06 May 2014

A Cloud/Herd/Flock/School of Poets

NB. I posted this list back in 2011 on a whim. . .and I'm reposting it now on a similar whim. As summer approaches and my reading duties shift from Work Reading to Enrichment Reading, I always turn toward the world of poetry. My personal favs are in bold. Enjoy! 

This list of poetry types and representative poets is freely adapted from Kathryn VanSpanckeren's article, "Contemporary American Poetry."  

Poetry of Voice:  Louise Gluck, Brigit Pegeen Kelly, Rita Dove.

Poetry of Place: Charles Wright, Tess Gallagher, Mark JarmanYusef Komunyaka, C. D. Wright.

Poetry of Family: Li-Young Lee, Sharon Olds, Stephen Dunn.

Poetry of the Beautiful:  Mark Doty, Eric Pankey, Sandra McPherson, Henri Cole, Robert Hass.

Poetry of Spirit: Jane Hirshfield, Gary Snyder, Arthur Sze, Franz Wright.

Poetry of Nature:  Mary Oliver, A. R. Ammons, Pattiann Rogers, Maxine Kumin, Amy Clampitt.

Poetry of Wit:  Billy Collins, Charles Simic, Mark Strand, Stephen Dobyns, Mark Halliday.

Poetry of History:  Robert Pinsky, Frank BidartGjertrud Schnackenberg, Michael S. Harper.

Poetry of the World:  Yusef Komunyakaa, Richard Hugo, Philip Levine, Ellen Bryant Voigt.
 
________________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

05 May 2014

CDF to LCWR: get with the program!

Apparently, the CDF is tired of waiting for the LCWR to carry out its canonical duties in addressing rampant dissent among its members -- members of the LCWR leadership, mind you. . .not the rank and file sisters.

I'm posting the full text of Cardinal Müller's address b/c he pretty much dispenses with the polite formal noises and gets down to business:

 +   +   +

Meeting of the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)
 
April 30, 2014

Opening Remarks
By Cardinal Gerhard Müller

I am happy to welcome once again the Presidency of the LCWR to Rome and to the Congregation. It is a happy occasion that your visit coincides with the Canonization of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII, two great figures important for the Church in our times. I am grateful as well for the presence and participation of the Delegate for the implementation of the LCWR Doctrinal Assessment, Archbishop Peter Sartain.
 
As in past meetings, I would like to begin by making some introductory observations which I believe will be a helpful way of framing our discussion. 
 
First, I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the progress that has been made in the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment. Archbishop Sartain has kept the Congregation appraised on the work regarding the revision of the LCWR Statutes and civil by-laws. We are glad to see that work continue and remain particularly interested that these foundational documents reflect more explicitly the mission of a Conference of Major Superiors as something centered on Jesus Christ and grounded in the Church’s teaching about Consecrated Life. For that collaboration, I thank you.

Two further introductory comments I would like to frame around what could be called objections to the Doctrinal Assessment raised by your predecessors during past meetings here at the Congregation and in public statements by LCWR officers. We are aware that, from the beginning, LCWR Officers judged the Doctrinal Assessment to be “flawed and the findings based on unsubstantiated accusations” and that the so-called “sanctions” were “disproportionate to the concerns raised and compromised the organization’s ability to fulfill its mission.” This principal objection, I note, was repeated most recently in the preface of the collection of LCWR Presidential Addresses you have just published. It is my intention in discussing these things frankly and openly with you to offer an explanation of why it is that we believe the conclusions of the Doctrinal Assessment are accurate and the path of reform it lays before the LCWR remains necessary so that religious life might continue to flourish in the United States.

Let me begin with the notion of “disproportionate sanctions.” One of the more contentious aspects of the Mandate—though one that has not yet been put into force—is the provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. This provision has been portrayed as heavy-handed interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its part, the Holy See would not understand this as a “sanction,” but rather as a point of dialogue and discernment. It allows the Holy See’s Delegate to be involved in the discussion first of all in order to avoid difficult and embarrassing situations wherein speakers use an LCWR forum to advance positions at odds with the teaching of the Church. Further, this is meant as an assistance to you, the Presidency, so as to anticipate better the issues that will further complicate the relationship of the LCWR with the Holy See.
 
