Nothing too substantive to say in this editorial – except that change, though difficult, can be a good thing. The Communications Committee met recently to discuss what our true role is in the Community. What we all realized is that the Community is changing – as it always has. In order to meet the needs of the Community, our communications must continue to evolve and change as well. We don’t know yet what, if any, changes will take place. All we know is that if we continue doing things as usual, we’ll get passed up. Or, in someone else’s words, “lose our edge”.

In the meantime, my goal is to continue the mission of this publication and to promote diverse viewpoints within the Community. I want to continue to ask each of you to think about what this Community means to you, and, if willing, to express it in this publication. What I have learned over the past few years is that there are far too many Community members with exciting and wonderful ideas about who we are and what we are striving to become who are not sharing their ideas with the Community at large. To those people I say, “Bring it on.” You won’t regret it. To those who have – “Thank you, and keep it coming.”

Why is this important? Communication is the key to success for any relationship – husband/wife, parent/child, company/employee, and even the relationship we have with each other in this Community. The more we communicate and create a dialogue with each other, the more we can begin to see what Jesus has in store for us as a Church, as a Community of believers – and the more we can begin to see Jesus in each other. The people who write for this publication do so because they care about the welfare of the Community, and thus, each individual member’s journey with Christ.

I’ve now been a Community member for five years. What a wonderful experience it has been. I’m looking forward to what lies ahead for us – what God has planned for us. I know we will be open to that plan.

Thanks to Gene Kramer, Ellen McIntyre, Bill Johansen, John Lucic, Mary Englert, and Mary M. Murray for contributing this issue. The next Communio will be Sept. 28th, with a deadline of Sept. 14th.

(Joe chairs the Communications Committee and is currently serving as editor of Communio.)

********

We call ourselves Catholics. At Mass we recite the Nicene Creed and profess our faith and belief in the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.” Many of us grew up learning and memorizing the Baltimore Catechism, which was supposed to contain all that we needed to know and to believe, and instruction on everything that we needed to do and to avoid doing in order to be a “practicing Catholic” – and to be assured of eternal salvation.

Today there is a new official catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, but it seems that only a tiny fraction of people who profess to be Catholics have even seen, let alone read, that document. The official teaching of the Catholic Church is still that missing Mass on Sunday without “sufficient cause” is a serious sin, but only about thirty-two percent of professed Catholics regularly attend Mass each Sunday. Our current church facilities and personnel could not accommodate the huge influx of people that would result if Sunday Mass attendance were to return to the levels of a few decades ago.

In the United States Senate Judiciary Committee a battle is currently raging over the confirmation of the appointment of William Pryor, the Alabama Attorney General, and a professed Catholic, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. For the first time in anyone’s memory, a judicial nominee has been asked to reveal his religious denomination, and non-Catholic Republican senators are asserting that Democrats or the committee, several of whom are Catholics, of opposing the Pryor nomination because he is a “good Catholic” who professes and observes traditional church teachings on subjects such as abortion, homosexuality, and contraception.

On the other hand, Michael D. Schattman, a former Texas state judge whose nomination as a federal judge by President Clinton was blocked by Republicans, contends that his nomination was rejected because of his adherence to Catholic principles of social justice. Mr. Schattman, in a newspaper commentary, lists a long series of positions that he believes derives from church teachings beginning with the encyclical Rerum Novarum and that have matured under a succession of popes and the leadership of the U.C. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The label “cafeteria Catholic” was invented a few decades ago by traditionalists to identify those whom they regarded as not being true observers of all of the truths and commands of the Catholic Church. Many of those traditionalists, however, apparently reject many of the Church’s teachings on such matters as social justice issues, the death penalty and the morality of the invasion of Iraq.

Have we not, then, all become “cafeteria Catholics?” What does it mean to be a Catholic in today’s world? It seems to me that this would be an important and interesting topic for consideration and discussion by members of the Community of St. Malachi. Perhaps the Spiritual Development Committee would be willing to arrange a program that would provide opportunities for community members to do that.

While it is unlikely that such a program or programs would resolve the questions of what it means to be a Catholic in today’s world, I think that we could benefit from the opportunity to give thoughtful and shared consideration to one of the most important questions that all of us who call ourselves Catholics must face.

********

I felt very sad after reading Dan Alaimo’s article in the last issue of Communio. You will remember that he spoke about complaints regarding coverage of the Malachi Mart controversy, Fr. Tony’s thoughts about the movie reviews and the whole deal about the piece by Fred Leonard. What Dan had to say has continued to really bother me, not to mention the fact that all this has led to us losing the benefit of his continuing to work with Communio.

