More than 75% of US Catholics Don't Know about Mass Changes

From Our Sunday Visitor's story on unsettling findings from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA): "A new survey conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University indicates that more than three in four adult Catholics in the United States are not aware that aspects of the English translation of the Roman Missal are about to change. [The] survey estimates more than four in 10 weekly attenders have not heard that the words and prayers at Mass will be changing.  Respondents were asked if they had heard 'that parishes in the United States will soon be implementing changes in the words and prayers at Mass at the direction of the Vatican.' Seventy-seven percent answered 'no.' This is equivalent to more than 44 million adult Catholics who don’t know about the changes that will occur throughout the English-speaking world beginning Nov. 27, the first Sunday of Advent." 

Anecdotally, this has been my experience as well.  When I ask the average Massgoing Catholic what they know about the new English translations, the most common response is, "Huh?"  More about the CARA survey here.

This comes despite an effort on the part of the U.S. Bishops to educate the faithful about the new changes.  Their website on the changes is here.  One group of Catholics on the other hand has launched their own website called "Misguided Missal," which takes a somewhat different tack from the bishops. 

Advertisement
Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Linda Pawlowski
6 years 2 months ago
I am always perplexed at what we Catholics, some of us, find "unsettling."  Is it really unsettling that the majority of Catholics are unaware that aspects of the English Translation of the Roman Missal are about to change?  Why is this so unsettling?  It is my hope that the drought and famine in Eastern Africa is more unsettling, or that the suffering of folks we find right under our own noses is more unsettling.  And it is my hope that the reason these folks, the ones who are unaware of the new translation of the Roman Missal, are unaware because they are SO engaged in loving service to others that they haven't got time for anything else.  It is my hope that this great number of folks are so engaged in the mission of the church, so engaged in "revising" hearts, they haven't got time to attend class on the changes to the Roman Missal-because in the end, what really matters?  Understandiing the changes to the Roman Missal or being the change?  
 
6 years 2 months ago
I agree there are many other unsettling things in the world, some of which Linda articulates in the previous comment. However, I totally agree with Fr. Martin and many liturgists who maintain that this phenomenon of ignorance is incredibly unsettling. What we are dealing with when there are members of the faithful who aren't aware of the new translation of the Roman Missal is a basic inability to worship Almighty God as One Body. Participating fully in the celebration of the Eucharist (and all types of liturgy for that matter) is not just a series of empty prayers, but rather should have real consequences in the world. I would contend that understanding the new translation of the Missal is very important for good worship, which should lead to being agents of change in the world. On another note, I would place the bulk of the blame for these statistics on individual parishes that have clearly not carried out the necessary Catechesis to prepare their faithful for this transition - although some have doubtless done so admirably. 
Anne Chapman
6 years 2 months ago
I am not surprised by these figures. I reluctantly concluded some time ago that the reason the hierarchy is able to continue to snub their collective noses at the people of God, and fail to take responsibility and refuse accountability for having protected criminals under their supervision who were molesting and raping children, all over the Roman Catholic world, is because Catholics fail to inform themselves. Few Catholics have a clue about the horrific range of this scandal of bishops protecting the wolves instead of the lambs - once Boston  and Los Angeles were off the front pages, they remained happily ignorant of the crimes elsewhere - all over the USA, they knew nothing of bishops deliberately declaring bankruptcy to avoid compensating victims, they knew nothing of bishops fighting the release of records (all the way to the Supreme Court in the case of Hartford, CT), they know nothing of the Bishop in Belgium who was sexually abusing his own nephew from the age of 5, nor about the Archbishop who urged the victim, now a young man, to keep it quiet so his uncle could retire with ''dignity.''  They know nothing about the horrors in Ireland, in the Netherlands, in Germany, in Austria, in Canada (where a bishop who settled with victims was arrested for child porn on his computers after returning from one of many trips to Thailand and other countries that feature the child sex trade).  They know nothing - they don't take the time to read and research, and certainly the diocesan newspapers and the most popular television station for Catholics don't breathe a word of any of it.

