James Carroll on "Pope Benedict's Mistake"

Thank God for the informed perspective and articulate writings of Catholic theologians like James Carroll.


In his July 16 Boston Globe commentary, Carroll thoughtfully examines Pope Benedict XVI’s latest “reactionary initiatives” (see here and here) and concludes, in part, that the pope “inadvertently shows that he shares a basic conviction” with the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.

As you’re no doubt aware, all of these writers have recently cited “insights of science or the rise of sectarian violence” to denounce the very idea of God. Benedict, of course, doesn’t denounce or deny God, yet as Carroll points out, he nevertheless conveys the “basic conviction” shared by Dawkins, et al, that “religion is a primitive impulse, unable to withstand the challenge of contemporary thought.”

Following is a brief excerpt from James Carroll’s commentary, “Pope Benedict’s Mistake.”

Pope Benedict, in last week’s denigration of Christian traditions that lack the unbroken “apostolic succession” of Catholicism . . . was seeking to protect the “deposit of faith,” those core beliefs that were established by the Apostles themselves. But such literalist reading of apostolic succession goes out the window when one learns that none of the actual Apostles thought that they themselves were establishing a “church” in our sense, independent of Judaism. Similarly, the New Testament is “inspired,” but what does that mean for appeals to “apostolic” authority when one learns that its 27 books were not “canonized” until three centuries after Jesus?

Once we realize that doctrines of orthodoxy evolved over time, we stop treating them as timeless. Indeed, once we understand ourselves as belonging to one religious tradition among many, we lose the innocent ability to regard it as absolute. Once our internal geography recognizes that, however much we are a center, we are not the only one, we have no choice but to affirm the positions of others not as “marginal to our centers,” in a phrase of theologian David Tracy, “but as centers of their own.”

Faced with such difficult recognitions, religious people can retreat into fundamentalism or throw out religious faith altogether. Or we can quite deliberately embrace what the philosopher Paul Ricoeur called a “second naiveté.” This implies a movement through criticism to a renewed appetite for the sacred tradition out of which we come, even while implying that we are alive to its meaning in a radically different way. Pope Benedict is attempting to restore, by fiat, the first naiveté of “one true church.” In an age of global pluralism, this is simply not tenable. . . .

Elsewhere in his piece, Carroll shares the following observation, one with which I and many other Catholics strongly resonate:

The God whom atheists aggressively deny (the all-powerful, all-knowing, unmoved Mover; the God of damnation, supernatural intervention, salvation-through-appeasement, patriarchy, puritanism, war, etc.) is indeed the God enshrined in propositions of the Council of Trent, and in its liturgy. But this God is also one whom more and more believers, including Catholics, simply do not recognize as the God we worship.

To read James Carroll’s commentary, “Pope Benedict’s Mistake,” in its entirety, click here.

For Catholic theologian and historian Hans Küng’s thoughts on “apostolic succession,” see the previous Wild Reed post, The Many Forms of Courage (Part II).


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Uncle Vince is at it Again
It’s Time We Evolved Beyond Theological Imperialism
Joan Chittister on the Restoration of the Tridentine Mass
A Christmas Reflection by James Carroll

Recommended Off-site Links:
James Carroll columns archive at The Boston Globe
James Carroll's website

Image: www.ruahspirit.org

"Uncle Vince" is at it Again

I was with a group of fellow Catholics last Friday night and at one point we discussed the Vatican’s recent reiteration of the belief that the Roman Catholic Church is “the one true Church of Christ” and that the “fullness of Truth” subsists within it and it alone.

Various media reports have noted how some non-Roman Catholics have expressed disappointment in the Vatican’s insistence of the supremacy of the Roman Catholic faith. Yet it’s not just non-Roman Catholics who find this claim embarrassing and erroneous.* Many Catholics do as well.


“Uncle Vince”

I compare this particular teaching of the Vatican to a deeply ingrained attitude of racism within a family. As is often the case, such attitudes are expressed by an elderly relative – one considered eccentric and irrelevant by the rest of the family. “Oh, Uncle Vince is at it again,” they might say. “Ignore him and he might pipe down.” (Another analogy: those racist or homophobic laws that are still “on the books” in some U.S. states yet which are rarely enacted – accept occasionally by some redneck judge or lawmaker before he is forced to back down because of public outrage.)

The Catholics with whom I spoke last Friday expressed embarrassment, impatience, and even anger at the Vatican’s latest statements. Oh sure, they know that such statements comprise the “official” teaching of the Church, but who really believes this stuff? Who would really want to believe it?

I mean, what does such a teaching say about God? What inadequacy about ourselves and/or our faith are we attempting to cover-up in our insistence that we’re better than everyone else? And in embracing such a supremacist ideology, how are we any different from those zealots, fanatics, and fundamentalists of other religious traditions whom we rightly recognize as misguided and dangerous.

As Floyd Keller of Bayport, MN notes in a recent letter-to-the-editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “At a time when sectarianism continues to rip at the fabric of human societies, the head of the Catholic Church claims that it is the one true faith. Isn’t this what the radical Muslims are also claiming?”

Another interesting letter – this one from Bloomington resident Shawn Gilbert – observes: “How this pope and his followers can possibly believe in a God who would create a beautiful world, populate it with intelligent people, then allow only a kernel of truth to flourish, is beyond any belief system I am capable of accepting.”

I heard this sentiment echoed at one point during Friday’s discussion, when my friend Pat, a “cradle Catholic,” noted that the arrogant and ill-informed “teachings” of the Vatican (be they concerned with sexuality or the “doctrine of the Church”) ensure that it is becoming increasingly difficult for him to reconcile being a Catholic and a follower of Jesus.

I was amazed at Pat’s comment, but, on reflection, he definitely has a point. The Vatican’s triumphant declarations, its pomp and ceremony, and its opulent trappings of imperial glory and power are indeed in complete opposition to the gentle and humble life and example of Jesus.


The teaching authority of the Vatican - a relevant “marker of Catholic identity”?

How on earth did we get to this point? Of course, not all of us Catholics are at “this point,” and throughout our long and diverse history there have always been Catholics who have challenged and questioned the errors and excesses of Rome.

