|
D r a g n e t
"I AM PRIEST"
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 7/8
 July/August 1994 
|
|
|
A recent issue of the National Catholic
Reporter topped its opinion page with the headline "ROME
HAS SPOKEN, AND THE PEOPLE ARE STEAMED."
The topic was the Pope's letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
But one person whose words appeared in the paper wasn't steamed at
all. Monica Kennedy of Towson, Maryland said:
"The issue of woman and priesthood concerns me (again)
of late. Years ago I accepted my own priesthood and concluded that
my authority rested simply in the conversion of my own heart. I stopped
struggling over the issue of public recognition/ordination and simply
began to practice my priesthood. Many recognize me and many do not,
at least not on the conscious level, but that is not the most important
thing. The most important concern I have is that my people be fed
with Christ, and I do that as God allows and provides. . . .
"I do not suffer persecution with delight. I have struggled
with my priestly identity in much the same way I have watched priests who wear collars struggle. It has not been easy. I have struggled
with loneliness and feelings of alienation. But my priesthood is no
longer something I can speak of as existing outside of myself; I have
become `fused' in a sense. I am priest, through Christ and
in Christ, in a sacrificial and redeeming offering for the people
of God."
From the same issue of NCR,
in its analogue to "Dragnet," comes this poem from a reader
lamenting--guess what?--Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and
implying that the Church's earlier lifting of the ban on altar
girls was intended merely to placate women before the letter on
ordination came out: "Ladies, ladies, soon you'll agree/ This
altar girl crumb from the Holy See/ Gives truth to the adage that
you'll always be/ Rarely the dog, but most often the tree." (Ogden
Nash, call your office.)
The Protestant Challenge
is a bimonthly Evangelical newsletter published in Burlington,
Ontario. As the title implies, its editorial position is hostile toward
Catholicism. The cover story of the May/June 1994 issue is "WHY
I AM AN EVANGELICAL
PROTESTANT" (and not a Catholic).
Inside is a cheery "Lutheran Reminder" that the pope is
the anti-Christ. The back page describes the most formidable enemies
of the [Evangelical] church as the "three R's"--"Ritualism,
Rationalism, and Romanism"--a poor take-off on the nineteenth-century
"Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion." Criticizing Pope John Paul
II as "guilty of great misrepresentation" in his warnings
to Brazilian Catholics about the efforts of Protestant sects to pull
them from the Church, it says resoundingly, "After all, Rome
is the biggest sect of all!" (Which reminds us of the line from
1066 and All That: "And
then the Pope and all his followers seceded from the Church of England.")
From the Shooting-Ourselves-in-the-Collective-Foot
Department: The November 1993 edition of "Dragnet" exposed
not-so-subtle elements of anti-Catholicism in the hour-long CBS drama
"Picket Fences." Apparently, not everyone reads "Dragnet,"
for the program has been nominated for the Humanitas Prize, an annual
award given to TV shows and sponsored by the Human Family Educational
and Cultural Institute. The founder and director of the Institute
is Fr. Ellwood Kieser.
Fr. Kieser seems unaware or unconcerned about the way "Picket
Fences" mocks and misrepresents Church figures and teachings.
The Humanitas Prize is awarded to the show which bests "motivates
its viewers to reach out in love and compassion to people very different
from themselves. It must have a compassionate view of human suffering
and frailty"--part of which, apparently, involves displaying
lack of respect for the Catholic Church.
A Gallup poll reveals that
biblical knowledge among Americans, including, one must presume, Catholics,
is at an embarrassing low. Fifty percent of Americans identifying
themselves as Christians don't know that Jesus preached the Sermon
on the Mount. Said pollster George Gallup, "Americans say they
believe in the Ten Commandments, but they can't name them. And some
Christians who are in church on Easter don't know what they are commemorating."
Although the Bible remains a best-seller and is found in nearly every
American hotel, "Americans do not know what they believe or why,"
said Gallup.
Another analogue to "Dragnet"--this
time a good one. It's "Straws for the Camel's Back," a column
appearing in the Dublin-based Brandsma Review. To
this column we owe thanks for the following quotation from and reaction
to a letter from "quasi-official Catholic sex guru" Jack
Dominian.
"In the light of our ever-deepening understanding of
sexuality, it is highly questionable whether the link with procreation
can bring out the fullest meaning of the act of intercourse. What
I am suggesting is that the anticipation of sexual intercourse before
marriage is not a temporary aberration of the twentieth century, but
an expression of a much deeper insight that sexual intercourse is
a signature of commitment and love which may occur before the actual
ceremony of the wedding. It is my view that this insight should be
taken seriously by Christianity and explored so that we not only minimize
the trivialization of sexual intercourse and its use experimentally,
but also may be able to do justice to the expression of human dignity
by the criterion which Christianity is all about, namely love."
