Deacon Dan Wright

Personal Perspective on the Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (Part One)

For the past couple days I've spent time reading the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization. The following reflection is the first part of a longer reflection on the Note which I will continue. I invite your comments, and I will be available for response.

Several years ago, just before my ordination to the diaconate and shortly thereafter, I worked as the congregational support director for one of Austin's inter-faith groups. Having grown out of what was once the Greater Austin Council of Churches and undergone several name changes, the organization was known, at the time of my association with it, as Austin Metropolitan Ministries. Since then it has become Austin Area Interreligious Ministries, or AAIM.

AAIM, which is independent from denominational affiliation, aspires to be sort of a hub for the entire faith community of Austin. In order to do this, AAIM holds that it is necessary to be highly respectful of the beliefs and doctrines of other traditions.

This is where I got my first real taste of religious pluralism, and where I began to debate within myself the rightness of certain positions that I encountered regularly. I didn't say so, but I was measuring everything—rightly so—by my faith as a Catholic.

A couple things were going on at the time. I had recently (within three years) graduated from one of the local Protestant seminaries—Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary—where I had attended with the spiritual support from my pastor at the time, Father Jim McCabe, a priest of the Paulist Fathers.

My reasons at the time for studying at a non-Catholic seminary had mostly to do with convenience of location and the lack, at that time, of a local Catholic program of study leading to a Masters Degree; however, during my time at the seminary my goal was to enter Catholic lay ministry and I felt that Austin Seminary was more than able to equip me to reach my goal. While there I considered myself to be an ambassador for Catholicism, though in retrospect I probably missed some good opportunities to share the faith out of a misdirected desire to respect the freedom of others in their choice to be Protestant.

I had been taught not to push matters of belief.  It wasn't good social manners, and after all I was on their territory and I was receiving Presbyterian scholarships to cover a good portion of the costs.  Honestly, I was rarely challenged by Presbyterians. 

For the most part I found that Presbyterians were pluralists on doctrine and relativists on morals.  Yet other denominations were present and I remember a classmate, now pastor of large and historic Missionary Baptist congregation in Austin, who would often tell me that it was quite unusual for Catholics to be Christians. I took his remarks with the charitable rebuke that they were sheer nonsense. Meanwhile, I kept the faith that I was there for a purpose and that God had a plan for me.

It was when I was nearing graduation that Father Jim encouraged me to enter diaconal formation. I owe much to his support initially. Just after graduation I both landed a job in lay ministry—at a parish other than Father Jim's—and I entered diaconal formation.

After two years on the staff as "Director of Evangelization and Social Outreach" at the parish where I now serve as a deacon I changed jobs and took the position with Austin Metropolitan Ministries. In it I saw the opportunity to grow in what I had chosen to do at the time, and I saw it as a great experience for a deacon-in-formation.

I was still on the staff of what had become Austin Area Interreligious Ministries when I was ordained as a deacon on June 18, 2000. Something else—something that would change how I think forever—was about to happen. Less than two months later, on the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published Dominus Iesus.

Recall I said that I was getting acquainted with pluralism at AAIM. While there were no official requirements for membership in AAIM that one accept all things as equal in terms of the doctrines of other religions, I nevertheless found it to be an underlying tenet in terms of what the organization called "interfaith respect." Furthermore, as a member of the staff I was counseled privately not display Catholic artwork in my office.  I got by hanging above my desk a rope type rosary that a friend had given me.  However, I was warned that certain board members might object to it.

What I saw at AAIM was that instead of each member organization celebrating its identity fully, there tended to be strong encouragement aimed at reducing each religion to something that everyone might accept. Such "unofficial" pluralism was most evident when a public prayer was offered at an organization event: it had to be a homogeneous prayer that held no identifiably sectarian features. AAIM also shied away from inviting clergy, with whom we were not familiar, to pray, knowing that a prayer offered in "Jesus name" would likely offend or even enrage non-Christian members.

I recall having a conversation with the representative of a Baptist congregation in which they rejected membership in AAIM because they would not be allowed to "practice evangelism" at AAIM events. I didn't have a good answer for them because I knew that proselytism among members of the organization would be detrimental to its existence. Yet I knew that Christians had a duty to proclaim their faith.

