For various reasons, I have decided to end this blog. It has been enjoyable interacting with everyone, and I wish you all the best. I will officially terminate it and send it to "blog heaven" on Friday the 30th. My e-mail address will still be available for sometime should annyone wish to get in touch with me.
All the Best,
SJA
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Monday, September 26, 2005
Hearing Confessions
My stand-in spiritual director made the comment last week that, in his opinion, priests who do not make their own confession have no business hearing others' confessions. What think ye of this? In general, I would agree.
From the stand point of experience it makes sense. Would a priest who never avails himself of the sacrament be a good confessor? There is more to the sacrament than absolution. There's counsel and guidence, assigning penances, and more. How is he supposed to know what to do, say, and assign if he never goes to confession himself? True, any catholic priest can hear confessions and absove sinners - even those who do not use the sacrament themselves. But should they? That is the question. I say probably not.
I wonder what many continuing priests do for confessors? Particularly if they are stationed way out in the sticks and do not have other colleagues around. Presumably, it would be good to go to confession with a priest of your own jurisdiction first, an intercommunion partner second, and a conservative and old school episcopalian priest third. Others may disagree with this order. But they should try to go somewhere.
Priests minister to each other in this regard. Thus, their gospel ministry is not only to laypeople and the unchurched, but also to each other. And if priests do not stick together and actively seek to minister to each other in this way, who else will do so?
From the stand point of experience it makes sense. Would a priest who never avails himself of the sacrament be a good confessor? There is more to the sacrament than absolution. There's counsel and guidence, assigning penances, and more. How is he supposed to know what to do, say, and assign if he never goes to confession himself? True, any catholic priest can hear confessions and absove sinners - even those who do not use the sacrament themselves. But should they? That is the question. I say probably not.
I wonder what many continuing priests do for confessors? Particularly if they are stationed way out in the sticks and do not have other colleagues around. Presumably, it would be good to go to confession with a priest of your own jurisdiction first, an intercommunion partner second, and a conservative and old school episcopalian priest third. Others may disagree with this order. But they should try to go somewhere.
Priests minister to each other in this regard. Thus, their gospel ministry is not only to laypeople and the unchurched, but also to each other. And if priests do not stick together and actively seek to minister to each other in this way, who else will do so?
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
My Poor Spiritual Director
This guy is great - but he is so burned out. He is retiring from full time parish ministry in a few months after serving as a priest in several ECUSA dioceses over a span of about 30 years. Many times our sessions turn into me listening to him blow off steam complaining about complacent churchmen, backstabbing bishops, and the misery of diocesan politics. He is so ready to retire, and I, for one, am happy for him.
Anyway, it seems that if a corrupt bishop or diocese doesn't do try to destroy a godly priest, there is always some layman out there who will try. I've seen and heard of this happening in the continuum too. Certain parishes in certain dioceses have a couple of nasty people in them who are wolves in sheep's clothing. They take over parishes, and chew up and spit out each priest that comes along. Many times their anger is directed towards the priest who is trying to grow the parish, and lead it beyond the status quo.
Don't get me wrong: parishioners should be vigiliant, and involved in the faith and life of their parish. But at the same time they need to be open to what their leaders - whom they themselves have called - suggest they do. They need to let their leader lead. Some parishes are full of people who just want to fight all the time. They want to fight ECUSA, or fight the bishop, or fight the priest, or fight the democrats (or republicans), or fight the homosexuals... in other words, they have nothing positive to offer the world. I am not saying that stands should not be taken on various issues, but only that a confrontational, bickering spirit can easily come to characterize a particular parish (or continuing church denomination), and many times it is just a few people who cause this cancer to grow and spread. What is the result of this? The same as with any cancer - eventual death. And of course, they take a few people with them... battered priests and clergy, lay people, and more.
I don't know what will become of the ECUSA (FiFNa) parish that my spiritual director leads once he retires. It seems to have been teetering on the edge for many years. It still has that sort of fighting, "angry-can" (certainly not anglican) air about it. It may very well die eventually. Who knows? A shame, since it is one of the flagship "historic" anglo-catholic parishes in the country. He has tried, in his 8 or so years there, to change the tenor of the place. But he's only half suceeded. He has fought the good fight. What will the people at the parish do? The choice is theirs.
Anyway, it seems that if a corrupt bishop or diocese doesn't do try to destroy a godly priest, there is always some layman out there who will try. I've seen and heard of this happening in the continuum too. Certain parishes in certain dioceses have a couple of nasty people in them who are wolves in sheep's clothing. They take over parishes, and chew up and spit out each priest that comes along. Many times their anger is directed towards the priest who is trying to grow the parish, and lead it beyond the status quo.
Don't get me wrong: parishioners should be vigiliant, and involved in the faith and life of their parish. But at the same time they need to be open to what their leaders - whom they themselves have called - suggest they do. They need to let their leader lead. Some parishes are full of people who just want to fight all the time. They want to fight ECUSA, or fight the bishop, or fight the priest, or fight the democrats (or republicans), or fight the homosexuals... in other words, they have nothing positive to offer the world. I am not saying that stands should not be taken on various issues, but only that a confrontational, bickering spirit can easily come to characterize a particular parish (or continuing church denomination), and many times it is just a few people who cause this cancer to grow and spread. What is the result of this? The same as with any cancer - eventual death. And of course, they take a few people with them... battered priests and clergy, lay people, and more.
