What Vatican gold?

I have heard the sentiment more often than I care to admit. It's always some variation of "If the Vatican really wanted to help the poor, it would sell off its riches!" The riches, I heard from a friend just this weekend, is hidden in the basement of the Vatican, and is in the form of stacks of ingots -- not precious, unsellable art.

Well!

Don't ever mistake me for a lover of the way the Vatican operates, but I have serious doubts that that bunch could bank their way out of a paper bank roll. Just a few days ago, even Pope Francis hinted that changes to the Vatican, including its Bank (the "Institute for the Works of Religion," abbreviated IOR  in Italian) needed a makeover.

(Reuters) - Pope Francis has indicated for the first time that he may make changes to the Vatican's scandal-ridden bank as part of a broad review of the Holy See's troubled administration.

Before Francis was elected last month, many of the cardinals who went on to choose him expressed concern about the harm done to the Church's image by three decades of scandals at the bank, which Italian magistrates are now investigating for money laundering. (my italics)

I would not be surprised that the IOR has been involved with embarrassing and costly dealings, including money laundering, embezzlement and funding dubious projects. But given the ham-handed way the bank has embarrassed itself for decades, I doubt that it is sitting on vast stores of gold.

What the Vatican does have is art. And history. And piety. Usually, all three at once. Take Michelangelo's Pieta, completed in 1499. It is a breathtaking piece of art, a heart-stopping work of piety and, at over 500 years old, a gem of history. What is it worth? $1 million? $10 million? $100 million? Who would the Vatican sell it to without appearing to debase the patrimony of every Catholic? Donald Trump? T. Boone Pickens? Microsoft? Will the buyer sell tickets for people to see their new acquisition? Will they stash it in a private gallery? Will they license its image for t-shirts, coffee mugs and bikini bottoms? Items like the Pieta are priceless. Literally. There is no price at which the Vatican could or should sell it.

And that is just one marvelous piece!

What about the Henry VIII's bull of excommunication? What would that fetch on then open market? What about the silver mask adorning the face of Pius X? Can't we melt that down and sell it to aid the poor? What about th Shroud of Turin. What a great beach blanket it would make!

A great deal of the Vatican's "wealth" is in such illiquid assets. Even if they could be sold off, would that be wise? The art of the Vatican, and that of every local parish church, is a testament to the love of parishioners for their church. People built their churches a nickel and a dollar at a time. To remove precious statuary and sacramental vessels is more than a futile act against the Church. It is a slap in the face of the millions of ordinary people who sacrificed to adorn their places of worship -- to make them priceless and ageless and beautiful forever.

Besides. Stripping churches to their masonry would only feed people for a few years. And then what? What would be left to speak to the senses of future worshipers? What would inspire them to think outside of themselves? Should future generations of the faithful be satisfied to worship in someone's basement? Or in a coffee shop? Even Jesus worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple, one of the most beautiful buildings of all time.

I would love it if solving the problem of world poverty was just a matter of melting down some silver candlesticks. Or dumping a saint's skull from a golden reliquary and selling it the highest bidder. But I am a realist. While Jesus might have thought that a cosmic cataclysm was right around the corner, the rest of us, having waited for two thousands years, aren't so sure. We need a Church for the long haul. One that inspires painters, musicians and dramatists to tell and to retell its story. And given the human attraction to shiny objects, that means a certain expense to produce and to maintain those items.

True, we should be careful about the way we use our resources. The inside of the cup (piety, love, prayer) should require the same attention as does the outside (ornament, vestment, material). But to imagine that we will flock to a Church that is dull, drab and uninteresting, one that fails to awe us and to bring us to our knees, is to misunderstand the limitations of the limited minds and hearts of human beings. Who, after all, are more than happy to crown themselves kings and queens of Creation.

Let the Pieta, and all the other art, linger on their pedestals. And let us draw meaning and transcendence from them until the sights and sounds of another world tears away their grasp.

