Conversations with priests, real and imaginary
I had a weird and vivid dream two nights ago. Actually, it was yesterday morning; I'd woken up around 2:30 a.m. with terrible heartburn and couldn't get back to sleep until after 4, and that's when I had the dream.
In the dream, I was with my parish priest, Father D, who I wrote to a while back. We were standing outside at the church, and there was a rotting pumpkin in this little sunken planter thing. I had tossed the pumpkin in there some weeks previously, and now it was all nasty and goopy. He asked me to clean it up.
As I did so, he stood beside me, and we talked very little. I had a feeling of being dissatisfied by our conversation. Just as I was finishing up, a tiny little bird fell to the ground around Father D's feet. The bird, at first, seemed dead, but I quickly realized it was moving slightly so was alive and just stunned somehow. While we watched, the bird stumbled to the ledge of the sunken planter and then fell in among some twigs and brambles. Father D knelt down to pick up the bird, but when he did, we saw that the bird had fallen into a V-shape configuration of sticks and had decapitated itself. Only the sad little body was left in the priest's hand.
---------------------------
After I made that last post about my dissatisfying email exchange with Father D, I decided after all to write to another priest I sort of know from another parish, Father R.
Father R,
At the Advent penance service at [my parish] a few months ago, you gave
me some very helpful advice. I told you that I was feeling out of
place in the Catholic Church and sometimes wished I had the guts to go
back to being an Episcopalian, but that I had switched back and forth
a few times and knew that was no good. I said one of my biggest
hang-ups of trying to be Catholic was finding myself angry and in
disagreement with a lot of things I heard on EWTN radio. You suggested
I stop listening to EWTN radio! You also suggested that some of the
specific material I was disagreeing with was not necessarily true
Church teaching, and you explained it was possible to use the
catechism to "prove" anything by taking words out of context. You
encouraged me to stay Catholic and to try to work these things out
here.
I have taken your words to heart, have stayed in the Catholic Church,
and have greatly reduced my diet of EWTN radio. I really don't want to
leave the Church. I have reflected on our conversation several times
since then.
That's why I wanted to get back in touch and ask you about another
issue that is really troubling me right now: how issues relating to
homosexuality are being handled by our Church leaders. I am very
troubled by the recent goings-on in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC,
having to do with employee spousal benefits and the foster care
program being ceased because gays are now allowed to marry there. I am
also very troubled by the more recent story from Denver about the two
school-age children who will not be allowed to continue their
education in the local Catholic school because they have two lesbian
mothers.
I am sure you are aware of all the arguments someone like me would
have against these decisions, so I won't write a novel. I'm not sure
where your own opinions fall. But for me, these kinds of stories are
just intolerable. I have a lot of difficulty identifying myself as
Catholic with these kinds of stories out there, and I have a lot of
trouble contemplating raising my children in the Church for the same
reason.
On the other hand, I feel like I shouldn't be the one wanting to
leave, because these stories seem to contradict Church teaching as I
understand it.
What do you suggest? These kinds of things seem to be becoming more
prevalent; will they continue to do so? Do these really reflect Church
teaching, or not? I try to keep in mind that as far as I am aware,
these kinds of stories have never come out of our diocese. Am I
fooling myself when I imagine they never will? Are there others who,
like me, find these stories sad and appalling? What can I do (besides
pray)?
Thank you for taking the time to read this email.
Sincerely,
[me]
This email, I think, had a much more plaintive, much less confrontational tone. He replied the same day, Sunday, and asked to meet in person to discuss these matters, and so I arranged to attend 6:30 a.m. (yikes!) daily Mass that Friday and to meet with him after, before work.
That Friday, March 19, wound up being the feast of St. Joseph; I had no idea before Mass began. St. Joseph day is one of those things I know I've been aware of in the past, but the knowledge is buried with all the other unused information stored in my brain.
The Gospel reading was from Matthew:
Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
Father R's homily was all about the importance of St. Joseph not sticking to his legalistic idea about what he was supposed to do in the situation, about Joseph's wisdom and faith in God. We have to love each other, first and foremost, and see the people we are facing before applying the law in a stringent way. And that's not even the point of the law. Argh; I should have written about this sooner after it happened, but I didn't, and now I'm having a hard time remembering it all.
I felt that surely he was speaking directly to me, or at least that he thought of me in the back of his mind at least once either while preparing the homily or reciting it. I thought the "don't be legalistic" thing would come up in our meeting, but it didn't.