The Uncle Vinces of the Catholic family, however, are certainly at “this point,” and are currently reveling in it with encouragement from those in positions of authority who should know better. Yet as we all know, being in a position of authority can be quite different from being an actual authority. I also believe that the majority of Catholics have either moved completely beyond the dysfunction of the Catholic family or have found ways to build and sustain communities within it that nourish them - primarily by serving as deeper and truer embodiments of the life-giving message and example of Jesus. They’ve learned to simply tune “Uncle Vince” out.

For instance, according to Catholic sociologist Dean Hoge, who analyzed the results of a number of surveys conducted by The National Catholic Reporter, only 42% of American Catholics said the teaching authority of the Vatican was important. This once traditional marker of identity has clearly been sidelined. In its place, American Catholics define themselves in terms of belief in the resurrection of Jesus, the Eucharist and the other sacraments, and helping the poor. And, of course, elsewhere - in Europe and many other parts of the world (for example, Latin America) - the Vatican has little if any credibility when it comes to its teaching on important matters such as human sexuality.


A political ploy?

Given such realities about what Catholics experience as important with regards their identity, the question has to be asked: Why is the Vatican so out of touch with the presence and guidance of the Spirit in the Church, i.e., the people of God?

Related to this question is another: What, if not the Spirit, has motivated the Vatican to release this latest document about the “doctrine of the Church”?

Many believe that both this document and Pope Benedict XVI’s recent Motu Proprio allowing for the wider use of the Tridentine Mass (also known as the Latin Mass), are attempts to appease and attract so-called traditionalist Catholics. They’re politically-motivated moves, in other words.

For instance, the National Catholic Reporter’s John Allen has observed that on numerous occasions the pope has stated that “the church of the future may have to be smaller to remain faithful.” The pope has also employed the image of the “mustard seed,” suggesting, says Allen, “a smaller presence that nevertheless carries the capacity for future growth as long as it remains true to itself.”

In light of this, it’s possible that the Vatican’s attempts to appease and attract Catholic “traditionalists” – known for their unquestioning obedience to the hierarchy – are also attempts to drive out those of us prepared to question, critique, and challenge; those of us prepared to think, in other words!

Yet as Catholic columnist and editor Rebecca Nappi reminds us: “Those of us who question might just be the mustard in the mustard seed. In other words, we’re not going anywhere. It’s our church, too. Reviving Latin Masses or dissing the Protestants – once again – isn’t enough to scare us out of this sometimes scary church.”

Our Catholic family, in short, is so much more than the embarrassing rantings and divisive ploys of “Uncle Vince.”


* This claim of supremacy is based, in part, on the idea that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church! Yet as Catholic theologian and historian Hans Küng reminds us in The Catholic Church: A Short History: “[Jesus] did not seek to found a separate community, distinct from Israel, with its own creed and cult, or to call to life an organization with its own constitution and offices, let alone a great religious edifice. No, according to all evidence Jesus did not found a church in his lifetime.” Nevertheless, writes Küng, “a church [i.e., 'a community gathering at a particular place at a particular time for a particular action'] . . .came into being immediately after Jesus’ death. This happened under the impact of the experience of the resurrection and the Spirit. . . . [Thus] although the church was not founded by Jesus, for its origins it made an appeal to him, the one who was crucified yet lived, in whom for believers the kingdom of God had already dawned . . .” (For more excerpts from Küng’s The Catholic Church: A Short History that are relevant to this topic, click here).


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
It’s Time We Evolved Beyond Theological Imperialism
The Two-Sided Catholic Crisis
Authentic Catholicism: The Antidote to Clericalism
Comprehending the “Fullness of Truth”
Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
The New Motu Proprio: “Nothing But Headaches for Bishops, Priests, and Laity”?
Joan Chittister on the Restoration of the Tridentine Latin Rite
Chris McGillion Responds to the “Exacerbating” Actions of Cardinal Pell
Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt’s “Learning Curve”: A Suggested Trajectory
Who Gets to Be Called “Catholic” – and Why?
Casanova-inspired Reflections on Papal Power – at 30,000 Ft.
A Catholic’s Prayer for His Fellow Pilgrim, Benedict XVI
Beyond a PC Pope
Paul Collins and Marilyn Hatton
A Not So “New” Catholic University
Our Catholic “Stonewall Moment”
What the Vatican Can Learn from the X-Men

The Owls of Peace

Here’s an interesting and hope-filled story from the strife-torn Middle East.

____________________

Barn Owls Unite Israelis, Jordanians
By Ben Winograd
Associated Press Writer
July 15, 2007
For years, Ibrahim Alayyan watched in frustration as rats devoured the date palms at his lush family farm.

Having no luck with pesticides, the retired Jordanian heart surgeon was only too eager to try a pest control agent widely used in fields just across the Jordan River in Israel — owls.

“There used to be so many rats,” Alayyan said. “But after we put in the owls, thank God, this is the first time we have had a full date harvest.”

To the world, the symbol of peace may be a dove, but to farmers on either side of the Jordan, it’s Tyto alba, the common barn owl.



Alayyan is one of dozens of Jordanians working in cooperation with Israeli colleagues, targeting rodents with a natural predator instead of with chemicals.

The effort still faces suspicions and superstitions, but organizers hope the message of their partial success will spread to Lebanon, Syria and other Middle Eastern countries, and demonstrate the fruits of the 1994 peace treaty that ended a 46-year state of war between Israel and Jordan.

Political benefits aside, the project is driven foremost by environmental concerns.

In the late 1970s, chemicals killed hundreds of birds in northern Israel, said Yossi Leshem, an Israeli ornithologist and director of the International Center for the Study of Bird Migration.

So Leshem persuaded Sde Eliyahu, a kibbutz south of the Sea of Galilee, to try owls, which can eat up to 10 rodents a day. All the farmers needed was to build boxes where the birds could mate and raise their young.

“I put up 14 barn owl boxes, and everybody laughed at me,” said Shauli Aviel, who oversees the effort at the collective farm.

A few years later, Sde Eliyahu’s rat problem had vanished, he said. More than 60 nesting boxes now sit on the grounds of the kibbutz, and the technique has caught on with other farmers along the Jordan.



