When I first read the article about the Boyle family of North Olmsted in The Plain Dealer two weeks ago, my first reaction was negative: How could the pastor write such a letter?

But upon further reflection, I began to wonder, why was this in the newspaper to begin with? Why couldn’t this be resolved more privately? And finally, looking at it from the perspective of one who attended public schools, and whose children do the same, I wondered why these people have such a problem with the parish insisting that they meet the requirements for using its school. If you can’t do it or won’t do it, then don’t do it. Or at least don’t run to the newspaper about it. What’s next? Oprah?

Last Sunday, there was a full page of letters on the topic in the PD, leading with one signed by none other than Rev. Anthony J. Schuerger. Father Tony asks and reflects on another very good question: Why would anyone think that 47 percent Mass attendance is good enough? Since the PD cut some of Father Tony’s comments, I am pleased to run the complete text of his letter here. (For those who missed it, Father Tony fills in some of the details of the situation in the introduction that follows this column.)

In the Community of St. Malachi, I’d like to think that our approach to anything like this would be much more flexible, sensitive and understanding. Note too that we don’t track attendance or financial contributions. But that doesn’t mean expectations for Community members are any less. In fact they are more extensive. Not only are we expected to attend the Community liturgy regularly and give money, but we are also to give of our time and talent to the various Malachi activities, committees and ministries. As one who took a long time to find a place to contribute, and who continually struggles with finding the time to do it, I know how hard it is. But it can be done.

As we close out the year I would like to thank all who have made writing for Communio, or helping put it out, part of their commitment of time and talent. There are too many to name here, but I hope you know how much I appreciate your work.

The next issue is Jan 12; deadline Jan. 5.

Merry Christmas!

The Editor, Cleveland Plain Dealer

1801 Superior Ave.

Cleveland, OH 44114

Dear Editor,

To use The Plain Dealer’s own system: mild CHEERS for raising the significant issue of personal choice vs. religious expectations and the issue of the relationship between parental example and formal instruction in teaching values to children in your recent article, "Priest’s scolding letter stuns family," but loud JEERS for choosing to present the story as a simplistic controversy between a "scolding priest" and a "stunned family." Controversy obviously is more exciting and sells more papers, but is it too much to hope for a reasoned examination of serious issues?

The story of the Boyle family and St. Brendan does reflect the "broader question of Catholic obligation in an era when fewer church members attend Mass faithfully every Sunday." As you rightly point out, Catholic teaching requires Catholics "to participate in the Mass on Sundays and other Holy Days of obligation." The teaching is clear and has not been changed for centuries. It is a matter of serious obligation for Catholics and is regarded by most people, Catholic and non-Catholic, as one of the distinctive practices of the Catholic church. You quote Mr. Boyle’s response as "My personal feeling is that a 47 percent attendance ratio is very good. If I’m going half the year, it’s certainly better than going just at Easter and Christmas."

However, is a 47 percent attendance ratio really "very good" when the expectation is 100 percent (or at least nearly so -- the Church has never required church attendance when an individual is ill or other serious reasons prevent church attendance)? It is interesting to note that the Boyles do not dispute what the church’s expectation is nor do they dispute St. Brendan’s description of their actual participation level. One wonders how acceptable a 47 percent attendance rate would be at work or school (where the expectation is also 100 percent or nearly so) or how a 47 percent score for a school project or test would be regarded. What makes the obligation to worship God any less serious or binding than the obligation to go to work or attend school? Why should a financial incentive (paycheck) or risk (firing) or legal liability (school attendance) carry more weight than a moral and religious one?

Further, what is wrong about making people aware of their failure to meet such an obligation? The story at least implies that it is wrong for the church to act in this way; the story raises the specter of "Big Brother." (Please note: this was not a case of public censure. The letter was sent to the family privately; it has only become a public matter when the paper published the story, obviously with the family’s knowledge and consent. Fr. Murray wrote that he would like to meet with the parents personally about this.) Do we not expect employers and require schools to do this? Do not other organizations to which people freely belong (as they do a church) also monitor membership participation and sometimes expel members who do not meet the requirements for active participation? (Again, note: neither St. Brendan parish or the Catholic church expelled the Boyle family from the parish, the school or the Catholic church for not attending Mass regularly enough. That is not church policy.) What makes it wrong (or shocking) for a church to ask, even require, its members to fulfill their religious and moral obligations? Whether sending parishioners a letter (or sending that particular letter) is the best way for a parish to respond is a valid question, but a different one.