Since they don't take the time to learn about these horrific things in the church, and so continue to support an unaccountable and irresponsible hierarchy through their weekly donations, why would anyone be surprised that they have no idea that a commission in Rome hijacked the translations outside approved processes and are changing the translations whether or not they are any good at all. And certainly, they have no idea that hundreds of priests in many countries are protesting these changes. But ordinary parish priests, like the people in the pews, are of no interest to the hierarchy.  And the people in the pews don't know that either.  Their interest in the universal Catholic church is actually not universal at all - it is purely parochial. They know what happens in their own parish, and their knowledge and interest pretty much stops right there.  And since they are so passive, they will adjust to the new translation just fine in most cases, even if thinking mentally "consubstanital? Huh? I don't know what it means, but, OK, consubstantial."
6 years 2 months ago
This is the fault of Parish Pastors and Parish Staff.  I speak from first hand experience.  It is shameful!
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
The OSV article has the following important sentence: Attendance at Mass makes a big difference in awareness. Fifty-seven percent of respondents who attend Mass at least once a week expressed awareness of the upcoming changes. Awareness drops significantly among those attending less than weekly.  (Emphasis mine)

However, I am as alarmed as Fr. Jim that 43% of those that attend Mass at least once a week are somehow comatose. 

Joe is right that the pastor’s enthusiasm (or lack of) plays a big role.  In my parish, my pastor is having classes for the entire parish, lists something about the changes in the bulletin every week, has the “Magnificat” missal companion available, etc. 

So let’s all look at this news as an invitation to actually learn about these beautiful changes and tell others about them.  After all there’s so much beauty in the Faith — a beauty that can’t be destroyed by our sins or by my “one note” brothers and sisters in the Faith.
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
BTW, If one is interested in outrage, they should read this and continue to follow it to see where it goes.

Conference aims to normalize pedophilia
By John Rossomando - The Daily Caller   10:00 AM 08/15/2011

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/#ixzz1VU1TlKxD

I discovered the article by reading this post: Former consultant to US bishops keynotes conference pushing for acceptance of pedophilia.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=11431
 
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
Since no human being can avoid being biased, I tend to read a wide range of publications/blogs – including the National Catholic Distorter (oops, I mean Reporter), The Wanderer, America, First Things, Busted Halo, Fr. Z, etc. 

Thankfully for us, we Catholics can check the opinions expressed in those sources against the Catechism of the Catholic Church to discern where the writer is distorting the true teachings of the Church. 

On a personal note, a red flag always goes up for me when someone cites the Vatican II Liturgical reforms without mentioning facts like: #36. 1 from Sacrosanctum Concilium: Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

I once again propose that one actually read all the documents of Vat II (as I am sure many have done) rather than interpretations of them.  And let’s not forget that the current Pope was actually present at Vatican II and so he might actually know what happened more than the NCD (oops, I did it again, the NCR).
Vince Killoran
6 years 2 months ago
It's all about the smells & bells, right Juan?

I've noticed some items about the introduction of the new translation in our Sunday bulletin-but how many people want to focus on this in the middle of summer when it's still several months away?

I'm not looking forward to its introduction at all since the translation was awful.My friends in academia who "do" translations have commented on how this is becoming a case study on how NOT to revise a translated text.
6 years 2 months ago
I find the distinctions being drawn by some commenters between, on the one hand, an oppressive and (near?) criminal hierarchy, seemingly totally unhinged from the larger Church, supposedly aided by the vast majority of unwashed ignoramuses filling the pews, and on the other, an enlightened, progressed few who alone adequately perceive the reality of the threat posed by this criminal conspiracy, to be demeaning and insufferable.  Perhaps most Catholics, unaware or not of the liturgical changes, have more pressing concerns than the intra-eccelesial squabbles going on.  Most Catholics I know (who don't read America, I'll grant) aren't lazy or ignorant or uninterested, but tend to give things the benefit of the doubt, and have a "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it" attitude.  I find such an atittitude refreshing compared to the hyper-vigliant cries of perpetual ecclesial war from so many "informed" Catholics on the left and right.
Stephen SCHEWE
6 years 2 months ago
John Allen has an insightful analysis of what he calls Evangelical Catholicism in his NCR column today. He makes the point that the agenda of the hierarchy since 1978 (what Anne interprets as undoing all the theology that was expressed in the Vatican II liturgical reforms) is reinforced by a core of young followers inclined towards authority, fearful of what Allen describes as a “rootless secular world,” and eager for clear markers of Catholic identity and meaning:

“Given the double whammy of Evangelical Catholicism as both the idée fixe of the church’s leadership class, and a driving force among the inner core of younger believers, it’s destined to shape the culture of the church (especially in the global north, i.e., Europe and the United States) for the foreseeable future. One can debate its merits, but not its staying power.”

The people who Allen describes as liberal reformers are essentially irrelevant within this dynamic of power.  Their critiques, whether of the new Missal or the leadership’s handling of sexual abuse, find no footholds among the men running things and their followers.  This may change as more dioceses slide into financial insolvency, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Anne, if you’re open to looking at alternatives, I’d encourage you to read Cathleen Kaveny’s column “The Long Goodbye”, and then seek out an Episcopal Church in Washington.  Our rector here in Minneapolis, the Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde, will become the new Episcopal Bishop in D.C. in November.  She was exposed to the Catholic Worker movement in college, she's married to a Catholic and maintains many friendships among Catholics, and she’s a gifted preacher and advocate for social justice.  The Episcopal Church often gets knocked in these comment pages, sometimes justifiably, but you may find a refuge there where the reforms of Vatican II are alive and well.  Whatever you choose, I hope you can recover the peace of Christ if the battle within the Roman church is making you weary.

Peace,
Steve
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
Steve,

It’s very kind of you to invite Anne to abandon Christ’s original Church for an American version of one started by Henry VII but I think it would be better for her to actually understand the totality of the Catholic Christian Faith before actually departing.  Since she likes to read, I propose the following book for her and others: Generating Traces in the History of the World: New Traces of the Christian Experience by Luigi Giussani.

As a friend who converted from the Episcopal church once told me – “yes, the Protestants make beautiful music but only the Catholic Church has the full symphony.”  I have some friends that left and then came back because they discovered that it is not the utopia they imagined (the “two track” system, conflicts between the Anglicans and Episcopalians, etc.)

I wish you and everyone here Christ’s peace.
Vince Killoran
6 years 2 months ago
If you Google "public schools and sexual abuse" you won't find anyone distracting us with claims that it is rampant in the Catholic Church so lay off school teachers.

But, really, why persist in this line of argument? No one is claiming it doesn't exist elsewhere.  If the argument that Christian institutions ought to be better than this then how about the fact that the Church's scandal involves massive coverups that go way back?



Jim McCrea
6 years 2 months ago
Juan said (#19):  “It’s very kind of you to invite Anne to abandon Christ’s original Church -“  By that statement he is imputing “Christ’s original Church” status to Roman or Latin Rite Catholicism.

I suspect that the Orthodox churches will disagree quite strongly with that statement.  Until 1054 when the formal split took place between the Eastern Churches and the Latin Rite Church, there was no Roman Catholic Church per se.  In fact, Constantine moved the primary location of the church form Rome to then-Byzantium, soon to be consecrated Constantinople in 330.  Having restored the unity of the Empire and sponsored the consolidation of the Christian Church, he was well aware that Rome was an indefensible capital.  When the political seat was moved, so also was moved a major focus of the church.  Constantine’s foundation gave prestige to the Bishop of Constantinople, who eventually came to be known as the Ecumenical Patriarch, vying for honor with the pope, which ultimately contributed to the Great Schism that divided Latin (Western) Christianity from Eastern Orthodoxy from 1054 on.

I recommend Philip Jenkins’ opus “The Lost History of Christianity” in which he details the history of what are now known as the Oriental churches which split with the rest of the church over differences in Christological terminology.  This split took place after the Councils of Nicaea (321), Ephesus (431) and ultimately Chalcedon(451).  There were also Nestorian (beginning in the 5th century) and Jacobite churches in flourishing existence throughout much of the Middle East, Africa and Asia long before the Latin churches were, at best, tenuously established in Europe.

The Roman Catholic Church is better described as the largest survivor of the original churches as opposed to being the original.  To quote Jenkin's work (page 25):  "The uprooting (of the Asian Churches between 1200 & 1500 by Islam) created the Christianity that we commonly think of today as the true historical norm, but which, in reality was the product of the elimination of alternative realities.  Christianity did indeed become 'European', but about a millennium later than most people think."

Is this survival of what is now called Roman Catholicism proof that it is “Christ’s church?”  I think it more an accident of history as opposed to any Divine Imprimatur.
Jim McCrea
6 years 2 months ago
"More than 75% of US Catholics Don't Know about Mass Changes"


Deck chairs.

Titanic.
Anne Chapman
6 years 2 months ago
Juan, my friend, do you truly believe that I am not familiar with the founder of Communion & Liberation and his ideas?  Do you think that I am convinced by his reasoning?  Do I accept all of the gospel according to Luigi? Actually, no, any more than I accept the gospel according to John Harden or the gospel according to EWTN, for that matter.

Walter, you wrote''''It perplexes me that you would conclude that someone such as myself who takes the time to dialogue with and join in the critique of my church with fellow concerned members would not care about it. It saddens me that someone here would be so judgmental and show such anomie to another who in dialogue evinces a different perspective. My experience has been that there's often more anger than caritas in such a voice.''

Perhaps I missed them, but I do not recall even a single occasion when you offered a critique of the cover-ups of criminal activity by the bishops who, by their silence, permitted thousands of young people to become victims of sexual predators who might have been spared. If you have ever even once criticized the bishops or Rome and expressed honest caring for the victims of this institutional cover-up and protection of the worst kind of criminals, please refresh my memory.  Every time someone raises the issue, you bring up the red herring of the reality (that nobody disputes) that child molesting is found in all institutions in our society. You seem very concerned about that - even though there is no evidence of 100% systemic cover-ups of these crimes by principals, public school systems etc as has been seen in the Catholic church - a church that claims to represent Truth, unlike the Boy Scouts or the local public school.

Am I angry - you can bet your last dollar that I am - and will be until the hierarchy and the pope come clean and act as morally responsible people should act. I suspect it will never happen. I wrote a VERY long post on this Walter, and it's not really fair to the editors or other readers to post the entire thing. So I am sending it to you by email.

 
Thomas Piatak
6 years 2 months ago
Looking at the comments on this thread, I see that anyone who approves of Benedict XVI and who agrees with what the Church teaches is ignorant and motivated by fear, an appeal to join the Episcopal church, and a defense of the Episcopal church's claim to apostolic succession, a matter settled, for Catholics, by Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae. 

What an odd assortment of comments for a Catholic website, comments that would have met with stern disapproval from all the great Jesuit saints and martyrs who gave their all to spread the Church founded by Christ, that is, the Catholic Church, around the world. 
Jim McCrea
6 years 2 months ago
"- great Jesuit saints and martyrs who gave their all to spread the Church founded by Christ, that is, the Catholic Church, around the world. "

To err is human: to forgive is divine.

Catholics seem to have this overwhelming need to belong to the "original church," and don't seem to be able to accept that the expression of Catholicsm today is a far, far cry from what existed 2 millenia ago.  In fact, it is, as Jenkins posits, "it more an accident of history as opposed to any Divine Imprimatur."  To live is to change and to live long is to change often.

Tom, if you disagree with Philip Jenkins' writings, counter them with equally persuasive research and results.
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
Jim (#23) - The Catholic Church, as you know, includes many rites and not just the Latin Rite and so I believe that Christ’s original Church includes both the Eastern and the Western parts.  And so, that’s why I was careful not to write “Roman or Latin Rite Catholicism”, or any variation thereof.
I, like you, admire Philip Jenkins’ work but I prefer Warren H Carroll’s work and strongly recommend it over Jenkins’ work, although they are both worth reading.

As the late Dr. Carroll wrote in Vol. 2 - The Building of Christendom - the events that “brought about what has since become known as the great eastern schism have been endlessly debated” and if you want to have a detailed discussion about that period - and especially your accident of history theory - offline, please send me an e-mail.
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
My friend Anne, it’s strange but I don’t ever remember reading a book titled “The Gospel according to Luigi”; or “John Harden”; or “EWTN”; etc., but if you’ve seen them let me know where so I can read them too. 

I recommended that particular Giussani book because it’s new and because I thought you’d balk at it less than if I recommended YouCat - but perhaps I should have not held back.

Brian Weaver
6 years 2 months ago
Juan, I noticed that you avoided apostolic succession which was the original jist of my comment and you completely missed the point about trashing other denominations but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you overlooked it rather than try to set up a straw man argument about Cranmer etc.  You know precisely what I was talking about.
 
POINT #1. To an anglican, when you state the Anglican church and its American branch, the Episcopal church was started by Henry VIII, it is insulting to them and well, ignorant of FACTUAL history.  Nothing changed under Henry,only the leadership.  Bishops, many whose apostolic succession preceded the 1066 replacement of bishops by Rome continued ordaining.  Remember St. Patrick? Who do you think ordained him? Not a Roman bishop but one that brought Christianity to the isles.  The Anglican bishops today trace their lineage back to them unless of course you think St. Patrick was an ''invalid'' priest.  Furthermore, even the obtuse Eastern Orthodox church recognizes their apostolic succession.  Only Rome doesn't.
Thats my jist, I am not an Episcopalian but I do absolutely respect their church and their claim to apostolic succession and validity, equal to that of Rome and Eastern Orthodox. As far as Cramner et al they do not enter into the discussion and you're trying to drag it in another direction.
 
POINT #2.  When we point fingers to other denominations and insult them it adds to the foul cesspool of self righteousness, we can say we are the true church and slam others then they slam us saying the same thing about us.  If you don't believe me look at the Orthodox sites and the evangelical protestant sites. 

An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.  It is time to follow Christ and turn the other cheek rather than trying to diminish others by falsification and insults, so please stop it.

ps: Tom, you obviously didn't read  the quick and furious response from then Anglican archbishop of Canterbury to Leo XIII  that essentially demolished Leo's argument?  It was such a convincing response even the Eastern Orthodox church investigated what the Anglican church responded and agreed with them. 
A scholar is one who reads all accounts, not just the ones they like in order to form a fair opinion. I don'not find fault with your argument unless you didn't read all accounts.
Anne Chapman
6 years 2 months ago
Juan, such youthful surety, such enthusiasm - such absolutism - you remind me of myself at your age.  You really do.  I was very much like that -I knew, without the slightest shadow of doubt, that my church, the Roman Catholic church was the ''one, true church.''  I could quote all the scriptures used to proof-text this, spoonfed to me from earliest childhood - you know, the one about Peter and the keys, the ones about ''binding and loosing'', etc, etc.  Every Catholic of a certain age had these ''proofs'' implanted in their DNA.  Perhaps the new retro-evangelical-obedient  millenials have experienced the same.  Fortunately my dear friends from high school days never held it against me (none of them were members of the ''one, true church'' as I was, triumphalism and all) and are still my friends. We survived high school together, and as we see old age becoming all too visible on the horizon, I know that we will be there for one another as we complete the last decades of our journey. We are still members of different denominations - but we know now that denomination really doesn't matter a whole lot. God matters, spirituality matters, religious denomination, not so much.

There is no single path to Truth.  To be continued via email.

Juan, as with Walter, my reply is way too long, and of little interest to the general readership. I think your email works, so I will send you the full piece (diatribe? I hope not - but maybe a shameful example of the not-so-wise elder counseling the young).
Jim McCrea
6 years 2 months ago
Anne said:  "I could quote all the scriptures used to proof-text this, spoonfed to me from earliest childhood - you know, the one about Peter and the keys, the ones about 'binding and loosing', etc, etc. Every Catholic of a certain age had these 'proofs' implanted in their DNA."

Been there; heard that; don't believe it any more.

Here's something that should be implanted in everyone's DNA:

Proof text out of context is pretext of proof text.
Thomas Piatak
6 years 2 months ago
Mr. Lino,

There is absolutely no need to apologize for defending the Catholic Church or arguing against apostasy.  That, in fact, is what Catholics are supposed to do. 

Brian Weaver
6 years 2 months ago
Again, more strawmen arguements from Lino. 

He states on # 19 : ''..abandon Christ’s original Church for an American version of one started by Henry VII''.

Either he is unintentionally unaware of the facts or is deliberately lying.  The statement is false, just admit it.  Cramner came much later and is a different matter, you need to read how Leo XIII argument was demolished.

You state ''well, all the Christian churches are basically the same, so what’s the big deal?”  Where did I say that, please point it out, you can't because I didn't , more sloppy strawman arguments.

You state: “give up your right to self-defense” - am I reading that correctly?'' So how is misrepresenting the facts self defense?

You state: ''...for me because the Truth (with a capital T) matters''.  Sorry, it doesn't sound like it.  Again how is misrepresenting the facts the Truth.

Many denominations state they are the one true church and have their reasons and evidence so why should anyone believe either you or them? It's time to stop the grandiosing. 

This all started when you misrepresented the facts by stating ''..abandon Christ’s original Church for an American version of one started by Henry VII''. The Anglican church was not founded by Henry, but founded by Jesus Christ.  The leadership roles were changed by Henry VIII but he didn't found the Anglican church.

Finally, yes Anne, I agree, such absolutism is scary, history is filled w/ many who thought they were and did terrible things in the name of absolutism whether is was church, society or secular.
Brian Weaver
6 years 2 months ago
Oh, and Steve, feel free to blog here anytime!
Thomas Piatak
6 years 2 months ago
Mr. Rodriguez,

Yes, Henry VIII founded the Anglican church.  There was no Anglican church before Henry, just the Roman Catholic Church in England.  Christianity came into what became England both directly from Rome (St. Augustine of Canterbury) and from Celtic monasteries, but all the Christian missionaries who came into England were in communion with the Pope and recognized him as the head of the Church.  Henry, to satisfy both his lust for Anne Boleyn and his lust for power, broke communion with Rome and began a reign of terror against Catholics that lasted for many years, giving us such great saints as Thomas More, John Fisher, Edmund Campion, S. J., Robert Southwell, S. J., Margaret Clitherow, etc., etc., all of whom gave witness with their lives to the hollowness of your statement that "Nothing changed under Henry,only the leadership."

As for the nullity of Anglican orders, that matter was settled for Catholics by Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae.  Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, cited Apostolicae Curae as an example of a truth to be held definitively:  http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM  Leo XIII's judgment rested not on the history of the Church in England before Henry VIII, but on actions taken after Henry VIII unlawfully declared himself to be head of the Church in England.  Significantly, one of the Anglican responses to Apostolicae Curae was to begin having Old Catholics (whose orders were recognized as valid by Rome) participate in the consecration of Anglican bishops, in an attempt to give validity to their ordinations.  Today, of course, the Anglicans are busily creating new defects in their orders, and the Eastern Orthodox, whom you cited, will be the first to tell you that any priest ordained by a woman bishop is not a priest.
Brian Weaver
6 years 2 months ago
Oh Tom, you preach a ''revisionist'' brand of Christianity then list a discredited EWTN as a source, LOL. 
Yes,  that Ewtn that came under investigation by the Vatican for questionable liturgical and financial abuses.  When the verdict came down, Mother Angelica, the great lapdog of the magisterium, bucked them and turned her organization over to a lay board in order to NOT have to obey the magisterium.  And you're using them as a source!