Undoubtedly the practice of evangelism—sharing one's faith with an eye towards conversion—within an inter-faith organization needs to be done with the greatest care not to alienate others. At the time I remember being a little concerned that the Baptist congregation wanted to launch a full-fledged mission. I couldn't agree with every method used to share the faith. Again, something within me rejected the methods of proselytism.

I was torn within, having just read Dominus Iesus. Pluralism was incompatible with what I believed and what the Church clearly was teaching, but I wanted to continue in mutual endeavors and community efforts. I believed in ecumenism as a goal and ideal, but I needed further guidance. I saw an inherent unfairness in pluralism. It was the limitation of freedom that bothered me most.

On one occasion I had a visit from a board member who was a former Christian—a cradle Catholic who had converted to a non-Christian religion. She told me that at one time she was just like me but that her eyes had finally been opened to the "truth." Too often it seems that those who take the greatest offense from Christianity do not mind being offensive in its regard.  This time, unlike being challenged at the seminary, I held my peace.  I sensed my future in the balance.

The year 2000 brought a new Executive Director to AAIM, who, in a conversation with me regarding my practice of the Catholic faith, told me that she wouldn't have a problem with my orthodoxy provided that I did nothing to cross her on her views concerning gay rights and abortion rights.  Typically, I am a tremendously tolerant and patient person, and I never had any intention of bringing the aforementioned "rights" into work.  It simply wasn't the direction in which the organization was headed.

I realized that irrespective of my liking I was living in a pluralistic world, both in terms of faith and politics, but this time it really wasn't my politics that were being challenged. I realized that I had gone too far: I had asserted that in my practice of Catholicism I wholeheartedly embraced Church doctrine.

I knew that my days at AAIM were not to last, and in October of 2000 I resigned my position. I could not promote pluralism as an alternative to what my heart was telling me. Still, I believed, as I do to this day, that interfaith organizations have a great value, although there are limitations. For such organizations to succeed they must be prepared to allow each member to express his or her faith without putting pluralistic limitations in place. Only in this way can honest dialogue take place.

In view of my experience in inter-faith work, I see a great value in the CDF Note recently published. Even more I see in it an urgent call for a renewed evangelization that does not shrink away from proclaiming the truth of the Catholic faith. It's worth looking into a little further…

Seeing the Lord

“Blessed are the eyes that see what you see.
For I say to you,
many prophets and kings desired to see what you see,
but did not see it,
and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.” Lk. 10:23-24

A blessing indeed it is to see the Lord.  A skeptic might ask me, "So you see him, do you?"  To which I would emphatically respond "Amen!"

We live in a world that demands evidence: it is a world in which one must see in order to believe.  I am reminded years ago of a professor I had who taught me, in a roundabout way, an important lesson about "seeing."  His philosophy was certainly that seeing is believing.  However, he had learned to see with the minds eye above and beyond what normally counted for evidence.  In many ways I credit this particular professor with having taught me to be a believer.  He taught me to find evidence in places that other people often don't bother to look.

In his time Jesus went mostly unrecognized for who he was in reality.  The ones who needed evidence didn't see him, but to the believers he said "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see."  Indeed blessed were the believing hearts that beheld what prophets and kings longed and waited for but did not see.

Advent is as much about this special "seeing" as it is about the qualities of vigilance, anticipation, and expectation--all aspects of learning to live out a deeper faith.  We must all be watchful and ever anticipating what lies in the dark of the unseen future.  Seeing what is still not yet is an aspect of true hope, which like the candles of our Advent wreaths leads us step by step to peace, joy, and the final fulfillment of love.  When all is complete that which we have hoped for will appear in the most splendid glory that even the minds eye cannot "phantasy" it.

Indeed many desired to hear--as well--what you hear but did not hear it, though their hearing led them to compose psalms and symphonies.  Many even have heard the Spirit rustling like leaves enough to translate to words that sound so sublime.  Yet in his presence we will hear more.

I recall in my youth, just a child, dreaming of the possibility that I might actually hear the voice of God speak to me as he spoke unto the ancients.  I would ask, "May I please hear you, Lord?" Still he replies, "Can you hear me yet?"  Often, it takes a keen ear to detect the voice of the Spirit but at other times it comes as a shout.

