COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – Bishop Michael Sheridan has apologized for remarks by his assistant that Roman Catholics shouldn’t attend Protestant worship services because they could "confuse" some Catholics.
Sheridan’s executive assistant, Peter Howard, also told The Gazette of Colorado Springs this week that Catholic participation in Protestant services denigrates the Catholic faith. He made similar comments in an Oct. 7 article in the diocesan newspaper.
In a letter regarding Howard’s comments to The Gazette, Sheridan said Howard is free to express his views but said he doesn’t agree with them.
"
Nevertheless, I am deeply sorry for any hurt or insult that has been experienced, and I humbly ask that all men and women of good will accept my apology," wrote Sheridan, who last year suggested that those who vote for Catholic politicians who contradict church positions should refrain from taking Communion.
Some of the diocese’s 130,000 Catholics attend both Protestant and Catholic services. New Life Church, a large church led by National Association of Evangelical president Ted Haggard, is believed to attract thousands of Catholics every weekend. Howard’s column in the diocesan newspaper, entitled "Why Not Attend New Life?" was meant to address that.
"
Such ‘active participation’ in a Protestant liturgical service, therefore, acts contrary to our faith which professes fundamentally different beliefs in critical ecclesiological and theological areas," Howard wrote.
The Rev. Karl Useldinger, diocesan chancellor and judicial vicar, said the Catholic church allows its adherents to participate in other Christian services as long as they don’t take part in another church’s sacraments and continue to attend Catholic Mass.
Michael Ciletti, deacon for St. Francis of Assisi Parish, said Howard was "dead wrong" in his column.
"
I think to have a column like that sends the wrong kind of message," he said. "I think it’s an insult."
Not an insult, but a statement of fact. While it is true canonically Catholic can attend Protestant services as long as they don’t participate in Communion, it is a matter of prudence of doing so and making sure that it does not pose a problem to their Catholic faith. Of course with their services also on Sunday they would have to make sure they also attend Mass. This might be necessary for those in a mixed marriage, but not really recommend for others. Mix one part poor catechesis and one part lively entertainment style Protestant worship services and you get an ex-Catholic. A recipe that has worked well for denominations that are often made up of a large part of ex-Catholics.
The About page for New Life Church shows a guitarist sitting down surrounded by guitar effects so I guess it means that they have "sound doctrine."
72 comments
When you cannot argue based on facts and logic, you can always reduce it to name calling. Remember, be careful what you say, for there are those out there who can take it as well as give it.
Timothy said: “Pay, pray and obey. Don’t think, don’t question, follow the rubrics, no matter how much damage they do to spiritual enlightenment…”
I am glad that you can repeat the mantra of those who are unwilling to accept the TRUTH. Not my TRUTH, not Bishop Sheridan’s TRUTH, but the TRUTH that is handed down from Christ, maintained by His Church, and protected by the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost if that makes you feel more comfortable). If you are not sure of what the TRUTH is, I can suggest that you start out by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church – it is the Big Green Book that you can find in any Catholic Book Store. While you are reading that, you can also read this other book called the bible. You may not want to spend too much time there since it was written before Vatican II and may no longer be valid.
Timothy said: �No matter how hard Sheridan and Howard try to bring back the Church of their childhoods, they know that they are mostly alone in their extremism.�
This needs to be addressed from two different angles. The first is the Church of Mr. Howard�s childhood is the Church that you are trying to keep around. It is run by Fr. McCool and Sister Mary Golden Hair Surprise. Mr. Howard was born AFTER Vatican II.
The other angle is the whole thought of extremism. If holding on to the Truth and keeping it from being corrupted by those who feel threatened by it is your definition of extremism then there are lot more of us out here then you realize. What I find hard to fathom is when someone comes to me and tells me that my belief system is outdated, archaic, and out of touch with reality, and I defend it, I am the extremist. Why do you want to usurp my faith? If you don�t/can�t/won�t believe what the Church teaches (those teachings can be found in the two books referenced above plus Tradition � the one with the Capital �T�) today/yesterday/and for all eternity, then why don�t you start your own religion. One that you can structure to conform to your own set of values. Don�t try to change mine. Besides, I understand the tax benefits are pretty good.
As far as the whole issue with Bishop Sheridan�s Pastoral Letter (that is the technical term for �Sheridan�s call last year�) and the fact that �not one other U.S. Bishop supported� him, I think you need to go back, redo your homework and try again. This time, use sources that resemble the truth. Bishop Sheridan was supported by many Bishops � you can see their comments here: http://priestsforlife.org/elections/bishops.htm
One final thought � I am not asking you to abandon your church. I am asking you to understand the teachings of your church. I am willing to point you to quality sources that will help you understand those teachings (again, see above). I am asking you to go through an honest examination of conscience (that is one of those things that Bishop Sheridan wrote about in his Pastoral Letter) and find those areas of Church teaching that you disagree with and then understand why you do not agree. The Catholic Church has been teaching the truth for the past 2,000 years. They have a pretty good handle on it. If we all can take the time to understand it, not put our own interests in front of it, and work to incorporate it into our lives, issues like we are talking about become a moot point.
PS � I intentionally did not respond to anything written regarding the resignation of the Canon Lawyer. I know him and it would be inappropriate to comment.
This site appears to allow anonymous posting for a reason and we all take advantage of it. The identity of my information sources is not at issue, though their accuracy might be. We’ll just have to have patience and see. And since I have never been a party to any “confidentiality agreement” I doubt I’ll need a lawyer.
