Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

So I have worn the veil to Mass three times since I received it. The first two times were at daily Mass, which are less crowded, and today was the Sunday unveiling (unveiling of the veil…haha!).

The first time I wore it, I felt a bit self-conscious. It also brngs up questions like, when do I put the veil on? When I’m in the church building? Before I enter the sanctuary? In the sanctuary? When I get to my seat? I decided to put it on upon entering the sanctuary. If I’m wearing a coat this can create some issues, because I don’t want it to fall off when I remove my coat, but so far that hasn’t happened. When I leave Mass, I take it off when I’m out of the sanctuary, meaning that if I was going to get doughnuts or whatever post-Mass, the veil would be off.

So I get to my seat, veil in place, and Mass proceeds as usual. It helps me focus, because my peripheral vision is sort of skewed by the veil. My veil is lace, so I can see through it, if I try, but I sort of like the fuzziness on either side of me. It helps me concentrate.

I try not to fiddle with it, but it does have a tendency to slip back on my head so I have to pull it forward sometimes. (I like it right about where bangs would begin.) But no far it has not fallen off, even when I bow or lower my head.

And no, I haven’t received any looks or questions. But at this parish, it’s not uncommon to see girls of about six or seven wearing a small chapel cap or veil, so I’m not really doing anything all that special. At another, less traditional parish, I’m sure I’d get some looks.

So, this is my veil experience thus far. I have found it helps me concentrate (I’m not wildly looking around anymore, because I don’t want the veil to fall off!), which can only be a good thing at Mass.

has arrived.

Tried it on in the mirror, and I think it looks pretty sweet. It doesn’t fall off when I bow or lower my head either, so that’s a good thing!
Hopefully I can make it to Mass tomorrow and give it a first run. I’m excited!

In today’s Enquirer (article by Dan Horn)–my emphases and comments.

Catholics stand together during Sunday Mass to recite the “Profession of Faith,” a creed that defines precisely what it is that makes them Catholic.

“We believe in God … We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ … We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

The prayer covers a lot of ground, from God’s creation of the Earth to Christ’s birth and crucifixion to the promise of life in heaven. Most churchgoing Catholics memorized the words as children and consider the creed a statement that unites them in a common belief.

And yet, when they walk out of church at the end of Mass, they still find plenty about their faith to argue about.

The arguments have been passionate in recent weeks as Cincinnati’s Catholics debated Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk’s decision to punish Sister Louise Akers for publicly supporting the ordination of women priests.

Pilarczyk told Akers she could not teach in archdiocesan schools until she renounced her stance on the issue. A week after she refused, a parish priest in Westwood dismissed a volunteer religion teacher, Carol Egner, for writing a letter to The Enquirer supporting Akers and her position on women priests.

The decision to punish the teachers not only rekindled debate over the ordination of women, but also highlighted a long-running tug-of-war between traditionalists and progressives over the future of the Catholic Church.

“What’s happening with Akers is not an isolated case,” said John Allen, an author and columnist who covers the Vatican for the National Catholic Reporter, an independent weekly newspaper. “It’s a small piece of a much bigger picture.”

The struggle within the church has intensified in the past few years as conservative Catholics, energized by the appointment of Pope Benedict XVI, pushed for stricter adherence to church teaching. They have praised a Vatican investigation of women’s religious orders, welcomed a return to traditions such as the granting of indulgences and cheered Pope Benedict’s declaration that Catholics must “not seek to adapt the faith to the fashions of the age.”

They also supported Pilarczyk’s decision to get tough with Akers over the ordination of women, which some consider a vestige of a liberal theology that took hold in the 1960s and 1970s after the Second Vatican Council.

The council, also known as Vatican II, launched reforms that some theologians now say were misinterpreted as an invitation to change the central teachings of the faith to better mesh with the changing secular world.

“Vatican II wasn’t intended to set off a liturgical civil war, but that’s what we got,” said Rich Leonardi, a Cincinnatian who writes the conservative Catholic blog Ten Reasons. “There was a tendency to think the church should just go with the flow, to move with the world rather than to move the world.

“That ship has sailed. There’s no intensity around that movement any more.”

Catholics who favor reform dispute Leonardi’s take on their views, saying they remain active and committed to changing their church from within. They acknowledge, however, that they face more challenges today than they did just a few decades ago.

“I do think there seems to be a trend among bishops around the country to get much more hard-line about women’s issues,” said Christine Schenk, director of FutureChurch, which favors a “discussion” about women’s ordination but has not endorsed the idea.