Chronic Mendacity Syndrome

A new story going around on the anti-abortion Life News ("Abortion Helps Cause 90% Increase in Breast Cancers in 33 Years") claims that a February 27 article in the respected Journal of the American Medical Association confirms a 90% increase in advanced breast cancer for women who have had abortions.

Horrifying news, if true, and it might tip the scales of deciding whether an abortion is a legitimate choice. But as it turns out, the report is complete hooie. And it doesn't take a doctorate in medicine to understand that. You just have to read the article. Here's the upshot:

Conclusion and Relevance: Based on SEER data, there was a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of breast cancer with distant involvement in the United States between 1976 and 2009 for women aged 25 to 39 years, without a corresponding increase in older women.

No mention of abortion, contraception, moon beams or anything else. Just a finding about young women having more breast cancer.

It's bad enough that Life News has to invents facts for its eager readership. And, boy, are they ever eager to hear anything bad about abortion! Even if they have to invent it. What is worse are the comments of those who read the piece. A sampling:

"I hate to use the word Karma?"

"Jesus didn't say, you reap what you sow for nothing. If you kill your baby, certainly you are going to suffer grave consequences as it should be."

"be sure of this, your sin will find u out!"

"Abortion kills two. It takes a little longer on the second. If cancer doesn't get her, then suicide usually follows."

And the story would not be complete without some conspiracy nonsense thrown in for good measure:

"Susan G. Komen backs Planned Parenthood,I think because Si.ce abortion increases breast cancer the Susan G. Komen gets more business which equals more $!"

By the way, Bible fans, while the idea behind "You reap what you sow" is an old one -- it shows up in Hosea ("They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind") and in Galatians("Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.") Jesus is not recorded as having used the phrase. Though he did say, "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword" and "judge not, lest ye be judged," which might give pause to those doling out self-serving fiction disguised as truth.

I have no problem with people opposing abortion. Abortion is a horrifying and very unfunny option, even for pro-choicers. But lying about it just erodes the moral high ground under the "anti" crowd--a crowd that is comfortable upholding the 5th commandment ("thou shalt not kill") by violating the 8th (thou shalt not bear false witness").

If you're looking for scientific-sounding jargon to describe the affliction, you might say that an extreme anti-abortion stance is causally linked with a tendency toward chronic mendacity.

And that's the truth.

Mother Smead of Lousiville

On Saturday, in Louisville Kentucky, Rosemarie Smead, a 70-year-old former Carnelite nun, was ordained a Roman Catholic priest. With a bachelor's in theology and a doctorate in counseling psychology, Smead is eminently qualified to be a priest. The local bishop, unsurprisingly, demurs:

In a statement last week, Louisville Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz called the planned ceremony by the Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests a "simulated ordination" in opposition to Catholic teaching.

 The simulation of a sacrament carries very serious penal sanctions in Church law, and Catholics should not support or participate in Saturday's event," Kurtz said.

Catholic teaching certainly does define such ordinations as invalid. Some snippets from Canon Law:

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the ApostolicSee.

In other words, the bishop (if there was one) who consecrated bishop Meehan (shown above) have both been automatically excommunicated:

Can. 1383 A bishop who ordains without legitimate dimissorial letters someone who is not his subject is prohibited for a year from conferring the order. The person who has received the ordination, however, is ipso facto suspended from the order received.

While on the surface, this canon applies to a bishop who ordains another bishop's "subject," that is, someone from another diocese, there remains the sense that, if applied, the canon would invalidate an invalid ordination of other sorts as well.

 

So much for canon law. There is "risk" in ordaining a female priest. People could get excommunicated. But, there are far worse things than excommunication. There is infidelity to one's conscience and to one's sense of integrity.

 

There is a time when unjust laws need to be flouted in order for justice to prevail. To my mind, there is nothing just about preventing women from becoming priests. I have heard all the arguments, and have judged them lame. To continue to maintain an all-male priesthood damages the Church, which is supposed to be based upon faith AND reason.

 

Hooray for "Father" Smead and others like her! They have listended to the voice of the living Christ, who animates his Church and pushes us beyond the bounds of clerical sanction and constricted love.