Faith in the God revealed by Jesus Christ is not for the faint of heart. It requires willingness to accept the truth no matter what, even when it is difficult, even if others you respect don’t accept it, even when the progress of world knowledge forces you to change your mind about what you thought was true. Place your trust in human beings and you will eventually be disappointed, every time.
One does not need Dan Brown, or New Age philosophy or MTV (MTV?) to learn the difference between faith and superstition. It takes only courage and an open mind.
It takes courage, for example, to learn from archeologists that the village of Nazareth did not exist until after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and still hold fast to the spiritual truth of the Gospel message, even if it no longer offers biographical truth.
It takes courage to remain faithful to a Church with leaders that could receive evidence that the sun moves around the Earth and require people to continue to believe the opposite. The moral act when faced with such hubris is to speak out against error, not to accept it.
It takes no courage at all to say, “Whatever the men of power say is fine with me. I don’t need to think, I just need to have someone tell me what to think.”
It takes no courage at all to learn new facts and then hide behind saying, “I find it very hard to believe that…” Our Church has done terrible things over the years. Accepting undeniable truth is about knowledge, not about belief.
Being a faithful Catholic does not mean turning off your mind. After all, are we called to faithful to the truth or to elderly celibate men with a vested interest in preserving the status quo?
Timothy, I would like to thank you for having the courage to contribute to this blog. Even though I disagree with some of the things you are saying, as my faith has brought me to different conclusions, I still think it takes a lot of guts to come onto a very conservative website and blog and share your “not so conservative” thoughts. I consider myself what you would call a conservative Catholic, although I prefer the term orthodox. I happen to love Latin, incense, and many other beautiful traditions that we have in our most beautiful Faith… our traditions are some of what makes our faith so rich. I love JPII, the Theology of the Body, the Communion of Saints, the Most Holy Eucharist, obedience to the Magisterium… the list goes on. But there is something that disheartens me about some of my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters, orthodox or not… and that is when we start to become so “proud” in our gift of Faith that we start to only see the Catholic bubble we live in and forget that Jesus died for ALL… liberals, conservatives, protestants, and even people who play guitars at Mass. Perhaps there is an ideal for how the Mass should be celebrated. But, like the “eye” on Lord of the Rings, we are focusing so much on what is wrong with the Church (liberals and conservatives are both guilty of this) that we are missing the big picture. While we are talking about Catholics attending Protestant services and why there should be only Latin, or why there should be more women leadership in the Church, the devil is laughing all the way to the abortion clinic. We are missing the big picture! I believe that if we Catholics, without watering down our beautiful Faith, COULD unify on issues we agree on (Christ’s divinity?!) with fellow Catholics, and yes, even protestants, could you imagine the changes that would take place in our country? I DO pray for true ecumenism… I believe our lack of unity (and our bickering over tiny differences not based in the absolute Truths) is our greatest brokenness as a Church. So thank you, Timothy, for challenging us “conservatives” to look outside our bubble. Perhaps we can all stand to grow in our faith and remember that the greatest of all virtues is charity.
There is nothing wrong in attending most protestants services if one’s Catholicism is founded the on the solid rock of Peter. As a college student I have attened protestant services on a somewhat regular basis (though not every week) due to different ecumenical groups and campus events and so as to get others to attend mass with me. But i have also seen that such attendance without proper formation(especially on the part of certain priests about true ecumenicalism) can have disasters consequences.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but my experiences attending non-Catholic churches/services ended up being one of the reasons why I finally (thanks be to God) made it back to the True Church. Regardless of the service, I could not shake the feeling that something critical was missing. (Gee, could it be, oh, I don’t know, the Eucharist?) Well, come to find out that yes, indeed, the Blessed Sacrament was what was missing. And that big hole simply could not be filled by even the most eloquent of preachers, the most Christian of churchgoers, the most talented choir or the most impressive building.
An Anglican-Catholic agreement on intercommunion would certainly do wonders to make _my_ life a bit easier these days. But I can’t see why catholic chrisitians, be they Anglo, Roman, or Eastern Catholic, would be all that attracted to the typical evangelical service. Sure, the preaching is likely to be better, _on average_, than what you find in most Catholic or (for sure) Episcopal homilies, but it is also a lot longer. But what about the liturgy itself? How can a few praise and worship tunes beat, say, the liturgy of John Chrysostom?
When my daughter started college, she and her friends were looking for a church they could attend together. For a while, she went to Oak Hills Church, pastored by Max Lucado – an excellent and well-known preacher. But she only went a few weeks. In her own words, “A sermon, saltines and grape juice just weren’t doing it for me.” In other words, she worshipped through the liturgy, and was nourished by the Body and Blood. A good guitar riff is no substitute.
I have to agree with the jester….in most cases, these days, it’s probably not a good idea for a Catholic to attend a protestant service. With our world’s focus on entertainment, those lively protestant services, though short on doctrine and truth, lure in quite a few people. On the fringe, of course, you will find some Catholics whose faith is strengthened by attending a protestant service, but all in all it’s probably more prudent just to stay away….especially for those who have little, poor or no catechesis. Howard was not dead wrong, despite what the one priest said…..Howard was simply not being politically correct and got his hand slapped by a weak bishop.
My child’s Catholic religious teacher one day encouraged (w/emphasis) the students to attend other churches, The teacher seemed to push the U.U. church … emphasis that a local one had “great ice cream” socials. I asked my child if the teacher reminded the class of their “Sunday” obligation or “emphasized” that some of churches had “ice cream” socials & bake sales too … AND, wait …. WE have the EUCHARIST …. “sigh” …. the answer back was “no”.
