The Summit on “Protection of Minors in the Church” begins tomorrow, February 21.  A few days ago, the Vatican released the schedule and program for this meeting which I attach here: http://www.pbc2019.org/meeting/program.   It certainly is a full schedule.  A week or so ago I posted a blog in which I said I was hopeful this meeting would be worthwhile and help to address the abuse of children by clergy as a global issue.

I still am. 

Looking over the schedule there will be nine presentations each about a half hour long.  Most of the people giving the presentations I know.  Two of them I have heard speak.    Each day of the three-day meeting will be dedicated to one of three themes: responsibility, accountability and transparency.  Much of the processing of the input will be done in small groups.  There is prayer time built into each day and mass.   Each day there will be a 5&1/2 hour break for lunch and siesta.   This is typical of meetings in Rome. 

Expectations of this meeting have been high.  Yet, most agree that the meeting likely will only accomplish some limited goals.  The hope is that it would raise awareness of the terrible suffering experienced by an abused child.  Second, it would help bishops from around the world to understand the procedures that need to be followed in cases of abuse of a minor by a religious or clergy.  The bulk of the work would then have to be done when the bishops and participants return home.   The hope is that all the episcopal conferences would address the issues, especially those that have not done much in the way of protecting children.  

The opening presentation will be given by Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle.  He is the Archbishop of Manila (Philippines) and since 2015 has been President of Caritas Internationalis.   His topic is:  “Smell of the sheep. Knowing their pain and healing their wounds is at the heart of the shepherd’s task”.  I heard Cardinal Tagle speak and I could not think of a better person to be the opening presenter at this summit.   He speaks from his heart and from his experience.  He I predict will get the meeting off to a good start.  

Cardinal Tagle was one of the main speakers at the General Congregation of the Carmelite Order in September of 2016 which I attended as Provincial.     It was held at the Casa Sao Nuno Carmelite hotel in Fatima, Portugal which is right across the street from the Fatima Shrine.   Carmelite Provincials, Commissaries and Delegates General from around the world attended the meeting.  Pictured above is Cardinal Tagle with Bro, Robert Chiulli, O.Carm. and me –  Fr Michael Kissane, O.Carm. in front of Casa Sao Nuno.  

Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle spoke on the second day of the meeting.  He spoke in a very fraternal and warm manner and underlined the importance of mercy in religious life and the necessity of welcoming others, especially the poor as Jesus welcomed them.   He invited all present to welcome those on the peripheries  with the same mercy with which Jesus welcomed them.  His topic was: “Missionaries of God’s tenderness and love”, 

His talk was inspiring most of all because I could see that he lived his words.   Tenderness and love and reaching out to the poor were not just words.   He spoke with authority and credibility.  Cardinal Tagle earned his Doctorate in Sacred Theology at Catholic University of America where he studied from 1987 to 1991.  He wrote his dissertation under the direction of Joseph Komonchak on “Episcopal Collegiality in the Teaching and Practice of Paul VI”.   

Later in the day Cardinal Tagle celebrated mass in the Fatima Shrine.  He joined us for meals.    I am sure his presentation at the Summit on Abuse will set a healthy tone to the conversations.   The other speakers are also credible presenters. 

No doubt there is some criticism that the Pope picked “liberal” presenters.   I would tend to disagree.   While many of them are of the same thinking of Pope Francis, they are more centrist than liberal.   There has also been criticism that the meeting will not address the abuse of vulnerable adults or seminarians, nor the role homosexuality (if any) plays in such abuse or its cover-up.

Considering it is only a three-day meeting and looking at the packed schedule it is wise to keep the focus of the meeting limited to setting up protocols in dealing with child abuse by clergy and dealing with it on a global level. The other issues certainly need to be addressed.  However, that will take time.  

The closing remarks of Pope Francis on Sunday morning will likely summarize the meeting and set the stage for future work that needs to be done.    Let us continue to pray for the success of the meeting and for all victims of child abuse. 

There has been much debate in the United States regarding the condition of the Catholic Church.  Certainly, given the scandals within the church such as the abuse of children by clergy and religious, the cover-up of this situation by the church hierarchy, clericalism and the lack of transparency on the part of the church has had its effect on mass attendance and on the number of people who identify themselves as Catholic.  

But for a long time, I have felt there is a deeper problem that the church has not even begun to address.  We as a church in some ways have lost our identity and forgotten that as Catholics, we are called to follow Jesus Christ.  Let me explain.

Many have seen the statistics that show the decline in mass attendance, the number of former Catholics who no longer consider themselves Catholic.  According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, only 23% of U.S. Catholics attend Mass weekly.  There of course are many reasons for this decline. 

Yet at the same time, many people who identify themselves as Catholic have problems with some of the church teachings.   This is not new.  Nor is it a reason to change church teaching.   One study found that six out of ten Catholics hold that the Church should allow priests to marry, ordain women as priests, and permit divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Communion.   Nearly half say the Church should recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples.  The Church today exists in a culture where religious affiliation and church attendance are unimportant to some and where some people want church doctrine to accommodate societal trends.

Whether we believe these statistics or not is not that important.  The fact is the Catholic church today is facing a crisis.   Fewer are turning to the Catholic church for moral guidance in their lives and they are looking for other places to get that guidance.  Some would go as far as to say the Church (especially its leaders) have lost all credibility and no longer have a moral voice.   It is not easy being a Catholic priest today given this climate. 