"Anus Dei"? FEMEN blows a debate

 

I haven't decided yet whether this is brilliant or brainless, but I am leaning hard toward brainless.

Members of FEMEN, the feminst activist groups, this recently voice its support for Muslim women seekign equal rights, burst bare-topped into a debate on homosexuality that included Belgian archbishop André-Jozef Léonard. The ladies, bearng painting slogans reading "Stop Homophobia" (fine) and "Anus Dei Is Coming" (blasphemous and bizarre) poured water on the bishops from bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary.

Léonard took this all in stride, squeezing his eyes shut to block the sight of female flesh and folding his hands in prayer. After the attack, he picked up one of the BVM-shaped bottles a kissed it reverently.

At which point, you have to ask yorself who won the debate? I'd say the bishop came out on top, as the pro-Catholic websites are having a field day with this.

BRUSSELS, April 23, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an astonshing display of gentleness in the face of a vile attack, the head of the Catholic Church in Belgium, Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, remained calmly seated with eyes closed in prayer Tuesday as four topless women attacked him with shouts and curses and doused him with water.

It’s not the first time the bishop has been attacked for standing up for the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and expressing his concern for those who live the homosexual lifestyle.

I'd say "Nice going, ladies." You managed to a) derail a needed debate on an important topic (which might have revealed the archbishop to be using shopworn and irrelevent church talk, and b) equated support for homosexuality with scary, activist feminism, atheism and (to boot!) blasphemy.

There is certainly a place in this discussion of homosexuality for activist street theater. But when it plays into the hand of the opposition, and makes your enemy into a figure of pity, then you have blown it. Big time.

Lovers and secrets

 

Carla Hale was recently fired from her job as a physical education instructor at Bishop Watterson Catholic school in Columbus, Ohio. Her sin? Her mother had just died, and in the obituary, she and her female partner were listed as spouses. When the obit has brought to the school's attention, Hale was fired. The school's principal, Marian Hutson, insisted that Hale was "not terminated for being gay, but for the spousal relationship publicized in the newspaper which is against Church teaching."

There is a kind of strange logic behind the decision. Homosexuality, per se, is not immoral in the eyes of the Church. The Church does not teach that the state of being gay is inherently sinful, at least not anymore. But acting on it is. Gays are required to live a life of abstinence from sexual pleasure, I guess in the same way that unmarried heterosexuals are. With all the great success that follows from keeping high school kid's paws off each other.

Carla Hale's biggest sin was in making her status public, even if that was not her intent. By having her married status printed in the paper, she forced the hand of the principal and of the bishop. Given the current state of affairs in the Church, I can't imagine this turning out any other way. The bishop cannot condone a public "sinner" to continue without some sort of punitive action. And Hale was not likely to dump her spouse to keep her job.

The message to gays is that the Church is OK with your status, as long as we can all pretend not to know about it. But as soon as our veneer of deniability is removed, we will act decisively against you. The sad thing is that all of this "action" on the part of the school runs up against the Church's supposed stand for justice and truth. We are now a Church where truth has become a weapon. Make the truth of your gay marriage public, and you're fired. Publicly support the truth of your position about abortion rights, and you'll be denied communion. Publicize the truth of the Church's cover-up of pedophile priests, and you'll be accused of scandalizing the faithful. The truth is not important. What is important is to preserve the ability of the faithful, priests and bishops to keep themselves aloof from sin, even as it swirls all around them.

It's a "see know evil" approach that makes liars out of all of us. Longtime Church members know the game and have learned to play along with the priestly game of secrecy. Don't tell us about your contraceptives,and don't challenge us when we preach against them, and we will baptize and marry your kids and bury you when you die. Don't write articles and stories about your divorce or your abortion, and we will let you take communion and run the bake sale. Keep mum when the confirmation teacher tells your kids that evolution is a myth, and we'll let your teen get the sacrament.

The Church needs to undergo an enormous change of heart, and allow so-called sinners to become part of the conversation. The culture of secrecy has to go, and with it, the hypocrisy that snares good people like Carla Hale in a web of secrecy and dishonesty.

