Spokane7
35°
February 27, 2010 in Features
Catholic church in flux
More than the Roman Catholic Church was moved by that nontriumphalist renovation rendered nearly a half century ago.
Much good has evolved from that Second Vatican Council of shakers and movers. The gathering initiated a wondrous transition of the church. Its image as a block-solid monolith was transformed.
We were shown to be not so much an “it” as an “us.” Many got the heartening message: “We are the church!” For the wearied and jaded “hangers on,” it came as quite unexpected but truly joyous news.
Not all applauded. Though the ideas and interpretations advanced by the rare assembly were well-researched and a long time in incubation, they met with reserve and rejection stemming from those unprepared for the amazing outpouring.
It seemed a foolish debasement to some. It was even labeled a manifest threat by people who called themselves “traditionalists.”
Controversy erupted. Catholics took on strong and wrongly named sides, referring to themselves and each other as liberals and conservatives. All invoked precedent. Contentious exchanges continue unabated.
Vatican II invited us to see ourselves as “people of God.” Even so, given our nature and numbers, we must recognize that our church constitutes a polity that requires governance.
As members, we owe allegiance to our leadership. We are rightly expected to be supportive of the Pope and his retinue, but must also stand ready to rebut and refuse Caesarlike demands emanating from his echelons.
Writing as a long-lived, loyal layman, I’m quite aware of the traditions and justifications claimed by and for the institutional entity of our Christ-initiated, Spirit-guided faith community.
I truly treasure the church, its mission and its gifts. I try to recognize and accept the human element of the institution as a corollary consequence of our incarnational origin.
Whatever its cause or explanations, I don’t feel compelled to accept, let alone endorse, the all-or-nothing demands and compliance impositions set by various hyperprotective, organizational bureaucrats. Regardless of their sincerity of motive, these controllers can’t be allowed to triumph over anyone’s responsibly formed conscience.
Our institutional church has an established pattern of making gradualist responses to emerging needs. The resultant delays often engender needless frustrations. Our hierarchs too often appear as status-clinging denizens of an upper room.
So, is there a problem? More than one! Many are growing. Tensions abound.
We of the Spokane Diocese will soon be greatly affected by the word we’ll receive from a Vatican spokesman. We’ll be informed that empowered officials in Rome have secured needed papal approval of their choice for our next bishop.
Their man might prove to be compassionate, even holy. We hope for that. But recent appointments have hardly been stellar.
It’s not unlikely that we’ll be sent a “company man” who will focus on wielding power and control. Unfortunately, since the era of Pope John XXIII and Paul VI, we’ve felt little “bubbling up.”
Church life has sadly reverted to the enervating process of “trickling down.” The Vatican has in recent decades been dispatching reactive hierarchs to take charge of what it views as its recalcitrant wards.
The world’s too easily distracted media has heralded John Paul, the recent hard-charging Polish pontiff, for his zesty political undertakings. Most have overlooked that doubt-free dominator’s stifling of Vatican II.
Obstreperous Catholics such as myself who first witnessed and gloried in the overdue breakthrough of Vatican II have buoyantly called for the ordination of women as priests and bishops. We are ready for these changes and more.
Retrogressive repressions are now heavily burdening those of us who won’t give up the hope or the faith. We know our need to seek God’s forbearance and guidance in channeling our increasing impatience.
We’re called to act with love, yet we’re terribly tempted to be less than gentle in our remonstrations with the clerical keepers of the ecclesial club. We are wondering: “What would Jesus have us do?”
Thomas L. Westbrook, a still “practicing” Catholic, is a member of the Community of St. Ann in Spokane, a sanctuary parish.
Horoscope 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
kda on February 27 at 10:55 a.m.
Your rant is sadly predictable of a generation who tried to remake the Church in their own image. The future of the Church, namely the youth, are attracted to all that you dislike. I truly hope that the diocese of Spokane gets a “company man” because it really needs it. Their is no need for you to be impatient, you are waiting for something that will not happen. All that you desire can be found elsewhere, namely in the Episcopal Church. There your obstreperous nature will be at home. I would hope, however, that you would be converted so that you would think with the Church rather than setting yourself up as your own pope with your “responsibly formed conscience.” It will take a great deal of humility to recognize that where you are at odds with the Church your conscience is not responsibly formed but rather malformed and that your thinking is protestant and not Catholic.
grammabear on February 27 at 1:12 p.m.
It was refreshing to hear the thoughts of a true Christian who looks to the man Jesus for guidance.
shadow_man on March 01 at 8:29 a.m.
Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.
http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/
Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.
This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God’s will.
shadow_man on March 01 at 8:30 a.m.
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a “lifestyle”, that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
“It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”
shadow_man on March 01 at 8:30 a.m.
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.