Many of these Catholics who remain are part of what I call the “middle”.   They do not identify with the extreme, conservative right wing of the church.  Nor do they identify with the progressive, extreme left-wing of the church.   They are somewhere in the “middle” and I believe these are the Catholics the church is losing in droves.   The “middle” includes those who do not always agree with all the church teachings.  It includes young adults who look to the Church to provide moral guidance as they raise their families.   It includes older members of the church who faithfully go to mass each Sunday.  It includes those involved in the Church on a parish level.   It includes couples who are not married in the church, LGBTQ people and teenagers who look to the church for guidance at this critical time in their development.  It includes the disenfranchised and includes some who simply want the to go to mass each Sunday and fulfill their obligation.   In short, in includes all types of people who identify themselves as Catholic and most importantly stay. 

I will admit, I am somewhere in the middle. 

The question is what can be done to save the middle?   How can they be kept from leaving the church and feel welcomed by their Church and parish community?  At the same time, how can this be done without compromising church teaching and the tradition of the church?  These are big questions.  

Experience tells me that the answer is not in the past.   Most are not attracted to the pre-Vatican II traditional Tridentine mass and all the “bells and whistles” that go along with it.  In fact, most were born after Vatican II and have no knowledge or experience of this form of liturgy.  They are not looking for clear doctrine to be pronounced by Church leaders.  That is a misnomer.  They know what the church teaches and what the Catechism says!  For them, the way into the future for the church is not in the past. 

Nor are they looking for relativism within the church where anything goes and all is acceptable as proclaimed by the extreme-left faction of the church.  If this is what they were looking for they would go elsewhere as many have done.   They stay for many reasons most of all because they faithfully believe this is where they belong. 

They are looking to the Church for welcome and for spiritual guidance.  

Most people in the “middle”, who are by far most of the church are looking for a Church that will challenge them and help them grow in relationship with Jesus Christ and their neighbor. 

The “middle” are not interested in the “Cultural Wars” that are happening in the church between the left and the right.   It often is said that today these wars are mostly fueled by the Christian right on Social Media.  While I believe this is true, I can’t help but think that the strong emphasis on clear doctrine, especially in regard to sexual morality during the time of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict led to these cultural wars.  Catholics were told contraception was unacceptable, sexual relations before marriage was unacceptable.  Yet, many Catholics in the middle made a conscious decision to disregard these teachings and remained in the church.  They still do!  And they were welcomed!  More recently, the welcoming of LGBTQ Catholics, the welcoming and treatment of the undocumented and other social issues have helped to further split the Left from the Right.  

Yet, I believe there is still time to model the church around the teachings of Christ and move into the future without losing the “middle” and without causing schism in the church. 

In order to understand what can be done to save the “middle”, one must look at how the cultural wars have played out and are playing out (my knowledge is of the United States) and how it played out in other Christian churches up until now.   

Until now, the Catholic Church has avoided any type of break or schism in recent history.  Certainly, the Protestant Reformation split the church and the church underwent reform at Vatican II.  There have also been small breakoff groups such as the Society of St Pius X.    But the Catholic church has been relatively unscathed by schism in recent history.

When Pope Paul VI in 1968 upheld the church’s traditional ban on the use of artificial contraception even among married couples, he placed the papacy and its teaching authority firmly on the conservative side of the sexual revolution.  This was strongly reinforced during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, which together lasted 34 long years.

A good number of Catholics “in the middle” during those years used contraception and remained in the church.  They were not ignorant of the church teaching.  How could they be?   They made a decision and did not feel guilty about it despite the teaching of the church.  And, most times did not confess this “sin”.   They still don’t today!   In all my years as a priest (32), the amount of people who confessed using contraception have been few and far between.  So, while the left and right fought over this issue, many Catholics made a decision themselves or sometimes after speaking with a member of the clergy and did not feel guilty about it at all. 

This same dynamic played out regarding other moral issues – sex before marriage, couples married outside the church for example.  A good number received the Eucharist anyway despite the church teaching and continue to do so today.  The leaders of the Church thus began to lose their voice in regard to moral issues for many Catholics in the middle. 

It cannot be denied that the “cultural relativism” that we see today among some Catholics existed back then.   By cultural relativism I mean a person believes that his or her beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of their culture, their situation.   At the same time the church spoke with one voice when it came to doctrine.   There was clarity in church teachings when the “middle” were growing up.   Most remained silent in their dissent from church teaching.  “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not something new.  

Others in the middle did not keep quiet and disagreed with church teaching and in fact acted contrary to church teaching and were public about it.   It is not that they did not understand or know the church teaching.  They just made a conscious decision not to follow it.  For this reason, one cannot say that the cultural relativism we see today came about because of the invitation of Pope Francis to become a more inclusive and merciful church.   Dissention happened even when there was clear teaching from the church under Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict!

A good number of the middle “payed and prayed” but they did not always “obey” as good Catholics were supposed to.   Those that were looking for new life and reform within the Catholic church could still be found but they were increasingly defensive and powerless. The Church itself spoke with a united voice against change. That made the church a powerful combatant on the right-wing side of the culture war that played out not only in the Catholic Church but in politics as well.  Because of this, there was little or no visible culture war within the church itself because the progressive, left wing of the church generally remained silent.   Only a few spoke up. 