Another serious issue which the article left unexplored is the relationship between parental example and school instruction in teaching values to children. Catholic teaching maintains that parents are the primary educators of their children in the faith. When parents bring a child to be baptized, they are asked, "You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so, you are accepting the responsibility of training him/her in the practice of the faith. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?" As part of Mr. and Mrs. Boyle’s acceptance of their responsibility of forming their children in the Catholic faith, they decided to send their children to Catholic school. As part of their instruction, children are taught that Catholics have the obligation to participate at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation (children who attend the Parish School of Religion -- "catechism classes" -- learn the same thing.)

A problem occurs when a child learns one thing at school and experiences something different at home. Common sense suggests what studies have repeatedly shown -- that when this happens, most children believe and internalize the values lived at home. The effect is that, however unintentionally, the parents/family undermine the values which the school teaches, the very values that the parents sent their child to learn in the first place. The issue of regular church attendance is a serious one for Catholics, but may not seem as significant to non-Catholics. However, changing the issue in question to one of drug or alcohol use might make clear why a school should be concerned about a conflict between what is taught in school and what is taught/experienced at home and why the issue is a relevant one, not only for the church but for society as a whole.

In this situation, how should a school respond? Simply recognize that the child is receiving conflicting messages and let him or her resolve it on his/her own? Ignore the undermining of its efforts while continuing or redoubling those efforts? Make the conflict known to the parents with a goal of having school teaching and home experience give the same message? St. Brendan’s parish chose this last option. Again, my point here is not whether the letter the parish sent was the best way to respond, but to point out that it was an attempt to resolve what it deemed a serious issue.

Being held accountable is not always -- or even usually -- a pleasant or agreeable experience. Many would argue that one of society’s problems is that there is too little accountability, that we have gone too far in regarding whatever an individual chooses to do as acceptable behavior (as long as someone else is not directly, personally injured), whatever their stated values or commitments may be. Exploring these issues in the area of religious practice or in a wider area of society would be a positive contribution to the community, one that I hope The Plain Dealer would explore soon. Unfortunately, you missed an opportunity to do just that.

Sincerely,

(Rev.) Anthony J. Schuerger

Pastor, St. Malachi

P.S. This letter has completely ignored the issue of financial contributions. I have done so deliberately, because I believe the other issues which I have identified are far more important, both intrinsically and, I suspect, to St. Brendan parish and school. I note that the issue of Mass attendance is the one addressed by Sr. Carol Anne Smith of the Office of Catholic Education in her letter to Mrs. Boyle. However, let me briefly make the following points about contributions: 1) nowhere in the letter does Fr. Murray say that the Boyle family has not given enough to the church -- the complaint is about Mass attendance; 2) the collection envelope is the only way a church has to record contributions (which most members expect a church to do, to be able to provide them with a report at the end of the year for tax purposes); 3) studies of church contributions consistently show that those who use church envelopes tend to be more generous than those who "put money in the basket" (ask any pastor); 4) beyond the spiritual obligation of stewardship, expressed in the ancient tradition of tithing and the religious obligation to support the church, in this case there is also a question of simple justice: i.e. the Boyle family is making use of a church ministry -- the Catholic school -- which represents an enormous financial commitment on the part of the entire parish. Because the church sees this as a ministry, they do not charge per-pupil cost in tuition (which a private school would do), but only a portion of that cost, with the parish picking up the rest. In fairness, there is an obligation to do their part (based on their means and according to their conscience) to support the parish.

"Although Advent is a penitential season, it need not be a sad one," George Eppley told some 85 participants in St. Malachi’s Dec. 3 "Advent Evening of Reflection."

We all spend a good part of our waking hours waiting and watching, he said. "Little children wait for Christmas. Teachers wait for vacation to begin, and mothers wait for it to end. Students wait for their grades. Workers wait for their paychecks. Patients wait for test results. Retirees wait for social security checks.

"We wait in traffic jams. We wait for buses or rapid transit trains. We wait in line at the bank or check-out counters in supermarkets."

Eppley told of a TV program featuring children awaiting adoption, "children waiting so desperately for love and affection." Advent gives us the assurance that God has adopted us, he said, "but that adoption brings with it the obligation of waiting creatively for God’s coming."

Out waiting will be creative if we use the time to downsize our inflated egos, Eppley said. "The Bible indeed is a guidebook to a healthy and sound ego." It tells us about both the good things that happen when men and women and nations have healthy egos, and the bad things when egos are inflated or oversized. The Bible tells us, Eppley said, that "way back in the dawn of time, a man and a woman had an ego problem. They wanted to be like God. It’s a problem that has dogged their descendants ever since... pitted brother against brother, parents against children, family against family, neighbor against neighbor, nation against nation."

Somebody’s ego is always needing more attention, Eppley said, "more power, more wealth, more influence, more status, more control." From Genesis to the Apocalypse, the Bible gives us a wealth of examples. It also tells of prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and many others whom God raised up at various times to cut individual and national egos down to size.

"And in the fullness of time, God also sent Jesus to teach us about the ego in the divine scheme of things." That is what Advent and Christmas celebrate.

"The centerpiece of this holiday is not toys or tinsel or greeting cards but a little child who was born in circumstances so humble that his ego could hardly be inflated. He was born in a stable... worked as a carpenter. He did not attend a rabbinical school or teacher education institution, and he did not earn a Ph.D." Personnel directors would have been unimpressed with his resume, Eppley added.

No public relations firm announced the beginning of his public life. "Nor did he hire headhunters to recruit followers from the best and brightest families and the most prestigious schools. He personally chose 12 uneducated fishermen."

Jesus did not tell people how to be number one, Eppley said, but rather to take the last place; to lay up treasures in heaven, not on earth; to forgive rather than avenge. "He went to cocktail parties and banquets but did not try to become the life of the party by telling racist jokes or making sexist remarks. In fact, on one occasion he enraged his host and guests by saying that prostitutes would have an easier time getting into heaven than many of the guests who suffered not from a communicable disease but a far worse one, the dreaded inflated ego."

As people with sound and healthy egos, Eppley said, Jesus pointed out John the Baptizer, the Roman centurion who begged for his son’s cure, the indigent widow who gave alms, and many others.

Eppley cited as an "Advent figure" Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, a "man of the Bible" who "learned how to downsize his ego" and followed his mother’s advice upon becoming a bishop. She told him: "Walk straight and try not to look too pleased with yourself."

Old Testament readings in Advent remind us that God promised to send Jesus and the Israelites were to wait and watch for his coming. Yet, Eppley said, the feast of Christmas is not only the celebration of his birth, "it is a grim reminder that not many people were actually watching when he first appeared. Only his mother and Joseph and a few shepherds, along with some astrologers who came from the East."

The Church is telling us Jesus will come again, and we must not miss him as many Israelites did. "Both our watching and our waiting must be productive and creative," Eppley said. In a letter to Thessalonica Christians, St. Paul urges: "Be on guard lest your spirits become bloated with indulgence and dunkenness and worldly cares. The great day will suddenly close in on you like a trap."

Said Eppley, "Advent reminds us that death is the great day for each one of us. It challenges us to watch and wait for it, not in any morbid sense, but in the spirit of hope and joy and expectation."

We should watch for opportunities to bring more love, more peace and more joy into our families and into our communities, he said.

He spoke of the recently deceased Federal Appeals Judge Elbert P. Tuttle, 98, who in the 1950s "advanced the cause of civil rights probably more than any other federal judge." The judge had told of a childhood incident that shaped his judicial philosophy. A white family, the Tuttles lived in Washington, D.C. Sitting on the porch with his mother, a 10-year-old Elbert saw first one, then another half-empty bus bypass a black woman waiting at their corner bus stop.

His mother put on her hat and walked to the corner to stand beside the black woman. The next bus stopped. When the first woman had boarded it, Mrs. Tuttle returned to her porch. She said nothing, but her son never forgot the incident.

Eppley termed hers "a powerful and silent message" for her son and for us about creative waiting. "If she had stayed on the porch and done nothing, the nation might never have known the great things she was able to accomplish through Judge Tuttle, her son. Indeed, Mrs. Tuttle is, in my judgment, an Advent figure. Because she did not have an inflated ego, she was able to see clearly what needed to be done, and did it."

Our waiting will be creative if we use the time to exercise our imaginations, Eppley said. Jesus got in trouble with the authorities and religious leaders of his day "because his great imagination saw infinite possibilities even in those who were the most despised in the society of his day -- tax collectors, prostitutes, thieves and all people who could be classified as riff raff."

Eppley described as "an unsavory character" the recently disgraced presidential adviser Dick Morris, forced to resign because of scandalous extra-marital activities. Now trying to save his marriage with the help of two therapists and a self-help group, Morris was quoted in a recent interview:

"It is too simple to say that it was a sexual addiction... saying I was sick like I had pneumonia or the mumps. It’s not that at all. I had, I have and hope to be getting over a fundamental flaw in my character, a fundamental weakness in my personality, a fundamental sin, if you will. I’m prone to being infatuated with power and believing that the rules don’t apply to me."

Said Eppley: "It could well be that Morris is still a con man and that his conversion is phony. But maybe it is real. If it is, then does he not qualify also as an Advent figure?"

Maybe we should use Advent "as a time to list all the Dick and Jane Morrises we know and start thinking about what they could become with God’s grace," Eppley said. And what we could become if we could echo Morris: "I have a fundamental flaw in my character, etc... the rules don’t apply to me."

All three of these Advent figures had awakenings, Eppley said, that can stir awakenings in us as well. "Cardinal Bernardin awakens us to the truth that death is a friend; Mrs. Tuttle to the truth that example is a powerful teacher; and Dick Morris to the fact that no one is beyond the reach of God’s imagination, despite the fact that God may be beyond the reach of ours."

The coda at the end of the epistle to the Romans, which is our second reading today, puts us in touch with the joyful insight of the early church, in light of the resurrection, that everything promised by God in the Hebrew Scriptures has found fulfillment in Jesus, although sometimes in unexpected ways. It is in this spirit that we ought to read in juxtaposition the passages from 2 Samuel and from Luke’s gospel which form the core of today’s liturgy of the word.

In the first reading we encounter King David enthroned in glory in Jerusalem, enjoying a time of peace and prosperity that would become legendary. He wants to build a house for God to live in, a wonderful house (or temple) of cedar which will give glory to God. But a contrary word comes to David through Nathan the prophet: God does not want a temple, a house of cedar. Rather, ever since the exile, God has been content to move about in a tent (i.e., the Ark of the Covenant, sign of God’s presence with God’s people). All this time, God has never been offended that no one built a glorious house in which God could reside. Then God utters a promise to David: "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom... and your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever." (2 Samuel 7:12-16)

Scripture scholars tell us that this passage comes from the Yahwist tradition which was staunchly against the creation of a kingship to govern Israel. The reasoning was that Yahweh alone was Israel’s sovereign; no earthly king could take Yahweh’s place. The building of a temple was equally abhorrent to this tradition: they saw that a temple would create a system of social stratification and political centralization which was contrary to God’s plan for Israel. We know, of course, that the Yahwist party did not win. Israel was established as a kingdom, and David was its greatest king. David’s son Solomon eventually built the "house of cedar" that was the glorious temple of Jerusalem, the traditions of which, in the name of "ritual purity," did exclude many, especially the lowly unacceptable ones relegated to society’s margins. Yet, in this same passage, God did promise David an enduring "house" and "kingdom" through his progeny. There is mystery here. The passage from Luke provides a starkly contrasting picture of what God’s house and David’s kingdom means to God.

One of the themes of Luke’s gospel is that God can create something out of nothing, that the most impossible situation can be full of possibility for those who have faith in God. This theme is introduced in the very beginning of the gospel, wherein the so-called infancy narratives set the stage for the momentous story Luke will recount in the pages that follow. The scene is set in Nazareth, of all places -- an obscure hick town which couldn’t be more different from David’s glorious city Jerusalem. (You might remember from John’s gospel Nathanael’s comment "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?") Furthermore, the message comes to a lowly maiden that God’s promise is about to be fulfilled. The one to be born of Mary will be called Israel’s "king" and would establish the "kingdom" promised so long ago by God to David. But how different would this kingdom be from what many expected! As Robert J. Karris states, "Mary of Nazareth is the model believer . . . who responds wholeheartedly to God’s plan and is the forerunner of Luke’s rogues’ gallery, i.e., women, sinners, little people whom no one would expect to respond favorably to God’s revelation" (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 681).

We know that women had no standing in society at the time the gospels were written; they were considered their father’s or husband’s property, but nonentities in themselves. How wonderful for God to reveal otherwise! What wisdom is uncovered for us here! God reveals the fulfillment of the promise to Mary, lowly woman of obscure Nazareth, not to the king or to the priests ensconced in the holy temple at Jerusalem! It is no wonder that many found it difficult to accept Jesus. He did not come from the city one would have expected, nor was he born of royalty, nor was he interested in being glorified and served.

Furthermore, as Luke’s gospel will amply illustrate, in advancing his kingdom Jesus gathers around himself the last and the least, those one would least expect: the poor, the sick, sinners, tax collectors, fishermen, shepherds, and (perhaps most astonishing of all) women, many women of every social class, not excluding prostitutes. If anyone is tempted to believe that Christianity is so thoroughly patriarchal as to be beyond redemption, these stories demonstrate otherwise. In a real and literal way unable to be duplicated by any man, Mary’s womb becomes the "house of God" promised to David, and, through her faithful response to God, all of us make up God’s body, God’s new kingdom, in whom God is pleased to dwell.

This year as we approach Christmas, we might ask ourselves the following questions: Where do I look for Christ, David’s royal son, Mary’s child? Could it be that I am looking in the wrong places? Am I open to finding Christ in the places I least expect, among the poor and lowly, and especially in those against whom I hold some prejudice in my heart? And what about the house of my own heart? Is it a place where Christ would want to dwell? If I can entertain these questions sincerely, I have truly heard the message of today’s word.

A friend and I were discussing chivalry briefly at today’s Mass. He had scrunched over to allow me to sit in the pew next to him, and subsequently we again scrunched over to allow a woman to sit. She was hesitant at first, probably pondering whether or not to take the seat. It turned out that a young woman was with her, and maybe that played into her decision.

She finally sat, and her friend (or daughter or whatever) stayed in the aisle. I offered the other my seat, which she declined.

While I have circulatory problems in my lower legs, I don’t have to sit -- I wear special shoes and socks that help alleviate the pain immensely. I offered the seat out of chivalry -- not in the sexist (or chauvinistic) sense, but in a more catholic sense. Here was someone attending Mass with another person, and we allowed one to sit -- should I not extend that favor to the other? I felt it only appropriate.

This, as my father would say, was chivalry in the catholic sense. My father, while certainly not perfect, brought me up to be respectful and thoughtful towards others, and this was the "chivalrous" thing to do. It meant opening doors for others, giving your seat during Mass for another, allowing another to enter your lane in front of you, and so on.

Later, I learned that it could help foster peace and goodwill, kind of like paying the toll for the guy behind you on the turnpike. Given freely, it’s quick, anonymous, and kind. It is an attitude in the true Christmas spirit.

And during Mass today, I heard Isaiah’s words, "Make straight the path of the Lord." (Luke 1:46-50). How do we know that the anonymous person behind us at the doorway, or the person in the aisle during Mass is not the Lord? ("When I was naked, you clothed me, when I was hungry you gave me to eat...")

It is a small thing, a very small thing, yet how many reject the same offer because we think that the offer comes from a chauvinistic stance? Or do we reject it from our own lack of self-esteem? Either way, we do ourselves and others a disservice! We deny the Christmas in our faith by denying this kindness to ourselves and others by trying to determine the donor’s motives!

I hold the door. I allow the car to pass. I give up the seat. I don’t care about gender. I will allow a man or woman to hold the door for me. They can give me their seat. They can allow me to pass. I enjoy the switch in gender roles here, too. It’s flattering, really. It’s also quite liberating.

Why? I don’t care about their motives as much as I used to, and when I extend a courtesy, I am doing just that -- extending a courtesy. Nothing more. I am more interested in peace than sexism or chauvinism. It’s one way that I work for peace. The notion that I do it more for women at Mass has more to do with the geography of families at Mass: the families with small children have recently migrated from "suicide row" (the cross aisle in the middle of the church), to the front (in front of the choir).

Yet, I have encountered some women who reject the courtesy because it is "sexist."

To this I say: Get a life! Am I negating the issue of sexism? No! How can we, as a Christmas people, help foster peace and goodwill while we are, as they say in 12-step programs, doing the others’ inventory? We can’t! We get nowhere when we hold others at a distance for our own perceived emotional protection. If we live with our heart on our sleeves, we will get hurt -- because we will hurt ourselves!

So when a seat is offered to you, take it. When you have a seat, give it. Either way, it is the acceptance of chivalry in the catholic (and Catholic), sense. It can, and will, lead to a more harmonious world.

My friend and my father were right -- chivalry is not dead. It’s just misunderstood.

I would like to comment on the subject of St. Malachi committees and the important interactions between groups and church. The Church preaches the Word of God but only people can make it happen. Working on committees in the service of the church is one important way of helping to create a friendly, less hostile, spiritual society. Its immediate rewards are members more closely bound and familiar to each other as a community.

I’ve worked on many committees at St. Malachi and almost without exception there was often a shortage of participants. I know that churchgoers often believe that the Sunday contribution satisfies their responsibility as members, but what’s a church with money and not enough members to carry on its work?

There are real advantages to active participation besides feeling good about it. You get to know people and they become real for you rather than just faces or names on a roster. You’re more likely to get to know kindred people. Better still you may meet someone important to your life, as I did my wife.

What’s so remarkable is that the Malachi environment provides opportunities to start a committee addressing a relevant social and spiritual matter if there isn’t a existing committee to suit you.

We’ve met most of our "real" family friends at St. Malachi and now we dine, walk, travel, visit, camp and celebrate together. The nature of service is that when we serve others we serve ourselves and are rewarded for doing God’s work.

I close with a paraphrase from President Kennedy: Ask not what St . Malachi can do for you but ask what you can do for St. Malachi.

Evelyn Davis Haettenschwiller, a member of the Community of St. Malachi Choir, is a published composer of sacred music. She terms her compositions "music for prayer and worship from the riches of the Catholic tradition blended with the gifts of African-American faith and worship. The music has appeal for all people of faith who seek inspiration through music."

Evelyn and her musical accomplishments have been the subject of feature stories in The Plain Dealer and Catholic Universe Bulletin here, and in newspapers in Buffalo and Syracuse, where she once lived.

Evelyn has prepared a cassette tape of 15 of her songs. Titled, "Seek and You Shall Find," its cost is $10. For every cassette purchased through the Community of St. Malachi, St. Malachi Parish or Malachi Center, she will donate $4 to the St. Malachi Center Women’s Program.

To purchase the cassette tape, or manuscripts of the taped songs, see Evelyn at the coffee hours following our 11 a.m. Sunday Liturgies, or use the order form attached to this issue of Communio. Once again, there’s benefits to be had all ‘round.

Council met on Sunday Dec. 8, 1996.

MEMBERSHIP: Community membership has fluctuated. In 1994 there were 560 members; in 1995, 450; and currently there are 525 members. Rosters continue to be available at the Membership table at Coffee Hour. The next Welcome Series will begin in February, date, time and place to be announced.

SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT: The Advent Evening of Reflection, presented by George Eppley on Dec. 3 was well attended by over 80 people. A Day of Reflection for the Community is being considered, possibly during Lent.

FINANCE: Fr. Tony announced that the Diocese financial assessment of the Community will go down from 12% to 11.5%, presumably in January.

SOCIAL ACTION: The baskets of ornaments we see at the doors of Church, at the Christmas tree, and at Coffee Hour, represent the Malachi ministries. All Community members are encouraged to pick an ornament, and write on the back of it a commitment of any kind to that Ministry. They will be available though Epiphany. Council signed the Social Action Committee’s letter to the Ohio Department of Human Services regarding the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, to protest insufficient budgeted funds for child care for families living just above the poverty level.

COMMUNICATIONS: The Newsletter will resume its every-other-week publishing schedule Jan. 12, with a three-week break after Palm Sunday. Deadline for submitting items is the Sunday before publication.

PASTOR’S REPORT: The Diocese of Cleveland will celebrate its Sesquicentennial (150th Anniversary) from April 1997-April 1998. Fr. Tony proposes we develop a joint Community-Parish committee or task force to plan for St. Malachi’s celebration of the Sesquicentennial. Next year , June 29 will mark the 50th Anniversary of the dedication of the current church. Celebrating this anniversary would seem to be a natural focal point for our participation in the Diocesan sesquicentennial.

PRESIDENT’S REPORT: After approximately 18 months, the revised Policies and Procedures for the Community are complete. Many thanks to all who helped, especially Bob Simoneau, Gene Kramer, Bruce Wacker, Drew McAuliffe, Joe Mohar, Helen Kane, and Peter Toomey. Special thanks to Fr Tony and Kay Vine.

OTHER: Council continues to work on Goal Statements and Strategies for the Pastoral Plan for the Entire Community. Fr. Tony noted and commended the extraordinary efforts of Paul Kunkel and Kay Vine with their work on the Policies and Procedures. He noted this as an example of the "invisible" and "behind the scenes" work that goes on in any project or ongoing ministry.

The next Council Meeting is scheduled Jan. 19 at the Center. All interested 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.