Dear Friends,

Thank you for all the responses and comments on my (well, not quite) column last week.  I just want to repeat something I tried to say in my part of the column.  I printed the Archbishop’s comments because the Times wouldn’t print them on the Op Ed page and I thought you should have a chance to see and reflect on them.  I know the Times was willing to print them in the Letters venue, but the Archbishop was unwilling to let them condense it to fit space requirements. 

The comments were very interesting and could provide the kind of public debate that might have happened had the Archbishop’s piece appeared in the paper in the first place.  Unfortunately, the bulletin is not really the place for that to happen.  However, for those who wish a counterpoint to the Archbishop, check out the PUBLIC EDITOR piece by Clark Hoyt in last Sunday’s edition. 

I do want to bring up something on a related issue, something that came out of a discussion which arose from this debate.  I can best frame it by asking the question, from where do you get your information about church teaching, church issues, new developments in what’s happening in the Church?  I don’t mean things like the scandals, errant priests, etc.  I mean things like the recent Apostolic Constitution on the admission of Anglican priests into the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church.  Do you read the documents, like the Holy Father’s encyclical On Hope?  Do you seek out Catholic commentary to help you understand it?  Or do you rely simply on the secular media, print or otherwise, to in-form your opinion of whatever it is that comes out?  And when I say secular media, I include all of them, CNN, Fox, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, and all others.  The media may have been great in their coverage of church events, John Paul’s death, Benedict’s visit to the U.S.  But their understanding, real, theological understanding of church teaching? 

For instance, in the document I referenced above, this paragraph appears.  “It is the Holy Spirit, the principle of unity, which establishes the Church as a communion.  He is the principle of the unity of the faithful in the teaching of the Apostles, in the breaking of the bread and in prayer.  The Church, however, analogous to the mystery of the Incarnate Word, is not only an invisible spiritual communion, but is also visible; in fact, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, the visible society and the spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches, are not to be thought of as two realities.  On the contrary, they form one complex reality formed from a two-fold element, human and divine.”

What does that say?  What does it mean?  What theological history does it reflect?  How does it connect with Scripture?  Will a commentary on it, an interpretation of it take all these things into consideration?  Will it reflect the kind of expertise needed to help understand it? 

I’ve rarely read anything, by anyone, in the secular press, that would lead me to answer yes to any of these questions, Religion Editors not withstanding. 

God Bless,
Fr. Ron