An example may help at this point. It saddens me to learn that you have decided to give the Outstanding Leadership Award during this year’s Assembly to a theologian criticized by the Bishops of the United States because of the gravity of the doctrinal errors in that theologian’s writings. This is a decision that will be seen as a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal Assessment. Not only that, but it further alienates the LCWR from the Bishops as well. [He's talking about Elizabeth Johnson.]
 
I realize I am speaking rather bluntly about this, but I do so out of an awareness that there is no other interpretive lens, within and outside the Church, through which the decision to confer this honor will be viewed. It is my understanding that Archbishop Sartain was informed of the selection of the honoree only after the decision had been made. Had he been involved in the conversation as the Mandate envisions, I am confident that he would have added an important element to the discernment which then may have gone in a different direction. The decision taken by the LCWR during the ongoing implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment is indeed regrettable and demonstrates clearly the necessity of the Mandate’s provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. I must therefore inform you that this provision is to be considered fully in force. I do understand that the selection of honorees results from a process [ah, the Holy Process of Religious! Always a great disguise for doing whatever we want], but this case suggests that the process is itself in need of reexamination. I also understand that plans for this year’s Assembly are already at a very advanced stage and I do not see the need to interrupt them. However, following the August Assembly, it will be the expectation of the Holy See that Archbishop Sartain have an active role in the discussion about invited speakers and honorees.
 
Let me address a second objection, namely that the findings of the Doctrinal Assessment are unsubstantiated. The phrase in the Doctrinal Assessment most often cited as overreaching or unsubstantiated is when it talks about religious moving beyond the Church or even beyond Jesus. Yes, this is hard language and I can imagine it sounded harsh in the ears of thousands of faithful religious. I regret that, because the last thing in the world the Congregation would want to do is call into question the eloquent, even prophetic witness of so many faithful religious women. And yet, the issues raised in the Assessment are so central and so foundational, there is no other way of discussing them except as constituting a movement away from the ecclesial center of faith in Christ Jesus the Lord.
 
For the last several years, the Congregation has been following with increasing concern a focalizing of attention within the LCWR around the concept of Conscious Evolution. Since Barbara Marx Hubbard addressed the Assembly on this topic two years ago, every issue of your newsletter has discussed Conscious Evolution in some way. Issues of Occasional Papers have been devoted to it. We have even seen some religious Institutes modify their directional statements to incorporate concepts and undeveloped terms from Conscious Evolution.
 
Again, I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important to dress up in flowery language. The fundamental theses of Conscious Evolution are opposed to Christian Revelation and, when taken unreflectively, lead almost necessarily to fundamental errors regarding the omnipotence of God, the Incarnation of Christ, the reality of Original Sin, the necessity of salvation and the definitive nature of the salvific action of Christ in the Paschal Mystery. [Exactly. Hubbard's mish-mash of New Age junk is NOT Christian.]
 
My concern is whether such an intense focus on new ideas such as Conscious Evolution has robbed religious of the ability truly to sentire cum Ecclesia. To phrase it as a question, do the many religious listening to addresses on this topic or reading expositions of it even hear the divergences from the Christian faith present? 
 
This concern is even deeper than the Doctrinal Assessment’s criticism of the LCWR for not providing a counter-point during presentations and Assemblies when speakers diverge from Church teaching. The Assessment is concerned with positive errors of doctrine seen in the light of the LCWR’s responsibility to support a vision of religious life in harmony with that of the Church and to promote a solid doctrinal basis for religious life. I am worried that the uncritical acceptance of things such as Conscious Evolution seemingly without any awareness that it offers a vision of God, the cosmos, and the human person divergent from or opposed to Revelation evidences that a de facto movement beyond the Church and sound Christian faith has already occurred. [This is exactly right. If your theology is wrong, then your ecclesiology is wrong and your religious life will be wrong too.]
 