I have no problem w/visit other religious faith services, but into days “uneducated” world, I think it has added to a religous tower of babel …
In teh South, Catholics have come to think that we are just one of many equal forms of worship. I blema the poor catechesis that took place after VCII well into the early 80’s. Most parents are thanking me for teaching them the Truths of the Faith in catechesis I provide as part of their children’s preparation for Sacrmaental celebrations. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard, “Nobody taught us that” and “We never heard that in our Catholic school.” Things like the one hour fast before receiving Communion, the Lord’s desire that we make visits to His presence outside of Mass time, that if one misses Sunday Mass through one’s own fault that one cannot return to Communion until reconciling through the Sacrament of Penance. Slowly, it will come around. Focus on the children and the parents will follow.
I agree that the problem is lack of catechisis; I have met RCIA graduates who had never heard the Sunday Mass is required (“I never said I’d do that!) Ecumenism does not mean that all denomiations are the same and attending any church is ok. Cathechists, priests, and parents must stress that the Eucharist is real in our religion, and, despite guitars, jolly worship services, and socializing can never take the place of the Mass. Being “ecumenical” never meant that we ignore our differences and become a big blob of “togetherness.”
Sorry…this is one of my pet peeves.
Whoops….a little editing next time…
My parish in 1987 let the protestant preacher and worship band into the parish’s gym on Friday nights, under the guise of ecumenism and charismatic renewal. Thus began my 12 year journey in the wilderness of Assembly of God – thank You Jesus I returned to His church 5 years ago. Poorly formed Catholics shoudl stay away.
I occasionally pop into Aog to spy – looking for Catholics I recognize, so I can follow up with them later.
Unfortunatly this is more Vatican II ecumania, where all faiths have something good to offer, and “subsists” was substituted for “is” the One true church of Christ. A bad tree can only bring forth bad fruits, and when you have Popes after Vatican II kissing Korans and B16 telling the world that his primary focus of his papacy will be to continue JPII’s Ecumania, one can only laugh, shake your head, and run to the nearest traditional church where “Catholicism” still is taught (Baltimore Catechism and not JPII’s of ’83), where real canon law is upheld and not JPII’s 60,000 annulments a year, where the real sacraments are administered and not Paul VI’s protestantized verzions with improper form and matter, and the Bible is from St Jerome as translated and not the New American Bible as translated 4 times by various Politically Correct liberal and protestant scholars, and the mass is as handed down from St Justin in the 2nd century and ending with St Gregory in the 7th and not Annibale Bugnini, a known Mason exiled to Iran after Vatican II. St Pope Pius X please pray for our church
Perhaps the uninstructed could be encouraged to attend Protestant services for two good reasons.It would relieve the Priest shortage and when these people weary of the shallowness and doctrinal chaos they will inevitably experience they will return home stronger and fired up.I post this only partially tongue-in-cheek as this was my journey along with many others.Jeff Cavins comes to mind.
I would like to know what Bishop Sheridan does believe about this issue. If he doesn’t agree w/ Howard’s presentation, what does he belive? Perhpas it’s time for the Catholic Church to wake up and realize what has happened to our own Liturgy that so many people are looking for something else. What has happened to the sacred, to the mystery, to the beauty and richness of the Mass?? Howard is right…we have it all!!!
Jesus said, “Thou art Peter (the rock) and upon this rock,I will build my church. Why would one need to go anywhere else. Jack and Carol you are right and so is Howard,not politically,but truthfully. JMJ
I’ve never attended a non-Catholic service (where Catholics still outnumber Protestants in the Philippines), but if I were to, say attend a non-Catholic friend’s wedding, I’d be there to witness the vows and observe, but not actively participate. I’d stand and sit as appropriate, but I don’t know if I’ll ever need to kneel inside a church that does not have the True Presence.
After attending a Mass and receiving Christ in the Eucharist why would you go somewhere else? Family obligations not withstanding unless you truly know your faith you run the risk of intellectual dilution (Becoming confused at, not what we believe vs. what they believe, but confusing truth with untruth.)
I realize this is a blog for traditionalist Catholics but, as a member of the Church in Colorado Springs, I would like to offer some insights you might not hear on EWTN. Local Catholics are seeking out entertainment-oriented mega-church Protestant services in huge numbers not because such services are so good but because the Mass here is getting progressively worse.
Since his arrival in January of ’03, Bishop Michael Sheridan has gone well beyond the directives of the new GIRM in an effort to revert us to the Mass of his childhood memories, including its overemphasis on an unhealthy form of clericalism. He has directed priest presiders to avoid too much enthusiasm or drama in their voices when praying, not to sing any of the beautiful and respectful new settings of the Eucharistic prayer and to eliminate our custom of blessing children at the end of Mass. He has instructed musicians not to accompany the priest’s spoken prayer with even the most sacred and subtle instrumental underscoring.
He has told lay people not to talk to each other before Mass and not to join hands during the Lord’s Prayer. He has ignored the input of local parish musicians but thrown financial and political support behind a new, all-male Gregorian chant choir.
Yes, we have the Eucharist. Yes, we have the true presence. But we also have God-given hearts that long to be uplifted, toes that need to tap, ears that can tell the difference between sung prayer and musical mediocrity, and brains that do not long suffer unnecessary, forced boredom.
A Mass can be powerfully uplifting as well as licit. When a bishop muffles that power, he cannot be surprised that his people will seek it elsewhere.