Ugly Acts

This Sunday's first reading continues the post-Easter recitation of the growth of the early Church. Paul and Barnabas, apostles extraordinaire, travel to Antioch -- not the one in Syria, but the one in Pisidia, now Turkey. The pair spoke at the synagogue service, presumably telling about Jesus, and were so influential that by the next week, "almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord." At that point, "When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and with violent abuse contradicted what Paul said."

Paul and Barnabas lash back. “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first,
but since you reject it and condemn yourselves as unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles." P and B, having performed the due diligence of trying to convert the Jews, can now turn their backs on them.

I found listening to this story unbearable. I could not respond with the customary, "Thanks be to God" after hearing it. It's an ugly story that by the end of the first century CE, already suggests that Jews, jealous of Christian popularity and favor, have been abandoned by God and found unworthy of heaven. And we know where that line of reasoning leads

But a look beyond the words of the Gentile author of Acts shows him to be writing a biased history. The cast of characters at the beginning of the story is completely Jewish or in sympathy with Judaism. "Many Jews and worshipers who were converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas." This was not a fight between Jews and non-Jews, but between Jews who believed a message that the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus, and those who did not. There may have been bona fide Gentiles non-converts around, but this was basically a family argument between coreligionists who had different beliefs about the identify of a recently-dead (and possibly risen) Jewish prophet. Frankly, I would have been among the hardliners, refusing to trust a couple of blasphemous unknowns from out of town.

What is sad about the story is not that it happened, and not that Luke, the probably author of Acts, tells it in such a biased way. It is that we are still telling the story. It's like an old married couple whose only story of their honeymoon is about the vicious argument they had over which restaurant to eat at. Or Uncle Ned, who years after his divorce, still talks bitterly about what a witch his ex-wife was. The stories are true, albeit one-sided. But after so much time, they are also beside the point. And they are old. At some point, you wish Uncle Ned would just find something else to talk about. You just wish everyone would grown up a little.

The stories of our church's beginnings are important. For both Jesus-believing Jews and Jesus-denying Jews, the stakes were sky high, even life-and-death. It must have been exceedingly frustrating and enraging to be unable to get through your oldest friend about a newfound and exciting belief. As it would have been to fail to persuade a brother or mother not to wander off after the latest nutty fad in first century messiahs. But for us, living nearly 2000 after the events, it's time to get over it. It's also time to dial back the dire threats (No eternal life for you!) that have made life hell for millions of Jews since that black day in Pisidia.

It is long past time to stop telling and retelling the story of a painful break in the family. It is high time to let go of the grudge that was ugly in its own day and stupid (and lethal) in our own.

Heart Morality, Head Morality

This past Friday, large areas of greater Boston were locked down as authorities searched, and eventually located, the 2nd suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings of April 15. There was a massive police and federal presence in the city -- an estimated 9000 armed officers. Men -- dressed in black camouflage green, helmeted, visored and often toting ludicrously large weapons -- patrolled the streets, entered homes and kept a nervous eye out for the bad guys. Their vehicles were as large and as intimidating as their gear -- lightning fast flashing patrol cars, and armored troops carriers, assault vehicles and tanks out of an adolescent comic book fantasy.

All of this manpower and firepower, likely a justified  expense, was brought to bear on two young men. Very dangerous men, no doubt, who had killed three race watchers, one college cop and who had hijacked a car, led police on a high speed chase and engaged in a shootout on a city street (with bullets and more bombs) that wounded another cop, left one bomber dead and fleeing into the dark lanes of a crowded neighborhood.

Some are beginning to argue that there was a whiff of overkill in the massive response and the shutdown of a major metropolitan area. But given the situation's many frightening unknowns (how many bad guys, how much firepower, what future plans) blanketing the city and its environs with extra protection was prudent.

Meanwhile, two days later in West, Texas, a fertilizer plant caught fire and exploded catastrophically. Ten first responders and four others were killed. Early indications suggest that plant owners had lied to the Environmental Protection Agency about the quantity of highly flammable anhydrous ammonia stored on the premises. They had not been inspected since 1985. The plant was situated near a nursing home and two schools and a housing development.