Then Pope Francis came along.  The tide shifted.   Progressive Catholics had their first champion at the top since John XXIII presided over the start of Vatican II in 1962.   He delivered a message of mercy and compassion rather than speaking clear doctrine.    By most accounts I have heard he was elected knowing he would work to bring about reform within the church.   That is what most Catholics were looking for!  His statements like “Who am I to judge” and his encyclical “Amoris Laetitia” have clearly enlivened the right and the left in the church and set up the cultural war between them.   His preference for “synodality” was not well received by the conservative right.    

In my mind Pope Francis is not looking to make doctrinal changes.  He is merely urging church leaders to stop proclaiming and enforcing doctrines so rigidly without any mercy and compassion.   With the arrival of Pope Francis, there is no doubt that a culture war between the left and right has broken out within the Catholic Church itself because of this shift.

And social media has fueled this war.   No doubt, social media has opened up a new way of communication.   Anyone can write what they want and critique who they want.  Anyone who uses Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or other forms of social media can see these wars happening.    The silent minority for many years now could have a loud voice!  The middle could now have a voice.   Social media has opened up a new way of communicating instantly and in a way that invites responses and dialogue.  

Then there are the “trolls”.   Wikipedia defines a troll as: “a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain.”  Trolls are not interested in discussion.  They are set in their beliefs.  They are simply interested in convincing the reader of their point of view.  They are not interested in evangelizing.   This behavior is not Christian and certainly is not helpful in moving the church forward.

One recent example of this is the discussions that have taken place after Cardinal Kasper came out and said that Cardinal Muller’s recently published “Manifesto” spreads confusion and division.  When the Manifesto was published it created a lot of blogging and comments on social media on both the left and the right.   Then when Cardinal Muller responded, a war broke out with both sides (left and right) getting further entrenched in their view.   Whether you agree with Muller or Kasper is not the point.    Divisiveness, such as this in public happens instantly, without any fact check and often is driven by an agenda.  This is never good for the church. 

So, where do we go from here?   How does the Catholic church avoid schism or some type of separation like happened in other Christian denominations over issues of sexual morality, the welcoming of LGBTQ people, the undocumented, the divorced and remarried, women priests or deacons and other social issues?  

My answer is: get back to the basics.   As Christians and Catholics, we are called to follow Jesus Christ.   Are we not?  By taking a look at scripture and seeing how Jesus related to the outcast, the socially alienated and the rejected, we can get a glimpse of how we as a church can move forward if we identify ourselves as Christian – followers of Christ.  We can also look at how Jesus related to the Pharisees of his day. 

In the gospels, Jesus is portrayed as always being on the side of the “outcasts” of society.   He dined with “sinners”.  He dined with tax collectors.   He touched lepers.   He healed the blind, the lame.   He spoke out against the treatment of the poor by society.  He condemned the sin of his day but not the sinner.

He also called his disciples to a life of holiness.  He did not let them off the hook.  He turned things upside-down and challenged them to evaluate how they treated the outcast, the poor, the sick.   He did not throw out the Jewish laws of the Old Testament.  He did not make big doctrinal changes to the law of the Old Testament.  He simply balanced them with mercy and compassion. 

One of the characteristics of some Pharisees in Jesus’ day was their obsession with pointing out the sins of people and what they perceived as their lack of holiness.  The woman caught in adultery and the prostitute who washed the feet of Jesus are just two examples of Pharisees exposing the sins of people and desiring they be dealt with harshly.  How did Jesus respond?  He neither condemned nor threatened them with God’s wrath and punishment. Rather, he condemned the sin but forgave both women and set them free from their accusers!

His forgiveness empowered them to love God.  It transformed them.  The Pharisees couldn’t understand how extending mercy could possibly change their lives much less their behaviors.  Yet, we see Jesus being merciful rather than rigid and unbending in the interpretation of law.  I believe the Church (the people of God as a whole) are being called to bring about a new church that is much more merciful and compassionate than it has been in recent history – especially in its teachings and proclamations.  

I suspect the Pharisees in Jesus’ day were no different to modern-day Pharisees who are quick to point out people’s sins and demand they live disciplined, “holy” lives.   A quick look at social media can demonstrate that there are plenty of modern-day Pharisees out there who are quick to condemn and alienate the “sinner”.  What did Jesus know about showing sinners mercy that the Pharisees didn’t?    He knew that if the Pharisees really knew God and understood what really mattered to God, they would not overemphasize rules or such things as ritual cleanliness, restrictive Sabbath observance, and sacrifices for sins committed.  They would be more merciful.

Some Pharisees believed that God accepts and blesses people based on their personal holiness.  Some forgot that just because you are “religious” does not mean you are a holy person!   Our faith must be lived!   Jesus knew His Father loved people and didn’t need their sacrifices to earn His favor or love.  He understood that when we connect to God in our hearts by knowing and experiencing His mercy for us, His mercy has the ability to transform us and our desires.

For these reasons I believe the way forward is to be less pharisaical as a church and more merciful.  Pope Francis is spot on when he continually calls the church to be more merciful.   This I believe can help the church get beyond the culture wars and keep the church more united.  This does not mean that there has to be profound changes in doctrine and the laws of the church.  I don’t support that.  But doctrines and laws must be balanced with mercy.  As Christians we are always called to condemn the sin but be merciful and compassionate toward the sinner. 

Moving forward most in the middle are looking for a church that is inclusive and not exclusive, merciful and not condemning, compassionate and not harsh. 

Let us always remember the prayer of Jesus to his Heavenly Father before he went to his death: “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.  (John 17:20-21). Let us pray for those in the middle who in whatever way feel alienated by the church they love.   