“He has told lay people not to talk to each other before Mass” – Actually he has requested that people respect the sacred silence in the sanctuary. If they would like to talk before Mass, they can do that in the greeting space or outside. He just does not want it in the sanctuary…
“not to join hands during the Lord’s Prayer.” – Here he is simply asking that people follow what is in the GIRM. There are priests here in Colorado Springs that actually hold hands with the Deacons, the Choir, and the Altar Girls – in direct contradiction to the Rubrics and the GIRM. He just wants people to follow the rules.
“and brains that do not long suffer unnecessary, forced boredom.” The Mass is not about boredom. It is not about entertainment. It is not about “feelings”. If that is what you are looking for, please feel free to go to New Life or Woodman Valley. However, when you do, please have the intellectual honesty to quit calling yourself a Catholic.
“When a bishop muffles that power” – the Bishop is not trying to muffle power. He is trying to get that power back where it belongs – in his office. The priests here tend to think that they are part of a congregational or federational church where they get to decide all of the rules. They are supposed to be obedient to their bishop. Instead they use extortion tactics to get their way.
and finally
“Mass here is getting progressively worse” who are we to judge the mass.??!! It is defined by Christ, administered by the Church, and consecrated by the Priest. We are participants, not celebrants. Mass is supposed to be about Truth. It is supposed to be the source and the summit of the Catholic Faith. It is supposed to be about the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. What are you there for?
Now – I am very unnerved by the apology issued by Bishop Sheridan. I do not think that it was necessary. I think that he should have taken a tougher stand and come out in support of Peter Howard. Even with that, he is still my Bishop. I am still called to obedience. I just wish that everyone out there understood what that call actually means.
This kind of reply from Crash is what I expected. Pay, pray and obey. Don’t think, don’t question, follow the rubrics, no matter how much damage they do to spiritual enlightenment, accept whatever any and every bishop says as though you were a little child. Well, that kind of Catholic church is gone, thank God. We are not children, we are educated adults. No matter how hard Sheridan and Howard try to bring back the Church of their childhoods, they know that they are mostly alone in their extremism. Do you remember that not one other U.S. bishop supported Sheridan’s call last year to include voters with candidates in his call to refrain from communion if you planned to vote for Kerry? Not one! He is well-recognized by his brother bishops as an extreme right wing fanatic and, as such, is mostly irrelevant among them. The only sad thing about his public apology was the way it hung his Executive Assistant and close ally out to dry, saying he was “speaking as a Catholic layman” when he made the comments Sheridan had commissioned him to make.
And now, Sheridan’s Canon Lawyer has resigned, not just over this issue but as a last straw. After three years of having his expertise ignored, this intelligent, compassionate, educated politically and theologically moderate priest rightly got tired of seeing his reputation and his Church degraded by Sheridan’s backward thinking and thirst for power. What people here are praying for is that Sheridan will soon get the promotion he craves and move on.
As for your suggestion that I abandon my Church in the midst of this crisis, it would be wrong of me to walk away and simply stop calling myself Catholic just because a few other Catholics have rediscovered pre-Vatican II superstitions. Such people seek magic, not faith, and that heresy must be publicly named if it is to be healed. If it can be saved, this Church will be saved by those who remain and complain, not by those who give up on it and walk away.
I know Fr. Karl too and am very saddened that he was pushed beyond the breaking point. If I had to guess who is in the right in the private conversations between him and his bishop/employer, I would stand with Karl, just based on what I know of each man’s character.
Here’s the problem. The Catholic Church does, of course, own the truth. However, over the centuries, when faced with a choice between truth and power, the Church has most often chosen power and let the truth suffer. That is what Sheridan and Howard do (And, yes, I realize how young Howard is. I should have written that they are both trying to resurrect the Church of Sheridan’s childhood.). Their mission is to return priests to the pedestal for adoration and put lay people “in their place.” When architects and designers presented the newly appointed Bishop Sheridan with their plan for renovating the Cathedral, for example, his only comment was that they should double the size of the altar, saying, “This is the priest’s show.” That may or may not be heresy, but it certainly does indicate his bent toward clericalism.
But I digress. Back to truth vs. power. The list of examples is long so I’ll just remind you of the highlights.
–4th Century: burning the books of all versions of Christianity different from the version approved by Emperor Constantine; including the great library at Alexandria in order to remove from public memory the many dying/rising god-man myths of ancient cultures upon which the Jesus myth was based.
–Turning Mary Magdalene into a prostitute in order to suppress the important role women played in the pre-Constantine Church.
–Murdering thousands of Cathar men, women and children in Southern France in the 1st Crusade, just for believing differently.
–Burning Joan of Arc for political power reasons.
–Condemning Thomas Aquinas toward the end of his life when he began to see the light and recant his writings.
–Condemning Meister Eckhart a few years later for preaching in German instead of Latin so that the common people could understand him.
–Galileo
–Hans Kung
–Paul VI firing the first two committees of theologians studying artificial birth control after they each recommended approving the pill, then assigning a third committee who gave him the conclusion he wanted.
–Causing, or at least covering up, the murder of John Paul I the night before he was to go public with the Vatican bank scandal.
The full list would take days to compile but this gives you a brief reminder of the activities of the Church you would like to blindly follow no matter what it does. In all eras, it has been necessary for people of conscience and truth to stand up to men of power. This is sadly as true among men of religious power as it is of men of political power.
By the way, I read most of the statements at “priestsforlife.org” and none of them say what Sheridan said. None of them say, “if you vote for Kerry or any pro-choice candidate, don’t present yourself for communion.” He is the only one who went that far and he was soundly overruled when the bishops met in Denver. Remember that it was only after Cardinal Ratzinger’s memo was made public that Sheridan modified his position and introduced the notion of voting “in spite of” and not “because of” a candidate’s position on Roe v. Wade. Note that he has never been concerned about a candidate’s position on abortion, only on whether their selected way to end it is via overturning Roe.