Yet as the owl population grew, the birds increasingly began flying — and looking to nest — across the nearby border with Jordan, where pesticide use remains rampant. Chemicals seeped into the water table, and owls were poisoned by eating contaminated rodents.

Then came the peace treaty, Israelis and Jordanians got used to being good neighbors, and in late 2002 Aviel and fellow Israeli farmers planned a regional conference on barn owls to explain their advantages to colleagues across the Jordan River.

The response was discouraging. Many Arabs consider owls the same way others view black cats — as bad luck. Word came back to the Israelis that no Jordanians would attend.

So the organizers changed the title of the conference to focus on organic farming, and two dozen Jordanians turned up. Midway through the gathering they were given a demonstration on owls, and soon Jordanian farmers were asking how they could attract owls to their fields, Aviel said.

With funding from the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland, Ohio, the kibbutz gave the Jordanians advice and building materials. More than three dozen nesting boxes have since been put up in Jordan, organizers said.

Among the most eager participants was Alayyan, a former chief of cardiovascular surgery at a Jordanian hospital. He agreed to build a nesting box at his family's farm in the village of Sheik Hussein, six miles from Aviel's kibbutz.

“For me, it was a real pleasure to find a man like that on the other side of the border,” said Aviel, as he and Alayyan surveyed a group of newborn owl nestlings. Unable to communicate in their own languages, the two men spoke to each other in English, but when it came to nature and conservation, “He spoke in my language,” Aviel said.

The project also has gotten support from political and former military leaders in both countries, including Mansour Abu Rashed, the former head of Jordanian intelligence.

Rashed, who heads the Amman Center for Peace and Development, said organizers are “under no illusions” the owl project will ease Mideast tensions; the goal is simply “to bring people together, to let them talk and build confidence.”



But obstacles remain. After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Israeli farmers delayed the initial delivery of building materials to Jordan for the owl boxes because of the tense atmosphere. Arabic posters promoting the benefits of barn owls make no mention of Israel.

Some Israeli organizers have expressed frustration at the pace of progress in Jordan. And last month, some nesting boxes on Jordanian farms were stolen or vandalized. Although it was unclear whether the vandalism was driven by owl-phobia or by Israel’s involvement, it upset Leshem, the Israeli ornithologist.

“We are wasting our money and time, coming and putting boxes — and then, suddenly, they are destroyed,” he said after a recent meeting with the Jordanians.

“It’s a new project in our area,” explained Abu Rashed, the retired general. “Nobody knows what’s inside” the boxes.

Organizers also say the project has gained little traction among Palestinians, because of security restrictions that make it hard for them and Israelis to travel to each other’s territory for meetings.

Still, even when tensions run high, the environment is one of the few areas where Israelis and Arabs cooperate. The owl conference went ahead at a time when the Palestinian uprising against Israel was at its peak, and during that uprising, Israeli and Palestinian officials maintained contacts on issues such as water quality and waste removal.

The Arava Institute for Environmental Studies in southern Israel trains Jewish and Arab students, including Jordanians and Palestinians, in solving ecological problems.

Friends of the Earth-Middle East, an organization of Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian environmentalists, leads joint efforts to clean up the Jordan River and promote eco-tourism packages on both sides of the border.

“We’re doing something our governments are not able to do,” says Mira Edelstein, an organization spokeswoman. “If people know how to highlight the environmental benefits that can come out of this type of cooperation, then it’s not political anymore.”



Image 1: www.cawildlife911.org.
Images 2-4: Paul Gale (Gallery of Birds).
Image 5: Shaul Aviel, center, an Israeli from Kibbutz Sde Eliyahu, Jordanian veterinary surgeon Dr. Safwan Fawzi Al Hussein, right, and Jordanian agricultural engineer Baker Hasan Barakat examine a barn owl in this recent undated picture taken south of the Sea of Galilee. In the midst of seemingly endless Mideast violence, Israelis and Jordanians are sharing ideas for protecting nature, using owls instead of harmful pesticides to keep the rats out of the crops. (AP Photo)

Joan Chittister on the Restoration of the Tridentine Latin Rite

In her latest National Catholic Reporter column, Joan Chittister, OSB reflects on Pope Benedict XVI’s recent Motu Proprio allowing for the wider use of the Tridentine Mass (also known as the Latin Mass) within the Catholic Church.

As could be expected, Chittister’s commentary is informed and insightful. It also gets to the heart of the matter: “In their fundamental messages,” she writes, “[the Tridentine and the Vatican II liturgies] present us with more than two different styles of music or two different languages or two different sets of liturgical norms. They present us with two different churches.”

Following are excerpts from Joan Chittister’s commentary, “Coming Soon to a Church Near You.”

_______________________________

Why the concerns? If some people prefer a Latin mass to an English mass, why not have it?

The answer depends on what you think the Mass has to do with articulating the essence of the Christian faith.

The Latin Mass, for instance, in which the priest celebrates the Eucharist with his back to the people, in a foreign language – much of it said silently or at best whispered – makes the congregation, the laity, observers of the rite rather than participants in it.

The celebrant becomes the focal point of the process, the special human being, the one for whom God is a kind of private preserve.


The symbology of a lone celebrant, removed from and independent of the congregation, is clear: ordinary people have no access to God. They are entirely dependent on a special caste of males to contact God for them. They are “not worthy,” to receive the host, or as the liturgy says now, even to have Jesus “come under my roof.”

The Eucharist in such a setting is certainly not a celebration of the entire community. It is instead a priestly act, a private devotion of both priest and people, which requires for its integrity three “principal parts” alone – the offertory, the consecration and the communion. The Liturgy of the Word – the instruction in what it means to live a Gospel life – is, in the Tridentine Rite, at best, a minor element.

In the Latin mass, the sense of mystery – of mystique – the incantation of “heavenly” rather than “vulgar” language in both prayer and music, underscores a theology of transcendence. It lifts a person out of the humdrum, the dusty, the noisy, the crowded chaos of normal life to some other world. It reminds us of the world to come – beautiful, mystifying, hierarchical, perfumed – and makes this one distant. It takes us beyond the present, enables us, if only for a while, to “slip the surly bonds of earth” for a world more mystical than mundane.

