophets
regularly challenged the
priorities, policies, and
behavior of kings, rulers,
employers, judges, and any
leaders (including religious
ones) who practiced injustice
and robbed the poor of their
dignity and rights. The leaders
of his day were so upset with
Jesus' challenge to their status
quo that they killed him. Would
they have been so threatened if
Jesus was just asking people to
be better persons and volunteer
more often? Jesus announced the
kingdom of God, which would
change everything -- personally,
spiritually, socially,
economically, and even
politically -- not with a new
government or program, but with
a new way of living that
included both love and justice.
Before, I
thought you were just another
cable news talk show host. But
now, you are using the language
of a spiritual and even a
religious leader. You acted as
though you now want people to
look to you for that kind of
spiritual leadership. But to
invoke the name of God and the
vocation of a spiritual leader
has consequences. It brings with
it a whole new level of
responsibility and
accountability. It will require
a more civil and even humble
tone than you are used to. It
will likely mean saying some
different things and, certainly,
saying many things differently
than you have in the past.
Pundits and talk show hosts say
things that divide, create
conflict, and get good ratings.
They appeal more to fear than to
hope. But spiritual leaders try
to avoid vitriol and bombastic
language, and to rather seek to
find common ground and bring
people together to find real
solutions to real problems.
So let's
talk about that too.
You said your rally day was the
start of the nation turning to
God. Many people in this country
have already done that and, in
fact, try to do it every day.
But maybe it was the start of
Glenn Beck becoming a different
kind of public voice than you
have been before. I hope so. And
one good way to demonstrate that
is to agree to an honest and
civil conversation with somebody
you have often attacked. How
about it, Glenn?