When we sat down together, one of the first things he said was in reference to the DC/Catholic Charities/foster care/spousal benefits thing. He said he thought that the Archdiocese was only thinking about calling off all that stuff, but the media took it all wrong, and in fact the Archdiocese decided to reinstate the foster care program and spousal benefits. He said that was the newest development. In fact, I had not heard that, and while I wasn't sure he was right, I didn't push it. However, I have been unable to corroborate what he said. This article from the National Catholic Register (not the secular media), though published before our meeting, indicates that these programs were truly stopped, as does this article from the Washington Post. I have been unable to find anything that contradicts these, and it seems unlikely that there have been any reversals given the... thoughtfulness with which these decisions seem to have been come to. I invite anyone with differing information to share it.
Because Father R was telling me I was factually incorrect about the DC thing, and because I wasn't sure he was wrong, I didn't have anything else to say about that, and so we moved on to the Denver lesbians.
Father R pointed out that there is a lot we don't know about that story, for example, how the conflict came to light. He wondered if the lesbians were the ones who made a big fuss, wishing to raise a big "we're lesbians!" banner over their family in order to make a statement of some kind and create a spectacle designed to put the big, bad Catholic Church on the spot. I think I mentioned that I had read their anonymous statement saying that they're just a normal, Catholic family, and it seems unlikely they were the ones making the stink since they are not now revealing their identities, and nobody has any back story. However, I have to concede, we do not know how the conflict came about.
What if it happened another way, I asked. What if the lesbians were minding their own business, and someone started butting in and protesting? Father R agreed that if the situation came to a head as the result of malicious gossip and butting-in, that that was wrong. Sometimes bishops make wrong decisions, he said, and that is a very conservative diocese.
I asked what would happen if these people were a part of his parish school. What should parents like these do? Hide one of the partners so that nobody suspects they are lesbians? Only one of the moms gets to go to school events? He said no, that both parents should be able to participate, and nobody should be worried about the parents' sexual status. He said if someone from the parish came to him and said, "Did you know that so-and-so's parents are lesbians?" that he would look at that person and say, "What business is that of yours?" He said he can't stand that kind of harmful gossip, and that employees of his parish school have been removed because of that kind of behavior. He gave some examples of when he has had this sort of conversation with parishioners, parents, or staff of the school (without giving any identifying details, of course).
Father R brought up the Notre Dame thing from a year ago and asked me what I thought of the uproar over that. I said I thought it seemed like a big deal out of nothing and that I didn't fault anybody for accepting the chance to have the President of the United States speak, no matter who he is at the time. Father R said he also thought it was a big deal out of nothing, though he personally wouldn't have thrown the honorary degree into the package. He said that a parishioner came up to him before Mass during that whole hubub and said something like, "Can you believe they're having Obama speak at Notre Dame?" Father R asked the man, "Do you go to Notre Dame?" The man said no. "Did you go to Notre Dame? Do your children go to Notre Dame? Then why is it any concern of yours?" The man, Father R told me, couldn't understand why Father R wasn't more up in arms over the whole thing, Notre Dame being a Catholic school and symbol and Obama being... whatever it is that he is. Father R thinks we all need to be concerned about ourselves and our families and our communities and leave everyone else alone.
We touched briefly on the sex abuse scandals and how it has been important for the Church to have a mirror raised to its face in order to force changes, but also how sex abuse happens not only in every denomination but also in every institution. Father R seems to be one of those who feel the Catholic Church, because it is so big, is sometimes unfairly demonized by the media and made to seem more corrupt than any other group of human beings, when in fact there is corruption everywhere. I suppose there is some truth to that, at least to the fact that "the Catholic Church" is one visible body that can be referenced when these things happen within it, and it isn't as though when, say, a stepparent molests a child you can point to capital-S "Stepparents." There is no unified body of stepparents that can be blamed. This doesn't excuse the wrongs that do come from the Church (and Father R agrees with that, as well).
We talked for about an hour, and even though the discussion was not entirely satisfying, it was, at least, a discussion. It appears he was incorrect about the DC thing. The lesbian thing remains not entirely explained, though it seems it would be handled in a more palatable fashion (while still resembling a "don't ask, don't tell" policy) here in our diocese. The sex abuse scandals, and all the heavy problems of the Church the world over... are still unsolved. But it was so nice to be able to talk to somebody about it, to have a back-and-forth conversation. And I didn't feel as if I was not allowed to have an opinion that might differ.