I do not think I overstate the point when I say that the futuristic ideas advanced by the proponents of Conscious Evolution are not actually new. The Gnostic tradition is filled with similar affirmations and we have seen again and again in the history of the Church the tragic results of partaking of this bitter fruit. Conscious Evolution does not offer anything which will nourish religious life as a privileged and prophetic witness rooted in Christ revealing divine love to a wounded world. It does not present the treasure beyond price for which new generations of young women will leave all to follow Christ. The Gospel does! Selfless service to the poor and marginalized in the name of Jesus Christ does!
 
It is in this context that we can understand Pope Francis’ remarks to the Plenary Assembly of the International Union of Superiors General in May of 2013. What the Holy Father proposes is a vision of religious life and particularly of the role of conferences of major superiors which in many ways is a positive articulation of issues which come across as concerns in the Doctrinal Assessment. I urge you to reread the Holy Father’s remarks and to make them a point of discussion with members of your Board as well.

I have raised several points in these remarks, so I will stop here. I owe an incalculable debt to the women religious who have long been a part of my life. They were the ones who instilled in me a love for the Lord and for the Church and encouraged me to follow the vocation to which the Lord was calling me. The things I have said today are therefore born of great love. The Holy See and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith deeply desire religious life to thrive and that the LCWR will be an effective instrument supporting its growth. In the end, the point is this: [read this part carefully] the Holy See believes that the charismatic vitality of religious life can only flourish within the ecclesial faith of the Church. The LCWR, as a canonical entity dependent on the Holy See, has a profound obligation to the promotion of that faith as the essential foundation of religious life. Canonical status and ecclesial vision go hand-in-hand, and at this phase of the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment, we are looking for a clearer expression of that ecclesial vision and more substantive signs of collaboration.

Here's a translation of that last bit: "If you want to keep your canonical status, get with the Church's program." I don't see that happening b/c the LCWR has constructed an institutional identity founded on opposition to the Church. Joining with the Church in her mission would effectively kill the LCWR as it understands itself.
_______________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

Even More Non-demonizing Homilies!

Non-demonizing Homilies (per request)

A commenter (using a fake name, of course)* asks: "Do you ever preach a homily where you don't demonize someone?" 

Odd question. But the answer is Yes! 

I found these in about 45 seconds.
There are many more. . .but I have lots of things to do today. 

* I didn't approve the comment for posting b/c it was less than charitable in tone and content.  This is just the gist of it. . .
__________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

04 May 2014

OP Laity Retreat Essay & A Homily

Here's the primary text we used this weekend at the OP Laity retreat:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, On the New Evangelization, 2000.

I also gave them this 2008 homily for reflection. It covered some of the themes we explored using this Sunday's gospel reading. 

Octave of Easter (W): Acts 3.1-10 and Luke 24.13-35
Fr. Philip N. Powell, OP
St Albert the Great Priory


After nearly twenty decades of exile in the woodshed for barbaric acts against humanity and a slow rehabilitation on the continent with French and German philosophers, I am happy to report that Belief is once again welcomed among us as an acceptable weapon against the encroaching hordes of nihilism. With those hordes shaking the ground right outside our gates, some in the civilized world line up for defense behind the utopian promises of secular scientism; some behind the ever more suicidal versions of Christless Christianity; some behind the absurd absolutes of religious fundamentalism; and some have even come to understand the wisdom of the West’s Catholic heritage and have, as a result, embraced the power of basic belief as the first best step in the dangerous project of shining a bright beacon into the darkness. Luke’s gospel story of meeting Jesus on the road to Emmaus greatly clarifies this last option: if our eyes are to be opened, we must first believe and only then will the need for sight disappear.