I hope this helps you to see me as one who loves the Church but is disappointed by what it being done to it by men whose primary motivation is not to save but to control others. I repeat, most Colorado Springs Catholics pray that he soon gets the promotion he is bucking for. He would fit right in in Arlington, VA or Philadelphia, maybe even Lincoln, NE. Come to think of it, Crash, you would too.
P.S. (11/2/05): Peter Howard has just resigned as Executive Assistant to the Bishop of Colorado Springs.
Timothy – you may have just violated the confidentiality agreement between all parties concerned…
I would suggest you might consult with a good lawyer….
I think Timothy needs to get his references from a broader base than Da Vinci code. : p He would do well also to recall who it was who was called the Angel of Light. I suspect he is the one behind all this *enlightenment* referred to.
Its unfortunate your brain is ‘suffering’ as you say – and I won’t argue with you there – but please don’t drag the rest of us down with you. We find it REALLY hard to believe that the Church had it wrong for 2000 yrs and is just now seeing the *light*.
As was requested of you earlier, please have the intellectual honesty to admit you don’t wish to remain Catholic in the truest sense of the word, nor do you wish the Church to remain so. As a result many of us here in the Springs, and likely elsewhere, struggle to find liturgy and catechesis for our children that is not riddled with New Age psuedo-theology, mtv theatrics, and pop-psychology.
You are free to believe whatever you wish. I take issue, however, when you attempt to pervert the historical teaching of the Church and slander those who hold to it. It is the highest form of intolerance to condemn those who seek a reverent contemplative form of worship as somehow less evolved.
Could you provide a reference for where you got your information about Peter Howard’s resignation? I just called the chancery’s office and they couldn’t confirm. So I am curious where you found this information if they haven’t as yet(11/3 noon) made it public knowledge. Thanks.
We absolutely have a ‘different definition of Faith’. Only one of us could define ours as lining up with Catholicism however.
You also seem to have significant confusion over infallibility and impeccability. No faithful Catholic suggests that various Catholic folks across the ages have done no wrong. The Church was not promised to be free from sinful members. It was created specifically for those sinful members. At the same time, it was also promised to be free from error in matters of faith and morals. That whole ‘gates of hell not prevailing’ thing. But I guess the bible probably falls under your ‘quaint but outdated’ umbrella. If so one has to wonder which ‘Gospel message’ you refer to? I know my bible warns me to reject the bearers of any other gospel.
You erroneously present a false dichotomy between loyalty to Truth and to the Church, which betrays your seriously flawed understanding of both. However in reading back through your previous notes I think it could all be summed up in the line about *the Jesus myth*. If you can’t accept the Divinity of the Lord then it would likely be an impossible leap to accept the Divine origins and protection of the Church.
Like I said, it’s unfortunate, but it’s your option. It is not your option however to attempt to change the Church to fit *your* version of truth. In this politically correct day I suspect it would be highly inappropriate to join any other ancient religious group, make all manner of condemnations against it, and atttempt to recreate it according to contemporary whims. What is that saying about the last acceptable form of discrimination…
This is not about my way or the highway. It IS about having a reasonable amount of agreement with the organization you intend to belong to. If one does not believe in the Virgin Birth at Nazereth, freedom from error in matters of faith and morals, or the Real Presence in the Eucharist then please *enlighten* me. What could possibly be the purpose for belonging to the Catholic Church? Is it some misguided call to reform us for our own good? Or is it something more sinister?
As to the confidentiality issue – it’s common knowledge one does not leak private legal information before the parties involved have resolved their negotiations. It leads people to suspect you are either not very concerned with the accuracy of your sources or that you (or your source) are attempting to undermine the process. Which would that be?
Dear Pope Timothy,
I didn’t know there was a male Gregorian Chant choir in the diocese. I am really interested!! Could you tell me where one can go to hear it?
I also find it interesting that this choir is being financially supported by the bishop. One volunteer choir that sings Gregorian chant and classical polyphony is not tied in any way to the diocese. Two others that sing in their parishes are all volunteer as well. If you could let me know what chant choir it is that is being paid, I would like to join. I could use the extra money.
Finally, by some of the remarks you have presented so far, you are not only beyond the fold of Catholic theology, your extreme perspectives exceed the norms of all but the most radical Christian teaching. I certainly hope you aren’t instructing others in the Faith in this diocese.
Guido, while name-calling is fun, I don’t want to join you there just yet. Let’s stick to the realm of ideas.
KF, “common knowledge” perhaps but still not a good reason for me to hire an attorney, especially after my sources turn out to be correct, albeit premature.
Look, I’m perfectly happy to turn this discussion back over to those who prefer not to question Catholic teachings. I have no ax to grind other than to shine some light on our bishop when he lets his conservative Republican philosophy get in the way of his theology or when he puts his foot in his mouth on national television. The beginning of the conversation about his apology is pretty well exhausted and he will have to live with the fallout of two errors, one was hiring Peter Howard in the first place, the second was hanging him out to dry via the apology. He lost his canon lawyer in the process and now thousands of annulment applications are going to be further delayed and thousands of couples harmed in one way or another.
As for the notion of infallibility, scriptural accuracy, and the real definition of myth, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. Perhaps you are right; perhaps I don’t belong in the Church of my childhood anymore. If I leave, however, it will be in pursuit of the truth, not of any kind of New Age fad or easier life path.
The fact is that historical and archeological research are getting better and more thorough. New documents are being discovered and unarguable facts are coming to light. Some of them are going to put the Church into a difficult position. The coming choice between Truth and Church is not at all a false dichotomy. It is already happening. Yes, I can accept the Divinity of the Lord, but I have to deal with conclusive evidence that there could not have been a “Jesus of Nazareth” if there was no Nazareth. You might deal with that by challenging the archeologists, I choose to deal with it by upgrading my understanding of what the Gospel writers were trying to say when they constructed the Jesus Myth. “Myth” doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist, it means the stories built up around him were designed to teach us about who God is and who we are, not to teach us accurate biographical facts about a particular 1st-Century Jew. Strip away all the biography, which has been proven to have been based on god/man myths of previous cultures, and you still have the Christian message. (Now, don’t waste time challenging me on the similarities between Jesus’ story and those of Dionysus, Mithra, Osiris and others even older. Read the early Church fathers, the orthodox ones such as Irenaeus. They wrote about the topic over and over again. It is well-known and no longer debated in scholarly circles.)
I can also accept the Divinity of the Lord while questioning why my Church attempted to erase all evidence of female leadership in the early days. That was a sin, it was dishonest, but does it make me doubt other basic Catholic theology? No, of course not. It just allows me to put my love of the Church in a new light, a light cast by new information. Sure, perhaps the information is unwelcome. But if it is undeniable, then I have to incorporate it into my belief system. AND SO DOES THE CHURCH. To deny historical facts behind a claim of guidance by the Holy Spirit does disservice to the Spirit and to the truth. We laugh today at the way the Church treated Galileo, and yet you seem to recommend that we repeat that silliness in our own generation. I choose otherwise, and I do so as a Catholic.
P.S. to KF:
Tell us more about the Virgin Birth at Nazareth. Was that in Matthew’s or Luke’s version?
Timothy,
I am a convert. I am curious. Why are you Catholic?
Timothy,
I am still interested in where you get your facts about this all-male paid chant choir.
Can you please tell us where this choir meets and who to contact about it?
Concerning the “real” Jesus, it is quite clear that you really have no interest in being Catholic. It seems that the most intellectually honest thing you could do is leave the Church to us stupid people who can’t deal with the “truth” and go find some belief system that fits your view of the universe.
We live in Colorado Springs… Timothy (or anyone), could you please tell us what IS going on in the diocese here? Instead of speculations and gossip, we’d like to know the situation so 1. We can pray about it, and 2. We can let our friends and family know the facts instead of what we all “think” (which is way more dangerous and harmful to not only the persons involved, but all of us as Catholics.) Also, where can we find info on the resignation of the canon lawyer and the bishop’s assistant? Already, info is spreading like wild fire… and we’d rather the info be truthful. Thank you all for your thoughts… this blog has been very helpful to us already in discerning where we fit in with this whole issue.
Timothy,
First of all, I still would like to know where this choir is that you referred to. I would like to hear them. If you are mistaken, then please let me know.
Secondly, a bishop in the mountain region (not our local ordinary) referred in public to his dissenting priests as his local popes. Most of them believe they possess a certain amount of infallibility that they would not credit THE pope with. I think you can honestly say you are a dissenting Catholic, am I right?
Also, there are presently over 30,000 protestant denominations and sects in the world. Quite a scandal! Most of the leaders of these Christian groups started with someone believing they possessed the infallibility of a pope.
Over and over again, I have heard protestant ministers state that one of the most important reasons they converted to Catholicism is that they could not reconcile the multitude of “truths” that they experienced in protestantism. If all “truths” are equal then there is no truth. If there is no truth, then we are just playing games. If you find your “truths” outside the Church then it is something you have to deal with.
In the Gospel of John Jesus uses the word truth over twenty times. It would seem to me that Jesus believes that there is A truth. He said that I am THE truth whereas Pilate asked in dismay, “what is truth.” So, Timothy, what is truth? I would recommend you read Veritatis Splendor. I found it very helpful in defining and focusing the concept very clearly.
The resignation of of Fr. Karl Useldinger from active ministry was in the Colorado Catholic Herald, pg. 2, under Clergy Appointments.
Thank you. Is there currently a court case (or potential one) going on with regard to all of these issues?
Difficult to answer many questions separately, but I’ll try.
I was born and raised Catholic. The Church is as much my tribe as it is my choice. Leaving is unthinkable. Remaining silent and watching it degenerate, however, is worse.
Shortly after Bishop Sheridan succeeded Bishop Hanifen, a Gregorian choir formed in the Black Forest area, centered in a schismatic, Tridentine Church there. Sheridan began to offer them a place at official diocesan events at the Cathedral until the Cathedral choir and other parish choirs strongly objected and he backed down. I did not mean to imply financial support when I used the word support. He clearly demonstrated his preference for performed over participatory music by making that move, even though he has since backed off.
I have attracted more of you to question my commitment to the truth and I am, frankly, baffled. To date, no one has responded to my Galileo references and I believe I know why. You can’t. There is nothing to say. In the early 17th Century, the Catholic Church insisted that its interpretation of Holy Scripture “proved” that the sun moves and the Earth stands still. When a scientist proved otherwise, the Church’s response was to silence him. Today, we think that is a minor historical aberration, but it is not. It is the way the Church continues to operate. If you all were around at the time of Galileo, would you have sided with him or with the Church? Until someone answers that question, there is no point in my trying to educate you further.
