The Catholic take on Halloween

I am so proud of those Franciscans! Now they're making web buttons.





I learned that the custom of trick-or-treating started with American Irish Catholics. Booya!

Come to think of it, I saw a Franciscan out at a bar this weekend. He was hanging out with Charlie Chaplin and Mr. Incredible.

Happy Halloween!

Cardinal George: God is a Sox fan

"Obviously, it's God's will that the Sox win," Chicago's archbishop said earlier this week, according to the Tribune. "But God's will can be thwarted by human freedom." Knock, knock, knockin' on heaven's door . . .

Buchanan backs away from Bush and Iraq

Goodness. Even conservative opinion-maker Pat Buchanan (not to be confused with would-be international terrorist and diet shake purveyor Rev. Pat Robertson) has been moved this week to weigh the human cost of the Iraq war against the likelihood of its good outcome (Two Thousand Dead, And For What?.) And somewhere in Chappaqua, Hillary smiled at Bill for absolutely no reason at all . . .

Rosa Parks, the World Series, and justice

When Rosa Parks was a young woman, lynching was still practiced as a public diversion in Texas. Today during Game Three, 40,000 Texans, including Barbara Bush, bared their heads in her memory. (If Mrs. Bush is sure that Rosa Parks is better off where she is, and wants to stay there, the former First Lady might be keeping her mouth shut about it this time, but she’d be in good company.) The little American-heroes chapter book that taught me about Rosa Parks painted her as a merely coincidental witness, a popular myth, apparently. What I didn’t know until today is that Rosa Parks was already deep in the struggle for civil rights when she sat down and refused to get up. According to the Chicago Tribune, Mrs. Parks’ NAACP chapter had already been planning a lawsuit around a similar story, but the push fizzled when it turned out the central figure, a teenage girl, was pregnant (a multilayered case study for a moral theologian or an activism theorist.) When the bus driver approached her threatening arrest, Mrs. Parks said an informed “yes” to her moment of witness.

While I’m sitting here with my blue corn chips and my premixed cosmo (because this is how we rock the Series chez Theologienne), my roommate, also a divinity student, comes out with a sermon she’s writing for her preaching class. Now preaching is one of those skills about which well-meaning folks ask you, when you’re female, Catholic, and a divinity student, “What are you going to do with that?” Catholic women do preach. I heard a beautiful reflection by a laywoman this Sunday, actually—she and the pastor shared the homily time, I suppose to confuse any liturgical hardliners. (Interestingly, however, he did not introduce her, a canon law requirement for non-ordained speakers that I’ve seen done well, and seen turned into an ostentations creation of two classes of preacher.) Catholic women do preach, but the proportion of opportunities to Catholic women who are trained and gifted for preaching is small. My roommate is one of these women. She delivered her sermon movingly, believed in its theme, and hit the one difficult verse in the readings, the one that would’ve stuck in your throat had it been ignored. She seemed more confident in her preaching than she always does in normal conversation, a sure sign, I think, that you’re doing something you’re meant to do.

So I was thinking about how doing the only, natural thing for you to do automatically becomes radical when others are threatened by the fact that it’s you doing it.

Did you look at the lynching postcards on the link I put up there? Look at the people who appear in the photos with their victims. Some of 'em are proud; some look like they're just there. You know, business as usual, no real choice about it, no reason you'd change direction. Like President Bush as he set records for capital punishment, killing mostly nonwhites, some people who were mentally retarded. Like the Republicans trying to cut social programs Katrina survivors will need and talking about Iraq instead of Katrina's victims.

For whom, though their story's forever linked to the name of the Astros, nobody removed a hat tonight.

Nun/duck blog plug

Came across a wonderful blog by an Episcopalian nun, the upstate-NY based Sr. Catherine Grace. I learned that Episcopalians do pray the Hail Mary. But she's a delight on other levels than ecumenical.

For example, Sister Catherine on fundamentalism: "I have a jaundiced eye for a god who would apparently disappear if it were not for human interpretation, verbal lid-banging, vilification of others, and behind-the-scenes manipulations."

And she raises ducks. Named Teresa and Avila. What more could you want with your theological reflection?

Bishop Gumbleton teaches compassion for gay priests

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton took a break from his work for global peace this week to write a piece in America in support of continuing to ordain gay men (Yes, Gay Men Should Be Ordained.) Read it: don't stop with my summary. You're probably familiar with the arguments based on Christ-centered compassion--Jesus would not have excluded anyone from ministry, and neither should we--and those based on psychology: homosexuality is not related to pedophilia, and gay and straight people are equally capable of living celibate lives. However, Bishop Gumbleton goes even further here. He shows us how God's plan is uniquely carried out in gay and lesbian people. "Through their testimony of suffering," he quotes from Brother James Empereur, "God has chosen gays and lesbians to reveal something about God that heterosexuals do not." Gay people may be uniquely called to preach God's truth, Bishop Gumbleton suggests, because they have had to struggle against internal and external opposition in coming to know a deep truth about themselves. What a richly radical approach: in a time when people are searching for new reasons to treat gay and lesbian Catholics as liabilities, Bishop Gumbleton hails them as an extraordinary source of grace.

I have a holy card Bishop Gumbleton blessed. Some day I expect it to work miracles.

Joyous progressive Catholics--scholarships available!

The Call to Action national conference is November 4-6 in Milwaukee.
Thousands of Catholic laity, priests and religious will converge to pray, worship, meet, learn about social justice issues, hear about the experiences of women and minorities in the Church, talk about the ways we are working to make the Church better, and hear from a large proportion of the most important thinkers in the Church today. You can do the conference straight-up theology brain brain-y, which I may do, or you can learn about things like centering prayer and see performances of drama and film related to the modern Church for a more relaxing weekend. Who will be there? Sweatshop activist Chie Abad. Angela Bonavoglia, author of Good Catholic Girls: How Women are Leading the Fight to Change the Church. Super-priest pundit and author Donald Cozzens. Awesome modern saint, activist and mystic Edwina Gateley. Fortunate Families, a ministry to the families of gay and lesbian Catholics. Preeminent feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether. Charles Curran, a deeply faithful moral theologian banned by the Vatican from teaching in Catholic institutions. Brilliant and spunky Catholic blogger Theologienne (in a mainly nonprofessional capacity.) Call to Action has scholarships to help young people--ages 18-42--make it there and anyone can exchange volunteer work for a conference entry fee. You are welcomed to come and be amazed. Will you?

Support ousted Boston priest Walter Cuenin

Remember Father Walter Cuenin, yanked from his vibrant Boston parish for speaking out against clergy abuse and "allowing" his flock to attend Gay Pride? (See this blog, Spirit Wonderfully at Work in Boston, Sept. 30.) His loving parishioners at Our Lady Help of Christians in Newton have started an online petition calling for his reinstatement. Support Father Cuenin and his parishioners' efforts to bring accountability and openness to the troubled Boston archdiocese by signing--because Our Lady helps those who help themselves, and who help their neighbors.

Prom--or lack thereof--a Catholic lesson on evangelical poverty

Today, Oct. 18, is the feast day of St. Luke, best remembered as a Gospel author and the namesake of 90210 heartthrob Luke Perry. According to my daily email from AmericanCatholic.org, Saint Luke--in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles, which he also wrote--promoted the discipline of evangelical poverty.

What's that? Apparently, the radical notion that what we own reflects what we believe. Pope John Paul II wrote in his 1993 letter "If You Want Peace, Reach Out to the Poor".

The consumer society makes the gap separating rich from poor even more obvious, and the uncontrolled search for a comfortable life risks blinding people to the needs of others. In order to promote the social, cultural, spiritual and also economic welfare of all members of society, it is therefore absolutely essential to stem the unrestrained consumption of earthly goods and to control the creation of artificial needs. Moderation and simplicity ought to become the criteria of our daily lives . . .

Evangelical poverty is very different from socio-economic poverty. While the latter has harsh and often tragic characteristics, since it is experienced as a form of coercion, evangelical poverty is chosen freely by the person who intends in this way to respond to Christ's admonition: "Whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:33).

Such evangelical poverty is the source of peace, since through it the individual can establish a proper relationship with God, with others and with creation.

I thought of this when I read that a Catholic high school on Long Island has had its prom cancelled after the conspicuous consumption it engendered got too gross. (Prom Cancelled Due To "Financial Decadence", ABC.) Father Philip Eichner and Brother Kenneth Hoagland, the brave president and principal of Kellenberg Memorial, wrote about alcohol "Long Island has more than its share of what is an American flaw--we eschew moderation." On prom overspending, they wrote to a student's mother:

Aside from the bacchanalian aspects of the prom - alcohol/sex/drugs - there is a root problem for all this and it is affluence. Affluence changes people. Too much money is not good for the soul. Our young people have too much money. Sounds simple, but it is true. When Jesus said that it was very hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, it shocked his hearers and it still shocks us. Wealth is powerful, not only in terms of possessions, but in being possessed by it. Wealth changes personalities, priorities, principles. . . Some may say: it is my money; I can do what I want with it. Well, yes, you can, but not without moral repercussions." (September Prom Letter)

Some of those benighted parents are apparently hard at work organizing unofficial Hamptons bacchanals for their deprived little Catholics. For shame. The folks who are schooling those kids know what it is to live the Gospel: too bad they aren't the only ones teaching their values.

Thrills, chills, dialogue and the papacy

This piece from the Canadian pub Catholic New Times shows how the intellectual climate of the church can change in a puff of papal white smoke: the pendulum's swung before and it will again (Fr. Ed Cachia and the reign of terror). It also prepares us for Hall--er, All Saints' eve: Reigns of Terror and Popes being brought back to life?

In our own times, dialogue promoted by Paul VI became monologue under John Paul II. An authoritarian pope, unlike Leo XIII, John Paul II only appointed bishops who agreed with him. Along with Joseph Ratzinger, he elevated men who owed their positions to servile obedience and a promise never to challenge the birth control encyclical of 1968, and never raise the issue of celibacy and married priests.

It was as if Pius X had been brought back to life. Theologians, who had supplied the necessary intellectual oxygen to the church’s teaching office ducked and ran for cover. Over 100 were silenced, a stunning contrast to the15-year-pontificate of Paul VI, where none were silenced. Revision, criticism dialogue and conversation were ended. Informal “committees of vigilance” peppered Rome with lurid tales of any teacher, priest or bishop who deviated one iota from rigid orthodoxy and from any discussion of non-infallible teachings.

The papacy, which had been on its way to a greater collegiality, returned to its former, monarchical, authoritarian style. Seminaries were purged, episcopal conferences and synods, to the shock of their participants, saw their conclusions written beforehand by the Curia. The faithful energized, by the democratizing trends of Vatican II watched in disbelief and sorrow as aging pastors departed and were replaced by a new breed of authoritarians and men of foreign cultures who generally brought an inadequate theology from their home lands.

I am not gullible, I am . . . full of faith

It's probably time I started giving fundamentalist Christians a bit more credit. It took me all weekend to figure out that this Proposal for a Christian Pornography wasn't serious.

Although I will say in my defense that, although Creation Science Fair is a joke (and it took me forever to figure that out), creation science fairs actually do exist. Booya!

You say Catholics own church property?

This is like Catholic News of the Weird. "All but about 280 of the nearly 400,000 Roman Catholic parishioners in Western Oregon are now part of a class-action lawsuit that will determine who owns parish churches, schools and cemeteries within the Archdiocese of Portland. The parishioners and parishes found themselves named in the rare defendant class action in July because of the archdiocese's argument that they -- not the archdiocese -- are the true owners of an estimated $500 million to $600 million in parish property." (Suit names thousands of parishioners , Daily Oregonian.)

Good grief. Does everyone realize that we now have a civil court deciding a matter of canon law? I admire the Church for the healthy suspicion its teachings maintain of governments. The Archdiocese of Portland threw that reserve out the window with this bizarre lawsuit. And never mind the power they're giving the state: what about the power they're--gasp--offering to lay Catholics if only they're willing to take it? Whatever the Oregon courts decide, the Portland archbishop is clearly willing to say that Portland Catholics own their parishes. What happens when they want to be seriously consulted about how these churches, schools and other resources are run?

All sorts of cliches present themselves, from making beds to airborne spit to ventilated--other excreta. Mostly it just makes me giggle. Here's hoping Portland Catholics see this moment as the call to growth and to ownership that it is, and hoping the courts of the great state of Oregon don't get too high an opinion of themselves. Bankkruptcy cases aside, it's not the secular courts' job to direct the Church--the bishops and the people are called to that responsibility.

Anne Burke receives 2005 U.S. Catholic Award for furthering the cause of women in the church

Mainstream mag U.S. Catholic gave their 2005 Award for Furthering the Cause of Women in the Church to Anne M. Burke, an Illinois appellate judge and former head of the National Review Board dealing with sex abuse cover-ups. Unlike some layfolk who earn the respect of Church hierarchy, Burke doesn't silence her voice in order to keep it:

Accepting the award, Burke said, "I believe that our common heritage as U.S. Catholics has never been more important, more dramatic, or more threatened. We live in precarious times, not just because of terrorism, global warming, and urban street crime, but because of a steady loss of confidence in the direction of our church, the truthfulness of its leadership, the role of the laity, and the persistent inability of the church to recognize our Catholic place in the modern world."

Noting how "the worst crisis in the history of the church in our nation" had brought the American hierarchy to a "breaking point at which they finally went to the laity of America to ask for direction and help," Burke called on Catholic laity to continue to take a stronger role in overseeing church affairs. "I do not for a minute believe that the bishops would have adopted the charter and norms for dealing with the abuse crisis or permit the unprecedented freedom that our original board enjoyed in getting to the bottom of the crisis had they not had their backs to the wall," said Burke. "Nor do I believe that without continuous scrutiny by the laity will the bishops refrain from tinkering with the burdens of justice and accountability placed on them by the charter."

--U.S. Catholic

Is it okay that I'm terribly excited to see that one of the most respected Catholics in the country is a blonde laywoman who wears pink? Indeed this IS a face of the Church!

A priest's authority comes from the people

I was recently asked where a priest gets his authority to celebrate, to wit: "If an ordained priest is drunk, brain-dead, using a prosthetic hand, sleepwalking, hypnotized, etc., is the sacrament still valid?"

The timing was perfect, because one of my priest friends showed me last week where the priest's authority comes from: from the people participating in the Mass. There's a line in the liturgy where the congregation says "May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands . . . " This is the people's prayer and their confirmation of the priest's authority to consecrate. The guy who told me was so into the people's responsibility that he said "If I were celebrating a Mass, and the people didn't say this, I wouldn't consecrate!" He was really excited about it. You never know whose day you might make with your liturgical rebellion!

I think it was Augustine who pioneered the idea that a sacrament transcends the one who performed it. In other words, if a priest who performed a marriage or confirmation was later revealed to be a bad guy, the sacrament would remain valid. I imagine this would cover most of the stipulations in the question, although you never know about the artificial hand, what with the cows some hierarchs have over people trying to use wheat-free wafers. (Can't say I agree with the perspective of this article, but it certainly ought to give you some idea.) One of the few tidbits my entire generation seems to have retained from religion class seems to have been that any Catholic can baptize "in an emergency:" such a baptism remains valid and doesn't have to be re-done when the crisis is over, but if it's not a crisis and a priest is there, step aside, Sister.

If the sacrament transcends the one who administers it, why aren't maverick Catholics running around holding Masses right and left? Truth be told, I know some who have done it for the value of the gesture as a witness against hierarchical control of the Sacraments. I have two problems with this. One, the Sacraments should not be politicized: doesn't matter if you're a bishop who doesn't like Democrats or a reformer who doesn't like the bishops. Two, the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, as the liturgy shows, are meant to be administered by someone who's been called to service by the community. I guess I could imagine a scenario in which a community might call someone non-ordained to officiate a Sacrament for them, but I deeply question whether women getting together to have a Mass, or married priests having Eucharist at the dinner table for their families, qualifies. If I now qualify that the people in these scenarios are well-intentioned, I'm going to have to be balanced and say the same for bishops who keep Communion from pro-choice Catholics. Perhaps erring on the side of having more share in Communion is the better mistake. The important similarity, though, is that people make such choices because they recognize the deep sanctity of the Eucharist and know that how we celebrate together, whether Kerry's shut out or Carrie's at the altar, reflects who we think we are as a people and who we think God is for us.

No gay priests ban expected

Sweet Jesus, Your humility and compassion live on in Your church . . .

"A forthcoming Vatican document on homosexuals in seminaries will not demand an absolute ban, a senior Vatican official told NCR Oct. 7, but will insist that seminary officials exercise "prudential judgment" that gay candidates should not be admitted in three cases.

Those three cases are:

• If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;
  
• If they are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);
  
• If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.

In any case, the Vatican official said, whether or not these criteria exclude a particular candidate is a judgment that must be made in the context of individual spiritual direction, rather than by applying a rigid litmus test. [. . .]

The Vatican official emphasized that the document is not concerned with "sacramental theology," and hence does not express a theological judgment that homosexuals are unworthy of the priesthood. In fact, this official said, Vatican officials are aware that there are a number of gay priests who live celibately and do fine work."

No ban on gays expected in Vatican document; will advise 'prudential judgement'--John L. Allen, Jr., National Catholic Reporter

Note also that as stated, these guidelines don't forbid a seminarian from being "out" as gay. I've heard hierarchical objections to gay pride events before--some think that "gay culture," as it currently exists in America and Europe, is inextricably bound up with sexual behavior. Lots of Catholics, including myself, think that sexual behavior should be part of the lives of both Catholic gays and straights in certain sacred and integrated contexts. But I understand the conflict in a situation where a seminarian living celibately participates in an event that might be seen as celebrating indiscriminate sexual practice. Since St. Paul, Christians have known that our lives aren't between us and God alone--we're responsible for the messages our actions send to others who might be hostile or might be struggling. I would be dismayed to see a seminarian--or any Catholic--up on a parade float doing Girls Gone Wild. I would love to see seminarians, lay Catholics, and theological instructors walking in the quiet back of the line as out people and as supporters, and I would hope that any local bishop would understand the difference.

No Church politics without a prayer break

To answer the question of when does dissent become not enough: maybe at the point when the Catholic Church no longer holds anything uniquely holy for an individual, she would be better off seeking God somewhere else. The beliefs and practices of the Church mean more to me than anything else going at the moment. In these beliefs and these prayers I hope always to find common ground with those of different opinions.

Here is a beautiful eleventh-century devotional,
The Great Mary Litany:

Purple rose of the land of Israel,
O flowering like a palm,
O fruitful like the olive tree,
Light of Nazareth,
Glory of Jerusalem,
Beauty of the world . . .

pray for us and for those we love.

Korean Catholic Church to fund stem cell research

SoKor Catholic Church funding research on adult stem cells

The Catholic Archdiocese of Seoul will donate millions of dollars to research on stem cells found in adults, which they consider an acceptable alternative technolooy to stem cells derived from embryos, a Phillipines-based site reports. The church will solicit donations for the project, but most of it will come from church holdings. One of the world's leading stem-cell researchers is South Korean.

What do you think about this? A sensible way of balancing the need for new medical treatments with Catholic concern for the sanctity of life? An unacceptable use of Church funds that should go to the poor? An interesting perspective on archdiocesan responsibility for what could be seen as a locally based problem?

How to Be a Dissenting Catholic

I was not raised to believe that being Catholic means strict belief--not just adherence, but belief--in a multifarious set of doctrines. Coming up, I saw faith as more about how you live: you struggle to attain the best, understanding that you might sometimes fail, but always examining your life for how you can love others more and avoid things that are bad for your soul. I've learned, though, that some Catholics see the faith as measured by opinions and as being all-or-nothing: you may love the Sacraments and share all you have with the poor, but if you believe birth control is okay, woe to you: you are not "really" Catholic.

But I learned this week that the magisterium does permit dissent when a person's conscience permits nothing else. (And whatever you may think about the modern divinity schools, no, this was not the first thing we learned about the magisterium.) Here's a quote from the New Dictionary of Theology, believe you me, not a radical text:

To give the required "religious submission" to such ordinary [i.e., non-infallible] papal teaching means to make an honest and sustained effort to overcome any contrary opinion we may have, and to achieve a sincere assent of our mind to this teaching. It is possible that people who have made such an effort, still find that doubts about its truth remain so strong in their minds that they cannot actually give their sincere intellectual assent to it. Since such people have done all that they were capable of doing towards achieving assent, one cannot judge such non-assent or internal dissent, to involve any lack of obedience to the magisterium.

So if you've tried to understand and accept the teaching, but in good conscience can't, you've done your best as a Catholic. Better than most, I would add, who accept doctrine from the Church or their political party or Britney Spears without ever weighing the dissenting voice or the reasons behind it. An important corollary to this message is the fact that not everything the Pope or bishops say is infallible: only some very solemn things, and believe me, you'll hear about it. Can you imagine the poor Pope if the case were otherwise? A Cardinal cuts you in the coffee line and you say "Angelo, you're such a jerk?" Branded forever!

Here are the guidelines we were taught for good dissent.

To arrive at a conclusion:

• Study and understand the issue: its historical and Scriptural background, relation to other Church teaching, and present implications.
• Pray over the doctrine.
• Consult members of the Church who exhibit exemplary lives and trustworthy opinions. (I have never felt so secure in my support for women's ordination as the day my exemplary and trustworthy grandmother agreed that "it would be okay.")
• Weigh the arguments, preferring the few and serious to the many and frivolous;
• Live your decision connected to the Spirit and remaining open to change.

To live your dissent well:

• Decide whether your dissent will be public or private and internal, and know your reasons.
• Have serious reasons for your dissent.
• Show respect for the Church teachers and their role.
• Avoid causing scandal to those less informed about the matter. (The Church often references the possibility of causing scandal, and I think it's a very important criterion. The root of the word "scandal" means a stumbling block. Sure, the Church is concerned about looking bad, but not for image's sake alone: it's because if you believe that to be a part of the Church is good, as I do, then providing people unnecessarily with cause to run away from the Church is wrong. Showing dissent without showing that you still love the Church and that the bishops have their reasons for what you do can be just such a rock to trip on.)

These guidelines have been taken from Authority in the Church by David Stagaman by way of a class handout, provenance upon request. I'm trying to be conscientious about sources without causing any unsought publicity. We do live in suspicious times.

Within the Catholic Church, you see, can be found a holy way to do anything--even to disagree.

Eucharist Synod: Hope & Hype

Cardinal Reaffirms Celibacy; Plays Down Priest Shortage in Speech to Synod: "A senior cardinal on Monday reaffirmed the celibacy rule for priests and played down the shortage that has left many churches without clergymen to celebrate mass, saying at the start of a meeting of the world's bishops that access to the eucharist was a gift, not a right for Catholics.

Angelo Cardinal Scola, the key moderator of the Synod of Bishops, also reaffirmed that divorced people who remarry without getting an annulment cannot receive communion. But he said the synod would have to study the issue and hinted that certain aspects of it should be reconsidered."

This makes me so mad. Yes, the Eucharist is a gift, not a right; but it's a gift from God, not from the cardinals. So are life and all forms of grace a gift from God. The Cardinals, not being God, don't have the right to keep God's gifts from a single soul.

A Catholic reform group, FutureChurch, sent 35,000 signatures to the bishops in support of a petition to ordain women as deacons and make celibacy optional for priests. They ask you to pray that the bishops will be guided by the Spirit to make life-giving choices for the Church, choices that will end the current Eucharistic famine and allow all churches to have the Sacrament.

I do think this is a powerful time for change. Bishops know how hard the Eucharistic famine is on Catholics; they hear it from their laity, from their priests who've turned into Communion dispensers, running from altar to altar and being denied their calling to truly pastor. They see it in the decline in vocations and Church attendance. How are you going to call someone into the Church, for an hour or for a lifetime, if you can't furnish an energized, localized sacramental minister? This is not the fault of priests: in fact, they probably suffer from it more than anyone.

Any mainstream media coverage of the Synod you see will burble about how divorced Catholics, pro-choice politicians and other hot-button issues are high on the Synod's agenda. Don't get your hopes up; or rather, don't fool yourself that in a conference focusing on the sacrament most central to our Catholic community life the only issues of concern are those familiar to North American reporters. FutureChurch did an intelligent analysis of the plans the bishops are using for this meeting. The priest shortage, blessedly, is at least on there; women deacons, one of FutureChurch's asks, are not.

Another of the bishops' goals is increasing respect and awe for the Eucharist, including greater use of the sacrament of Reconciliation. This goal ought to militate for stretching the numbers of our sacramental ministers somehow, by any means necessary. How do you inspire respect for a sacrament that hundreds of thousands get pre-consecrated in "Communion services?" The Body of Christ is the Son of God and it is the Church: both God and the people of God need to participate. Catholics who come for a Eucharistic meal will not settle for a TV dinner.