I don't know what will become of the ECUSA (FiFNa) parish that my spiritual director leads once he retires. It seems to have been teetering on the edge for many years. It still has that sort of fighting, "angry-can" (certainly not anglican) air about it. It may very well die eventually. Who knows? A shame, since it is one of the flagship "historic" anglo-catholic parishes in the country. He has tried, in his 8 or so years there, to change the tenor of the place. But he's only half suceeded. He has fought the good fight. What will the people at the parish do? The choice is theirs.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Mostly Closed Communion
At my wedding (about two weeks away), only me, my bride, the clergy, and servers will be receiving the Holy Communion. There are just too many people coming , about 3/4 of the crowd, who are not confirmed. The policy in my church is that only those who have been confirmed by a bishop in apostolic succession may receive communion. While this is technically not "closed communion" - that would be only allowing confirmed members of the APA and those in official communion with us to receive - it is very close. I think it is a good compromise and the best option available considering how fragmented catholic Christendom is.
The Holy Communion implies a theological unity. It is a sign and symbol of unity. Open communion, in my judgement, belittles the sacrament if taken to an extreme. There is, of course, always the need for "economy", and the Eucharist can indeed help bring about unity. But in general I think it is best to "fence the table" (as Presbyterians like to say) as much as possible, so that Christ is not mocked.
The Holy Communion implies a theological unity. It is a sign and symbol of unity. Open communion, in my judgement, belittles the sacrament if taken to an extreme. There is, of course, always the need for "economy", and the Eucharist can indeed help bring about unity. But in general I think it is best to "fence the table" (as Presbyterians like to say) as much as possible, so that Christ is not mocked.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
New Oxford Review
This Catholic magazine is published by a bunch of ex-episcopalians who fled to Rome in the early 80's. One of their main contributers is Michael Rose, who has written interesting and thought-provoking books like: Goodbye Good Men, Uglier Than Sin, and more. It is a very conservative magazine. They basically do not want to see what happened to the western parts of the Anglican communion happen to Rome.
I like this magazine because it gives the beleaguered Anglican ammo to use against obnoxious, triumphalist Roman Catholic friends who are forever trying to get you to "convert", and who cannot see the problems within the Roman church. When they do not listen to, or cannot understand, theological arguments as to why you choose to be Anglican - despite the supposed "inherent problems" of Anglicanism, I have found that they will listen to real life stories that show how Rome is stuck with its own problems and and has its own share of weirdos... despite it's tight system of theology that has an answer for everything.
I like this magazine because it gives the beleaguered Anglican ammo to use against obnoxious, triumphalist Roman Catholic friends who are forever trying to get you to "convert", and who cannot see the problems within the Roman church. When they do not listen to, or cannot understand, theological arguments as to why you choose to be Anglican - despite the supposed "inherent problems" of Anglicanism, I have found that they will listen to real life stories that show how Rome is stuck with its own problems and and has its own share of weirdos... despite it's tight system of theology that has an answer for everything.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Instant Karma
Listening to a local radio station the other day, I heard the DJ asking for listeners to send support money for Hurricane Katrina relief. His reason as to why we should donate money was to "get good karma"; in other words, if we do something nice for another person, then something nice will happen to us.
While this particular usage of "karma" is very common and relatively harmless, I still do not find it very satisfying intellectually. At best it is a vague sort of sentimentilism. At worse, it is the ethical egoism (i.e. we should be nice to others because it ultimately benefits us) of Ayn Rand resurrected.
The Christian faith has another reason as to why we should help others in times of need: we help others out of love for God. Our helping of others is an offering of worship and praise to God. In addition, it is an act of obedience to our heavenly Father. And finally, we help others out of love for them - as people made in the image of God.
I am happy if anyone wants to send aid to people in need. As far as I am concerned they can do it in the name Dr. Spock and the Starship Enterprise. But in my judgment it is the Christian faith and tradition which offers the most fully satisfying and consistent rationale for acts of charity.
While this particular usage of "karma" is very common and relatively harmless, I still do not find it very satisfying intellectually. At best it is a vague sort of sentimentilism. At worse, it is the ethical egoism (i.e. we should be nice to others because it ultimately benefits us) of Ayn Rand resurrected.
The Christian faith has another reason as to why we should help others in times of need: we help others out of love for God. Our helping of others is an offering of worship and praise to God. In addition, it is an act of obedience to our heavenly Father. And finally, we help others out of love for them - as people made in the image of God.
I am happy if anyone wants to send aid to people in need. As far as I am concerned they can do it in the name Dr. Spock and the Starship Enterprise. But in my judgment it is the Christian faith and tradition which offers the most fully satisfying and consistent rationale for acts of charity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)