“It’s a mystery to me, but talking about women’s equality in the church is threatening at some level.” (Oh. Puh-leaze. Genesis doesn’t say “male and female he created equally” It says, “Male and female he created them.” Each gender is unique, and each has unique gifts. They are not interchangable things. For more–read the Theology of the Body. Even a brief summary will suffice.)

Dealing with dissent

Conservatives have gained momentum in the past decade among the laity, in seminaries and in the church hierarchy. They have taken to blogs, TV and radio and have become more active in church affairs and in secular politics.

That was evident earlier this year when bishops and thousands of lay Catholics publicly opposed President Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Notre Dame on grounds that his pro-choice stance conflicted with Catholic teachings.

“What we’re living through right now is a kind of reaction against what was seen as an excessively liberal period,” Allen said.

From the outside looking in, divisions within the church are not all that visible because polls show America’s 70 million Catholics tend to hold views similar to those of the general population.

But those polls also show that Catholics who describe themselves as “orthodox” or who attend Mass regularly are more closely aligned with their church’s teachings on issues such as abortion, homosexuality and embryonic stem cell research.

These are the Catholics who have embraced what some call the “Catholic identity movement,” which calls for closer adherence to the traditions and teachings that separate Catholics from other Christian faiths.

“A watered down Catholicism that asks nothing of its members shouldn’t expect to get anything in return,” Leonardi said.

One of those teachings is the all-male priesthood. While not referenced in Scripture, it is based on sacred tradition passed down over 2,000 years and is specifically referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In other words, the male priesthood is non-negotiable.

“The church has no authority to ordain women,” said archdiocese spokesman Dan Andriacco. “It is not an open question.”

He said the discipline imposed on Akers and Egner is not part of a wider crackdown on dissent, as some fear, and the archdiocese has no interest in rooting out rank-and-file Catholics who don’t agree with everything the church does, including the 60 percent who tell pollsters they support ordaining women.

“There is no witch hunt,” said the Rev. Earl Fernandes, dean of Mount St. Mary’s Seminary. “We’re a big church. We try to help each person to grow in faith.”

‘Spirit of openness’

Dissent is nothing new for Catholics. The church’s positions on birth control, celibacy for priests, the Latin Mass and a host of other traditions and teachings have been argued for decades, or even centuries.

Priests and bishops know not every Catholic will adhere to every teaching of the faith, and most say there is room on some issues for healthy debate, or at least for disagreement.

“We want to have a fundamental spirit of openness,” Fernandes said.

Church officials say Akers and Egner crossed a line because they are teachers who publicly challenged church teachings. Their argument goes something like this: Religion is about belief, and those who believe women should be priests don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches. They believe what Methodists teach. (Ha!)

That doesn’t mean they have to quit the church, but it does mean they aren’t permitted to teach. (Exactement!)

“We want our teachers to be authentic,” Fernandes said. “We want our teachers to believe what they teach.”

Both Akers and Egner say they would not express their views on women’s ordination in their classes, and they consider themselves loyal to their church and to the core beliefs recited every Sunday in the Profession of Faith.

They say there should be room in their church for them to do the work they love, even if they disagree on the ordination of women.

“Catholics have a very long tradition of various beliefs and the ability to talk about them,” Egner said. “Sometimes things change.”

In Cincinnati, there’s things a-brewing, since the archibishop has told a nun she can no longer teach, due to her support for female ordination.

Now, a supporter of the nun’s, an OB/GYN who teaches 6th grade Old Testament at her parish, has been asked to stop teaching, because she, too, supports women’s ordination.

I was going to do a write-up about this, but, as usual, Fr. Z does it so much better than I. He also includes article links.

Jeb on his brother’s faith–and faith in politics.

(h/t The Corner; taken from an NY Times article)

Re: Vigilance in the Defense of Life [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

It is good to see Ross Douthat’s reflection on two Kennedys in the Times today. He writes, in part:

For abortion opponents, cruel ironies abounded in this sibling disagreement. Because of Eunice Shriver’s work with the developmentally disabled, a group of Americans who had once been marginalized and hidden away — or lobotomized, like her sister Rosemary — was ushered closer to full participation in ordinary human life. But because of laws that her brother unstintingly supported, that same group was ushered out again: the abortion rate for fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome, for instance, is estimated to be as high as 90 percent.

In 1992, Eunice participated in the last significant effort to push the Democratic Party away from abortion on demand, petitioning her party’s convention to consider “a new understanding” of the issue, “one that does not pit mother against child,” but instead seeks “policies that responsibly protect and advance the interest of mothers and their children, both before and after birth.” That same summer, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court upheld a near-absolute right to terminate a pregnancy — a decision made possible by her brother’s demagogic assault on Robert Bork five years earlier, which helped doom Bork’s nomination to the court.