It's as if the plant was a sneering thumb to the nose at the regulatory state, with its needless and burdensome meddling.

Wouldn't it be interesting if an unregulated fertilizer plant triggered the same response as did the two misguided young men terrorizing Boston?

If an unsafe West Virginia mine was stormed by a SWAT team and the miners evacuated?

If stock brokers bamboozling their clients, depriving thousands of the pensions, had their office doors battered down by teams of gun-bearing tactical troops?

If sweatshops paying slave wages to helpless immigrants had their windows smashed by rescue troops rappelling from hovering helicopters?

Funny that we don't react to all threats the same way. The morality that is based on emotion (protect our children from marauding bad guys!) always overcomes the morality based in our heads (attack the dangers that kill and impoverish the most people!). Given a million years of evolution programming us to repel aggression rather than to understand math, I don't expect to see my scenarios played out on the television anytime soon.

But I can dream, can't I? You can count on it.

The Death of Innocents

The bombings at the Boston Marathon struck too close to home. I had family visiting Boston that day, and uncles who live just a handful of blocks down the street. A ten-minute stroll to see the race would have caught them up in the mayhem. Boston is a prime destination for the college-bound including my two sons and many of their closest friends. Copley Square, near the blasts, is normally open and peaceful, flanked by the imposing Boston Pubic Library and the ornate brownstone of the Trinity Church. Copley is a place where street vendors ply their wares, protesters shout their demands, lovers walk in the bright sunshine and students read in the open air.

All rent asunder in twin blasts of fire, smoke, nails, blood and torn flesh.

Martin Richard, the 8-year-old who died in the attack, has become the face of the Marathon bombings, no doubt because it is easier to gaze upon his cherubic face than on the gruesome injuries that tore at those who stood near him. His is the face of the innocence that was savaged on that day. The innocence of standing on a street corner, cheering for a friend or loved one who had achieved the dream of finishing a grueling race. The innocence of walking freely in the heart of a great city. The innocence of enjoying the first stirrings of spring, carefree spring, and the hopes of soon shedding the extra layers that had warmed us through winter's chill.

I know that none of us truly innocent. We all have our dark and selfish sides. Even Martin. To be human is a continuous struggle to overbalance our tendency toward violence, greed and sloth with love, generosity and action. Most of the time our good angels triumph, and we race toward the danger, comfort the stranger, give the coats from our backs to warm the chilled. Less often, thankfully, we just run, shove our way past the too-slow or grab a souvenir from an unguarded table

As a Catholic, I am moved by Martin's happy portrait on his First Communion day. His banner speaks of the symbols of our life as a community of faith: the humble wheat and wine that are transformed into gateways to the transcendent. The Alpha and Omega that encompass the entirety of human experience, transformed and uplifted by its encounter with the divine. And tellingly, the cross surmounted by a cheerful pink heart that speaks of human cruelty overcome by human self-giving. It is a cross that Martin himself has borne, too young and too soon.

Boston will heal, returning soon enough to its rowdy, boisterous ways. Injuries will heal less fully, sometimes only with the help of time, metal, plastic and a lifetime of special exercises. Psyches will scab over the trauma of the fright tattooed into its fibers, until nightmares or a sudden noise rips them open. But the loss of a child, a friend, a classmate may never heal. Not until that day when we again see each other face to face, in that realm where all tears are wiped away.

May our search ever be for justice over retribution; love over rage; and healing over injury.

A Medal for "The Good Thief"

I was reading about a Father Emil Kaupan, a Catholic chaplain who will soon be awarded the Medal of Honor:

Capt. Kapaun was also Father Kapaun, a Roman Catholic chaplain who will be awarded the Medal of Honor on Thursday, 60 years after his death while a North Korean prisoner. The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in the U.S. military.
 

Pretty amazing guy.  Some of the highlights:

He would bike from position to position so he could minister to soldiers, hearing confessions, performing last rites or administering Holy Communion.