The reaction by "Straws for the Camel's Back,"
in the form of a playlet, goes like this:
"SHE: `Unhand me, sir! The way to my bedroom
lies through the church door!'
"HE: `Hey, don't get me wrong, honey! What I
am suggesting is not a temporary aberration of the twentieth century,
but an expression of much deeper insight and a signature of love.
It will help to minimize the trivialization of sexual intercourse
and its use experimentally.'
"Her face turns into the spotlight and wonderment dawns on it.
He waits expectantly. Gathering all her strength, she biffs him across
the eye with her brolly [umbrella]."
Greg Laurie directs Harvest
Ministries, which coordinates Harvest Crusades all around
the country. At a typical Crusade--a recent one held in San Diego
drew 85,000 people--all those who respond to the altar call are
given a copy of his New Believer's Growth Book. The first
part is a short guide for new Christians, and the bulk of the book
is comprised of the Gospel of John.
The guide concludes with a five-point check list answering the question,
"How do you know you are a Christian?" (The Catholic answer:
If you're baptized, you're a Christian.) Evangelicals like lists--Campus
Crusade for Christ has used them for years. Laurie's question reveals
confusion between being a Christian and being in a state of grace. Each
of his points is accompanied by a verse from John's first epistle.
"1. Do you confess Jesus as Lord? 1 John
4:15." That verse says, "Whoever confesses that Jesus
is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he is in God." Hmmm.
What would Laurie say about the man who "confesses Jesus is the
Son of God" and rejects him anyway? Is such a man a Christian?
One of the greatest problems for apologists is dealing with people
who say, "Okay, I believe in God, and I believe Jesus is God--but
so what? Why should that induce me to alter my life?"
"2. Are you unhappy or miserable when you are sinning?
1 John 3:9." The verse doesn't mention being unhappy or miserable;
it says, "No one born of God commits sin, for God's nature abides
in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God." The Catholic
has no trouble with this verse. He knows that when you sin mortally,
you lose grace, the participation in God's nature, and God no longer
"abides in" you. But Laurie works from the other end and,
taking the verse in a falsely literal sense, argues that, if you are
in the state of grace, you cannot sin. (Even thinking Evangelicals
don't buy this.)
But let's look at the actual phrasing of his question: "Are you
unhappy or miserable when you are sinning?" Again Catholics take
a more sensible view: As a rule we're not unhappy or miserable
when we're sinning--we sin because we like it--but we are
unhappy or miserable for having sinned. This means Laurie's second
point is no indicator of one's Christian status at all--all Christians
sin, and usually they enjoy sinning (at least for a while, until the
guilt sets in), which seems to suggest that Laurie's indicator is
a fickle one at best.
"3. Do you enjoy fellowship with other believers?
1 John 5:1." The verse says nothing about "enjoying"
anything. It says, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ
is a child of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child,"
meaning that as we grow in our love of God, we will grow in our love
of one another. It reiterates Jesus' command to love one another.
Some people don't enjoy being around other people, but does that mean
such people cease to be Christians? Consider St. Jerome, never known
as a particularly sociable man and sometimes termed the patron saint
of crabby people. Are we to say he wasn't a Christian while here below?
"4. Do you obey Christ's commands? 1 John 5:3."
Finally, Laurie says the verse says what it says: "For
this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments
are not burdensome." Laurie doesn't seem to realize it, but this
verse is a fine refutation of the "once saved, always saved"
position, since it says that, at least in part, our Christianness
is based on our acts (or, in the old lingo, our works).
"5. Do you love God's Word? 1 John 2:5."
Though loving God's Word is laudable, the verse says,"But whoever
keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we
may be sure that we are in him." Note that Laurie seems to equate
"Word" with "Bible." From the immediately preceding
verses, it appears that "word" might also be translated
as "commandments" or "instructions." Rephrasing
Laurie's question, we get this: "Do you love to keep God's commandments?"
Hmmm. Again it sounds suspiciously like the Catholic notion that in
some way we're going to be judged on our works, not merely on whether
we've "accepted Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior."
Laurie assures us, "If you answer yes to these five
questions, then you can know that you are a Christian."
Actually, if you answer yes to these five questions, you probably
are a Christian, but you might not be, things not being as univocal
as Laurie seems to think, and many people who are unable to answer
all five questions affirmatively surely must be counted as Christians,
at least if we go by the context of the only three instances in Scripture
in which "Christian" or "Christians" is used.
Curiously, Laurie does not mention these--Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28,
and 1Peter 4:16--perhaps because none of these passages gives
any support to his five-point check list.
|
