The friend too was ashamed and embarrassed, but immediately sought counseling. During the time that the counseling occurred my husband and I began an unexpected process. We had to determine for ourselves what our stance would be with our friend who committed this crime and what we would share with our other friends and family. We began discussing our Christian faith and how the ‘right’ thing to do was to stand by our friend and support the efforts being made to change and make amends. We knew that the ‘right’ thing to do was to put any judgments in God’s hands and trust that our friend would be forgiven. We knew that we had these feelings of anger and betrayal to deal with but that ultimately we needed to support our friend.

            Then during the course of the discussion one of the children began to cry, awakening us to a greater realization that not only were we making a decision for ourselves, based on our beliefs and faith, but a decision that impacted the raising of our children. They come first and our job as parents is to protect them. Does that mean that we do not interact with our friend anymore…to protect our boys? What then does that teach them about forgiveness and not judging people? We had to believe that our friend was truly sorry as they said and that they would continue to seek help. We had to show our children the beliefs that we would want them to carry later in life. To type this is so easy but to really act it is such a struggle. What is the “right” thing to do?

            Then there is the question of telling family and friends. Many would never find out simply because it occurred far away. But returning to the issue of children, most have small children and should have a right to know that a person at a family function has this history, don’t they? As a parent, I would want to know. Not only to educate and protect my children but to support my friend or family member. I have to hope that they will be able to do the same. Again, what is the ‘right’ thing to do?

            After much prayer, contemplation and seeking advice we are coming to a decision that we think is best for our family. To say it is the right decision may not apply to everyone, but it is the right decision for us. I mentioned that there were so many feelings that surrounded the discovery of this tragedy. After sharing this with all of our ‘family’ in the Community, I guess you can add vulnerable to that list. I hope it was the ‘right’ thing to do.

— Pam Pulizzi

* * * * * * * 

We Are The Church

            Congratulations to Joe Pulizzi on his provocative article in the last issue of Communio. As my wife, Janelle, pointed out:: he started on positive note – he continued on a positive note and he ended on a positive note.

            Some comments on diverse topics brought up in the last issue of Communio.

1.      The quarterly open forum is a wonderful idea. WE are the Church, not the bishop, not the pastor, not the CSM council. It’s us! Let’s take the leadership!

2.      Communio has and continues, in my mind, to serve a wonderful purpose. I do caution the editors to be very careful to continue to include diverse ideas – even unpopular ideas - even “Who cares?” ideas. Saving the environment was once a “Who cares?” idea. No longer.

            Communio has traditionally been a vehicle for members of the Community. I worry that stronger editorship may make it a vehicle for editors, not an open forum. There is currently a healthy and wide range of philosophical and religious opinion among the people who produce Communio. This is very good! If that diversity, in the future, is not there, will there then be a tendency to not publish some views considered by the editors to be irrelevant or too controversial? (The former editor/owner of our local town newspaper seemed to have a philosophy: “Either you agree with me or you are stupid.” One powerful tool he used on letters was “Name Withheld By Request.”)

3.      That is another policy change for Communio, one which Joe did not mention in his letter. It is the withholding of the contributor’s name. The content of “Name Withheld’s” letter, “Why Not Pray About It?” is so very constructive, so God centered, so selfless. I sure have no quarrel with the content. But I think that a terrible precedent of withholding the name of the contributor was set. If a constructive commentator has name withheld then why can’t someone else who wants to criticize, claim “name withheld” protection? If a person’s opinion is worthy of consideration, then it is worthy of the name. Editors, please close Pandora’s Box.

(Name withheld by request.)

            On second thought, I’ll sign it,

— Bill Schubmehl

* * * * * * * 

From The Back Of The Bus To The End Of The Line

            Several weeks ago I sat in the very back of the church for the 11 a.m. liturgy. Surrounding me were several prominent, formerly productive, now disaffected Community members. It made me wonder again about the personal respect we have for each other at St. Malachi.

            This is not a popular sentiment. People like to think that everything is rosy. Unhappily, it hasn’t been rosy for some time now, and little has been done to address or improve the situation.

            As of this issue, I am officially joining the ranks of those disaffected. To the applause of many – or so I understood from the comments at a recent committee meeting – this will be my last issue in which I have anything to do with Communio.

            It’s been more than 10 years now since I started Communio as a front-and-back “Page Two” attachment to the Newsletter – Feb. 21, 1993 to be exact (for some reason the Communio archives on the web site start with March 7, 1993). Shortly before we began, we held a planning meeting at my house. I remember the late Gen McCloskey and Bruce Wacker being there and their strong support for the project – both contributed articles to that first issue. I also recall Mary Englert and Paul Kunkel being there. But after that, my memory gets fuzzy. My apologies to those I forgot.