May Jesus’ dream of unity come to fruition as we become a more merciful, compassionate church.  

I wrote this a year ago on Presidents Day. Let us pray for the victims and their families.

          The recent senseless shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida has raised all sorts responses on social media and in the press.   Certainly, our hearts go out to all the victims of this terrible tragedy.  After this shooting which took place only 12 miles from St Jude Church in Boca Raton where I served for four years I found myself filled with all sorts of emotions, questions and sadly, a sense of helplessness because there are so many opposing opinions and values at odds with each other. 

          My first reaction was to search for an answer as to how this happened.  Who or what is to blame?   The killer?   The FBI?  The politicians?  Gun laws?   Bullying?  The lack of care for the mentally ill?  Family and friends of the killer?  Then we can take a look at the world kids today have to live in which is so much different than the world I grew up in.   Violent video games and movies, gangs, terrorism plots, poor parenting, cyberbullying and the influences of social media.   Are these to blame? 

          I soon realized that searching for blame solves nothing.   It will not bring back the 17 dead.  Nor will it assure that more senseless killings won’t happen again.  Something more needs to be done. 

          I found myself praying and inviting others to pray for the victims.   I prayed: “Loving God, welcome into your arms the victims of violence in Parkland.  Comfort their families and all who grieve for them.   Help us in our fear and uncertainty and bless us with the knowledge that we are secure in your love.   Help survivors and first responders get beyond the damaging effect of what they witnessed.   Strengthen all those who work for peace.”

          Prayer helps me to remember that all is in God’s hands and that even in tragedy God is present.   It reminds me that all are dependent on God and our time on earth is a gift and therefore we are to live each day as best we can because it is a gift from God. 

          Yet, prayer solves nothing either.  Many politicians including the President have invited all to pray for the victims and first responders.   That’s noble and certainly to be encouraged.  But, is that enough?  I say no.   As Americans we need to do more.  I need to do more.  Yet, the big question is: What can we do?  What can we do to make our school, our communities, our country and world safer? 

          I would like to offer some thoughts on two of the most popular things that seem to be blamed for what happened – mental illness and guns.   I believe taking steps to deal with these two issues will not totally prevent tragedies like this from happening.  But, it certainly will cut down on the number of tragedies and can limit the damage when they do happen. 

Mental Illness

          Mental illness, like violence, murder and war have been with us since the beginning of humanity.   Yet how the mentally ill were cared for has changed over the years.   I do not want to go into the history of how the mentally ill have been cared for but suffice it to say that in the early 1900’s until the 1960’s many of the mentally ill were institutionalized and treated for the most part by drugs.   They were isolated from the general public.    In the 1970’s (at least in New York) laws changed and there was a move to “deinstitutionalize” the mentally ill and have them live back in society.  

          When I was in High School I and a number of other guys who were in the minor seminary with me did volunteer work at the then Middletown Psychiatric Center in Middletown, NY.   This center housed not only the developmentally disabled but also those with psychological diagnoses such as schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder.   Generally, from what I could see they were well taken care of.  But, they were isolated from society.  The Middletown Psychiatric Center was gradually closed down and the residents returned to the general public most times first to group homes and then, if they adapted well enough, back into society.  Today the former Middletown Psychiatric Center is used as an alcohol and drug treatment center and for some other outpatient programs. 

          I certainly am not in favor of institutionalizing the mentally ill.  Returning them back to society was the right thing to do.  However, I do think society has to do much more to provide affordable and proper mental health treatment and enact better laws to deal with those who show signs of mental illness. 

          In the case of the killer at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas School there apparently were signs of mental illness well before the tragedy happened.  Many people did see something odd in the behavior of the killer.  He posted frightening things to social media including a display of guns on his bed and a suggestion of cruelty to animals which is a predictor of cruelty to humans.  Yet, the laws in Florida make it difficult to send someone for a psychological examination against their will. 

          Even though the killer certainly showed signs of being a danger to himself or to others, law enforcement officers who visited his home on a number of occasions I suspect were hesitant to use the Florida “Baker Act” law.   This law allows someone to be involuntarily held for examination for up to 72 hours if there is reason to believe that person is a danger to himself or to others.  The sad thing is family and friends can’t invoke this law on their own. They can only notify law enforcement, a physician or other mental health professionals.   So, one thing we can all do is to put into practice the unofficial motto of the Department of Homeland Security – “If you see something, say something.”

          Sadly, even though people did say something, the system broke down.  I am not sure why the FBI failed to act or why local authorities did not Baker Act the killer when he clearly showed signs of being a danger to himself or to others and it was reported to them.  I am sure these issues will be addressed.  But, all of us have to continue to watch for signs of mental illness in our loved ones and in those we meet and do all we can to get them the help they need.  That is the least we can do.

          As a Carmelite priest with some training as a therapist I have had a number of people come to talk to me who I quickly recognized were suffering from schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder.  Most times they were not a danger to themselves or to others so they could not be sent for an examination and treatment against their will under the Baker Act.  This was frustrating to me because I knew these people needed help.  In fact, they came to me seeking help.  But, unless they agreed to go for treatment there was nothing I could do. 

          Besides following the slogan: “If you see something say something” we need better laws in dealing with mental illness.   Three days of treatment is not enough.   Once treatment is completed monitoring is needed by family and friends to make sure the person continues to get the help he or she needs and remains on whatever medications are prescribed.  And, professionals in mental health, the medical field and police need more authority to send for treatment against their will those who are a potential harm to themselves or others.  Three days is not enough!