As the disciples walk to Emmaus, Jesus joins them. Since “their eyes were prevented from recognizing him,” the disciples confess their deepest doubts about the events of Good Friday and Easter Sunday: “…we were hoping that [Jesus] would be the one to redeem Israel…” The disciples tell Jesus about his execution, his burial, and the discovery of his empty tomb by the women. They report: “…some of those with us went to the tomb and found things just as the women had described, but him they did not see.” Jesus’ reaction to their doubt is telling. He doesn’t accuse them of being blind or stupid or deluded. He says to them, “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!” Their inability to understand the events of Easter Sunday is rooted in an unwillingness to believe. They went to the tomb to see, but they did not take with them their eyes of faith.

Jesus patiently teaches them—again!—the heart and soul of the prophetic tradition: God will come to His people in the person of a savior. This is a promise fulfilled in their hearing. But it is not until Jesus blesses, breaks, and gives them the bread at table that their eyes are opened and they see. The instant they recognize him for who he is, “he vanishe[s] from their sight.” They believe, they recognize. They see him. And seeing is no longer necessary. Remember just last week or so that Jesus stood before an angry crowd busy gathering stones to throw at him. He urges the crowd to believe in his good works so that they may come to “realize and understand” that he is the Christ sent by the Father. The evidence he offers is only good as evidence if we first believe. This is basic. Comes first. Primary.

Belief is fashionable again b/c we have exhausted the modernist project of scientific absolutes, and we have discovered along the way that for all its usefulness science is a story we tell about the world. Like most stories, it has characters, plots, settings, action. Unlike most stories, it does an excellent job of explaining what we think we see and hear and taste and touch. What it cannot do as a story is tell us about how to live in wonder at creation, how to thrive in love with the very fact of just being-here. Scientism demands that we place our faith in a investigative method. Christless Christianity demands that we place our faith in the bastard children of the hard sciences: sociology, psychology, economics, history. Fundamentalism demands that we place our faith in the infallible genius of the individual’s zeal for absolutes. What does Christ demand? How do those hearts so slow to believe catch fire? As Jesus and the disciples approached Emmaus, Jesus “gave the impression that he was going on farther. But [the disciples] urged him, ‘Stay with us…’ So he went in to stay with them.”
_____________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

Retreat Almost-debacle

Besides churning out seminarian evals all last week, I also spent some time preparing for my conferences for the OP laity retreat on Saturday. 

Late Thursday I got an email from the retreat coordinator inviting me to a late lunch with the retreatants on Friday afternoon.

When I read the email -- dazed, confused from eval-writing -- I saw Saturday afternoon and responded that I could make the lunch. . .

Friday night I was checking back over the emails from the retreat coordinator to refresh my memory about how many conferences I was to give. . .

Then -- like a five gallon pickle bucket of crushed ice -- it hit me. DOH! The retreat started that afternoon. . .that Friday afternoon.

Since I usually keep my cell phone off when I'm working, I reached for it to check if I'd received any messages from the retreat folks. . .it was no where to be found. I'd left it in my office.

Found my phone. No messages. Then I got an email from one of the retreatants asking me for an ETA at the retreat center. 

We finally connected on the phone and I blurted out my perfectly reasonable explanation for confusing the dates: Early On-set Senioritis. 

Made it to the retreat on Saturday morning and we had a great time!

At least, I think I remeber having a great time. . .
__________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

30 April 2014

Reality: preaching outside the modern fantasy

Excellent article from Dr. Jeff Mirus, The Challenge of Preaching:

An excerpt:

We moderns are adept at concealing our own hopelessness even from ourselves, but this message can awaken us to our misery and give birth to love. Nonetheless, there is a danger. This encouragement can become empty if it goes too far without introducing its corresponding challenge. Preachers must not forget that we need to learn how to respond to Christ’s love. Preachers must identify and explain, in a very practical way, the false attachments and misconceptions which drag us down and hold us back. Here I beg preachers to avoid those alleged clarion calls from the pulpit which “challenge” the faithful to stand up for whatever moral value the whole world is accidentally already standing up for.