He often celebrated Mass using the hood of a Jeep as an altar.

He was awarded the Bronze Star for valor for running through enemy fire to carry wounded soldiers to safety.

He stayed behind to minister to the wounded soldiers, knowing he was putting himself in danger of capture by the enemy.

He came to the aid of a wounded American soldier after U.S. troops surrendered in a battle.Pushed the aside an enemy soldier ready to execute the man, then carried that wounded American away -- on a four-mile death march.

He risked his own life to  Chinese soldiers from killing wounded POWs who were slowing the march, then persuaded unwounded POWs to help the wounded.

Imprisoned with 200 other soldiers at a camp near Pyoktong, North Korea, he would sneak through the camp ministering to other prisoners, bringing hot coffee and hot water.

To keep his fellow POWs from starving, he would break out of the camp at night, steal food and sneak back in to give it to those who needed it the most, his nephew said.

No wonder his fellow POWs nicknamed him "The Good Thief."

War chaplaincy is a tricky thing. One the one hand, the soldiers fightin for their country need spiritual ustenance as much as, or more than, other citizens. Soldiers in battle face the most grueling experiences that human beings can face. They need solace to keep them from cracking up. On the other hand, chaplains can give a patina of acceptability to one country's aggression against another. They face enormous risks, but they are there in the service of the fighting forces. Whatever their motives, they are invaluable to their country's war effort.

But, given the ethical miasma they work in, chaplains can bring a touch of humanity to war, especially in the face of a brutal enemy and under dispiriting conditions. Bravo to Father Kapaun for blooming where he was planted -- on the frozen fields of battle in Korea.

Sisters and Fathers

A friend’s five-year-old daughter was recently giving her mom a bad time about going to church. The issue? The lack of women priests. Here is a cleaned up IM exchange between Pam (the Mom) and Elfie (the daughter). Pam’s husband is Jerry. Note: The names and identifying marks have been altered for the sake of privacy. 

PAM: So Elfie asked me today, "Why are there no women priests? I have never met one, yet. Why is Sister Louise, Sister Louise...but Father David is FATHER David?" Crap. She’s 5 years old and is already asking church questions I don't know how to answer!

I told her that somewhere along the way it became a tradition for men to become fathers, brothers and priests, while women became mothers, sisters, and nuns. She said, "Well, I get that part. I mean, they are men and we are women. But why do the men stand up front while Sister Louise hangs out in the back of the church, unless there is a special reason for her to go up front?" I said, "I think it is the way the tradition has gone for a very long time, and maybe people just accept it as normal out of habit. Maybe some day it will be different."  I could see her thinking, yeah, if I have anything to say about it, it'll be different.

I am wondering if I will have a conscientious objector on Sunday. I suddenly feel a bit weary. I just got off the phone with Jerry and we agreed that we want her to be to go to church, even if she feels strongly about this. She can always decide later that this church doesn't meet her needs. Or, maybe she can be a positive force for change some day....who knows? I would be very interested to know as much as I can, tho, about what the church's line of reasoning is. Of course, I have struggled with this, but came to some adult decisions about how I will handle my beliefs. A little more complicated when you have a smart kid with strong feelings, a sense of justice and equality (good girl), and the somewhat black-and-white reasoning of a child. I do feel a bit better after praying on it a bit. Thanks for anything you can share with me...

CC: There are reasons. Not great reasons, nor reasons I agree with, but I'll try to share them.

First of all, commend Elfie for having a sense of justice! It is God-given, and part of the normal equipment that all people have as part of being human. Some people don't understand what it means to be fair. She does. Congratulations!

PAM: Yay on her, right? I am so proud of her! I didn't tell my mother what she said, because my mother refers to women desiring priesthood as “wymynpreests.” My mother -- who fought and struggled her whole life to be taken seriously in the workplace and was a product of womens' lib and Gloria Steinem. Wow.

CC: “Wow,” indeed! I may slip into a dad-talking-to-daughter voice as I explain. But don’t think I’m talking like this to you – I am just using words that I would use with Elfie.