Guns

          I for one believe we need better gun control in the United States.   As a Catholic I am pro-life and believe our present gun laws in some states are morally unacceptable.  It makes no sense to me that a 19 year old kid can go into a store and legally buy an assault weapon with little or no questions asked.   At the same time, I am a realist and know that there is strong opposition to banning gun ownership by civilians.    That just is not going to happen.   Yet the shootings in recent history have proven to me that some middle ground has to be found.  It is the moral and ethical thing to do.  Stricter and tighter gun laws are desperately needed in many states in our great country.   The type of guns that are available today compared to when the 2^nd amendment was made mandate that something be done.  The world today is also very different.  

The Second Amendment, written in 1791 states: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The coma is important and has led to many different understandings of this amendment through history.  Does it mean that everyone has the right to possess a gun?  Does it mean that each State has the right to have a militia and arm them to protect themselves and not about one’s personal right to own a gun?  Up until 2008 the answer to this question was left up to individual states.  And there were many varied interpretations most of which limited who can possess guns and what type of guns they can possess.  This was acceptable because the belief was that gun control is as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and bear arms.  It was not until 2008 that the US Supreme Court decided to take up the question and decided in the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller that the second amendment “guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”; that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense;  that “the home” is “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute”; and that, “above all other interests,” the second amendment elevates “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home”.

So, for more than 200 years the interpretation of this amendment was left to the States and each state interpreted it differently.   This Supreme Court decision, certainly gives law-abiding, responsible citizens the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.  It also gives them the inherent right of self-defense and emphasizes that “the home” is where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute.

Was the killer in Parkland a “law-abiding, responsible citizen?”  Was he carrying his assault weapon in case of confrontation?   I suggest the answer to these two questions is no and that the argument that all have the right to possess and carry weapons is a lame one.  Certainly, that is not what the Supreme Court said. 

It is interesting to note that since the June 2008 ruling, over 80 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.   These courts have heard lawsuits regarding bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, the undocumented, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. 

 Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments.  In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools, the carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.

The fact is that the courts have upheld most of these laws as being constitutional.  Society does have the right to control who can purchase guns and what type of guns they can purchase.   The longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms are perfectly legal.   The courts have consistently held that these actions are not against the 2^nd Amendment. 

The problem of course is that not all states have proper laws in place.    Florida has some of the most non-restrictive laws regarding the purchasing and possession of firearms.   For instance, it is legal in Florida for the 19 years old to purchase an assault weapon with few or no questions asked.   At 19 they can buy an assault weapon but they can’t purchase alcohol.   That does not make sense to me. 

I happen to live in New York state which has some of the most restrictive laws in the country.    Granted, this does not mean that criminals can’t get guns!  Having lived and ministered in the Bronx I know they can certainly get them and have them!  But, this does make it much more difficult to legally purchase an assault rifle or other type of gun.   

In New York, you must obtain a permit and pass a rigorous background check for all gun purchases.  In most states, buying a gun from a private seller — in a classified ad or online — does not require a permit or passing a background check.   In New York, even if you meet the requirements to purchase a gun, law enforcement may still deny you.

Since 2012 New York prohibits the purchase and possession of large capacity magazines and assault-style weapons.   Other semiautomatic weapons, in which the trigger must be pulled to fire each bullet, are legal in New York, but you cannot legally purchase a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.  New York city has even more restrictive laws regarding guns. 

So, laws have to be made in each and every State that limit the sale of guns and who can possess them.  Or, Congress or the Supreme Court must act.   Doing this is not against the 2^nd Amendment.   Failing to do this will only bring more bloodshed and more violence.  Florida and other states that allow assault weapons to be purchased by the general public have to change their laws to try and prevent more mass shootings from happening. 

Why has nothing been done?   I can’t help but think much of the reason is because politicians in the United States kowtow to the NRA and the firearms manufacturers instead of passing reasonable laws supported by the vast majority of Americans.  That includes universal background checks and a ban on military-style assault weapons like the AR-15 that has facilitated the mayhem we have seen in many of the mass shootings.

The NRA is a powerful lobby that regularly supports the campaigns of many politicians – mostly Republicans.   There is nothing wrong with this.  Powerful lobbies are here to stay.  Unfortunately, there is no one anti-gun organization that exists on a national level as powerful as the NRA.  There are a number of anti-gun organizations that do lobby and give funds to politicians, but they are not united and therefore they do not have the level of influence that the NRA has. 

          I for one feel there are some things we can do more than encouraging our politicians to support better gun control.  I for one will find it very difficult to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections for any politician that accepted support from the NRA.  On the other hand, I for one will financially support some of the many worthy anti-gun lobbies that exist in the United States and are doing the best they can to bring about better gun laws in the United States.  A few of the ones I know of are: 

Violence Policy Center:  VPC has worked on campaigns from the Brady Bill to taking a stand against concealed carry permitting, filling Washington with reports on the dangers of unregulated gun ownership, challenging the NRA head-on and being a nuisance for anyone looking to make the Second Amendment into a license to carry any and every weapon under the sun. You can find out more about them and make a donation from their website: www.vpc.org

The Brady Campaign: Named after Ronald Reagan’s assistant who was shot and nearly killed.  This group scored a major victory in the 90s with the federal assault weapons ban.   You can find out more about them and make a donation from their website: http://www.bradycampaign.org

Americans for Responsible Solutions: Started by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the wake of her own brush with death after being shot.   ARS is focused on “commonsense” solutions to America’s widespread gun violence issue. Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly call themselves Second Amendment supporters, but are also committed to lobbying for expanded background checks, stiffer gun trafficking penalties and funding studies and research on the causes of gun violence.  You can find out more about them and donate from their website: https://giffords.org

There are many more organizations out there that are fighting against gun violence.  We can be sure that those who support the right to bear arms are going to continue to financially support the NRA.  That is their right.    We who support better gun control have the same right to support these organizations and others.   None of them are as powerful as the NRA and perhaps one day these organizations can unite to give a unified direction to the anti-gun movement and that way raise significant money and effectively counteract the NRA efforts in assuring that every American, regardless of mental state or intent has the right to bear any type of gun they want. 