It sounds as though this whole situation was attempted to be handled in a meeting of the Communication Committee which was “closed?” Is this true?? If so, I believe our problems are bigger than we think. Secrecy and attempts to stop discussion may smooth over the surface but will never really solve anything.

Blaming Communio for the dissension surrounding the above issues reminds me of the attempts to blame the media for reporting on the sexual abuse scandal. How many of us believe that problem would have been addressed without media involvement? We cannot solve our problems by attempting to “shoot the messenger.” I don’t always agree with Dan but I do agree with his saying that getting our problems out in the open is the first step toward doing something about them.

Joe Pulizzi’s previous article and Bill Schubmehl’s in this last issue both addressed very pertinent concerns. Many think we need some balance between negative and positive views — how do we get there? Is there a mid-point between “print-it-all” and censorship? I don’t know. To me, the most valuable contribution of Communio has been to encourage the expression of various differing opinions. For that we owe Dan and those others he mentioned who initiated “page 2” a debt of gratitude. We need to be very careful to preserve this.

Obviously there are differing viewpoints on all of this. I believe that the only solution is a Community meeting to air out all of this and work toward reconciliation and healing. How can we, as Christians, be about anything else?

Sometime in late May/early June I attended my first Communications Committee meeting, chaired by Joe Pulizzi. I must say, it was a wonderful experience. For several months prior, I remember sharing with a couple of Community members some ideas, concerns, and thoughts regarding Communio. These were not only my thoughts, but those of others.

I remember hearing that meetings at St. Malachi’s are open to all, so I set out asking the proverbial question…when’s the next meeting? When asked if I could attend the next meeting to just listen in and possibly offer some thoughts, I was told “absolutely, we’d love to have you, all meetings are open.” I was further excited when I was welcomed by Joe Pulizzi for attending, thinking…wow, they really mean it. Imagine my surprise when I read Dan Alaimo’s article in June stating this was a closed meeting and by invitation only. I must say, I took away from this a totally different perspective.

There were at least three people attending who were not on the committee. We were respected and listened to along side the “veterans” in a very respectful and courteous manner. A variety of ideas were openly discussed and respectfully debated. In fact, I was so impressed with the meeting and committee’s “openness” that I decided to get involved and assist on the committee. How cool is that??? Just another person’s perspective…

********

A good friend who I don’t think has much use for religion showed up at St. Malachi’s for a First Communion mass a couple months ago. I was standing leaning against the side isle wall shifting my attention from the liturgy to the profile of his face as I tried to listen through his ears. I realized that the liturgy that has to do with the most important things in my life probably did little for him. The language during mass must seem so strange to those who did not grow up with it. I realized that it is not very evangelical in nature. It does not overtly try to win over the listener with the “Good News” that is so central to the Catholic Christian’s beliefs. It is a liturgy for the people who already have some of the beliefs. The language is pretty repetitive week after week. To me it is obviously a product of the work of committees of theologians who have made sure it reflects the theology of the Church. Personally, I have a soft spot for the attempts of human committees who labor over the near impossible task of making language as concise as possible. While this attempts to give theological correctness to what we say together at mass, it sometimes takes real effort to give our hearts to such language. The content can be so dense and have so many implications that it takes some real cognitive slight of hand to make it come alive. Furthermore, I think the language can sound like so much crap to a person who hasn’t lived with it for years and learned to love it.

What it all comes down to for me is wondering how to “evangelize” others with the language the Catholic Christian Church has given us (“Evangelize” sounds like such an obnoxious word but I can find no other – it is the one word I know that, as Ken Wilber says, speaks of the “profound moral obligation to shout from the heart — perhaps quietly and gently, with tears of reluctance; perhaps with fierce fire and angry wisdom; perhaps with slow and careful analysis; perhaps by unshakeable public example.”). How would I make Christian language seem like “Good News” to my good friend that I watched during mass? How do I make it “Good News” for my children? On one hand, of course, it has to do with matching up how we live our lives as guided by the language of the Church. In other words, do we “walk the talk?” On the other hand, we still have to deal with the limitations of language as we attempt to share the “Good News” with others. And how do you do that when the language might sound like nonsense to the people we love and care about?

In my opinion, the whole issue necessitates a peaceful coexistence between literal and symbolic interpretation of Christian language, because what the modern or postmodern mind cannot accept literally can often be accepted symbolically. When my kids were in early grade school they were given a nice learning tool called a “Venn Diagram.” It helped them classify things and ideas. A simple Venn Diagram produced by a second grader might look like this:

For a classification of Christian language I would make a Venn Diagram like this:

This puts the symbolic interpretation of Christian language on an equal ground with literal interpretation. While others might disagree, and still others might find it heretical, I see no other way of reconciling Christian language in the world as we know it. Furthermore, I would know of no other way to encourage the acceptance of Christian concepts and practice by my friend or by my teenage children.