In faith we both see and hear when we set our sights and our hearts on communion with the Almighty.  Our conversation--our envisioning and hearing angel choirs--is not a one-sided dream.  Our hope in the Lord serves to plant that which we long for in our hearts, and we experience a true exchange.  He presents us an evidence that belongs to no other but still that we somehow share between our innermost selves.

Yes many have desired to see and hear these things.  We keep on looking and longing--our desire grows deeper, ever stronger.  Increase our faith O Lord; sharpen our vision and tune our ears.  May that which we see now grow ever clearer.  Open our eyes, our ears, and our hearts this season.  Open us to the evidence of seeing.

An Unexpected Response

There are many days when I get home in the early evening that I'd like to call it a day.  However, I partly gave up that option with my ordination.  Sometimes there's still another hour or more of work at the parish after the day is done at school.  Occasionally, something will happen that gives me the fuel and inspiration to continue for the next 30 years.

Currently we are still conducting Confirmation interviews, and something that I've noticed time and again is that the young people I interview have an outstanding quality of honesty when it comes to the questions I ask.  Certainly, I have the freedom to ask what I'd like, but also I'm given some questions of the ice breaker type just to get the interview going. 

One question, which I have always felt was poorly written but over the years has lasted as long as the laminated card stock that it is printed on, is "On a scale of 1 to 10 how does the teen rate."  The problem is that there is no indication which is best, one or ten.  So I've had to improvise a little.  I say, "Rate yourself as a one if your mother is making you be confirmed, and give yourself a ten if you heard a voice from on high *and* you also want to become a priest or nun in addition to being confirmed."

I have never had anyone rate himself or herself higher than eight or lower than four; however tonight all of that changed.  I was pleasantly taken by surprise when the young lady sitting across from me gave me an enthusiastic and smiling response of "Definitely I'm a ten!"

I decided to investigate a little more, so I asked "Do you have any questions about Confirmation?"  She had questions ranging from "How do I keep the Holy Spirit fresh after Confirmation," to "What exactly does a missionary do?"  I couldn't let the opportunity pass to promote vocations.  Here was a young person having  genuine encounter with the Holy Spirit tugging on her heart.  "Pray everyday," I told her "and keep yourself open to God's will in your life.  Don't be afraid to give up some of the things that other people want to hang on to."

It does all of us a great deal of good to keep in mind that a vocation is something every Christian can enjoy whether we are married, single, clergy, religious, or lay people.  Living a life in solidarity with those who cry out for justice, seeking higher and higher levels of personal holiness, and being obedient to the call and will of God are the ways that keep the the experience of the Holy Spirit fresh in our lives.  Even more they are ways that lead us into a deeper walk with God.

I was surprised by the response that I got, and I pray for more responses like it in the future.  I take it as a sign that we, as a Church, are heading in the right direction... Keep the young lady I interviewed in your prayers!

A Stone from the Mountain

...the God of heaven will set up a kingdom
that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people...

I wanted to comment on today's reading before the day was over, but I found myself running close to midnight--still, I'm managing to sqeeze a post in before the date changes.  I am intrigue by Daniel, who gives us a clear vision of a coming kingdom.  In todays reading we are being invited to prepare ourselves spiritually for the season of Advent.

We are given a marvelous interpretation of the growth and establishment of the kingdom of God, and certainly the message is prophetic in foretelling the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ as a stone hewn without hands from the mountian, which in turn becomes a great mountain and fills the whole earth.

I find it difficult to express what exactly we experience in the expectation of what is to come.  It is a foreshadowing and a foretaste of something too great, too beautiful, to imagine justly.  The expectation hints at the fullness of what is to be.  It gives us a glimpse of the eternal.

What we are to receive from God is sure in its meaning--indeed it is the everlasting kingdom.  What is our role now?  What is a good Advent attitude?  We must allow God to subdue everything in our lives that does not yet conform to the perfect vision of the kingdom.  All that we cling to and grasp that is partial and conglomerate must come to the stone. We bring ourselves and our values--all that we have in this life, and we lay it before the king in sacrifice.  Once we can begin to let go, we can begin to see what will be.