In the dream, I was with my parish priest, Father D, who I wrote to a while back. We were standing outside at the church, and there was a rotting pumpkin in this little sunken planter thing. I had tossed the pumpkin in there some weeks previously, and now it was all nasty and goopy. He asked me to clean it up.
As I did so, he stood beside me, and we talked very little. I had a feeling of being dissatisfied by our conversation. Just as I was finishing up, a tiny little bird fell to the ground around Father D's feet. The bird, at first, seemed dead, but I quickly realized it was moving slightly so was alive and just stunned somehow. While we watched, the bird stumbled to the ledge of the sunken planter and then fell in among some twigs and brambles. Father D knelt down to pick up the bird, but when he did, we saw that the bird had fallen into a V-shape configuration of sticks and had decapitated itself. Only the sad little body was left in the priest's hand.
---------------------------
After I made that last post about my dissatisfying email exchange with Father D, I decided after all to write to another priest I sort of know from another parish, Father R.
Father R,
At the Advent penance service at [my parish] a few months ago, you gave
me some very helpful advice. I told you that I was feeling out of
place in the Catholic Church and sometimes wished I had the guts to go
back to being an Episcopalian, but that I had switched back and forth
a few times and knew that was no good. I said one of my biggest
hang-ups of trying to be Catholic was finding myself angry and in
disagreement with a lot of things I heard on EWTN radio. You suggested
I stop listening to EWTN radio! You also suggested that some of the
specific material I was disagreeing with was not necessarily true
Church teaching, and you explained it was possible to use the
catechism to "prove" anything by taking words out of context. You
encouraged me to stay Catholic and to try to work these things out
here.
I have taken your words to heart, have stayed in the Catholic Church,
and have greatly reduced my diet of EWTN radio. I really don't want to
leave the Church. I have reflected on our conversation several times
since then.
That's why I wanted to get back in touch and ask you about another
issue that is really troubling me right now: how issues relating to
homosexuality are being handled by our Church leaders. I am very
troubled by the recent goings-on in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC,
having to do with employee spousal benefits and the foster care
program being ceased because gays are now allowed to marry there. I am
also very troubled by the more recent story from Denver about the two
school-age children who will not be allowed to continue their
education in the local Catholic school because they have two lesbian
mothers.
I am sure you are aware of all the arguments someone like me would
have against these decisions, so I won't write a novel. I'm not sure
where your own opinions fall. But for me, these kinds of stories are
just intolerable. I have a lot of difficulty identifying myself as
Catholic with these kinds of stories out there, and I have a lot of
trouble contemplating raising my children in the Church for the same
reason.
On the other hand, I feel like I shouldn't be the one wanting to
leave, because these stories seem to contradict Church teaching as I
understand it.
What do you suggest? These kinds of things seem to be becoming more
prevalent; will they continue to do so? Do these really reflect Church
teaching, or not? I try to keep in mind that as far as I am aware,
these kinds of stories have never come out of our diocese. Am I
fooling myself when I imagine they never will? Are there others who,
like me, find these stories sad and appalling? What can I do (besides
pray)?
Thank you for taking the time to read this email.
Sincerely,
[me]
This email, I think, had a much more plaintive, much less confrontational tone. He replied the same day, Sunday, and asked to meet in person to discuss these matters, and so I arranged to attend 6:30 a.m. (yikes!) daily Mass that Friday and to meet with him after, before work.
That Friday, March 19, wound up being the feast of St. Joseph; I had no idea before Mass began. St. Joseph day is one of those things I know I've been aware of in the past, but the knowledge is buried with all the other unused information stored in my brain.
The Gospel reading was from Matthew:
Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
Father R's homily was all about the importance of St. Joseph not sticking to his legalistic idea about what he was supposed to do in the situation, about Joseph's wisdom and faith in God. We have to love each other, first and foremost, and see the people we are facing before applying the law in a stringent way. And that's not even the point of the law. Argh; I should have written about this sooner after it happened, but I didn't, and now I'm having a hard time remembering it all.
I felt that surely he was speaking directly to me, or at least that he thought of me in the back of his mind at least once either while preparing the homily or reciting it. I thought the "don't be legalistic" thing would come up in our meeting, but it didn't.