Symbolic interpretation is pretty easy to buy when it comes to something like the Creation story in the book of Genesis in the Bible. There are a lot of people who don’t believe the world was created in six days, but see this as a symbolic story, which attempted to explain the truth of God as our Creator to a people from a certain point in history that did not have modern science as one of the privileged paths to the Divine. It is not so easy however for many people to approach concepts like the Resurrection using symbolic interpretation. Yet I think we are going to have to tolerate this kind of leap if we are going to try to “evangelize” the world my friend lives in and the world my children live in.

Entering into the Christian Faith seems to be mostly about being “here on earth:” “acting with justice, loving each other and walking humbly with God” (Micah 6:8). I think these are the easy concepts to sell during evangelization. What about something like the Resurrection though? The Resurrection seems to call to mind somewhere other than “here on earth,” because it approaches the great mystery of what happens after we die. Resurrection must seem too fantastic to many people. How would I approach this with my friend and with my kids? I might start by asking if there is “something more” on the other side of death? For me and perhaps for the newly evangelized the idea of an afterlife is probably more about “hope” than “faith.” In the Nicene Creed we recite, “we look for the resurrection of the dead.” I love that word “look.” It seems to speak more of hope than of faith. It is realistic.

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed” (John 20:29). Yet it is my opinion that “belief” can be in the realm of symbolism or literalism. In order to take the Resurrection literally, I would think that many people would need to have some type of supernatural experience. Some people report that they have literally seen Jesus since his death. The original disciples were purported to. Most of us have not literally seen Jesus. Because of this I am so grateful for the story of “doubting Thomas” (John 20:24-29). He was one of Jesus’ disciples. He doubted, but apparently stayed active with his community of believers anyway. I sometimes wish that in the end Thomas did not finally have the supernatural experience of having seen Jesus. He would have then seemed even more like us. Many of us will probably not have such a supernatural experience. Instead we are correctly taught to “see” Jesus in other people. This is a symbolic “seeing,” and to me this is very legitimate, very authentic, and reason enough for developing a faith life. In fact, the story of Jesus’ invitation to Thomas may itself be a symbolic challenge for us to “place our fingers in the wounds of Jesus” by compassionately and supportively entering into the suffering (wounds) of others or ourselves here on earth. This kind of symbolic interpretation may be essential in helping the rich and complicated stories and traditions passed down through generations of grandparents to come alive for people like my friend and for the people dearest to me, my children.

Whether you take a literal or symbolic approach, the afterlife is still filled with questions. What would we really want with an afterlife? What do the stories of Jesus tell us about the character of an afterlife? Whether they are literal or symbolic, I am moved by Jesus’ appearances to the disciples after his death. His appearances seem to reflect what many of us might want in an afterlife: to surprise friends with an unexpected visit (Matthew 28:9, John 20:19), to wish our friends peace (Luke 24:36, John 20:19 & 21), to prepare a meal for friends (John 21:9-12), to treat others as family (John 20:17), to have our presence encourage others to do great things (John 21:15-17, John 20:21-22, Matthew 28:17-20), and to make a memorable exit (Luke 24:30-31, Acts 1:9). It is remarkable that the character of Jesus’ afterlife appearances are more about being “here on earth.” Even the lyrics of some of our Catholic hymns express the Resurrection as more about being “here on earth:” “Not in some heaven, light years away, but here in this place the new light is shining, now is the Kingdom, now is the day” (Haugen). Such lyrics allude to what some people call “a Resurrection experience,” which is a phrase about symbolism if I ever saw one. If Jesus’ post-crucifixion appearances are what we might expect in an “afterlife,” be it literal or symbolic, I will give my heart to these stories as much as I have to any story I have ever been told, and I will continue to “‘look’ for the resurrection of the dead.”

In the end, whether one takes our Christian language literally or symbolically, the goal seems to be to produce different types of people who live life in much the same way; people who attempt to “act with justice, love one another and walk humbly with God.” To me that is some “Good News.”

********

There is one, you know. Several, in fact. Or maybe you don’t know. Just in case, here’s a reiteration of the differences between Communio and the CSM Newsletter. The newsletter is meant to be exactly that — A report of what is happening, or about to happen, in and around the Community of St. Malachi. When space and time permit, similar news of interest to our members about other parishes, ministries, neighborhood groups, diocesan organizations, and the like are also carried. The newsletter is published the second and fourth Sundays of each month. Communio, on the other hand, is published the fourth Sunday of every month (except July). As noted on its masthead, its function is “to strengthen our shared life in Christ through mutual participation and the free exchange of ideas.” Also noted in each issue is the fact that “All viewpoints of interest to our Community in the context of our journey of faith are welcome here. Viewpoints are those of the writers and not necessarily the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.” Deadline and other pertinent submission information are provided in all issues of both publications.