To Athanasius:
How could the Catholic Church believe in anything other than the real Jesus? How could there be a difference between what the Church knows to be true and what actually occurred in Palestine 2000 years ago? Catholics “know” for example that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke cannot be reconciled with each other, that one or the other has to be at least partially false. Yet, they do not disregard everything the Church stands for after learning that, they uplift their understanding of what Scriptures are, and what our Gospel writers were trying to say, that Jesus is unique in all the world, even if we don’t have any unique stories to tell about him that haven’t been told about previous religious leaders. When one learns how many previous leaders were said to have changed water into wine at a wedding feast, we don’t reject John’s Gospel, we uplift our understanding of what such stories mean at their deepest level. All that has happened to me as I have broadened my education is that my faith in Jesus no longer depends on the biographical accuracy of the Gospels. And, consequently, my faith is deeper, richer, closer to the truth, closer to the real Jesus, but certainly not further from the Church, not at all.
Lastly, to AAU:
The Diocese of Colorado Springs is still adjusting to a change in leadership that happened nearly three years ago. For 25 years, Bishop Richard Hanifen guided the local Church like a shephard. He was a political and theological moderate and had an amazing skill to bring disagreeing people together. He was a skilled teacher and the best homilest most people here have ever heard. He sang and played guitar with groups large and small, he skiied with close friends and parishioners he wanted to get to know, he made difficult decisions with grace and compassion. He cultivated friendships with a local Rabbi, with James Dobson, Rev. Ted Haggard and the mayor; in fact, they all met for breakfast once a month. If there was one negative thing said about him, it was that he rode the fence a lot and tried to please everyone.
When he retired, he was replaced by a different kind of bishop. Michael Sheridan replaced most of the women employed at high levels in the chancery and at parishes with men, he issued edicts to parishes rather than teachings, he generally demonstrated an attitude of clericalism. For example, at diocesan events, he sits on his throne, with mitre and staff, and people approach him to kiss his ring. Hanifen used to walk about with only his skull cap and shake people’s hands. Then, of course, Sheridan made a national name for himself last year by telling those who plan to vote for pro-choice candidates to voluntarily keep themselves from Communion. No other U.S. bishop extended that suggestion to voters, only to the candidates themselves.
The list goes on and on, including what he has done to gain total editorial control over the diocesan newspaper, statements he has made to put mere lay people back “in their place,” and laws and promises he has broken in his quest to rid the diocese of female leadership. But the point is that the diocese has taken a hard turn to the right. Some priests have left, others who are conservative enough have been recruited from other dioceses and from religious orders. And the bottom line is that some people love the change and others find it too much to take. So what you see represented here in this blog is a conversation that occurs every day in this diocese between Catholics who prefer the pre-Vatican II Church — who are happy to see it returning — and Catholics who define themselves as liberal or even moderate, who strongly disagree with what is going on. I hope that helps.
One last thing. Anyone who still needs the identity of my sources about the resignation of Peter Howard, send me an email with your name and address and I’ll mail the information to you.
Copernicus was saying the earth went around the sun long before Galileo and the Church didn’t persecute him. Maybe there was something more to the issue than just what Galileo was teaching?
Timothy, you did say “financial and political support” when referring to the chant choir originally. Are you now withdrawing that claim?
Since you obviously have no belief in any official Catholic theology, I’m not going to address your comments about the direction the Church is going.
You are like a broken compass – you keep saying a certain direction is North but don’t have any objective reference point to be making such a claim.
Timothy, I checked on this chant choir and cant find any proof that such a choir existed.
I was able to confirm that there is a Polyphonic/Chant choir that formed about the same time the new bishop arrived that has been singing at various churches throughout the diocese. It has sung at the cathedral, Corpus Christi, St. Gabriel’s, Our Lady of the Pines, Peterson Air Force Base and others.
It hasn’t had its activities curtailed and is in no way associated with Servants of the Holy Family in Black Forest; although the director does live out there.
http://www.sccantorum.com
Timothy,
Here is a link to the life of Galileo Galilei.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
Be careful when you say “the Church” has acted a certain way. “The Church” is the body of Christ. Do you mean that Christ condemned Galileo? If not, don’t say that “the Church” did, because it is the same thing. If you mean that certain people within the Church acted wrongly, say that. I will not argue with that possibility, since it is true that each one of us who calls himself Catholic is a sinner. Even popes can be wrong. But the Church is never wrong.
If a Presbiterian minister, or even a group of Presbyterian ministers, were to say that random killing in the streets is fine, would anyone say that the Presbyterian church says so? Of course not! So why is it standard to say that the Church did such and such, when whatever act it is supposed to have commited was either against its own teachings, or done without the authority of the Church (as in the case of Joan of Arc – who, in case you had not noticed, was declared a saint by THE CHURCH), or done by someone who called himself Catholic or not done at all?
You mention in your recent post “Catholics who prefer the pre-Vatican II Church” – what is it about following the Church’s CURRENT rules that is pre-VaticanII? Or do you not know that the rules haven’t actually changed? Did you not know that the the teaching of the Virgin Birth has been declared infallibly, and so Catholics are required to believe in it in order to be Catholic? You seem to imply that you do not. If I did not believe in the requirements a certain group had, why would I want to be a member?
Did you know that the plot to kill Pope John Paul I was actually part of the Godfather III movie and not fact? Or do you actually have proof of said plot?
Why should the Bishop of a diocese not have editorial control of his newspaper? If I had a newspaper dedicated to the teachings of the Church, why would I let someone (male or female) who opposed those teachings (i.e. the intrinsic evil of contraception, etc) have editorial control of it?