When we sat down together, one of the first things he said was in reference to the DC/Catholic Charities/foster care/spousal benefits thing. He said he thought that the Archdiocese was only thinking about calling off all that stuff, but the media took it all wrong, and in fact the Archdiocese decided to reinstate the foster care program and spousal benefits. He said that was the newest development. In fact, I had not heard that, and while I wasn't sure he was right, I didn't push it. However, I have been unable to corroborate what he said. This article from the National Catholic Register (not the secular media), though published before our meeting, indicates that these programs were truly stopped, as does this article from the Washington Post. I have been unable to find anything that contradicts these, and it seems unlikely that there have been any reversals given the... thoughtfulness with which these decisions seem to have been come to. I invite anyone with differing information to share it.
Because Father R was telling me I was factually incorrect about the DC thing, and because I wasn't sure he was wrong, I didn't have anything else to say about that, and so we moved on to the Denver lesbians.
Father R pointed out that there is a lot we don't know about that story, for example, how the conflict came to light. He wondered if the lesbians were the ones who made a big fuss, wishing to raise a big "we're lesbians!" banner over their family in order to make a statement of some kind and create a spectacle designed to put the big, bad Catholic Church on the spot. I think I mentioned that I had read their anonymous statement saying that they're just a normal, Catholic family, and it seems unlikely they were the ones making the stink since they are not now revealing their identities, and nobody has any back story. However, I have to concede, we do not know how the conflict came about.
What if it happened another way, I asked. What if the lesbians were minding their own business, and someone started butting in and protesting? Father R agreed that if the situation came to a head as the result of malicious gossip and butting-in, that that was wrong. Sometimes bishops make wrong decisions, he said, and that is a very conservative diocese.
I asked what would happen if these people were a part of his parish school. What should parents like these do? Hide one of the partners so that nobody suspects they are lesbians? Only one of the moms gets to go to school events? He said no, that both parents should be able to participate, and nobody should be worried about the parents' sexual status. He said if someone from the parish came to him and said, "Did you know that so-and-so's parents are lesbians?" that he would look at that person and say, "What business is that of yours?" He said he can't stand that kind of harmful gossip, and that employees of his parish school have been removed because of that kind of behavior. He gave some examples of when he has had this sort of conversation with parishioners, parents, or staff of the school (without giving any identifying details, of course).
Father R brought up the Notre Dame thing from a year ago and asked me what I thought of the uproar over that. I said I thought it seemed like a big deal out of nothing and that I didn't fault anybody for accepting the chance to have the President of the United States speak, no matter who he is at the time. Father R said he also thought it was a big deal out of nothing, though he personally wouldn't have thrown the honorary degree into the package. He said that a parishioner came up to him before Mass during that whole hubub and said something like, "Can you believe they're having Obama speak at Notre Dame?" Father R asked the man, "Do you go to Notre Dame?" The man said no. "Did you go to Notre Dame? Do your children go to Notre Dame? Then why is it any concern of yours?" The man, Father R told me, couldn't understand why Father R wasn't more up in arms over the whole thing, Notre Dame being a Catholic school and symbol and Obama being... whatever it is that he is. Father R thinks we all need to be concerned about ourselves and our families and our communities and leave everyone else alone.
We touched briefly on the sex abuse scandals and how it has been important for the Church to have a mirror raised to its face in order to force changes, but also how sex abuse happens not only in every denomination but also in every institution. Father R seems to be one of those who feel the Catholic Church, because it is so big, is sometimes unfairly demonized by the media and made to seem more corrupt than any other group of human beings, when in fact there is corruption everywhere. I suppose there is some truth to that, at least to the fact that "the Catholic Church" is one visible body that can be referenced when these things happen within it, and it isn't as though when, say, a stepparent molests a child you can point to capital-S "Stepparents." There is no unified body of stepparents that can be blamed. This doesn't excuse the wrongs that do come from the Church (and Father R agrees with that, as well).
We talked for about an hour, and even though the discussion was not entirely satisfying, it was, at least, a discussion. It appears he was incorrect about the DC thing. The lesbian thing remains not entirely explained, though it seems it would be handled in a more palatable fashion (while still resembling a "don't ask, don't tell" policy) here in our diocese. The sex abuse scandals, and all the heavy problems of the Church the world over... are still unsolved. But it was so nice to be able to talk to somebody about it, to have a back-and-forth conversation. And I didn't feel as if I was not allowed to have an opinion that might differ.