OWS and My Son

I was trying to ignore “Occupy Wall Street”, but I guess it’s not working.

My adult son, whose name is Sky, posted on Face Book a link to a survey that asked “Do ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Protests Represent Your Views of the Economy?”  The first choice was “Maybe. I am not even sure what they want.” That would be me. I did know enough, however, to have already discerned which side my radical, latter-day hippie son would have taken. Generally, we don’t discuss such things.

Then I noticed that Sky had changed his name on Face Book to “Occupy Sky”. I rolled my eyes when I saw it. And I sighed. It’s my own fault, I always tell myself. After all, I did raise him as a radical, latter-day hippie. But why couldn’t he have continued to follow in my footsteps when I turned my back on that lifestyle and political and philosophical viewpoint? Why couldn’t he have followed me into the brave new world of political conservatism and religious orthodoxy? In other words, why couldn’t he also become a conservative Republican Catholic?!

I won’t pretend to be knowledgeable about OWS – the issues, the politics, the economy …none of that is quite up my alley. (I would rather save the liturgy and thus save the world.) But I do know this: it irritates me. And it irritates me even more because my son is one of “them”.  Wanna know why? I’m so glad you asked!

Well, against my own better judgment, I did watch a video of OWS folks in Oakland who had some pretty stupid things to say about the redistribution of wealth. And that made me think of Sky. You see, Sky doesn’t have a “regular” career or job, but he does have an alternative sort of livelihood and is productive in it; and he lives within his means. He doesn’t have credit card debt, and his monthly expenses are minimal. I admire him for that.

BUT…while he rides the “capitalism is bad” band-wagon, he takes full advantage of it. He has a close friend whose wealthy parents are in the habit of giving their son about $15,000 per year…just because he’s their son. This young man shared his “wealth” with others, including Sky. Because of the generosity of his friend, Sky has been able to make two trips to Europe, as well as a trip through some other parts of the world. And the generosity of Sky’s friend was only made possible by the generosity of the young man’s parents…who had achieved their financial success through “the system” – the bad, bad capitalist system that takes advantage of EVERYONE.

Besides that, Sky periodically asks me for money for business enterprises he’s involved in. And I periodically don’t give it to him because: a) I don’t have it; and/or b) I don’t think it is a fitting place to put my money. And it strikes me as odd that he even has business enterprises! But of course, they are all “alternative” things, so that makes them good. (Eyes rolling again. To be fair, though, some of them have seemed to me to be “good”.)

As I have said: this irritates me. I would like Sky and other OWS people to use consistent, logical, and integrated thought in defining their outlook on this stuff.

But wait…if they were using consistent, logical, and integrated thought…well…I don’t think they’d be occupying Wall Street.

My Catholic Journey: The First Five Years

Next Easter will mark 10 years since I became Catholic. The following is a condensed account of my first five years in the Church, chronicled as letters to a completely fictional former RCIA director. The names have been omitted to protect the guilty! (The second five-year period is still being processed...can't wait to tell "Bob" about the Extraordinary Form and Summorum Pontificum!)  

June 2003

Dear Bob,

Well, I’ve passed the one-year anniversary of being received into the Catholic Church! I’m very happy to have become Catholic, and I thank you again for all your help on the journey through the RCIA program. You were a wonderful RCIA Director!

My family and I moved to the Cathedral parish of a different diocese just a few months ago, and suddenly I find myself in the position of Parish Secretary! They couldn’t get anyone else to take the job, so they gave it to me. It’s a small town, so I guess good help is hard to come by! Ha ha! I’ll try to do a good job.

I’ve been getting involved in lots of things at this parish. I’ve started attending daily Mass, and now I’m a reader and a Eucharistic minister. Besides that, my husband and I volunteered to be the RCIA directors; it’s another one of those “no one else will do it” situations. And we were excited to find out that there’s a Respect for Life Committee, which we’ve joined.

I’ll keep you posted on my journey into Catholicism!

Peace to you!

Jay

March 2004

Dear Bob,

I’m coming up on another anniversary as a Catholic. What a year it’s been! I’ve learned a lot about our Church; who would have thought there was so much more to discover!

Our bishop has issued an instruction regarding some minor changes in the Liturgy, in compliance with the new GIRM. Wow! I never knew there was actually a document that stated how things were supposed to be done in the Mass! No one ever mentioned it before! I like the idea of standards having been set for the Liturgy.

From my seat at the parish secretary’s desk, though, I can see that the bishop’s pastoral letter and instruction have caused a great deal of consternation among some parishioners, and even among some of our office staff.  I’ve heard people say that this is “our” church – the lay people’s church, not the bishops’; they say that no lay person should be deprived of their “right” to perform liturgical ministries. But doesn’t the Church belong to everyone – no less to bishops and priests than to the lay people? And isn’t there a clear hierarchy of authority within the Church? In one of those Vatican II documents, Lumen Gentium, there’s even a chapter that is entitled “The Church is Hierarchical.” I wonder how people got the wrong idea about this!

Walking in the Light,

Jay

June 2004

Dear Bob,

Wow! The bishop’s most recent pastoral letter is raising even more hackles! Now he’s saying that readers and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist should be of “high moral character”. He’s given us a statement of personal faith which he says all liturgical ministers should be able to affirm. And he says that those who cannot agree with all of the statements need to step back, take stock of their beliefs, and attempt to correctly form their consciences. It’s refreshing to have someone stand up and insist that there really is a “right” and “wrong”. 

I’m amazed that so many people are up in arms over this idea of “high moral character”! The statements in the bishop’s list are so fundamental, I’m surprised that so many people are objecting to them. Aren’t there certain things that we believe because we’re Catholic? But now, some people – including the parish priest! – are little upset with me for saying that I believe and affirm all the statements! Well, for heaven’s sake – I affirmed all of them when I joined the Church!

Anticipating greater reverence,

Jay

December 2004

Dear Bob,

I guess I’ve achieved a reputation as something of a trouble-maker. It’s really been in innocence, though. The bishop talked about the GIRM, and I discovered that there are lots of Church documents that define liturgical norms. Naturally, I have questions when what I see at Mass goes against these norms!

But now my parish priest tells me I’m too “by-the-book”! I told him that there’s a reason we have a “book” in the first place, but he doesn’t seem to understand. For instance, at Christmas, there’s always a “children’s Mass”, and the RE Director chooses children to be the readers. I pointed out that the Bishop’s directives clearly indicate that children should not be readers. I suggested that the pastor consult the bishop, and finally he did – only to be told that, guess what, children should not be readers. Well, as you can imagine, my name is Mud around the office. In fact, a visiting priest confronted me and accused me of “taking away” the children’s Mass! Like I have that kind of power!

I guess I was pretty naïve coming into the Church, thinking that we’re all one big happy family. Turns out we’re one big dysfunctional family, with priests who don’t obey the bishop, and lay people who act like they think they are priests…or maybe the Pope!

Keeping the faith,

Jay

March 2005

Dear Bob,

I continue to have some friction with the office staff and the priest. When I said that I was scandalized by a few of the lay ministers who have made public statements contrary to Church teaching, my pastor told me, “You’re the only one who feels that way.”

The priest keeps telling me that “we have to meet people where they’re at.” Well, it seems to me that there is a lot of bending over backwards to accommodate people who dissent from Church teaching; we tweak the liturgical rules so that they’ll “feel good.” After all, we don’t want them to leave the Church! But when someone like me suggests that we change something in order to do it right, I’m considered “rigid” and “judgmental” and “by the book”! I sometimes wonder if I would get special attention if I said “I’m leaving the Church if you don’t do it right!” Somehow, though, I think they’d be holding the door open for me.

A little discouraged,

Jay

June 2005

Dear Bob,

Well, another milestone – my 3^rd anniversary as a Catholic – has come and gone.

We have a new priest! That worked out well, because things had become pretty tense between me and the previous one. The new priest seems to be on board with the bishop, but there are some warning signs. He told me that he can’t really ask people if they agree with those statements of faith the bishop is requiring, because that would be judgmental. Excuse me! I thought it was his job to keep people on the right course! 

Some exciting news: I’ve been appointed to the local Catholic hospital ethics committee! The pastor said he really didn’t have time to go to the meetings, and I offered my services. I’m looking forward to learning something about Catholic ethics in the medical community.

Pray for me!

Jay

November 2005

Dear Bob,

I attended a total of two hospital ethics committee meetings, and have now been “fired” from that position!

It turns out that the Ethics Committee has been approving tubal ligation requests on the premise that the woman’s health may be compromised because of complications that might occur during a future pregnancy. But really, it amounts to direct sterilization: the purpose is to prevent pregnancy, not to alleviate the symptoms that accompany pregnancy. Most of the committee members are not Catholic, and even the Catholic members – including a deacon from our parish! – were supporting the direct sterilizations.

I explained that what they were doing was forbidden by the Ethical and Religious Directives they claimed to be following. My comments were not well-received. A couple of weeks later, my pastor told me I’d been dis-invited to attend the meetings. He didn’t seem at all concerned about the flagrant violation of Catholic moral teaching; instead he said, “At least they aren’t mad at me.”

Sadly,

Jay

January 2006

Dear Bob,

Despite all of the bishop’s best efforts, it seems like some people still don’t get the idea that there are certain requirements surrounding the Mass! We had a Mass for the Feast of the Holy Innocents, and Father was to give a special blessing to all the children. Well, he did that, and the Mass was very nice, except that, at the consecration, he invited all the children to come up around the altar and hold hands in a big circle! I was stunned. I was incredulous. I knew this was not right, and it just turned my stomach.

We have a “children’s choir” now, too. Everything about this choir flies in the face of Church teaching on liturgical music. They are adorable, of course, but are generally under the age of 7, and can’t sing. The songs selected for them have a decidedly childish flavor, are standard fare at Protestant churches, and involve ridiculous hand and body movements. My own daughter opted out of the children’s choir for precisely these reasons. But when I pointed these things out to Father, he accused me of being anti-children.

There are other “little” things that have come up that bother me. The woman who is in charge of decorating the Cathedral is in the habit of using the altar as a work bench. She places her keys, her purse, fabric, her scissors, and other tools on it while she is working. I told her that the altar is holy, and is not to have those objects placed on it. She huffily announced, “I know that.” I removed the items for her, but she didn’t thank me. When I complained to the bishop, he merely commented, “I’m just happy they don’t use the tabernacle as a foot stool.” Maybe he’s given up hope of making any headway where reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is concerned.

I’ve resigned as reader and extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Father isn’t happy with my comments and suggestions about the liturgical missteps that go on, and I really don’t want to be a minister if inappropriate actions are going to be condoned or even encouraged at Mass.

“Resignedly”,

Jay

April 2006

Dear Bob,

Here it is: my fourth anniversary as a Catholic!

My husband and I have decided to resign as RCIA directors. This year was a fiasco! There were a few candidates who missed more classes than they attended, and we were not feeling that we could recommend that they be received into the Church. They just were not prepared to become Catholics! We informed Father of our misgivings. He insisted that it was “too late” to tell them they couldn’t join the Church this year, and that they all had very good reasons for missing the classes. We told him that we agreed the reasons were good, but the end result was that they weren’t prepared. Our protestations fell on deaf ears.

This makes me appreciate the thorough job you did in our classes!

God bless you!

Jay

July 2006

Dear Bob,

I have decided to quit my job as parish secretary. The tension with Father is too much to bear. He avoids me as much as he can, and there’s no way I can be his secretary if he won’t communicate with me!

I’m sad that he won’t discuss issues with me. I’ve yet to find a priest who has been able to give me good, sound reasons for flying in the face of the rubrics. Seems like they don’t want to acknowledge that there is a standard, and they don’t like it when I suggest that there is one and they’re not adhering to it.

Oh well – I’m free at last!

Jay

March 2007

Dear Bob,

I was so excited by the things the bishop was doing, but now even he seems to have decided I’m just a thorn in his side. I made the mistake of writing to him with a concern I had about a liturgical faux pas he himself had committed. Instead of just saying, “Yeah, I goofed,” he was defensive and rude. He told me that I was “right” about the issue, but he added that “sometimes there are more important things than being right.”

I’m flabbergasted by that comment, which comes from a man who I thought understood the importance of authority and truth! My point in bringing up these various issues with my pastors hasn’t been about being “right”. It’s been about respect and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament! I’m sure there are other Catholics out there who feel the same way I do. But I suppose that, like me, they’ve been silenced by the illogical arguments and blatant refusal to follow the teachings of the Church of the powers-that-be in their individual parishes.

Well, Bob, it’s been just about five years since I was received into the Church. What a journey it’s been! I went from wide-eyed innocence to a greater appreciation of the teachings of the Church to a cynical acknowledgment of the shortcomings of our leaders in a pretty short period of time! As a result, I’ve withdrawn from every parish involvement I had, other than attending daily Mass.

But I have not given up! Prayer is the most powerful weapon we have, and I am employing it on a daily basis. And even if some people on earth never “get it” where the Liturgy is concerned, the Heavenly Liturgy awaits us all.

And I think I’m safe in assuming that we won’t be singing Kum-Ba-Yah.

In the hope of Christ,

Jay

Ode to Nancy Pelosi

This "ode" was written in 2008, but most of it still holds true. Some things, apparently, just don't change.

We notice that Nancy Pelosi,

Has theology weak as Jello-si,

She quotes from Augustine

But must take a dustin’

From those who are in the know-si.

Nancy's no longer the Speaker,

And her theology is really much weaker

Than she’d like to admit;

It’s giving her fits,

But it hasn’t made her much meeker.

Communion’s important, she’s announcing,

As the Church’s teaching she’s renouncing.

She wants to receive;

She says she believes.

But the Bishops gave her a trouncing. (We wish they would renew their efforts!!!)

We witness amazing contortion,

Not to mention doctrinal distortion,

When Nancy comes in

With her version of sin,

And her political stance on abortion.

“Abortion just might not be wrong

If the woman’s not too far along.”

Roe v. Wade preaching

Replaces Church teaching

As Nancy’s political song.

Abortion is wrong – she must know!

But with her record, it sure doesn’t show.

She’s Catholic, she said,

But her faith must be dead.

Nancy: you’ll reap what you sow.

Looking for a Few Good Shepherds

Priests, please take note: the Church in the United States is on the brink of a war for survival we’ve never before experienced. The tragedy is that most Catholics, including most bishops and priests, continue to act as if nothing is amiss. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Look honestly and objectively at all that has happened over the years—some in very recent years—to a nation that was founded on a belief in God. There have been repeated attempts to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Though those attempts have failed, apart from the Pledge, references to God are effectively banned in public schools. 

The sanctity of marriage has been abandoned, indeed attacked, by our government. Homosexual unions are now being legally recognized and institutionalize, in direct contradiction of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is the law of the land.  Homosexuals (less than 3% of the population) are now openly recruited by our military and other institutions of importance.  States have passed legislation mandating that the “gay, lesbian, and transsexual” lifestyle be addressed in our schools, emphasizing the “important contributions” they have made in our society.

Obamacare, in spite of the deceitful claims to the contrary, supports abortion, artificial contraception, and immoral approaches to end of life issues.  The Department of Health and Human Services is requiring Catholic institutions to provide health care coverage for their employees which includes “medical procedures” that are clear violations of Catholic teaching.  Catholic adoption agencies and hospitals are being forced to provide services clearly against the tenants of our religion or go out of business.  The very “social justice” programs so long the focus of the US Catholic hierarchy are now jeopardized because of government-mandated requirements.  Catholic hospitals simply cannot provide abortion or sterilization procedures, nor can Catholic adoption agencies allow homosexual “couples” to adopt and still remain Catholic.  Some such service providers will roll over to immorality and sin and others will simply close their doors.

All of the above leads to the conclusion that, given its current course, this nation is on the road to becoming the Rome of ages past.  And just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, far too many Catholic clergy remain silent; or, if they address these issues at all, they do so in such a “politically correct” way as to be totally ineffective. The Obama administration clearly recognizes that the Roman Catholic Church is potentially the greatest enemy of the socialist state the administration wishes to establish. Obama has placed in positions of power many “Catholic” politician – Catholic in name only – whose words and votes are consistently in defiance of Catholic teaching.

The fate of the Catholic Church in this country as well as the outcome of God’s final judgment is squarely on the shoulders of Bishops and Priests.  The historic emphasis on social justice to the exclusion of an emphasis on the broader picture of moral behavior has led to an almost complete watering down of Catholic teaching.

Some “Church leaders” have cautioned that addressing these issues head on from the pulpit might jeopardize the Church’s tax exempt status.  Wake up, clergy!  Too many more years of “playing nice” will result in not much Church being left to even worry about taxes.  To those who understand the long-term game plan of the socialists in power, it is clear that we are close to having a choice to make: speak the truth or fail in our responsibilities due solely to concerns about money.

There is clearly a way to forcefully address these issues without placing tax exemption at risk.  Simply do not name names.  It is entirely appropriate and necessary for all bishops and priests to take a forceful stand.  The time to do that is now, not later.  Pastors, when is the last time you addressed any of the following in a homily: Abortion, contraception, euthanasia, homosexual unions, the threats our Church faces at the hands of a regime that is hell bent on destroying the Church?  When, if ever, have you told your parishioners that to support politicians (especially so-called “Catholic” politicians) who advocate in favor of the aforementioned practices is to be a partner in SIN?  When is the last time you discussed from the pulpit the consequences of mortal SIN?

While it has not happened in our Diocese (to my knowledge), there have been recent instances of priests being disciplined by their bishops for defending Church teaching.  The Church has a history of being persecuted, and not all persecution comes from without.  The challenge to each member of the clergy is to decide between acquiescence and martyrdom. There are times when eternal salvation requires the latter. Man up, priests. Good shepherd have never been needed more than they are now.

-- by Jerry Boyd, a Concerned Roman Catholic of the Diocese of Baker

The Catholic Vote

With the seeming abundance of “Catholic politicians in the media spotlight these days, it’s hard to ignore the potential impact of the Catholic vote – should Catholics use their vote correctly.

Interestingly enough, I wrote most of what follows in 2008, when Pelosi and Biden were making headlines with their anti-Catholic gaffs and the reprimands they received from some of our bishops. It appears that nothing has really changed.

It’s sad that these politicians have changed, but it’s a gift from God that the teachings of the Church don’t change. In 2008, a number of bishops stated strongly that: a) the Church has always condemned abortion as a grave evil; and b) that pro-abortion politicians who consider themselves to be Catholic should not present themselves for Holy Communion. Their statements on abortion reflect Church teaching that has always been that way. And the idea that anyone not in communion with the Church should not present himself for Holy Communion is, of course, scriptural.

In terms of voting in the US, the Catholic Church does not tell its faithful to vote for particular candidates; rather, there are particular moral issues that must be considered when casting a vote. The “life” issues take precedence: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research. The logic behind this is simple: without life, there are no other issues. A second tier of priorities includes what Catholics call “social justice” issues: war, poverty, health care, immigration issues, etc. The Church teaches that abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research are always wrong; there are no exceptions. The social justice issues are important and should be guided by our belief in and adherence to the truths of the Gospel message, but the Church does not teach “absolutes” about them. For instance, there is such a thing as a “just war”; and with regard to immigration issues and health care, there is room for individual opinion regarding how reforms should be implemented.

Thus, a voter should first consider where a candidate stands on life issues. A candidate who supports abortion is automatically disqualified from consideration by faithful Catholic voters. If both/all of the candidates support abortion – with some candidates’ positions more extreme than those of other candidates – the voter must choose the candidate who is likely to do the least harm to the unborn. Only in the case where both/all of the candidates equally support abortion may the voter choose the candidate whose positions on other issues will do the most good for society.  

Catholics who remain truly faithful to the teachings of their Church may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate and remain in good standing with the Church. This point has been stressed recently by many Catholic bishops, including the bishop of the Diocese of Baker, Most Reverend Robert F. Vasa, who noted in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews.com that a person’s “adamant pro-abortion position” is a “disqualifying position”.

Catholics comprise about 23% of the American population. Should all Catholics decide to follow the teachings of the Church and the leadership of their bishops, the Catholic vote will be a very powerful one.

Sacrificing our children: Gardasil, parental rights, and the homosexual agenda

What incredible nonsense this is! Well, we are talking about California, after all, but still: kids can be given vaccinations without parental consent, but now the under-18 crowd is banned from using tanning beds. Governer Jerry Brown says parents have the ability and responsibility to make good choices for their children...but then he takes away the right that such a statement implies!

I'm talking about the new law in California which "allows children as young as 12 to receive vaccinations and other medications to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, including the human papilloma virus (HPV)." See the National Catholic Register story here.

Of course, the primary vaccination we're talking about here is Gardasil, which purports to provide protection against cervical cancer. According to the NCRegister article, "William May, chairman of Catholics for the Common Good, told CNA in September that the HPV vaccination of teenagers would likely end up squandering resources, as well as undermining families. As May explained, 73% of teenagers who sign up to receive the Gardasil vaccine never complete the series of three shots, which must be received over the course of three months at a cost of $120 each."

The Gardasil farce is all about money.

But the larger issue, of which Gardasil is only a part, is that of the undermining of parental rights. And that's part of the Culture of Death.

Satan is intent upon convincing us to sacrifice our children. He's got us doing that in various ways, and he's moving ever forward with his diabolical plan. Abortion is the prime example, of course, and is running rampant in this country. Even though Planned Parenthood seems to be on the defensive at the moment, the Obama administration is frantically backing up that mega abortion provider, and trying to undo everything the pro-life movement accomplishes. The battle is hot and heavy.

But there are other ways to sacrifice children: we can sacrifice them on the altar of sexuality. We are seeing children sexualized at earlier and earlier ages, with sex education aimed at even kindergarteners in some countries. The government conspires to provide birth control without parental consent to children who have reached physical sexual maturity. The message is: "You're going to want to have sex, and why shouldn't you be able to?" We have seen evidence of this mentality in the UN's agenda for the sexual "rights" of children, as well as Planned Parenthood's websites aimed at teens and even pre-teens. The strategy seems to be this: Sexualize the children and provide artificial contraception that is programmed to fail at some point (not to mention being harmful to women's health, as in chemical birth control methods), and you can guarantee enough abortions to fund your whole operation and create a nifty profit besides. The video "Blood Money" cuts to the heart of the issue.

This is all directly related to the homosexual agenda. Initially, the intent is the sexualization of children; close on the heels of that abomination comes the homosexualizing of children. And if you can't make a child believe he or she is "gay", then at least make him or her believe it is okay for others to be "gay" - so okay, in fact, that "gay" people are entitled to all manner of special treatment, and we must never ever "bully" them by insinuating in any way that their behavior is immoral. In California, the public schools will soon be teaching from a homosexualized curriculum - mandated by the state. Homosexuality is being "normalized" at an alarming rate. The combination of sexualizing and homosexualizing children will probably make California a prime target for moves to lower the age of consent for sexual behavior. This way of sacrificing our children is less bloody than abortion, but it, too, is deadly. The homosexual agenda is not about tolerance at all; it is about control of the minds and bodies - and ultimately the very souls - of children.

Thank God that Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles has at least made a statement against the law. More has to be done, though. Words are cheap. Too many Catholics are accepting of homosexuality and they vote accordingly. Where is the catechesis that helps the faithful to understand that homosexual behavior is gravely sinful, that it is wrong, that it is harmful? "Catholic" politicians have largely played into the hands of the homosexual agenda, and the bishops have been a little remiss in their efforts (or lack thereof) along these lines - both in general catechesis and in the disciplining of  politicians who claim to be Catholic but refute Church teaching on this issue and others.

Well, we might wait a long time for our pastors to show enough backbone to truly fight all these diabolical forces. In the meantime, parents, do a little innoculation of your own: innoculate your children with the whole series of three anti-world shots: the one that prevents pre-marital sex, the one that prevents homosexuality, and the one that prevents illogical, relativistic "moral" thinking. Where can you find the vaccine? It's all right there in your Catholic faith. Learn it. Live it. Teach it.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7:

Eruntque verba haec, quae ego praecipio tibi hodie in corde tuo, et inculcabis ea filiis tuis et loqueris ea sedens in domo tua at ambulans in itinere, decumbens atque consurgens.

And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart, and thou shalt tell them to thy children, and thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in they house, and walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising.

"Growing an Engaged Church": Gift or Gimmick?

Seen any CAVE people lately? Those who attended this year’s Clergy Assembly will now be on the lookout for them. Why? Because it is the CAVE people who contribute to so many of our parishes being dragged down to the brink of failure. So who are these CAVE people? CAVE people are those members of our parish who Complain About Virtually Everything! You know who they are. Whenever you try to do anything in your parish they are the ones who make it clear to anyone who will listen that it will never work. The problem is that too many listen to them. What we need is more of those who do not spend all their time complaining, but are spending more of their time growing in holiness, to have a greater influence in our parishes. These people we will refer to as being “engaged” in their parish.

So said the little blurb in our Diocesan Chronicle about a year ago (Nov. 7, 2010 edition). A concerned priest friend had alerted me to the “Engaged Parish” program and the fact that priests were being required to attend several sessions throughout the year. The bishop endorsed it, of course. I have heard that a number of priests were not happy about the program, but that the clergy did indeed attend more sessions throughout the year, and it's still "in the works". I’ve not heard much more than that. However, I’m not very “engaged”.

Regarding “Living Your Strengths” and “Engaged Parish” programs, I admit I’ve not participated in them in any way. But I did a little research on-line. The concept is apparently based on a book by Albert Winesman entitled Growing an Engaged Church and another by Winesman, Donald O. Clifton, and Curt Liesveld called Living Your Strengths.  

Parishes implementing the program have participants take Clifton’s Strengthsfinder test, an on-line questionnaire that reveals the test-taker’s top five “signature talents”. The idea is that parishioners’ talents are going unidentified and under-used, and that if we can identify those talents and put them to use, we will have an “engaged” parish.

What sort of research base does the program have? The publisher (Gallup) makes claims for a strong showing of the “Clifton StrengthsFinder” test with regard to reliability and validity, but so do many other personality tests. The test was developed by Donald O. Clifton and colleagues, and was many years in the making, indicating plenty of research was done to create a useful instrument. In terms of the underlying philosophy of the test,

Clifton considered success to be closely associated with personal talents and strengths in addition to the traditional constructs linked with analytical intelligence. In accordance with those beliefs, he worked to identify hundreds of personal talents that predicted work and academic success, and he constructed empirically-based, semi-structured interviews for identifying these talents. When developing these interviews, Clifton and analysts examined the prescribed roles of a person (e.g., student, salesperson, administrator), visited the job site or academic setting, identified outstanding performers in these roles and settings, and determined the long-standing thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with situational success. (see the complete report)

In other words, the “StrengthsFinder” test is a purely secular device, designed to measure success in secular activities; and “success” itself is defined in secular terms. The “Living Your Strengths” program uses the secular “talent identifier” and then superimposes Scripture and “spiritual” language to convert the whole concept to church-related themes.

And what about the “CAVE-person”? I think I’m considered one of those. I have pushed a couple of parish priests – and even a bishop or two - to conform to the mind of the Church, especially with regard to liturgical issues. I have tried my best to always be respectful, to back up my request with documentation from Church sources, and to keep the issue between me and the priest. And I make an effort to compliment priests when they do things well, and to acknowledge the tough job they have. Still, here are the responses I’ve received: “This is the way we’ve always done it”; “Other parishes do it, so it’s okay”; “Why do you have to be so ‘by-the-book’?”; “You’re right; but sometimes there are more important things than being right.”

I have a sneaking suspicion that CAVE people are simply the ones who won’t go along with the crowd. In every parish, as far as I can see, there is a core group of people with loud voices and lots of “political” power in the parish; if we were talking about junior high, we’d say they formed a clique. “Why can’t we all just get along?” they ask. But what they really mean is, “Like it or lump it. This is how it’s gonna be.” And if you complain about that, you are a CAVE person. It amounts to sanctioned name-calling and stereotyping.

Just my humble opinion…