            Soon thereafter, Paul took over the Newsletter from Kevin Aylward, and contributed many articles to Page Two/Communio along the way. Later, Mary became editor of the Newsletter.

            Peter Toomey deserves special mention as someone who helped me guide “Page Two” from the simple newsletter attachment into the freestanding publication we now call Communio. In later years, Luis Gutierrez took over the essential copyediting and layout duties of Communio, gradually earning more and more responsibility for the content to the point where he was primarily responsible for it the last couple of years.

            But most of all, I need to credit Frank Schiros, for it was at his house, at his table, years before it first took shape, that the idea for such a publication was born. Whether it was his idea or mine, I don’t know, and it hardly matters. Frank has been with the project from its very beginning until very recently, when the removal of the Fred Leonard article from the web site led to his deciding not to write anymore. I could find no motivation to dissuade him. But Frank deserves much of the credit for what Communio was – I can recall the many issues when he was our only contributor. Frank was always there for us and for that I am very grateful.

            Much else has happened through the Communications Committee in the last 10 years and I’m proud to say I was always in the middle of it, prodding and nudging to get things like the web site and the prayer request e-mails implemented. The archives were always handled by Kay Vine.

            Why quit now?

            Working on Communio and other Committee efforts was never easy. I can’t say I did it in my free time, because I rarely had much free time. It was always found time, some might say God-given time, and the work frequently ran into the early morning hours. To keep that up requires a high enthusiasm level, and several things have sapped that enthusiasm to the point where it no longer exists.

            First came Father Tony’s ill-advised critique of the movie reviews a couple of years ago, which reflected very little understanding of what it took to put this volunteer publication out. One of my few regrets is that I did not fight other Committee members harder to talk to him about it and possibly revise it, which I wanted to do. We actually had a meeting where we discussed it, but the Committee sentiment was to run it as is and for me to write a rebuttal, and let the chips fall where they may. Since then, I’ve cut back on the time I spent working on Communio material, cut back on the computer-related articles I would write, and included most of what I had to say in “The Malachi File,” whether it was appropriate in the lead-off position or not.

            Then came the long siege over the Malachi Mart controversy. If anyone thinks I was happy to write and run the articles we did, they are wrong. But I was even less happy to see the lack of official attention to this, especially to the former volunteer members of the Mart advisory board.

            Recently came the decision to pull Fred Leonard’s article from the web site. I wrote about this at length a couple of months ago, so won’t go into it, except for two points I didn’t make then: if it had been left as it was, few people would have seen it on the web site and the controversy would have died out much more quickly; but instead, the result of the action has been more contentiousness and the disaffection of three formerly productive Community members. Worth the trade off? I don’t think so.

            The last straw was the recent Committee meeting mentioned above, which turned into something of a referendum on Communio, and specifically on my contributions to it. It was essentially a closed meeting – by invitation only – which is out of keeping with the traditions of the Community, especially when substantial matters are to be discussed. There were probably others who would have had something to say on the matter, pro or con, but didn’t have the chance. Although the published results of the meeting have been well received, in my view, they are basically invalid.

            During the meeting, I was told that many people had stopped reading Malachi File because it is so negative. If that is the case, it’s worth repeating the basic theme I’ve been sounding for a good six months: the Community needed to reach out to those who have been disaffected by recent events and find a way to reconcile. If people think that is too negative, then I’m glad to move on. But I will add a very negative postscript: it’s probably too late now.

            I’ll conclude with something I told that meeting. In a Community like St. Malachi’s, when you are reading or hearing things you disagree with or that upset you, that’s a healthy sign, because you know what the problems are and can do something about them. We’ve worked long and hard to get to the point where people felt free to express their opinions. The real trouble comes when things get quiet.

— Dan Alaimo

* * * * * * * 

Thank You

            In respect to Dan Alaimo’s wishes, I won’t go into much detail here – but wish to thank him for all the work he has put into this publication. I know for certain he has no idea how appreciated he truly is. His work has meant a lot to me personally, as well as to the Community of St. Malachi. We will find someone to be editor of Communio, but we will never find a replacement. Dan, thanks!

            Thanks to Pam Pulizzi, Bill Schubmehl, Mary S. Murray, and Dan Alaimo for contributing this issue. As is our usual process, we’ll be taking July off. So, the next Communio will be August 24th, with a deadline of August 10th.

— Joe Pulizzi

* * * * * * * 

A Final Note

* * * * * * *