Relative Wealth

When Jesus looked up he saw some wealthy people
putting their offerings into the treasury
and he noticed a poor widow putting in two small coins.
He said, “I tell you truly,
this poor widow put in more than all the rest;
for those others have all made offerings from their surplus wealth,
but she, from her poverty, has offered her whole livelihood.” Luke 21:1-4

At first I thought that it might be interesting to do a reflection on the Daniel readings that lead up to the first Sunday of Advent, and still I may attempt to get to that before the week is over.  However, I really couldn't let the story of the widow's mite escape me.  It's a passage that's intrigued me through the years, though in its simplicity it hides very little of its meaning from us: we are to give from our relative wealth.

For some people it may be difficult to identify with the widow.  For me it's a little easier because she reminds me very much of a relative, now deceased, to whom I was as close as a child is to a parent.  From this relative I first learned the story of the poor widow from today's gospel quoted above.  However, from her I learned even more the true meaning of the gospel story.  We are to give as we have been given.

I had a passing conversation today with someone I met for the first time who was new to the area and explained to me that although she is Catholic and wants to be involved in the Church, which she said would include volunteering her time, she is having a hard time locating a parish.  She explained that her husband doesn't want to attend a Catholic Church because he feels that in asking parishioners to tithe the Church is going too far.  His belief, she said, is that giving should always be anonymous and unsolicited.

I felt disappointed to find this attitude.  In my own past, as a young single adult during college, I struggled for many years to just pay the rent.  Still, I knew that God would bless me if I gave what I had.  So I gave what I had, which at the time wasn't money. In retrospect it's easy to see that God increased in me the kinds of things that I offered freely and unhindered.  There is a principle at work and it has to do with the intention and desires of our hearts.  If all we have to give is love then we must give it wholeheartedly.  Surely God will repay us with the same.

Now, to return to my relative who somehow managed to instill in me the lived-truth of the gospel passage.  What we have and what we give, she taught me, means the most when it is everything we have.  The relative to whom I refer was my great aunt who raised me as her own child.  Over the years I witnessed her give all that she had, and none of it ever went unnoticed.  She taught me that God always was able to see the faith in our hearts.  In her faith she hoped that I would learn to move moutains with mine--may God so inspire me.

Giving, and learning to give, takes practice and sometimes can take a long time to get right.  Few do it perfectly.  All that God asks of us--it seems to me--is to give from our relative wealth.  As we have been given, so we too give.  Two coins, and a lot of love, can go a long way.

Interpreting the Council

Since June of last year, when I first began the blog, I have included a link to dotCommonweal.  Honestly, I've frequently wondered whether their writers actually read what they're commenting on (as is the case in a recent Commonweal article on the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum).

Personally, I'm interested in a balance of opinion, so I link to both progressive and traditional sites--as well as those in between, or even better I like those that defy categorization.  Nevertheless, the above referenced article almost convinced me to remove my link to dotCommonweal.  However, just as I was about to click "delete" I found an interesting, and surprising, discussion on Benedict XVI and Vatican II, so I'll keep Commonweal's link until I'm convinced to do otherwise.

I thought it might be worthwhile to devote a separate theme to Pope Benedict and the interpretation of Vatican II. I had not read until this afternoon the remarks the Pope made to the group of priests who had asked his opinion about the Council. From what had been described in other posts I I expected to find it giving aid and comfort to anti-conciliarists and restorationists and to promote continuity over discontinuity in the interpretation of the Council. Instead, I find that this dichotomy between continuity and discontinuity is absent from his remarks and that he distinguishes two extremes that he thinks once predominated with reference to the Council: a progressive mentality that thought everything can and ought to change in the Church and an absolute anti-conciliarism, between which, he says, a third and more valid interpretation had difficulty making its way.

The idea that Pope Benedict wants to return us to "those thrilling days of yesteryear", that is, before the Council, should be discredited, I think, by two quotes, one at the beginning and one near the end. The first is the one to which Bob Imbelli drew attention: "We had such great hopes, but in reality things proved to be more difficult. Nonetheless, it is still true that the great legacy of the Council, which opened a new road, is a "magna carta" of the Church’s path, very essential and fundamental." The other quote describes all the good the Council has brought:

"It seems very important to me that we can now see with open eyes how much that was positive also grew following the Council: in the renewal of the liturgy, in the synods – Roman synods, universal synods, diocesan synods – in the parish structures, in collaboration, in the new responsibility of laypeople, in intercultural and intercontinental shared responsibility, in a new experience of the Church’s catholicity, of the unanimity that grows in humility, and nonetheless is the true hope of the world.

