Someone on Facebook brought this web comic to my attention. It makes compelling reading for anyone who professes to be Christian:
I must confess that since becoming a priest, I’ve been constantly tempted to reduce my own preaching and teaching to moral therapeutic deism. On those occasions when I have preached about the demands God places on us, I’ve invariably received feedback — usually anonymous — which objects to me raising old fashioned and discredited teachings which Vatican II dispensed with. I wish I was making this up, but it’s surprisingly common.
Of course, there are many occasions when Christianity and MTD are not in conflict. One can, in good conscience, deliver a sound Christian homily which also conforms to the MTD new religion. Therein lies the danger, I think. I’m easily fooled into thinking these are the most attractive and effective means of fostering conversion in others. But who am I kidding? (Who is the devil kidding?) My own daily conversion relies on servings of meat as well as milk and honey, and I’m sure I’m not unique.
There’s a place for sweets, but on their own, they’re not a satisfying diet.
Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life is the unassailable Christmas movie classic. No other Christmas film comes close.
After a life of hard work and sacrifice, George Bailey is on the brink of financial ruin. On Christmas Eve, he resolves to kill himself, so God assigns Clarence, a second class angel, to intervene. Clarence “earns his wings” by dissuading George from suicide. He does this by showing George what the world would be like if George had never existed:
Everyone knows the plot, but I’m surprised how many people have never seen the film. It must be testament to the proliferation of parodies and cultural references, that so many know the story, but so few have watched it.
There are nearly as many interpretations of the movie as there are parodies. When it was released, the FBI considered it subversive propaganda; evidence of the Communist infiltration of Hollywood. Director Frank Capra claimed the very opposite: the film was intended to demonstrate not only “the individual’s belief in himself,” but also “combat a modern trend toward atheism.”
I’ve encountered similarly conflicting interpretations among friends I’ve watched it with. Is George Bailey best characterised by noble sacrifice and generosity, or by self-pity and complaint? Is he a saint, or a patsy? I think the complexity of Jimmy Stewart’s character is the movie’s saving grace, and a complement to the sometimes maudlin excesses of the screenplay.
My own opinion is this: George Bailey is a generous man who loves, but he’s also an angry man who hates. His defects are serious, and he sometimes permits those defects to define him. Despite that, he’s one of cinema’s most attractive characters — probably because we see in him our own selves.
It’s a Wonderful Life isn’t really a film about Christmas. It’s a film about George Bailey’s redemption in and through the cross. You could argue that it’s a better fit for Easter.
Nonetheless, if you haven’t seen it, you should watch it now. This Christmas if possible!
At last count, eighty per cent of weddings in Australia are now conducted by civil celebrants.
That’s bad, insofar as it reflects the triumph of secularism and the reduction of Christianity.
It’s also good, insofar as it demonstrates the demise of “cultural” church weddings. Getting married in a church is now something intentional. I find that the couples whom I prepare for marriage are sincerely open to theological and moral formation. It’s a great opportunity to evangelise.
Still, I’m weary of the growing numbers who look elsewhere for services traditionally ministered by the priest. It started with weddings and funerals. Is sacramental confession next?
Apparently so, by the looks of this sign outside a key cutters in Carlton!
While I share people’s criticisms of the TJH Council’s latest report, I’d caution against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Francis Sullivan is both knowledgeable and thoughtful. I encourage anyone who hasn’t heard him speak to remedy that. He most certainly merits benefit of the doubt.
Several days ago, I resolved to cite studies which demonstrate there is no causal link between celibacy and sexual abuse.
I’ve changed my mind. The John Jay Report, which is by no means definitive but certainly authoritative, is freely available online, and there is data cited there. The ensuing discussion has raised more interesting points, I think.
Archbishop Fisher, in his public response to last week’s headlines, reiterated the Church’s commitment to clerical celibacy, and commented on a more important cause and remedy:
The Church is now addressing the psycho-sexual development of its personnel directly and giving much more attention to healthy relationships.
But it is a comment which was made on this blog which has really demanded my attention, and provoked my thinking.
The real issue is not celibacy – it is the psychosexual formation provided to seminarians and priests (see the TJHC report, pg. 23). Theologically, celibacy is not a natural vocation – it is supernatural – and therefore requires concerted and consistent efforts to orient the person to the supernatural motivations for celibacy, and to help the person integrate these into their daily living. This requires the intentional development of a congruent culture within seminaries and groups of clergy.
Psychosexual formation cannot possibly be adequately achieved by irregular seminars presented in group settings, for example. Rather, it requires that each seminarian and priest have a personalised relationship with both a spiritual director and a qualified clinical psychologist. That only one seminary in Australia (to my knowledge – Good Shepherd, Sydney) has a clinical psychologist permanently on staff indicates that the majority of bishops still do not understand what is required for the adequate formation of seminarians and priests.
These are compelling points I think. I’d add a few more.
As a seminarian, I was accountable. I was expected to regularly consult a spiritual director. I met with seminary formators to discuss pastoral and academic performance. If I didn’t do this, my lapses were queried and addressed.
But the moment I left the seminary, all these requirements evaporated. I happen to belong to a priestly society which does keep me accountable. I meet with a mentor regularly. I’m expected to frequent sacramental confession and spiritual direction. I’m obliged to make myself available for regular ongoing formation.
I also happen to work with a parish priest who extols oversight and regular debriefing. When we lived in the same presbytery, we would share at least one meal every day. Now that I live an hour away, I meet him in a formal capacity fortnightly, but I’m also encouraged to call him as the need arises. He also schedules periodic reviews.
But all of this is accidental, in the sense that it is neither typical nor obligatory. Why not? The principals and teachers in our Catholic education system undergo regular reviews which facilitates best practice, professional development, and pastoral support.
I honestly can’t understand why priests aren’t subjected to something similar. Maybe there’s a fear that priesthood will be reduced to a professional class. Or maybe it related to the well-founded weariness at bureaucracy. (That’s another post!)
Nonetheless, priestly fidelity is hard work, and it can be emotionally desolate. It doesn’t have to be. It shouldn’t be. In my case it isn’t — thanks to God’s grace, to my fidelity to prayer, and to the care and oversight I receive from the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, and from my parish priest.
Should every seminarian and priest have a personalised relationship with a clinical psychologist? Should every priest receive professional oversight?
I haven’t formulated answers to these questions, but I certainly think they’re worth discussing. These are issues which I’d like to see on the table.