********

We’re lucky to have two good priests, but, like many of you, I have friends who’ve left the church or stopped attending because of the scandals. For those of us who hang on, I want to offer a suggestion: read Dante. And for those of you who tell me you don’t have time, I’ll offer some ideas about why you still might want to do so and how.

If not the greatest work of poetry and Catholic literature, The Divine Comedy offers us much. And let me get this out of the way first: it rips on Pope Boniface VIII — Dante was deeply concerned about the church politics of his day. Most great saints were reformers, so it might do you good to read about the indignation Dante had about how his church was being run.

How you might go about reading this: 15 minutes a day at most. You need an edition that has notes and you need to spend some of those 15 minutes reading the notes and vowing to yourself to stick with it even when the going gets rough. It will take you a couple years — but the soul only needs a few images or ideas a day to really grow in faith. The roughest it’s going to get is when Italians jump out of nowhere and talk about Italian politics of the 1300’s: now, really, when you consider that Dante wrote about the soul, the soul actually does care about what’s going on immediately around it, so humor Dante. Bear with it and stick it out.

For many of us Catholics 46 and younger, we didn’t get the same amount of religious teaching because of Vatican II, and Dante can help that. Further, Dante took his theology from Cistercian monasticism, which means he privileges contemplation. People today, as you can see from the books that sell on meditation and contemplation, deeply yearn for a spiritual connection and for a way of prayer that creates stillness within busy lives.

After all this, if I haven’t convinced you, let me at least give you some highlights that you might want to pursue. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t actively correct the wrongs within our church; what I am saying is that the images and ideas Dante offers us are in short supply today, and we need them.

I’m going to give you just a few. In the Paradisio, the angels spin the closer they get to God: this is their obedience — the closer one is to God, Dante is saying, the more readily we carry out His will. If you find in your daily life that you’re lazy, depressed, and tasks seem too heavy to carry out, think of that image. It might suggest that you need some contemplation time — time by water or even in a coffee shop — to pull your energy back together to be vital and active in carrying out God’s will.

In the Purgatorio, separate punishments are meted out to the various sins. The ambitious are fettered to the earth — handcuffed if you will — looking at the ground. Think about that the next time someone at work has you muttering. There is a place called ante-purgatory where the pre-occupied are — those who were so busy with their own lives that they never devoted themselves to God’s will. Black smoke blinds and chokes the angry, meaning that when we act out of anger, we frequently don’t know what we’re doing and act blindly.

It’s taken me a year to get through these two books; I’ve started on The Inferno, and the writing is even more elegant, but we all know what’s there. The Purgatorio and Paradisio give to the modern Catholic important theological messages that we haven’t heard in awhile. Probably the most compelling scene in the Purgatorio is Beatrice confronting Dante (and this echoes the beginning of The Inferno) that he pursued sin rather than love: and we find out that it is only because of the deep concern of Mary and her sending St. Lucia and Beatrice to help Dante that Dante even becomes aware of his own sinfulness and makes the decision, with the help of Virgil his guide, to climb out of hell, through purgatory, and into paradise. What a Catholic belief it is to know that it is the prayers of others and the help of others that foster the awareness of what we need to do to get straight with God. In every canto of The Purgatorio, the prayers of others are sought by the penitents. Probably what is most touching to me is that the love that Beatrice was asking for was grounded in her human person: it wasn’t only an abstract love she was talking about. This is what makes the poem so beautiful — it is always deeply grounded in individual human interactions.

Our souls need the rich poetry and images that Dante gives in this time when so much controversy and bad writing fills the airwaves and newspapers. Hold on 15 minutes a day with the great visionary, Dante. It will give your faith the needed lift during this time of crisis.

********

Many CSM members choose to receive the CSM Newsletter and Communio electronically, saving paper and easing administration. But currently, they don’t see the several items that are often ‘attached’ for distribution at the church’s doors. The Communications Committee would like to ensure that e-readers receive all the news.

Help Wanted: an ‘editor’ to receive ‘attachments’ and meld them into a ‘classified section’. We’d then append that to each e-issue of the CSM Newsletter and Communio.

The ever-helpful staff at the Rectory is willing to help channel data to you as items arrive. We need you!

For matters relating to the web site contact the: Web Weaver.
Copyright © 1999-2008 Community of Saint Malachi,   Last modified: April 13, 2008