Try to get Elfie to understand that the church is very large and very old. When new ideas come up (like women being priests) it can take a long time for the whole church to accept them, especially when it means changing something that people have been used to for hundreds or thousands of years. People have to talk to each about it, think and pray about it, listen to their consciences, and then work hard to persuade others. This is frustrating, but very important. Right now, the idea of women being priests is very new. It was not even something anyone thought of just 50 years ago.

But remember that women were not even allowed to vote in our country just 100 years ago! It took over 50 years of fighting and arguing to persuade men that women should be able to vote. And only 50 years ago, it was weird to have women doctors and lawyers. It is still weird to some people. Just 50 years ago, it was OK to make dark-skinned people use a separate water fountain to drink from, and they could not sit in the front of a bus, or watch a movie in the same part of the theater as light-skinned people. But people like Elfie thought this was wrong, said something about it, and got things to change.

The Church is a little the same and a little different. We also need to argue and fight for a long time to make changes. Often, the old way of doing things has been around for so long, that priests and bishops have come up with all kinds of reasons why the old way makes sense. And once a bishop gets an idea in his head, it’s awfully hard to get him to change.

We also have to convince people from all over he world - not just in our own country. People from other parts of the world think America’s ideas are pretty wild. People from other countries can also be more comfortable with traditions – doing things the same way for many years – and are suspicious when people want to change quickly. Even though many Americans are used to changing, it will take Catholics in other parts of the world some extra time to catch up. The Church does not change right away just because some Americans think it should.

You asked why young men can be called FATHER while women, even old women like Sister Louise, are called SISTER, and not MOTHER.

The Church has some reasons for priests being men. And many people agree with them!

The number one reason that only men can be priests is that Jesus was a man. When he came down from heaven, God decided to became a boy, and not a girl. Some people think this tells us something important about the way God thinks about men and women. That men can be leaders in church, but that women cannot.

Second, Jesus picked only men to be his Apostles, his group of twelve special followers. Later on, the Church taught that these men were really the first bishops, picked by Jesus himself to lead his Church. As they grew old, these bishops passed down their holy power to younger men. That's the way it has been for 2000 years: men passing down the Apostles’ power to other men. The bishops of today can trace their own powers to the Apostles who knew Jesus.

Third, the priest at Mass is understood as being "alter Christus." This is a special term, in a special church language called Latin. It means that when a priest says Mass, it is like Jesus himself saying the Mass. People would have a hard time seeing a woman priest and thinking she is taking Christ's place!

But more and more people don't think these are good reasons. And very smart and very prayerful people who love the Church have very good arguments against each of these ideas.

Why did God choose to born as a boy instead of a girl? That might make sense if God loved boys and men better than he likes girls and women. But God loves everyone the same. May God was born as a boy because God knew that women in Jesus’s time  -- especially poor women -- were not able to have a job outside their home. If Jesus had a been a girl, it would have been very hard to work at home – cooking and sewing and cleaning – and then to walk around the country preaching and teaching and healing. The people of Jesus’s time would not have allowed this, and would not have listened to anything that she said. But God wanted very much for people to hear Jesus’s message, so God came to us as a boy, who grew up to be a man.

But how about the Twelve Apostles, who were all men? First, the 12 apostles are part of a larger group of Jesus’s followers known as disciples. And there were at least 72 disciples! Disciple means "student," so anyone (a man, a woman or a child) who tried to understand Jesus was automatically a disciple.

There were women disciples as well as men disciples. Mary of Bethany (the sister of Martha and Lazarus) was one. She loved to hear Jesus teach so much that she forgot to do her housework! And Jesus thought this was fine. Mary Magdalene was another disciple. After Jesus healed her, she followed him as he taught. She is even called the "Disciple to the Disciples"  -- a very important title! She was the first person to Jesus on Easter Sunday. After she saw him and talked to him, she ran to tell the other disciples that Jesus was alive. She must have been very special if Jesus appeared to her even before he appeared to his men followers!