It privatizes the spiritual life. The Tridentine Mass is a God-and-I liturgy.

The Vatican II liturgy, on the other hand, steeps a person in community, in social concern, in the hard, cold, clear reality of the present. The people and priest pray the Mass together, in common language, with a common theme. They interact with one another. They sing “a new church into being,” non-sexist, inclusive, centered together in the Jesus who walked the dusty roads of Galilee curing the sick, raising the dead, talking to women and inviting the Christian community to do the same.


The Vatican II liturgy grapples with life from the point of view of the distance between life as we know it and life as the gospel defines it for us. It plunges itself into the sanctifying challenges of dailiness.

The Vatican II liturgy carries within it a theology of transformation. It does not seek to create on earth a bit of heaven; it does set out to remind us all of the heaven we seek. It does not attempt to transcend the present. It does seek to transform it. It creates community out of isolates in an isolating society.

There is a power and a beauty in both liturgical traditions, of course. No doubt they both need a bit of the other. Eucharist after all is meant to be both transcendent and transformative. But make no mistake: In their fundamental messages, they present us with more than two different styles of music or two different languages or two different sets of liturgical norms. They present us with two different churches.

The choice between these two different liturgies bring the church to a new crossroads, one more open, more ecumenical, more communal, more earthbound than the other. The question is which one of them is more likely to create the world Jesus models and of which we dream.

To read Joan Chittister’s “Coming Soon to a Church Near You” in its entirety, click here.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The New Motu Proprio: “Nothing But Headaches for Bishops, Priests, and Laity”?
In the Garden of Spirituality: Joan Chittister
Reflections on Consociate/Associate Programs by Joan Chittister
“Receive What You Are, the Body of Christ”: Reflections on the Eucharist
Trusting God’s Generous Invitation

A Film for All of Us

Earlier this evening a friend and I saw The Lives of Others, the Oscar-winning début of German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.



Without doubt, The Lives of Others is a very powerful and moving film - and one that I hope to write further about in the near future.

For now, here are excerpts from Anthony Lane’s well-written review published in The New Yorker earlier this year.

_________________________________

A Film for All of Us

Excerpts from “Guilty Parties,” Anthony Lane’s review
of The Lives of Others

The New Yorker
February 12, 2007

. . . It is a tribute to the richness of [The Lives of Others] that one cannot say for sure who the hero is. The most prominent figure is Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe), yet if you passed him on the street you wouldn’t give him a second glance, or even a first. He would spot you, however, and file you away in a drawer at the back of his mind. Wiesler, based in East Berlin, is a captain in the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, better known as the Stasi—the state security service, which, by the mid-nineteen-eighties, employed more than ninety thousand personnel. In addition, a modest hundred and seventy thousand East Germans became unofficial employees, called upon to snoop and snitch for the honor—or, in practical terms, the survival—of the state. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” Jesus said. The German Democratic Republic offered its own version: watch thy neighbor, then pick up thy phone.

The movie begins, fittingly, in 1984. The Stasi machine still fulfills its Orwellian function, training its sights on anyone who might be construed as seditious. All the more surprising, then, that Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch) should have escaped censure. He is a playwright. He is handsome, affable, and draped in a corduroy suit that must have been made in the West; his live-in girlfriend, Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedeck), is also his leading lady, and supporters of compulsory egalitarianism would consider her beauty an insult. Yet the fact remains that Dreyman is a pet talent of the state—“the only non-subversive writer we have,” according to Lieutenant Colonel Grubitz (Ulrich Tukur), Wiesler’s cheery superior. As for Sieland, she is, in the words of a government minister, Bruno Hempf (Thomas Thieme), “the loveliest pearl of the G.D.R.” He should know, the swine.

One evening, Wiesler attends the première of a Dreyman play. What is it that alerts him? The curtain call, brimming with a warmth that he, as a Stasi operative, will never feel? The kiss that Christa-Maria exchanges with Dreyman? Or, most wounding of all, their happiness? Whatever the reason, Wiesler decides that Dreyman, precisely because he has neither said nor written anything suspicious, must be a suspect. Kafka would recognize the logic: a man too good to be true cannot be trusted. Wiesler confides his doubts to Grubitz, who passes them on to Hempf; the upshot is that Wiesler is deputed to spy on Dreyman and Sieland—to enter their lives, like a virus, and lay waste to their innocence until it decays into guilt.

He and his team infest the apartment where Dreyman lives. As they emerge from a van, pick locks, and start to seed the rooms with bugs, the musical score—by Gabriel Yared, best known for The English Patient—keeps urgent step with their task. . . .

One of the marvels of Ulrich Mühe’s performance—in its seething stillness, its quality not just of self-denial but of self-haunting—is that he never distills Wiesler into a creature purely of his times. You can imagine him, with his close-cropped hair, as a young Lutheran in the wildfire of the early Reformation, or as a lost soul finding a new cause in the Berlin of 1933. See him crouched in a loft above Dreyman’s home with a typewriter, a tape deck, and headphones clamped to his skull. Watch the nothingness on his face as he taps out his report on the couple’s actions: “Presumably have intercourse.” How long can you listen to love being made? Especially when your only love comes from a hooker who marches in, performs, then leaves before you have even refastened your pants? Slowly, the tables turn. Wiesler steals Dreyman’s copy of Brecht and takes it home to read; he starts to omit details in his official account; and, for some fathomless reason—guilt, curiosity, longing—he lets the lives of others run their course.

Downstairs, Dreyman finds his own passivity, his tactical playing of the system, beginning to crack. A blacklisted friend hangs himself, and Dreyman feels obliged to write about the terrible suicide rate in the G.D.R. This means smuggling in an untraceable typewriter—more lethal than a gun, in the land of a controlled press—and smuggling out the copy. Dreyman wants not to involve Sieland in this crime, but she is already sunk in sin. Hempf, the government minister, made overtures, and she responded, hoping that it might safeguard her career; there is an unforgettable smear of boredom, repulsion, and self-loathing on her face as she sits in the back of his limousine, after dark, and lets his fumbling trotters do their worst. Wiesler comes to know of this arrangement, and the knowledge both curdles his respect for the Party and grants him a furtive power. . . .

Dreyman controls his characters in the theatre, but his strings are pulled by the state. His girlfriend, wanting to be mistress of her fate, is just a mistress, and not for long. (“I never want to see her on a German stage again,” Hempf says, after she summons the courage to spurn him.) Wiesler toys with the destinies of his suspects, but he is finally snarled in his own plans and dispatched to a cellar for the rest of his career, there to steam open the mail of ordinary citizens: the hard labor of a Stasi drone. . . .

It is a shock to find the action lasting until 1993. As the events of 1984 hastened to a climax, with treachery being punished on a damp street, I was already reaching for my coat. So why press onward? Why drag us into the debris of the broken G.D.R.—into the opening of the Stasi files, and the queasy afterlife of politicians and playwrights alike? Against all odds, though, the best is yet to come: an ending of overwhelming simplicity and force, in which the hopes of the film—as opposed to its fears, which have shivered throughout—come gently to rest. What happens is that a character says, “Es ist für mich”—“It’s for me.” When you see the film, as you must, you will understand why the phrase is like a blessing. To have something bestowed on “me”—not on a tool of the state, not on a scapegoat or a sneak, but on me—is a sign that individual liberties have risen from the dead. You might think that The Lives of Others is aimed solely at modern Germans—at all the Wieslers, the Dreymans, and the weeping Christa-Marias. A movie this strong, however, is never parochial, nor is it period drama. Es ist für uns. It’s for us.

To read Anthony Lane’s “Guilty Parties” in its entirety, click here.

The New Motu Proprio: "Nothing but Headaches for Bishops, Priests, and Laity"?

On his blogsite, Spirit of Vatican II, Fr. Joseph O’Leary has posted an insightful commentary concerning the new Motu Proprio (i.e., “papal rescript” or response to queries and/or petitions).

Entitled Summorum Pontificum and issued today by Pope Benedict XVI, this new Motu Proprio allows for the wider use of the Tridentine Mass (also known as the Latin Mass) within the Catholic Church - a move that some traditionalist-minded Catholics believe will herald a new (and improved) era in the Church’s liturgical life.

Yet for O’Leary, Summorum Pontificum is a “divisive document” - one that will “create nothing but headaches for bishops, priests and laity.”

Following are excerpts from Joseph O’Leary’s commentary, “Motu Proprio Madness.”

Benedict . . . dismisses as “quite unfounded” the fear that the new arrangement “would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities.” One reason he gives is a very poor one: that only a few people will avail of it. “The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language. Neither of these is found very often.” Well, it would be wonderful if the vocal traditionalists would acquire such formation and learn some Latin, but ignorance of Latin has never been an obstacle to their divisive crusading. “It is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.” A situation that the traditionalist will labor mightily to overturn. They want the Tridentine Rite and none other to be the ordinary Form.

What Benedict is restoring is an old form of the Roman Rite, to be celebrated alongside the newer form. “The two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching”; “celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.” Somehow the Tridentine Mass is supposed to have an aura of holiness that will spread to the Novus Ordo as well. This is weak and illogical thinking.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

I am no liturgical historian, but I wonder if there has ever been a case in history where older and newer forms of the same rite are maintained in the same church. The faithful will be choosing between a Tridentine Mass at 9 and a Novus Ordo Mass at 10. This is a troubling scenario. Meanwhile the chances the traditionalists will now embrace the Novus Ordo seem very slim, given that so much has been conceded to their pressure here.

This new arrangement will create nothing but headaches for bishops, priests and laity. Happily there will be a review after three years, and if the experiment turns out to be entirely counter-productive it may be abandoned. Most probably, the affair will turn out to be much ado about nothing; a huge expense of time, money and energy will have given birth, once more, to a pathetic little mouse – Rome again fiddling while the world burns.

To read Fr. Joseph O’Leary’s “Motu Proprio Madness” in its entirety, along with some interesting responses to it, click here.

Elsewhere on the web, J. Peter Nixon, writing for Commonweal, notes that:

Much has been written (this is an understatement!) on the topic of how removing barriers to the celebration of the 1962 rite would help reconnect the Church with its liturgical tradition. Fr. Joseph Fesso, S.J., for example, recently stated that the document would be “a major step toward the genuine renewal of the Mass, and therefore the genuine renewal of the Church, which the Council so ardently desired.” Similar themes are struck by Pope Benedict in his letter of transmittal.

It will be interesting to see if this happens, but I’ll admit that I remain a bit skeptical. It’s not as if I don’t have concerns about how the liturgy is currently celebrated. . . . In recent years, I’ve endured Pentecosts where the church was decorated like it was a children’s birthday party, Halloween masses where the celebrant wore a clown wig, and various other exercises in liturgical creativity that ended badly. The more I study what those involved in the liturgical movement of the 20th century were trying to accomplish, the more that significant gaps between our current practice and that vision emerge.

I’m still not clear, however, on how liberalizing access to the 1962 rite is going to help solve these problems. Much of the mainstream criticism of contemporary liturgy focuses more on how the Roman Rite is celebrated than the rite itself. . . .

There are times when I think what many critics of contemporary liturgy want is not so much the 1962 rite but the 1962 rubrics. They want an end to what Cardinal Arinze once termed the “do-it-yourself Mass.” They want a liturgy that their parish community receives as gift rather than as a vehicle for their collective self-expression. . . . [Actually, I think when a liturgy is developed by a believing community to serve as a meaningful expression of this community’s life and collective experience of the sacred within and beyond its midst, then it is experienced as both vehicle and gift. I don’t think these two experiences of liturgy have to be mutually exclusive.]

While the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum is not keeping me up nights, I remain convinced that the Mass we are called to celebrate can be found within the rite as it exists today. We have what we need there to worship God in a way that is “right and just.” If we have failed to do that, it is not primarily because the rite is deficient but because we have been deficient in excavating and bringing forth its riches. Whatever the impact of Summorum Pontificum, that task remains.

To read J. Peter Nixon’s commentary, “Get Your Motu Running . . .”, in its entirety, click here.

See also:
Catholics About to Breathe New Life Into Latin Mass by Jeff Shelman (Star Tribune, 07/06/07).
Motu Proprio: Benedict’s Decisive Compromise by Rocco Palmo.
Well, the Pope Done Did It by Fr. Martin Fox.

Image: Montgomery Clift in the 1953 Alfred Hitchcock film, I Confess.

Joseph Wilson on the Bush Administration: "Corrupt from Top to Bottom"

Hey, baby, I just got back from town
where the bribes are paid.
Honey, they turned my offer down,
said the deal’s already made.
So now I must stand and watch
as it all comes down,
and the buzzards and the hawks,
and the judges and the mob
circle around.

“The Big Ones Get Away”
Buffy Sainte-Marie
(from the 1992 album, Coincidence and Likely Stories)

George W. Bush’s recent commutation of the thirty-month jail sentence of Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby, is, for me, just one more indication that both the U.S. political system and the unfettered capitalistic system that supports and sustains it, are irredeemably corrupt.

Libby was found guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements in the investigation into who blew the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Convicted in March, Libby is the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra scandal. Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s thirty-month prison term came just five hours after a federal appeals panel ruled that Libby could not put off serving his sentence while he appealed his conviction.

As I’m sure most of you know, this whole story dates back four years ago and centers around the invasion of Iraq. In July 2003, veteran diplomat Joseph Wilson published an op-ed in the New York Times refuting President Bush’s claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa.


Wilson (pictured above) had been sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate those claims and found them to be false. The article forced the Bush administration to admit that a key justification for the invasion was false. Within a few days of its publication, the White House leaked the name of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, and her CIA identity.

Yesterday, Joseph Wilson spoke to Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez of Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now! program. Following is Wilson’s response to President Bush’s commutation of Libby’s jail sentence.

Joseph Wilson: There is very little that [the Bush] administration does these days that surprises me. I believe that the President is corrupt to the core, and his administration is corrupt from top to bottom. I think, in doing this, he has actively subverted the rule of law and the system of justice in our country, which has undergirded our democracy for 231 years. It’s a disgrace. I believe that it casts a pall over him and his office and begs a question of what was the quid pro quo and whether or not he is now an active participant in an ongoing obstruction of justice in the cover up of the lies that they used to justify our invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq in the first place.

Juan Gonzalez: And why do you say a quid pro quo? Your perspective on why you think the President is engaged, still, in a cover-up?

Joseph Wilson: Well, clearly, at the time of Mr. Libby’s conviction by a jury of his peers on four counts of lying, perjury and obstruction of justice, the special prosecutor in this case, representing the US government, said that Libby had blatantly and repeatedly lied, and as a consequence, sand had been thrown in the eyes of the umpire, by which he meant he was unable to get to the facts surrounding the underlying crime, the betrayal of the national security of our country. And Mr. Fitzgerald said that there remained a cloud over the Vice President and over his office.

Now, with his sentence commuted, Mr. Libby now no longer has any incentive whatsoever to begin to tell the truth to the special prosecutor, to wipe that sand from the umpire’s eyes, and to either lift that cloud over the Vice President or let it rain on him. So this is much more than just a commutation of Mr. Libby’s sentence. This is a cover-up of the Vice President's role in this matter and quite possibly the role of the President and/or some of his senior White House advisers.

Later in the interview, Gonzalez noted that this week marks four years since the publication of Wilson’s opinion piece that “started this enormous scandal.” He then asked Wilson to share his thoughts on why he wrote the op-ed in the first place, and on all that has transpired since its publication.

Joseph Wilson: The last clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution ensures the right of citizens to petition their government for the redress of a grievance. Citizens in this country do that every day at every level of governance. I happened to do it at the level of federal governance on an issue about which I had some particular knowledge. I did so only after I had spoken privately to House investigators, Senate investigators, the State Department and people close to the White House. I did it reluctantly, because my government refused to accept responsibilities for the lies that were in the President's State of the Union address in January of 2003.

Those lies included the famous, now infamous, sixteen words: “The British [government has] learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” It was apparent to me that the administration was not going to accept responsibility, when in June then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice lied on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, when she said that perhaps somebody in the bowels of the agency knew something about this matter, but nobody in her circle.

I wrote the article to petition my government for the redress of a grievance. That grievance was that the US president should not lie to the Congress of the United States, to the American people, and to the world, and that they ought to accept responsibility for the misstatements of fact in the President’s State of the Union address.

The day after my article appeared, the White House acknowledged that the sixteen words should never have been in the State of the Union address, after which I was silent, after which I left the public stage because my job, I believed at that time, had been done.

The administration, regrettably for it and for this country, decided that it wasn’t well enough to accept responsibility for its actions. It rather needed to go on a character assassination campaign against the person who had the temerity to challenge them on their facts, and in so doing, they betrayed the national security of the country by compromising my wife’s identity as a covert CIA officer.

Democracy Now!’s interview concluded with Wilson being asked to give an “assessment of what [the war in Iraq] has meant to the United States, what damage it has done to our country, and whether now the public finally is beginning to grasp the enormous machinations that went on in the administration to launch this war.”

Joseph Wilson: Well, I think, first of all, it’s important to recognize this was not a war about national security. It was not a necessary war. It was not a preemptive war. It was not a preventive war. It was a war to validate an academic theory contained in a document called the Project for the New American Century. It was a war to do the bidding of a very small sect of foreign policy players within the Republican Party called the neoconservatives.

It has utterly failed to achieve any broader American national security goals, and, more to the point, I think it has weakened us strategically . . . [With regards to the] war on international terrorism, there are now millions more who hate us than hated us before the night of shock and awe and the subsequent invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq, and of those millions, hundreds of thousands are now probably prepared to pick up arms and kill us – try to kill us.

To read Democracy Now! interview with Joseph Wilson in its entirety, click here.


Recommended Off-site Links:
Independence Day for Libby by Robert Scheer.
The High Cost of Libby’s Silence by Amy Goodman.
Smokescreen for the War Blown Away by Patrick Cockburn.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
A Reign of Ignorance and Fear in the U.S.
An Unholy Alliance in Iraq
Taking on Friedman
John le Carré’s Dark Suspicions
What the Republican Leadership and the Catholic Hierarchy Have in Common
Phyllis Bennis: A Voice of Reason
John Pilger on Resisting Empire
Patriotism

Image 1: Dick Cheney and Lewis “Scooter” Libby - needlenose.com.
Image 2: Joseph Wilson - ourworldinbalance.blogspot.com.

Patriotism

In the July 4 issue of The Nation, editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel has a piece in which she revisits the magazine’s 125th anniversary issue of July 1991 - one dedicated to the concept of patriotism.

Says Vanden Heuvel: “[This anniversary issue] came during the aftermath of the First Gulf War, when many of that war’s opponents were being slapped with the ‘unpatriotic’ label. The anniversary issue was a reflection of our love of country and it gave voice to the rich and diverse panoply of ideas about what patriotism means, has meant, and will mean.”

Following are some of the “creative and keen insights on patriotism” from The Nation’s 1991 special issue on patriotism:

John Schaar: “[P]atriotism is rooted in the love of one’s own land and people, love too of the best ideals of one’s own culture and tradition. . . . This patriotism . . . has deep roots and long continuity in our history. Its voice is often temporarily shouted down . . . but it has never been stilled. . . .We should not be surprised if this voice is often heard lamenting or rebuking the country’s failures to live up to its own best ideals, which have always been the ideals of the fullest possible freedom and the most nearly equal justice for all…There are about as many kinds of patriots and patriotism [in this issue of The Nation] as there are writers. And that is exactly as it should be. For the chief worry about the thing called patriotism is that one or another group is always trying to grab the term, put a parochial meaning on it and impose that meaning as the only legitimate one, silencing and excluding others, denying them a place at the table.”

William Sloane Coffin: “… But if uncritical lovers of their country are the most dangerous of patriots, loveless critics are hardly the best. If you love the good you have to hate evil, else you’re sentimental; but if you hate evil more than you love the good, you’re a good hater. Surely the best patriots are those who carry on not a grudge fight but a lover’s quarrel with their country…. Beyond saluting the flag, let us pledge allegiance ‘to the earth, and to the flora, fauna and human life that it supports; one planet indivisible, with clean air, soil and water, liberty, justice and peace for all.’”

Molly Ivins: “I believe patriotism is best expressed in our works, not our parades. We are the heirs of the most magnificent political legacy any people has ever been given. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident….’ It is the constant struggle to protect and enlarge that legacy, to make sure that it applies to all citizens, that patriotism lies…. Vote, write, speak, work, march, sue, organize, fight, struggle–whatever it takes to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Ran across one of our good [legislators] at the end of the last session…. He said he felt like a country dog in the city. ‘If I run they bite my ass, if I hold still, they fuck me.’ Calling all country dogs: It’s a helluva fight.”

Jesse Jackson: “… Those who have fought for the highest and best principles of our country, the true patriots, have been vilified and crucified. The true patriots invariably disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed, and are persecuted in their lifetimes even as their accomplishments are applauded after their deaths….”

Mario Cuomo: “The term ‘patriotism’ seems to be raised most often in the context of military action and at times has been used as a test of support for our country’s military activities. But I understand it to include a respect for contrasting viewpoints, an acceptance of dissent, a tolerance–and even a welcoming–of the clashing diversity of voices that is uniquely American…. A proper patriotism would recognize that there are no absolutes when it comes to solving our social and international problems, except the standard by which we must judge all goals–our willingness to help one another, and to help others.”

Natalie Merchant: “Patriotism asks that we embrace a unified America, yet no simple vision of America can accommodate its diversity…. The heritage we retain and the characteristics of the one we adopt intermingle; we are defining and becoming American…. There is one tradition in America I am proud to inherit. It is our first freedom and the truest expression of our Americanism: the ability to dissent without fear. It is our right to utter the words, ‘I disagree.’ We must feel at liberty to speak those words to our neighbors, our clergy, our educators, our news media, our lawmakers and, above all, to the one among us we elect President.”



Images: Michael Bayly (from the online exhibit, Faces of Resistance).

Out and About - June 2007

.

Above: From Friday, June 1, to Saturday, June 2, I attended a retreat with other candidates for consociate membership with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet (CSJ). This retreat was held at the Sisters’ Timberlee Retreat Center on the shores of Big Fish Lake – not far from the town of St. Peter, Minnesota.

My time at Timberlee spent in community, prayer, and reflection, was a very appropriate way to prepare for what would be a very busy month.



Above: With others in attendance at the June 1-2 CSJ consociate retreat – including at far right (from left) Rita McDonald, CSJ, and Margaurite Corcoran, CSJ, my mentors or “companions” in my consociate candidacy process.

Consociates are women and men of diverse ages, ministries, spiritualities, faith traditions, and backgrounds. What we all have in common, however, is an expressed desire to live the Sisters of St. Joseph’s mission to love God and neighbor without distinction. In short, consociates live the vision and values of the Sisters within the framework of their own lives and responsibilities.

For more infrmation about the CSJ consociate program, click here.

For Sister Joan Chittister’s insightful reflections on associate/consociate programs, click here.



Above: Some of the wonderful women of WAMM (Women Against Military Madness) – one of the most influential justice and peace organizations in the Midwest.

This photo was taken at WAMM’s 25th anniversary celebration on Sunday, June 10, 2007. The event was held at the Minnesota Boat Club on Raspberry Island, located in the Mississippi River across from downtown St. Paul.



Above: At last year’s Annual Community Meeting of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), Paula Ruddy and Fr. Mike Tegeder were each honored with awards. At the time, however, neither could be in attendance to receive their awards.

Over a year later on Monday, June 11, 2007, members of the CPCSM board took both Paula and Mike out to dinner at the Black Forest Restaurant in Minneapolis and presented them with their awards. Better late than never, I suppose!

Paula received CPCSM’s 2006 Bishop Gumbleton Peace and Justice Award for her tireless efforts in helping defeat the proposed “marriage amendment” to the Minnesota Constitution. This amendment would have not only banned same-gender marriage in Minnesota, but all legal equivalents – including civil unions and domestic partnerships.

This particular award was created in 1997 in honor of Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, retired auxiliary bishop of Detroit, and his tireless work as a advocate for peace and justice on behalf of GLBT persons and their families. The award also acknowledges his lifelong advocacy work against war and for social justice, especially in support of the human rights of other marginalized and voiceless groups throughout the world. The award is given by the Board of CPCSM to a special person or group whose work on behalf of GLBT persons and their families reflects the same commitment to the Gospel call for peace and justice as exemplified by Bishop Gumbleton. Paula Ruddy is, without doubt, a deserving recipient of this award.

CPCSM’s Father Henry F. LeMay Pastoral Ministry Award was created in 1984 to honor the memory of the late Reverend Henry F. LeMay, a priest of the Diocese of New Ulm and previously of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, who co-founded Dignity/Twin Cities and was a local and national leader in the creation of a ministry to gay men and lesbians, and in championing their human rights.

Fr. Mike Tegeder received the 2006 Father Henry F. LeMay Pastoral Ministry Award for his “deep commitment to pastoral and social justice ministry for all – and [thus his] prophetic witness to the dignity and integrity of GLBT persons and their families.”



Above and below: On Wednesday, June 13, many of those in attendance at the weekly peace vigil on the Marshall Ave./Lake St. Bridge donned the orange jumpsuits and black hoods of the so-called “enemy combatants” being held by the Bush regime at Guantánamo Bay.

The aim of dressing up in this way was to raise public awareness not only of those being illegally incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay, but also of the Bush regime’s illegal use of torture not only at Guantánamo Bay, but also in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any number of secret locations that collectively comprise, in the words of Amnesty International, a “global web of abuse.”


Above: That’s the skyline of downtown Minneapolis in the distance. The Lake St./Marshall Ave. Bridge spans the Mississippi River and links the “Twin Cities” of St. Paul and Minneapolis.



Above: The “Transformation of Hate to Love, Fear to Understanding” action outside of military contractor Alliant TechSystem’s corporate headquarters in Edina, Minnesota – Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

For more images and commentary, click here.



Above: Marking World Peace and Prayer Day at Coldwater Springs – Thursday, June 21, 2007. (That’s my trusty Cannondale R400 Sport bike at left!)

For more images and commentary, click here.



Above: Standing at left and holding the “Inclusive Catholics” banner in the Twin Cities Gay Pride Parade – Sunday, June 24, 2007.

This banner served to unify the various “welcoming and affirming Catholic parishes and communities” that participated in this year’s parade.

For more images and commentary on this year’s Twin Cities Gay Pride, click here.



Above: Theresa O’Brien, CSJ; Bishop Thomas Gumbleton; and Myrna and Ron Ohmann were among the guests at CPCSM’s 2007 Annual Community Meeting, which took place on Thursday, June 28, at St. Martin’s Table Bookstore and Restaurant in Minneapolis.

The event served as a celebration of the recent publishing of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective, the book I edited as CPCSM executive coordinator.


Our celebration began with a wine and cheese reception followed by a selection of readings from Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective. In a number of cases, those who contributed testimonials and reflections to the book read their own contributions. One of these contributors was retired Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, who shared with the fifty people in attendance the foreword that he had penned for the book.

Part of Bishop Gumbleton’s foreword reads as follows: “Prophetic words and deeds shine through this text. And like all prophetic words they speak of justice, inclusiveness, and a vision of the world that is bigger, more encompassing than the one we may be prepared to embrace. Yet the call remains. It rings forth from these pages – offering a catalyst for transformation.”

This year’s CPCSM Father Henry LeMay Pastoral Ministry Award was given to Catholic Rainbow Parents Myrna and Ron Ohmann for their “faithful, courageous, and loving efforts in promoting the full civil and ecclesial rights of LGBT persons.” For example, as was documented in Out and About – April 2007, Myrna and Ron played a crucial role in the recent establishment of a support group for Catholic parents of LGBT persons in St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Unfortunately, the 2007 recipient of CPCSM’s Bishop Gumbleton Peace and Justice Award was not able to be present at our Annual Community Meeting to receive his award. His identity will remain secret, as we hope to “surprise” him with his award at some point in the near future! Let’s hope it won’t take over a year to present him with his award – as was the case with Mike and Paula! (See fourth photo and commentary above.)



Above: CPCSM treasurer Paul Fleege (left) stands with CPCSM members Michael Douglas and Rick Notch at CPCSM’s Annual Community Meeting – Thursday, June 28, 2007.



Above: The inaugural Prayer Breakfast for Hope and Justice – Friday, June 29, 2007.

Organized by a coalition of Twin Cities Catholic justice and peace groups – including Call to Action Minnesota, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), and Pax Christi Twin Cities – the June 29 Prayer Breakfast for Hope and Justice saw over 100 people gather in St. Paul for a Eucharistic liturgy followed by a continental breakfast and a round table discussion - the focus of which was on ways of finding and sustaining hope in the context of both the contemporary Catholic Church and wider society.



One of those in attendance at the inaugural Prayer Breakfast for Hope and Justice was retired Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, who is pictured above offering his thoughts and insights during the round table discussion.



Above: At one point during the morning’s proceedings, Bishop Gumbleton was presented with a “Lifetime Achievement Award for Justice and Peace” by a coalition of groups, including the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), Call To Action Minnesota, Dignity/Twin Cities, Justice Commission of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet and Consociates, Inclusive Catholics, Twin Cities Peace Campaign: Focus on Iraq, Pax Christi Twin Cities, and the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP).



Above: Standing back row, far right, with other members of St. Stephen’s Catholic Church and with Bishop Tom Gumbleton (center, in black jacket) at the conclusion of the June 29 Prayer Breakfast for Hope and Justice.

Representatives from several Catholic parishes and organizations attended the Prayer Breakfast – an event which organizers, myself included, hope in the future to offer three or four times a year to the Catholic community of St. Paul/Minneapolis.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Out and About – May 2007
Out and About – April 2007
Fasting, Praying, and Walking for Immigration Reform
An Energizing and Spirited Weekend
Back in the USA