You seem to think that the Church is democratic in nature, and that morals are to be decided by the majority of its members. Even if that were true, how would you get the vote of the vast numbers of the Communion of Saints who are already in heaven? Why don’t they get a vote? Did you know that the Church has no authority to say that contraception is an acceptable act? No more than it has to say that the sun does not shine. Why be mad at Pope Paul VI for not declaring what he cannot? It would be like getting mad at your mother for not changing the way the tree in the back yard grew so that you could build a tree house.
I have another question for you. In your Nov. 4, 2:15 PM post you ask: If you had to choose between Church teaching and an oposite, undeniable fact, which would you choose? Please give me an example, because I cannot think of a single official Church teaching that can be proven false.
All –
If anyone actually gets the information from Timothy regarding his sources, please come back here and share!!!
Since he is unwilling to back up his claims in public to try and protect the reputation of his friends in the chancery while attacking the good name and reputation of those who he disagrees with, I think we should all stand up and share it!
God Bless
Here is another interesting article on Galileo & the Church authorities of his time:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html
I have another bone to pick with you, Timothy! 😉
In your Oct. 31, 4:19 PM post you said that we “traditionalists” “accept whatever any and every bishop says as though you were a little child.” What do you think this particular thread is about? Most of us who supposedly want the return of the days when everyone “payed, prayed & obeyed” are DISAGREEING with the bishop’s actions.
And WHERE in the world do you get your “facts” about what the Church has supposedly done over the centuries? I don’t find any evidence anywhere that St. Thomas Aquinas (declared a saint by THE CHURCH) was condemned by THE CHURCH near the end of his life, nor that he “saw the light” and recanted what he had written. Here is a good account of his life.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm
Where do you get the idea that the Church made Mary Magdalen (again, declared a SAINT by – you guessed it – THE CHURCH) a prostitute? She may or may not have been one – but what does that signify? She was one of the women who stood at the foot of the cross when most of the men were afraid to. She got to see Jesus resurrected before ANY of the men did. If the Church were trying to cover something up, why would it let these significant events slip through?
Hi again, Timothy,
I don’t know much about the history of Nazareth, but I have been unable to find any reference to what you said about the new archaeological evidence that Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus. Here’s what I did find:
http://www.nazareth2000.gov.il/
Do you have a reference I could look up? I am kind of a history buff, and this interests me.
Timothy,
Some of the things you have said seem to contradict the teachings of the magisterium and its authority. Possibly I have misunderstood you and maybe you just have doubts but do not reject church authority and church teaching. In any case, it must be very confusing to build your religion based on your personal constructs.
Even more disconcerting is that, by what you have said, you may have already slipped out of the church and you didn’t even know it. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines a heresy as, “the willful post-baptismal denial or doubt by a Catholic of any truth which must be believed as a matter of Divine Revelation and taught by the Catholic Faith (cf. Canon 751). Formal heresy involves deliberate resistance to the authority of God, Who communicates His Revelation through Scripture and Tradition to the Catholic Church. The penalty for heresy is automatic excommunication.”
Whether or not your beliefs are heretical is up to someone else to judge. Maybe you might want to seriously reflect on how what you espouse compares with what the church formally teaches. If you conclude that you no longer believe in many the tenents of the Catholic faith, you may want to seek a good spiritual advisor who might help you gain a better understanding of the truth of Catholicism. I detect you are experiencing a deep tension between your worldview and the authority of the church that must be very upsetting for you. Many converts to the church have arrived in the church through a serious, honest and open study of its precepts. Possibly this could help you too.
It is all quite sad, really.
AAU,
Thank you. It is a rare but blessed occasion when people who see things differently can speak to each other with respect and Christian love.
I’m outnumbered about 10 to 1 on this blog now and it isn’t all that much fun anymore. It’s not possible to respond to everyone in the time I have. Some of them resort to name-calling, others change what I say and then criticize me for it. Still others reject what I have learned from respected scholars because it conflicts with what they need to cling to. And yet, no one will answer my question about what they would do if faced with a choice between a newly discovered, undeniable fact and traditional Church teaching.
But it’s the ones who suggest that I am a liar or heretic and then invite me to leave my Church who bother me the most.
So thank you, AAU, whoever you are, for restoring my faith in the good-heartedness of conservative Catholics. May all of you be blessed with Jesus prayer, “May they all be one.”
Timothy,
Your last complaint was that no one had answered your Galileo theory. I did. I answered some of your other accusations against the Church as well. Now you complain that no one has answered your question about faith vs. fact.
I realize you must not have much time. You probably have a full-time job and don’t blog when you’re at work. That’s fine. But how can I answer your question if I cannot understand it? I cannot think of a single instance where a new fact would conflict with my faith.
You have not said anything about the accusations I answered. Does that mean you don’t know how to answer them, or that you haven’t had time to look at them? How can you come and make accusations against the Church and not expect those who believe in it to defend it?
I am sorry if you thought you were being picked on, but you have made some serious allegations. If I were to say something like “Your mother burned Joan of Arc at the stake to gain political power” would you not say something to me? You have said that to me! The Church is my Mother and yours, if you claim to be Catholic. She is the Bride of Christ and you are saying she is a prostitute of power and deceit. You must not believe that the Church is the body of Christ (and that means more than the people who sit in the congregation).
Timothy, part of true unity is a unity of belief. You can’t just agree to disagree and call yourselves united. It’s a lie.
To achieve true unity requires dialogue and debate. You have made accusations and most, if not all, have been responded to. If you aren’t willing to reply and answer the Church’s defenders, then you aren’t committed to true unity – only to divisive accusations and name calling.
I just wanted to let everyone know that I took Timothy up on his offer to mail out a list of his sources. I will let you know when I get them.