So, regarding the second amendment, let’s keep it in perspective and not misinterpret it.  The founding fathers never could have dreamed of the world we live in today.   New solutions and new laws have to be made for the good of the Country and to save lives. 

In the end, the tragedies that have happened are not exclusively a gun problem or a mental health problem.  It is a social problem.   How do we stop this violence?   I can’t help but think improvements have to be made in family life.   Kids need to be loved and grow up in an environment where they are taught to respect life at all stages.  They need to learn that bullying is never acceptable.  Parents or guardians need to be there for their children and spend quality time with them.  Let us continue to pray and be hopeful that social change may happen.  On this Presidents Day, let us pray for our president and future presidents and politicians that they may lead our country with dignity and respect for all people. 

Pope Francis has called a summit on clerical sexual abuse for Feb. 21-24, 2019.  The announcement of this gathering was made back in September of 2018.   Much has been written about this and some discussions have centered around what will be accomplished or what should be accomplished.   Presidents of Bishops Conferences from around the world have been invited to attend.   Expectations were high for this meeting.

Amid this, in November of 2018 the Annual Fall meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops took place in Baltimore, Maryland.  At this meeting one main topic of discussion was the crisis of sexual abuse in the Church, especially considering the revelations regarding then Archbishop Theodore McCarrick.  At least some bishops planned and hoped to accept a “Code of Conduct” for all bishops, along with a third-party system for receiving and investigating sexual abuse and other serious complaints against bishops.  These steps were seen as needed by most in the church.  It was the next step to take in protecting children by the Catholic Church in the United States which already had done much in this arena. 

All this was cut short when at the beginning of the meeting, at the urging of the Vatican, Cardinal DiNardo, the USCCB president informed the bishops present that the Vatican wanted the bishops to delay any vote until after the February summit.   Specifically, the Vatican did not want a vote taken on any proposed standards of episcopal conduct or on the formation of a special commission to review complaints of misconduct against bishops.   This disappointed several bishops and laity since the hope was that clear standards would be set up on how to handle any sexual abuse by a bishop here in the United States. 

Why exactly did Rome decide to intervene and not allow a vote to happen?   I am not quite sure.  Yet, there were two major reasons I remember hearing.  First, the removal and disciplining of a bishop according to Canon Law is presently handled by the Vatican and ultimately the Pope.   The formation of a special commission in the US which would likely include some lay people would undermine the process already in place to handle any misconduct by a bishop.  Second, it was noted that Pope Francis and the Vatican sees the sexual abuse issue as a global issue and one that the entire church must address.   Thus, they wanted a global discussion to take place before any further local protocols are developed. 

When this decision made, I immediately thought it was a good and correct one. Indeed, the sexual abuse of children and specifically the abuse of children by clergy and religious is a global issue.   The solution as to how to move forward will have to eventually be a global response by the Church.  However, before that is done, the obvious inconsistency in how the abuse of minors in handled in countries throughout the world must be addressed.    I suspect this is the main reason why Pope Francis and the Vatican asked the USCCB to delay any vote. 

As a former Provincial of a Carmelite province that has missions in Vietnam and Trinidad, I have had the opportunity to visit and spend time in many countries.  I have been to countries in North America, South America, Asia, Oceania and Europe.  I have seen the inconsistency in how the sexual abuse of minors is handled first hand.   The Church in some countries I have visited has not even begun to address the issue of child abuse let alone abuse at the hands of clerics and religious.  In these countries, many dioceses have no standards of conduct for clergy, no protocols or processes in place as to how to handle allegations of abuse and no clear policies as to what should be done with clerics or religious who have abused minors.   

The United States, a number of European countries and other countries such as Australia have acknowledged the problem, developed policies to protect children and set up systems of accountability to make sure the policies are followed.  Admittedly, this was done many times because of civil lawsuits and the courage of many abuse victims who came forward.   Other countries have not even taken the first step in acknowledging the reality that child abuse is a problem!  Some have no policies in place and some countries even have limited civil laws that protect children. 

Pope Francis on his way home from World Youth Day in Panama in late January, talked about his expectations for the summit during an in-flight news conference.  He first mentioned that he thought the perceived expectations were a bit inflated.  I would say that in the Western world this is true.   He then mentioned what he hopes is accomplished by the meeting. 

First, he hopes the meeting would raise awareness of the “terrible suffering” experienced by an abused child.  Second, he hoped it would help bishops from around the world to understand the procedures that need to be followed in cases of abuse of a minor by a religious or clergy.  Finally, he hoped that the meeting and its discussion would be made available to all the episcopal conferences and all conferences would address the issues, especially those that have not done much in the way of protecting children.  The saying that came out of the environmental movement “Think globally, act locally” makes a lot of sense to me in relation to this issue of child abuse. 