"And thus it seems to me that we must rediscover the great heritage of the Council, which is not a "spirit" reconstructed behind the texts, but the great conciliar texts themselves, reread today with the experiences that we have had and that have born fruit in so many movements, in so many new religious communities."

And then the Pope recommends a re-reading, a re-reception of the conciliar texts in the light of what has happened in the Church and in the world since the Council.

I do not know what could possibly be considered restorationist about these remarks.

Continue reading

Reader's Question

A reader writes asking me:

Our sister is working at Wal Mart and is burdened by the fact that she, at times, must sell contraceptives and prophylactics. She handles them and takes money for them. She is a cashier.

She also has some deep regret about using so called 'contraception' in the past and is burdened by the fact that they are abortafacients. She feels grief when walking past empty swings and has talked about her grief with others.

Is this sin? Is this mortal sin? If it is should she quit her job and trust the Lord and His providence for new work?

For many years I have held the opinion that it is important ask ourselves to what degree we are cooperating in sinful activity, and to question ourselves regarding what we can do about it.  However, we must also take care not to assign guilt to ourselves where none exists. 

True, we bear responsibility in the sin of others when we cooperate in it.  However, it is my opinion that simply working as a cashier where contraceptives are sold, and consequently taking money for them, is not direct participation in sin.

Nevertheless, we must always follow the voice of our conscience.  Therefore, if your sister's conscience speaks to her against something, she should unquestionably follow the voice of her conscience.

Concerning your sister's regret regarding the use of artificial contraception, I have found the best recourse when suffering from guilt or regret in any situation to be the Sacrament of Penance.  Once something has been confessed and penance has been done we do ourselves a favor by having a forward-looking attitude in which the mistakes of the past have no place any longer in our lives. 

While not all contraceptives are abortafacient, it may be that your sister might find help with Project Rachel.  Certainly talking through the problem is a start.

Concerning whether something is or is not mortal sin, keep in mind that in order for sin to be mortal sin three conditions must be met: it must be 1) a grave matter, 2) committed with full knowledge, and 3) with deliberate consent.

If your sister's conscience speaks to her against the work she does, she would be well-advised to begin looking for something else while also weighing the current need that she and her dependents have for her continued employment.  In her decision she should also consider that simply working as a cashier where contraceptives are sold is--depending on her degree of involvement--perhaps indirect participation only, and therefore not something for which she would necessarily bear moral culpability.

Who Decides Which Religion Is Radical? The US Government, That's Who

NEW YORK — Inmates at the federal prison camp in Otisville, N.Y., were stunned by what they saw at the chapel library on Memorial Day — hundreds of books had disappeared from the shelves.

The removal of the books is occurring nationwide, part of a long-delayed, post-Sept. 11 federal directive intended to prevent radical religious texts, specifically Islamic ones, from falling into the hands of violent inmates.

Three inmates at Otisville filed a lawsuit over the policy, saying their constitutional rights were violated. They say all religions were affected.

"The set of books that have been taken out have been ones that we used to minister to new converts when they come in here," inmate John Okon, speaking on behalf of the prison's Christian population, told a judge last week.

Okon said it was unfortunate because "I have really seen religion turn around the life of some of these men, especially in the Christian community."

The government maintained that the new rules don't entirely clear the shelves of prison chapel libraries.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Feldman told U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain that prison libraries limited the number of books for each religion to between 100 and 150 under the new rules. He said officials would expand the number after choosing a new list of permitted books.

Feldman said the removal order stemmed from an April 2004 Department of Justice review of the way prisons choose Muslim religious services providers. It is not exactly clear why it took so long for the order to be put into effect, but prison officials said they needed time to examine a long list of books.

Feldman said the study was made out of a concern that prisons "had been radicalized by inmates who were practicing or espousing various extreme forms of religion, specifically Islam, which exposed security risks to the prisons and beyond the prisons to the public at large."