There is also a complicated reason that some people think that having men Apostles does not mean we must only have men priests. It has to do with the difference between being a “disciple (any one of dozens of Jesus’s followers) and an Apostle, often called "The Twelve" in stories about Jesus. It seems to be true that Jesus chose only men to be part of The Twelve. But that might be because Jesus was trying to make a point without using words. He wanted people to think of him as a creating a brand new family of God. Now in stories that people in Jesus’s time knew, there was a man named Jacob (and nicknamed "Israel") who was the father of his country. Jacob had twelve sons who were the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus wanted to make people think of him as a new Jacob, a new father of his country. And to do this, Jesus gathered 12 men to remind people of the twelve sons of Jacob. It was a little like Jesus was putting on a play. His point of the play was not that only men should run his Church, but that Jesus was the father of a new family of God.

And finally, there are many people who do not believe that only men can be "alter Christus" – a person who reminds people of Jesus when they say Mass. These people say that a priest who is mean or lazy or stupid doesn't make them think of Jesus, even if the priest is a man! They say that it is not the “man” part of priests that makes them think of Jesus, but how good they are and how much they help people. And that women can be as good and as helpful as men. And if that’s true, then having women priests should not be such a big problem.

Now, Pam, your job is to figure out which parts of this Elfie can understand!

Last thing: many things in the Church have stayed the same over time, but the Church has changed as well. When good people (like Saint Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa) challenge the Church, they often make people think differently. And when people think differently, and keep working at it, the Church will eventually hear them.

PAM: BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you. This gives me so much to think about and talk about with Elfie and all the kids! Thank you so very much for your time, your care, and your love.

No video at the Tomb, if you please

On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb. (John 20:1)

Our stalwart Easter homilist, Father T, had an interesting take on the Resurrection story.

Father T is an academic, so has done his fair share of reading in matters religious. He told us how, over the years, many theologians and scholars have offered an opinion about what happened on the first Easter Sunday. Theological big hitters like Rudolph Bultmann and Karl Rahner, among many others, have had their say about what happened on the third day. They don't agree with each other, naturally, but their words have filled the empty air in more than a few graduate theology classrooms.

Yet the gospels leave what happened at the tomb as an utter blank. No evangelist tries to fill in how the dead body of Jesus left the tomb. And they say nothing about how his crucified, mortal remains were transformed into a resurrected reality. Sure, the gospel writers talk about the the events around the resurrection -- earthquakes, thunder, angels and terrified soldiers. But none of them shows Jesus walking out of the tomb, or being carried from it, or disappearing into the air or dissolving in a burst of radiation.

Instead, we, like the disciples, are confronted with an absence -- a negative space -- an empty tomb. A place where a body was but is no longer.

But while the New Testament writers draw a veil over the moment of resurrection, they are very clear about the effect that it had. Small-town fishermen, crooks and assassins (Peter, Matthew and Simon Zealotes, anyone?) become fearless preachers, movement leaders and miracle workers. Terrifying persecutors become world-roving missionaries. Women lead house churches. Slaves become brothers with their masters. Widows are fed. Assets are shared lovingly.

 

The New Testament's meta-narrative -- the story behind and beyond the story -- is this: details about the resurrection are irrelevant. What is important is the transformation that the resurrection event has on those who experienced it first hand. It is through ordinary people that the risen Jesus is made present. Among the "two or three gathered together in his name" that he is made manifest. If Resurrection means anything, it is that the Galilean man who was visible in Palestine for a year (or two or three), and to a few thousand people, has become the timeless presence who is available to us even today.

Jesus, the Resurrected One, has left the tomb empty, but has entered the empty, lonely and scarred spaces in our hearts, where his healing embrace is an invitation to all. A gift to all ages, all people and to every land. And a challenge. For we are charged to see him alive -- in the faces of those who live on this side of the grave.

And at the end, when we enter into the presence of the King, we will not be asked to compare and contrast the resurrection views of Bultmann and Rahner, with numbered citations from their works. We will be asked if we recognized the presence of the Risen Lord in the faces of our stricken neighbors. And brought them the comforting spices and linens our charity and love.