In my opinion, if these three things are accomplished, the meeting could be considered a success.    Given the protocols we have in place in the United States (and other countries) and the awareness of the sexual abuse of a minor as a crime we are way ahead of many countries.   Pope Francis, his predecessors and the Vatican has done much to set up canonical procedures as to how cases of child abuse by clergy must be handled.  But this information still has to be disseminated and acted upon in some parts of the world.    Getting representatives from each Episcopal Conference from around the world to be in the same room to discuss, listen and become more aware of the problem is a helpful step.  

Yet, it is only a step.   Much will have to be done in all countries once these representatives return to their respective countries.   For this reason, the success of this summit will be determined later after the bishops return.  Specifically, in the United States, protocols will have to be put in place that outline clearly how cases of abuse by bishops must be handled.  Many in the church are shocked and angry at the abuse of innocent children at the hands of bishops, clergy and religious.   Yet, there is even more anger and shock over the cover-up of this abuse and the culpability of church leaders in this cover-up. 

The result of the Summit unfortunately will largely only be the product of the Bishops.   Few laity will be involved.   I am sure there are reasons for this.  Yet, I believe the Church, in moving forward will have to turn to experts in the field of psychology, theology, cultural anthropology and sociology to understand the root cause of the problem.   Many theories are out there.   What role does clericalism play in the cover-up and abuse itself?   What guidelines need to be put in place to insure the Church is as transparent as possible in regard to all instances of abuse whether sexual, financial or other?  What can be done to rid the church of this terrible sin?  What can psychologists and other professionals offer the church in understanding the possible role of homosexuality and/or sexual dysfunction in those who abuse?   Does the requirement of celibacy contribute to the tendency to abuse?   If celibacy is here to stay what can be done to provide guidance and formation on the healthy living of celibacy?  These are big questions and ones that cannot and should not be answered quickly.  Nor should they be answered by the church hierarchy alone.  

I suspect the Vatican will set up guidelines as to how to move forward but leave it to the Bishops Conferences to come up with a plan as to how to create safe environments in their countries.   This I believe is necessary because of the significant cultural differences throughout the world.  Civil laws are different in different countries.   At the present moment, what is considered child abuse also can vary from culture to culture.  And, how to create the best protocols and implement them I believe is best handled on a local level.   How to do this will look different in Asia and Africa than it does in the United States. This is why “Think globally, act locally” makes sense.

There are some big issues that need to be addressed globally and perhaps this summit will provide some direction regarding these or at least raise the consciousness of these issues globally.  Should a zero-tolerance standard whereby all clergy who have a credible and substantiated allegation of abuse of a minor brought against them be permanently removed from ministry?  Attempts have been made to implement this globally but there was resistance from bishops in Asia and Africa as well as some countries in Europe.  Can some procedures be agreed upon globally to prevent clerics who have abused from going to another country, seeking out a bishop and returning to ministry?  I hope so since there has been much failure in keeping this from happening.  

The Church is hierarchical by nature.   While there has been greater acceptance of empowering Bishops Conferences around the world, there will likely be some resistance to totally leaving the implementation of new procedures in the hand of Bishops Conferences.  The Vatican will have to provide direction and this meeting has the potential to do so. 

One final observation.   This meeting is a three-day meeting.  That’s not a lot of time.    Like many international meetings that take place in Rome there will be reports, speakers and lots of input.  There likely will also be opportunities for discussion.    In the end, a report will be issued (likely prepared by a small committee) that will sum up the deliberations of this meeting and perhaps provide some direction.   So, while I remain hopeful that much good can be accomplished at this meeting, I am well aware of how things are dealt with on an international level in the church and I know that “Rome wasn’t built in a day”.

Let us continue to pray for the success of this meeting and that all children throughout the world may be protected from all forms of abuse.   

Social media is here to stay. I have always enjoyed sharing my thoughts, ponderings and my beliefs. With this blog I hope to occasionally do so in regard to contemporary issues in the Catholic church and in my country the USA.

I have been blessed to have an opportunity to spend a good four months so far ministering in the Carmelite parishes in Trinidad and other parishes where a priest is needed. This experience has reinforced what I have always believed – many Catholics, especially young adults and youth communicate by using social media. The Internet, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and many other means of communication are where they turn for information and how they communicate.

Even before Vatican II the Church has recognized the importance of social communication. Pius XII wrote “Miranda Prorsus” in 1957 which many consider the first modern document on the use of media. This document points out that all forms of media should be used to benefit three main functions: announcing the news, educating and entertaining.

Shaun McAfee in his book Social Media Magisterium: A No-Nonsense Guide to the Proper use Media points out that “Inter Mirifica” and “Sacrosanctum Concilium” were the first two documents issued by the second Vatican Council. “Inter Mirifica” concerns itself among other things with the use of media. In the forward to this wonderful book Dr. Sebastian Mahfood, OP notes that “Sacrosanctum Concilium” teaches us how to relate to God and Inter Mirifica teaches us how to speak to man.

With this in mind, I started this blog because as Christians and Catholics we are all called to evangelize. This is one way for me to do so.

Let us take seriously the mandate of Jesus” “Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)

I wrote this article a week or so ago.