What is needed is a deliberate focus on the characteristic evils of our age, the evils that most people take for granted to be goods. This means, among other things, [1] that preachers must be willing and able to explain God’s plan for the body and for our sexuality, which He built into nature, in all its life-giving and love-engendering splendor, so that we can begin to understand what is wrong with pornography, solitary sex, sex outside of marriage, contraception, serial monogamy, and same-sex liaisons. It means preachers [2] must be willing and able to explain the sanctity of human life and our call to generosity and love. It means they must help us to recognize our own attachments to material things, the dangers of our high standard of living, and the many substitutions we make for God and His love. [3] And it means talking about real personal sin, not politics.
________________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

28 April 2014

My week & A difficult awakening

Blogging will be a bit light this week.

EVERYTHING is due by Friday! (Is there a Panic Emoticon?)

-- Annual Evals for my formation advisees (16 of them)
-- Four syllabi for fall classes
-- Rec letter for an entering novice
-- 20 or so questions for the NDS entrance exam
-- Grade final homilies/teaching plans 
-- Prepare retreat for OP Laity on Saturday
-- Etc., etc.
 
No worries though. . .I have years of practice as a Licensed Procrastinator. And a couple of really spiffy trophies to prove it.

After lunch yesterday here at the priory, I walked down the cloister hallway toward my room. Before entering my room, I said to no one in particular, "Geez, it smells like an old man up here." Then I opened my door and realized: that Old Man Smell was coming from my room!

Thus, I am renewing my demand that Renuzit produce and sell an air freshener called, "Sunday Afternoon at the Bookstore." Makes your home smell like fresh coffee, new books, and leather.
______________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

25 April 2014

Coffee Cup Browsing

I know clergy (including me) who struggle to understand the Church's byzantine regs on marriage. . .so, yea. . .I seriously doubt this

Yea, I thought so. . .so, NO, there's nothing new from the Pope about "re-marriage" and communion.

To wit: "Catholic doctrines are not altered by phone calls."

Ah, behold the cool, rational behavior of a secularist.

Justice is served

On the necessity of silencing Christians: "tolerance" tolerates no opposition.

U.N. gives Iran a seat on its women's rights commission. . .good thing that the U.N. is an entirely useless entity.

"Defective fathers" deeply influence atheists

______________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

23 April 2014

Back to school

Back to school today. . .

One more week of classes, then exams, and then graduation on May 8th.

I can't even look at the stack of stuff to be done before then. 

BUT. . .I did enjoy my Easter break reading novels and other non-NDS related books.  

:-)

_________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

22 April 2014

Promises, gratitude

As promised, I remembered all my Book Benefactors at the Easter Mass.

My gratitude for your generosity is immeasurable!

I recently rec'd a copy of The Metaphysical Foundation of Modern Science from an anonymous benefactor. Mille grazie.

I know summer is arriving soon. . .my travel nerves are already jangling. Three out-of-state trips. Oy.
_____________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ---->

Coffee Cup Browsing

What atheism can't explain. . . 

Infinitely malleable, undemanding metaphors are more powerful than the apostolic faith. . .

In related news: Left-liberal Christianity fails in the U.K.

This is what the West has become. . .getting an abortion to become famous

Well, maybe we aren't hopelessly circling the bowl just yet.

The original suggestion for a purge was satirical. . .but some are taking it seriously. 

Now you can spend even more time on Youtube! British Pathé puts thousands of hours of archived video on-line.

________________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->

20 April 2014

Why didn't you distribute communion, Father?

I hope you were able to watch the 8.00am Easter Mass from St Dominic's this morning. . .

A couple of HA readers have written to ask why I chose to sit down during communion rather than distribute the hosts as usual. . .

It was not a liturgical gesture or any sort of statement.

Simply put, my knee was hurting, and I didn't think I could stand that long. 

Ever since my knee went wild on me two months ago -- putting me face down on a short flight of stairs -- I've been nervous about distributing communion. I can just see my knee going out again and the hosts flying across the few first pews!

Yikes.

So, no worries about me going soft on the rubrics. . .just going soft in the knees. Harharhar. . .
___________________

Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->