Feldman said the review by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons concluded that prison chapel libraries were not adequately supervised.

"The presence of extremist chaplains, contractors or volunteers in the BOP's correctional facilities can pose a threat to institutional security and could implicate national security," the bureau's report said.

The review suggested audio and video monitoring of worship areas and screening of religious service providers. It also recommended that prisons reduce inmate-led religious services and consider constant staff monitoring of inmate-led services.

Continue reading

Once you land in jail is it safe to assume you've given up all your rights?  Well, maybe not.  Inmates are still entitled to basic human rights, such as the right to choose their religion.

On a fundamental level this looks to me--a legal layman--like it's a violation of the separation of church and state, which is something that I feel strongly about as a Catholic.  Church/state separation protects our right to choose and practice our religion.  It's what has made religion strong in the US.

Furthermore, it bothers me more than a little to see Islam in particular being targeted.  If we allow Islam to be regulated, then which religion is next?

...Meanwhile on the ELCA University Scene

A college affiliated with a Christian denomination has appointed to head its religion department a practicing Hindu who believes that some forms of Christian ministry produce violence.

Anantanand Rambachan, who has taught religion and philosophy at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minn., since 1985, now will become the first non-Christian to head the religion department in the school's 133-year history.

"It's a great honor," Rambachan, a leading figure in Minnesota's Hindu community, told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

But in an interview with Hinduism Today, he wrote of participating in the Pontifical Council in Rome in 2006.

"Last year we met in Rome in a joint consultation with the World Council of Churches to discuss conversion. This was the first meeting of a three-year project to study the issue and to develop an acceptable code of conduct. Certain forms of Christian proselytization have given rise to tension and even violence between some religious communities," he said. "We gathered to share our perspectives on this matter and to consider acceptable and unacceptable ways of sharing our faiths in communities.

Continue reading

Regarding the idea that proselytization gives rise to tension and violence, it has always been the case that when religious people challenge one another's beliefs there's trouble brewing. 

Several years ago while doing interfaith work I frequently found that fundamentalist Christian congregations would not participate in events because they said that they would not be allowed to direct "evangelism" toward members of other denominations or toward non-Christian religions within the organization.

Personally, I am not bothered at all to see a Hindu heading a religion department at a Christian university.  Undoubtedly, being open to understanding one another's religious diversity is key to building peace and lasting respect.  It does trouble me is that often I find a closed-minded attitude on the Internet--even on Catholic blogs. 

While we certainly may joyously celebrate who we are and what our faith stands for--as we should--we must never allow the insistence upon the rightness our beliefs to become a barrier toward unity with our brothers and sisters of the human family.

Interestingly...

A University professor and graduate student have concluded that students who attend college are more likely to maintain religious beliefs than those who choose not to attend higher education.

A paper written by assistant sociology professor Mark Regnerus and sociology graduate student Jeremy Uecker analyzed the idea that college life influences religious faith and practice, based on the findings from The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

"We wanted to know if the college experience had a secularizing effect," Regnerus said.

The survey tracks 15,000 students randomly selected from high schools across the country and monitors their religious devotion post-high school.

In general, the survey has shown that "the young-adult years of many Americans are marked by a clear decline in outward religious expression, which is popularly thought to hit bottom during - and perhaps because of - the college experience."

Surprisingly enough though, college graduates reported a 59.2-percent decline in religious service attendance compared to a 76.2-percent decline among those who chose not to attend college, according to the report. Regnerus and Uecker explain that the structure of college life reinforces and provides for a more religion-friendly environment. Through student organizations and various network associations, college students live in an atmosphere that allows them to maintain their religious beliefs.

"There is, in essence, a lack of structure for those students who don't go to college," said Uecker.

Continue reading

Yet it's not surprising to me...as a college student in the 1980s it was my experience that in general there was a strong interest in religion.  It appears that in the world of university culture, where change is sometime the only constant, religion is holding its own. 

Another story attributed the interest in religion in college as being due to a shift away from liberal arts education to professional programs.  However, I recall many of my peers studying graduate philosophy as being active in church.  Some even went on to attain national recognition in their denominations.