At times, Ted Kennedy’s fervor on abortion felt like an extended apology to his party’s feminists for the way the men of his dynasty behaved in private. Eunice, by contrast, had nothing to apologize for. She knew what patriarchy meant: she was born into a household out of “Mad Men,” where the father paraded his mistress around his family, the sons were groomed for high office, and the daughters were expected to marry well, rear children and suffer silently. And she transcended that stifling milieu, doing more than most men to change the world, and earning the right to disagree with her fellow liberals about what true feminism required.

It’s worth pondering how the politics of abortion might have been different had Ted shared even some of his sister’s qualms about the practice. One could imagine a world in which America’s leading liberal Catholic had found a way to make liberalism less absolutist on the issue, and a world where a man who became famous for reaching across the aisle had reached across, even occasionally, in search of compromise on the country’s most divisive issue.

Today I went to noon Mass at St. Joseph’s downtown. I made a promise to myself to go more often, so…no day like today, right?

Usually I like to get there early so I can say my rosary (or most of it) in front of the tabernacle, in the Eucharistic chapel. There’s just something about praying my rosary there, in front of Jesus in the tabernacle, that makes it that much more special for me, and I feel so much closer to Our Lord. So this is an important time for me. I tend to work out big problems while doing this, too.

So I was praying, per usual, when I saw a nun and a little girl. I couldn’t tell what order the nun was with–I didn’t recognize her habit (grey head scarf/pieces, whatever it’s called now, a sort of lighter-gray, dark white dress, rope around the waist, wooden rosary also at waist). The nun, who looked about my age, was pointing things out to the little girl, and, when they reached the chapel, the nun showed her how to genuflect and make the Sign of the Cross. I’m guessing the girl was about three or four.

The sister and the child attended the Mass (today’s the feast day of St. Bartholemew, BTW), and I sat in front of her. During the peace we shook hands. She had the most radiant, calm, peaceful face. And she was very friendly and obviously patient, to take the little girl around like that.

Seeing a nun–in habit!–worshipping and teaching like that was a good insertion to my day. It also helped me stick to my resolve to be more prayerful, more in tune with God.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjMyY2YyMTJjNjlkZGUwNDU 4ZDQ4MDViMmY0NDZkYWQ=

and… the pro-life poll here.

Fr. Z, as we know, is always great.

But with this speech, and his comments, it is beyond great. 

It is required reading. 

Archp. Burke’s comments at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast are definitely worth reading in their entirety. 

They sum up a question I’ve talked about before here: am I (are we) American Catholics, or Catholic Americans? 
I think this speech goes a long way in answering that question.

(did you know the Fourth Sunday of Easter was called Good Shepherd Sunday? I didn’t.)

This Sunday I attended Mass at my mom’s home parish, Church of the Nativity,in Baldwin, PA (a suburb of Pittsburgh).  Besides being the church where all my mom’s sisters were married, it’s also where I was baptized on May 9, 1982 (Mother’s Day that year). 

I hadn’t been to the church in awhile, and there were lots of changes, both cosmetically (new carpet, new pews) and liturgically–the tabernacle has been moved front and center, behind the altar, and the servers ring bells at the moment of consecration (loved that!). If, as Fr. Z tells us, we must “say the black and do the red”, then Nativity is well on its way. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Latin Mass there someday. There’s a group that says Rosary before every Mass, and they have a Divine Mercy icon to the right of the altar. 

The priest was a visiting priest–the Diocese of Pittsburgh does “priest swaps”, where local pastors switch churches for a weekend. I think it’s a good idea. This one was from St. Germain, which has merged with Nativity’s school to form St. Katherine Drexel Catholic School. All my mom’s siblings went to Nativity, and my grandfather taught music lessons there, so it’s sad to see the school merged with another. But the parish is 100 years old, so it’s a sign of the times (sadly). 

The priest told us about Good Shepherd Sunday, and connected the Gospel (from John 10) to the raising of Lazarus from the dead in Chapter 11–followers of Jesus are like the sheep who know their shepherd’s voice. Jesus only had to say to Lazarus, “Lazarus, come out!” and he did. We don’t need to hear a lot of words if we are in touch with Jesus’s voice. The priest then went on to discuss how shepherds and sheep-herding really worked (i.e., how the sheep had names the shepherds would call, how they would be rounded up into their pen, etc) and connected that with how Jesus cares for us. 

How much attention do we give our shepherd? We know that our shepherd laid down his life for us–his sheep. Real sheep don’t know that–they can’t intellectually figure that out. But we can.