Today is the anniversary of the Roe vs Wade decision in 1973 that legalized abortion throughout the United States. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

I remember the divisiveness that decision caused within the country.    The 60’s and early 70’s were a time of social change – especially for women.    Many would say that Roe vs Wade altered the life of American women.   Yet, Roe vs Wade decision was just one aspect of change for women.   More women began to go to college.   More women entered the workforce.  Women were getting married later in life.  

I remember going to Washington on a number of occasions to participate in the Right to Life march.    In all I have attended at least 6 of the Right to Life marches on Washington.   I have always been against abortion and frequently speak against it in homilies and to individuals.   In my mind, the laws and actions allowing the taking of the life of an unborn child are some of the most unjust laws we have.   The life of a precious child is taken.   Some don’t, but a good number of mothers who have had an abortion end up regretting it.   The right to have an abortion in our country I believe is a tragedy.  

At the same time, I have always been a strong supporter of a consistent ethic of human life.  A “consistent ethic of human life” should guide our responses to every issue where the value of human life and human beings is at stake.  A consistent ethic of life applies to human beings, regardless of race, beliefs, legal status, sexual identity, nationality, age, ability or disability.  It is protecting human life at all stages and promoting the circumstances needed to sustain human life, dignity and well-being.

I always begin with the premise that all issues affecting the dignity of the human person are essentially interrelated.  Yes, life in the womb is precious and deserves legal protection.  I believe (and the Catholic Church clearly teaches) that the same commitment to human dignity that leads us to protect the precious life of the unborn also requires us to defend human dignity elsewhere—in the sick, the poor, the elderly, immigrants and refugees at our border, even those who have been convicted of terrible crimes and are sitting on death row.

Pope Francis has frequently spoken about this “consistent ethic of life”.  He was not the first one.  The late Cardinal Bernardin spoke often of the need for a “seamless garment’ in dealing with moral issues. 

This seamless garment philosophy that Cardinal Bernardin so well promoted holds that issues such as abortion, capital punishment, militarism, euthanasia, social injustice, and economic injustice all demand a consistent application of moral principles that value the sacredness of human life.

Sadly, the reality in the United States is that neither political party – the Democrats or the Republicans, have a consistent ethic of life.  Many politicians on both sides fall short of having a consistent ethic of life.  Those who identify themselves as Catholic can’t claim that either party supports their agenda fully.  Both political parties fall far short.  This presents a challenge for Catholics when it comes time to vote.  

It troubles me that Governor Cuomo (Democrat) in my home state has been pushing for a bill which would enhance federal abortion protections under state law and allow clinicians such as nurse practitioners to perform the procedure.  It would also allow exceptions for late-term abortions in certain cases now banned under the law that legalized abortion in New York State in 1970, three years before Roe vs. Wade.  Other Democrats in New York also support these changes.  

It troubles me that Democrats have consistently voted to fund Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money. 

It troubles me when I see Republicans pushing so strongly to build a border wall.   It troubles me when I see Republicans doing all they can to get rid of the Affordable Care Act to the point that many would go without medical insurance in our country.  It troubles me that we seem to have a president who does not take seriously the need to protect the environment.  These are all “life” issues and would be part of the “seamless garment” that Cardinal Bernardin presented or of what Pope Francis (and I) identify as part of a “consistent life ethic”. 

It troubles me that both political parties seem to make their political agenda more important that keeping the government functioning and workers being paid. 

The divisiveness many of these issues have caused within our country, families and parish communities is extraordinary.    Indeed, the lack of a consistent ethic of life among Catholics has been around for many years and manifests itself in all too many places.  Regardless of what exactly happened, the recent rhetoric that was displayed on social media and in the press regarding the attendance and alleged actions of some youth at the Right to Life march from a Catholic school Covington, Kentucky highlights the divisiveness that exists in our county and the lack of a consistent ethic of life whereby all human life is seen as sacred despite a person’s social status, ethnic background or the color of their skin.   Hopefully some important lessons about racism and marginalization, dialogue and encounter, about truth and reconciliation can come from this situation so that a deeper understanding of the need to respect all life can be fostered in our nation. 

          It confuses me when I hear someone say they are pro-life yet against the Affordable Care act.  It confuses me when I hear someone say they are pro-life and in favor of the death penalty.  It confuses me when I hear someone say they are pro-life yet against welcoming those who come to our border searching for a better life.   It confuses me when someone says they are pro-life yet against stricter gun control.   There is a “disconnect” somewhere amid all this. 

I have seen often enough as a pastoral minister that when there is a “disconnect’ in a person’s ethic of life they struggle to draw closer to Jesus.    Sadly, they often find themselves alienated from the Church (at least the Church’s teachings) and begin to feel unwelcomed.  This is sad and not the outcome I or the church desires.   If we keep in mind that the Church is certainly made up of imperfect people and all should be on a journey as Matthew Kelly says to becoming “the best version of ourselves” we can recognize there is room for all.   And, all are welcome.   Saints and sinners.  But, mostly sinners! 

 I have counseled and heard the confession of quite a few women who have had abortions.   Some I remain friends with, even on facebook.   How have I reconciled my strong stance for life with their sinful actions?  The same way Jesus did when a woman was going to be stoned by a group of men for adultery.  Whether I encounter them in confession or if they simply come to talk to me for guidance, I always condemn the sin but reach out with mercy and compassion for the sinner.   Jesus said: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and do not sin no more.”  Let us always condemn the sin and always show mercy and compassion toward the sinner.  That is what Jesus clearly did.   

On this anniversary let us pray for a more consistent ethic of life and for an end to abortion. 

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton