With this issue, we go back to our regular every-other-week publishing schedule, at least until the holidays. Thanks to Chris Schenk, Paul Kunkel, Joan Nuth, Mary Englert and John Lucic for their articles. I’ve received a couple of other items that I will use in coming issues. Another reminder: I need more reprints of articles, poems, etc., to use as backup material.

Chris writes about the Common Ground Project spearheaded by Cardinal Bernardin. After reading the thoughtful and challenging statement, "Called to Be Catholic," it’s frustrating to learn that the effort is opposed by some very prominent and powerful church leaders. I encourage all Community members to read it — it’s not terribly long — and become as involved as they can in the process. I personally have long felt that the Church’s greatest deficiency is a lack of dialogue between members with strongly different views. That is one of the reasons Communio exists. In fact, I wish we could attract some more conservative writers. (Subtle hint, hint...)

Here are a couple of money-related notes:

Costs and expenses have gone up, and as a result, so has the average amount the Community needs to take in for each collection. This has increased from $2,400 to $2,800. Please keep this in mind in the future. Also be sure to specifically identify all checks and cash intended for the Community.

Project AFFORD is getting very close to its goal, but contributions have tapered off with several thousand dollars left to go. Project AFFORD stands for "A Family’s First Opportunity to Realize a Dream". Its goal is to raise the $20,000 down payment for a new $70,000 house, and have it sold to a working-class family so that their monthly payments would be $350 on a 30-year note. The house is to be named after Fr. Paul Hritz and Fr. Jim O’Donnell.

Finally, a very happy 45th birthday to Fr. Tony! His birthday was Monday, Aug. 26, the day I am actually writing this.

Cardinal Joseph Bernardin’s courageous call for dialogue on divisive issues facing our Church has been met with criticism from Cardinals on the eastern seaboard, traditional home of more conservative Catholic leadership. Cardinal James Hickey (Washington, D.C.) and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua (Philadelphia) have both criticized Cardinal Bernardin’s attempt to name the issues dividing our Church. "Called to Be Catholic" is a statement issued and supported not only by Cardinal Bernardin, but also by Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishops Daniel Pilarcyzk, Oscar Lipscomb, Rembert Weakland, and Bishops James Malone, Ricardo Ramirez and Edward O’Donnell. Cleveland’s Bishop Anthony Pilla, who is the current president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, has publicly endorsed the effort.

Aside from these eight respected episcopal leaders, 25 other Catholic educators, theologians, politicians and journalists (ranging from Rev. Brian Daley SJ of the University of Notre Dame, Sr. Elizabeth Johnson CSJ of Fordham, Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute, and Margaret Steinfels of Commonweal) joined in the call to search for common ground as the church faces the new millennium.

"Called to Be Catholic" names 13 "urgent questions" that the U.S. church must honestly discuss "but which it increasingly feels pressed to evade or at best, address obliquely." These include:

• The changing roles of women.
• The organization and effectiveness of religious education.
• The Eucharistic liturgy.
• The meaning of human sexuality and the gap between church teachings and the convictions of many faithful.
• The image and morale of priests and the declining ratios of priests and vowed religious to people in the pews.
• The succession of laypeople to positions of leadership.
• The ways the church is present in political life.
• Dwindling financial support from parishioners.
• The manner of decision making and consultation in church governance.
• The responsibility of theology to authoritative church teaching.
• The place of collegiality and subsidiarity in the relations between Rome and the American episcopacy.

One thing that all of these "urgent questions" have in common is that they bespeak change. The Catholic church is changing and change is difficult. Change challenges us to rethink "how we’ve always done things" with a view to allowing the Gospel message to speak ever more powerfully in new circumstances. To refuse to change is, in a very real sense I think, a refusal to grow. Worse, it points to a lamentable lack of faith in the God who has been unfailingly faithful to us throughout the ages in many changing cultures, peoples and social systems.

I grieve the fear that would lead such a distinguished episcopal leader as Cardinal Hickey to close off any discussion by saying that the "Called to Be Catholic" statement "obscures" ground for church unity. True common ground, he said, "is found in Scripture and tradition as handed on through the teaching office" of the Pope and bishops. In other words, no priests or lay people — even lay theologians — need apply.

No one questions the respect owed to the authority of Pope and bishops. But we must ask, why were the opinions of so many bishops and married laity ignored in formulating decisions on the non-ordination of women and on artificial contraception?

True authority seeks the input and consent of the governed "who also have the spirit of God" if our Baptism in Christ means anything at all. This is the difference between these two leaders in my view. Cardinal Bernardin rejoices in and is open to the Spirit of God at work in all believers. Cardinal Hickey, with all due respect, seems afraid of change.

The revitalized Catholic common ground, we suggested, will be marked by a willingness to approach the church’s current situation with fresh eyes, open minds and changed hearts. It will mean pursuing disagreements in a renewed spirit of dialogue. Specifically, we urge that Catholics be guided by working principles like these:

• We should recognize that no single group or viewpoint in the church has complete monopoly on the truth. While the bishops united with the pope have been specially endowed by God with the power to preserve the true faith, they too exercise their office by taking counsel with one another and with the experience of the whole church, past and present. Solutions to the church’s problems will almost inevitably emerge from a variety of sources.
• We should not envision ourselves or any one part of the church as a saving remnant. No group within the church should judge itself alone to be possessed of enlightenment or spurn the mass of Catholics, their leaders or their institutions as unfaithful.
• We should test all proposals for their pastoral realism and potential impact on living individuals as well as for their theological truth. Pastoral effectiveness is a responsibility of leadership.
• We should presume that those with whom we differ are acting in good faith. They deserve civility, charity and a good-faith effort to understand their concerns. We should not substitute labels, abstractions or blanketing terms — "radical feminism," "the hierarchy," "the Vatican" — for living, complicated realities.
• We should put the best possible construction on differing positions, addressing their strongest points rather than seizing upon the most vulnerable aspects to discredit them. We should detect the valid insights and legitimate worries that may underlie even questionable arguments.
• We should be cautious in ascribing motives. We should not impugn another’s love of the church and loyalty to it. We should not rush to interpret disagreements as conflicts of starkly opposing principles rather than as differences in degree in prudential pastoral judgments about the relevant facts.
• We should bring the church to engage the realities of contemporary culture. Not by simple defiance or by naive acquiescence. But acknowledging, in the fashion of Gaudium et Spes, both our culture’s valid achievements and real dangers.

Ultimately, the fresh eyes and changed hearts we need cannot be distilled from guidelines. They emerge in the space created by praise and worship. The revitalized Catholic common ground will be marked by a determined pastoral effort to keep the liturgy, above all, from becoming a battleground for confrontation and polarization, and to treasure it as the common worship of God through Jesus Christ in the communion of the Holy Spirit.

It is imperative that the Catholic church in the United States confront the issues and forces that are shaping the future. For this, we must draw on all the gifts of wisdom and understanding in the church, all the charisms of leadership and communion. Each of us will be tested by encounters with cultures and viewpoints not our own. All of us will be refined in the fires of genuine engagement. And the whole church will be strengthened for its mission in the new millennium.

Anyone called to be a prophet in the Hebrew scriptures could expect persecution. Prophets were usually called by God to deliver a message that was sure to be unwelcome to many of its hearers. Their message frequently challenged God’s people to change their familiar, comfortable lifestyle for one that would encourage greater faithfulness to their covenant with God, and be liberating for them. But because of the sacrifice involved in accepting such a word, the people often turned on the prophet, refusing to consider the word delivered to them as truly from God.

In today’s first reading, we find Jeremiah complaining to God about his situation. He had been told, in his initial call from God, that he was being sent "to pluck up and pull down, . . . to build and to plant" (Jer 1:10). But every word Jeremiah has uttered so far has been about plucking up and pulling down. Nothing about building and planting. As a result, Jeremiah is hated; he has "become a laughingstock all day long," mocked and derided by all the people. And yet Jeremiah cannot resist transmitting God’s message. He has tried many times not to speak any more in God’s name. But when he resists, he feels something within him "like a burning fire" that he cannot hold in. Jeremiah’s inner integrity will not allow him to be silent.

In the reading from Matthew, Jesus is in a similar situation. He, too, understands himself as a prophet, in the tradition of Jeremiah and the other

One wonders whether Jesus might not have been tempted at this point to tone down his message a bit, to be a little more careful about what he would say, or where and how he would say it. He certainly knew that what had happened to John might well happen to him. But immediately we read that the crowds had followed him to his solitary place. Jesus returned to them, having compassion on them, healing their sick, teaching them about the good news of God’s reign. One realizes that he freely determined, probably there and then, to be faithful to his call from God and to the people who needed his service, even if that meant his own suffering and death.

In today’s gospel, we find Jesus predicting his own suffering. The scriptural story reflects the hindsight of resurrection faith on the part of the evangelist. But even if Jesus did not predict in exact detail what was to happen to him, it is still reasonable to suppose that he would have prepared his disciples for the likelihood of his own suffering and death. He encounters fierce resistance from Peter, the same Peter who, last Sunday, professed his faith in Jesus as the Christ. Peter is not ready to hear this part of God’s word. "God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you," he says. And Jesus turns on him, with the harshest words he ever uttered in scripture: "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things." Jesus lost his cool! His vehemence toward Peter points to his vulnerability to the temptation to give up his ministry.

Today there are women in the same boat as Jeremiah and Jesus. Their consciousness has been raised, long ago for some, about the patriarchy and sexism that characterize our social institutions, including our church. They feel, like Jeremiah, "a burning fire" to cry out against injustice towards women. This crying out is religiously motivated, for they see the present situation of women as contrary to the God of inclusivity and openness they have come to know through Jesus. Like Jeremiah, they often wish they could do more "building and planting" than "plucking up and pulling down." But they realize that some plucking up and pulling down is necessary before building and planting can begin.

They are often perceived as destructive of the status quo. Indeed, some perceive them as destructive of the church. They find themselves thwarted, even hated, at every turn. Some lose their jobs because of their outspoken embracing of the cause of justice for women. They are frequently tempted to give up, to tone down their message, to remain silent. They are tempted by the "Peters" of their acquaintance to think of their mission and message as "trivial," as not terribly important. Wouldn’t it be better to drop this cause, and just go along with the status quo? It would certainly be easier. But, like Jesus, many determine to keep up the fight, at the price of their own suffering and frustration, out of faithfulness to what they perceive as their call from God. Are these women some of our contemporary prophets? Could God be speaking to us through them? It is a question well worth pondering.

Women are subject to another more subtle temptation, often deeply interiorized within themselves: that they should "grin and bear" their subordinate lot, that it is wrong for women to express anger or speak up for themselves, or defend themselves in any way. They should be patient, humble, quiet, modest and submissive. They should not cause a stir. It is unbecoming for women to be outspoken in their own defense. In fact, they ought to be more like the humble Jesus, who "did not open his mouth" when led to the slaughter of the cross.

The saying of Jesus in today’s gospel has been used against "assertive" women. Jesus tells his disciples that they must deny themselves and take up their cross if they want to be his followers. "For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it." This saying can be and has been harmful to women if interpreted in a certain way. In the name of "carrying their cross" like Jesus, women have been counseled to remain in destructive marriages. To refrain from birth control at the expense of their own health. To endure sexual harassment without protest. Whatever Jesus meant by telling us to deny ourselves and carry our crosses, he certainly did not mean that we should allow ourselves to be victimized by others without complaining. His whole ministry was one of crying out against such injustices. In the name of all that Jesus stood for, we must reject this interpretation completely.

If we investigate today’s scriptures more carefully, we find a different message. Most obviously, we notice that neither Jeremiah nor Jesus thought suffering was a desirable thing for them. Jeremiah complains that God has deceived him. When he agreed to be a prophet he thought he would be "building and planting" as well as "plucking up and pulling down." Jeremiah is privy to God’s will to an extent; he knows that his God is not one who thinks suffering is a good thing. Jeremiah resents having been put in the stocks for a full day to be mocked and derided by passersby. Therefore he honestly and courageously complains about his lot to God.

That Jeremiah’s suffering continues, and that he eventually accepts suffering as his lot, is indeed a deep mystery. It had a lot to do with his own inner integrity. He believed in God and in God’s values; therefore he could not keep silent when he saw those values challenged, even though this involved suffering for himself. But to suggest that suffering is God’s will simply because it is good to be submissive and patient, misses the nuances of this dark mystery.

Jesus did not want to suffer either. He, too, knew God as one who wanted to lessen human suffering, not glorify it as good. In fact, Jesus’ whole life as God’s chosen one was dedicated to the alleviation of human suffering. Witness the many healing stories in the gospels. Yet the crisis he faced caused him to opt for the way of the cross. The secret to Jesus’ decision is a paradox. If he chose to "save" his own life by giving up his mission of teaching and service to God’s people, he would ironically "lose" his life in the sense of losing that inner freedom to be true to his deepest self. On the other hand, if he chose to "lose" his life by continuing to infuriate the ruling authorities by challenging the status quo, he might well suffer and even die, but he would "find" his life in the sense of gaining the freedom to be true to his deepest convictions about God’s will for himself and others.

Similarly, the courageous women prophets among us who cry out against injustice toward women choose to "lose their lives" in order to "find" their own dignity and integrity. For them, as for Jeremiah and Jesus, denying themselves and carrying their cross means not being submissive to subordination and oppression, but rather crying out against it. This is an active, free decision to walk a certain path, even if suffering occurs as a result. This is the way of Jesus, who was not a passive victim on the cross, but an example of active courage who endured suffering out of generous, compassionate love. In the end, he was not destroyed by such an act of courage, but glorified by God.

We join our voices with all nations as Isaiah says in chapter 6: "Holy, holy is the God of hosts..." The Eucharistic Prayer is a dialogue. The priest says something and we respond. We keep telling God how wonderful He is in the Eucharistic Prayer. Then we pray for ourselves, for the Pope, for the dead, for the Bishop, etc. We want a few things. "Through him, with Him and in Him, all glory, all honor. Everything is yours forever and ever. Amen." May it be so! We hope that it happens! He broke the bread and it all became clear. This bread is the body broken, the blood poured out. It’s is the remembrance of a sacrifice that freed us from death, once and for all.

The moment that we are most called to recognize Jesus is at Communion. We do everything not to recognize Jesus. We look at the floor. We drink only one drop. In our childhood the Sisters taught us to look at the floor and point our folded hands to heaven. Since 1964, the Church said in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal No. 21, that from the beginning of the Eucharistic Prayer through the end of Liturgy we should stand, except where indicated otherwise. In the U.S. after the Holy, Holy, Holy to after the Great Amen we are to kneel unless circumstances prevent it. We are to stand from then on.

General Missal Instruction No. 56 says that after the priest consumes the Eucharist, the entire assembly goes into song. This is a procession, as if we are marching into Zion. It’s a procession, not a Communion line. A procession is to walk in time with the music. A good musician will choose a song to which people can process and will need no books. Some people will sway. "When you come forward, make of your hands a throne to receive the king." We receive communion in the hand. If you don’t think you are worthy, get over it. None of us is worthy to receive Jesus.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem says that we should process with our hands open to receive the King. Before you receive, make some kind of sign of reverence. In 264 A of the Roman Missal it says to make a sign of reverence. Most don’t do it. It may be a bow, a genuflection, to the Body of Christ. St. Cyril also tells us that when we drink, we should drink deeply. "While your lips are still wet, smear your lips and eyes and all your senses so that you will know that you have been washed in the blood of the Lamb." We drink deeply the alcohol, so we can feel it, feeling the blood of Christ through our veins. St. Bernard of Clairvaux (12th Century) drank so much Eucharistic wine that he had to sit down. They made him a saint.

On AIDS: The Center of Disease Control does a study every six months and the results for Anglicans, Lutheran ,and Catholics are always the same. No one gets sick drinking from the cup. The concern should be from shaking hands at the Kiss of Peace. People shake hands, kiss and yet they walk by the cup.

St. Augustine tells us that to the proclamation, "The body of Christ, the blood of Christ," we respond because we say yes to what we are. We are the body of Christ. He tells us to say it boldly and humbly.

After we receive, we should stand and sing together. The communion is that we can all stand and all sing. At Communion, first names should not be used. Just, "The body of Christ." This is the mystery being proclaimed. Then we go home and show somehow that we recognize Jesus. Show it by leaving the parking lot without cursing. After everybody receives the body of Christ, we can all kneel down and have some private time.

And among St. Ignatius High School’s new Board of Regents members are Sr. Michael Marie Griffin, OSU, Malachi Center director, and CSM member Jeff Leitch.

In the spotlight at Jacobs Field, Aug. 17, was Dan Smith. When he sang the national anthem before the Indians-Tigers game. And again later that evening, when he sang and played with other "geezers" (his term) who were there for the fantasy camp "Baseball Heaven Reunion Day." (Wonder if that cute little American dozed on his shoulder during the anthem?)

The late Hubert "Skinny" Dugan, whose wife Mary and other family members are well known at Malachi’s, has been memorialized with a garden named "Skinny’s Way" at the Brooklyn Adult Training Center, where son Terry works. Dugan was a longtime advocate for mentally retarded and developmentally disabled people.

Dolores Sullin was a three-time winner at the Cuyahoga County Fair. Her marinara sauce and bottled cucumbers won blue ribbons (first premium) and her pickled beets earned a red ribbon (second premium). She was not alone in all this, however. All the ingredients, seasonings, etc. were home grown by "Farmer Al."

With the theme, "Creating a New Church: The Journey from Domination to Partnership," they will give an open, admission-free talk at 7:30 p.m. Friday, Sept. 13, in St. Mark Social Hall, 15800 Montrose Ave., in West Park.

At the same location, the two will conduct a workshop from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. the next day, Saturday, Sept. 14. Its title: "How to Partner our Way into the Future Church." The workshop fee will be $20 with pre-registration, $25 at the door.

Open to all, the workshop is especially intended for pastors, parish ministers who want to be transformational leaders, persons in leadership at any level within the Church or related organizations, religious congregation leaders and "empowered people who feel ‘stuck.’ " The ‘shop is described as being "about very concrete practical things that you can do to make a difference in your parish, in your ministry, in your life."

Pre-registration should be directed to FutureChurch, 2459 Washington Ave., Cleveland, OH 44113 (631-6965). A social security number will be needed for any CEU’s requested.

FINANCE: It is now anticipated that we need a weekly average collection of $2800 to balance the 1996-1997 budget.

SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT: Committee goals being considered include:

1) Expanding small faith sharing groups.

2) Providing speakers.

3) Developing a Bible study program.

4) Offering retreat experiences.

All interested in participating in this committee can call Jane Smith at 226-8531.

COMMUNICATIONS: The newsletter/calendar will return to its every-other-week schedule starting Sept. 1. Deadline is the Sunday before publication.

CHRISTIAN FORMATION: Classes resume Sunday, Sept. 15. If you have not registered your child(ren), please contact Karen Duffy at 331-5289 immediately. Liturgy of the Word for Children, grades 1-4, will begin at the 11 a.m. liturgy on Sept. 22. Any adults interested in helping please contact Barb Wingenfeld at 221-6722. The next Christian Formation Advisory Committee meeting is Tuesday, Sept. 3, at 7:30 p.m. Call Barb for location.

PASTOR’S REPORT: As a member of the History Committee for the Cleveland Diocese’s Sesquicentennial, Fr. Tony is requesting help in filling out a questionnaire on the Community’s history. To date we have raised $16,500 toward our goal of $20,000 for Project AFFORD. Please consider making a donation. "Samaritan Ministry" is a free program of education on alcoholism and addiction. This year, sessions will be held on Friday afternoons, 1-4 p.m., Sept. 27, through Oct. 18, at St. Malachi Center. The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults Journey of Faith begins Monday, Sept. 16, at 7 p.m. All interested in exploring the Catholic faith more deeply are welcome.

PRESIDENT’S REPORT: Contracts were renewed in June for our Director of Religious Education Karen Duffy, for Music/Liturgy Minister Greg Chmura, and Secretary Lou Schroeder. Evaluations were also done. Council members are again being encouraged to wear name tags at Liturgy and Coffee Hour.

The next Council meeting will be held Sunday, Sept. 22, at 6 p.m. All are welcome.

THE COMMUNITY OF ST. MALACHI is a lay-directed, non-territorial personal parish of the Diocese of Cleveland. Although separate from the Parish of St. Malachi, we join together for many worthwhile activities. All are welcome to worship at the 11:00 a.m. Community liturgy on Sunday. Community members are expected to actively contribute of their time, talent and treasure.