Let me tell you the truth:

You state: ''There was no Anglican church before Henry, just the Roman Catholic Church in England.  Christianity came into what became England both directly from Rome (St. Augustine of Canterbury)'' 

Wrong, the isles were visited and converts were made in the second and third century PRIOR to Augustine of Canterbury mission to the Isles by Pope Gregory the great.  Remember St. Patrick? That's a fact.
The bishops in England and Ireland acted independently until William the Conqueror replaced all but two bishops with appointees from Rome.  That's a fact.

You state: ''ll the Christian missionaries who came into England were in communion with the Pope and recognized him as the head of the Church''  Wrong again.

SEE THE SYNOD OF WHITBY in 664AD to see how the independent Celitc church in the isles, independent of Rome, came to be conformed to Rome. It's a FACT, Whitby actually took place.  (Walter, please look up Whitby also since you state the same thing Tom does.) The church in the Isles had nothing to do nor connected to Rome. It's a fact that the English (Anglican) church existed outside of Rome.

Furthermore,  the early church didn't regard the Pope as the head of the church, even the Council of Niceae wasn't convened by the Pope but by Constantine.  The pope isn't even mentioned!  At that time he was the Bishop of Rome, and the power base was being transferred to Constantinople where the Ecumenical Bishop was being held in esteem, not the decaying Rome Constantine left behind.

You talk about a reign of terror.  As Catholics I wouldn't even mention this since the church in the middle ages was the biggest exporter of terror, that's a fact unless you've revised this too.

As far as Leo XIII even the obtuse Eastern Orthodox, who have valid apostolic succession (you don't disagree I hope) reject Leo XIII  ''A. Curiae''.  As a matter of fact, some SSPX reject post Vatican II ordinations and they use Leo XIII as their source!

I will agree with you that the Eastern Orthodox do not accept ordinations by female bishops but they DON'T accept our Roman Catholic sacraments either and there is no intercommunion.  So does that make us null and void too?

The point is this, any of the big three, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican can claim authenticity to the exclusion of the other two and can show scripture and tradition as their source.      But which one is correct?     I personally feel it is the RC but that is my opinion and I  am NOT willing to resort to self righteousness, insults and a blind eye to the historical facts to say that we are the ONLY one because they can say the same about their denomination. 
Jim has it right, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church fractured in 1056 and again in 1517 and what we are left with are quarreling factions.  Quarreling and insulting one another will not put us back together again to fulfill Christ's mandate that ''they be one as We are one.''  unless there are those who don't want to put us back together.

I can't help but remember how Christ was irritated when the apostles argued among themselves as who was the first!
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
Since the approach I am currently using is impeding the discussion David, I am going to try a different approach.  

I know some do not consider Wiki a reliable source but since we both have access to it I suggest we use it as the starting point for this phase of our discussion - is that agreeable?  If yes, do you find the section titled “Defining Features” in the Apostolic Apostolic succession entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession) to be an acceptable description? 

I will also refer to this site - http://justus.anglican.org/resources/timeline/06reformation.html - is that agreeable also? 
************************************************
 Steve - thank you for your latest post (#38) because it reminds me of things I studied as I was trying to discern which is the “ecclesia” that Jesus established.  And yes, you should continue to post comments here!  Of course, if you invite Catholics to become Protestants expect to be called on it.  After all, if I went to a Protestant blog and invited Protestants to become Catholics, I’d expect the same reaction. 
*************************************************
 Anne - I look forward to reading your e-mail tomorrow.


Good night to all. 
Craig McKee
6 years 2 months ago
I am grateful for this article's link to the MISGUIDED MISSAL website mainly because they have posted the 1998 ICEL translation of the Roman Missal which was rejected by Rome as part of the campaign to replace ICEL with the Vox Clara.
Now at least, we can see what we almost had...
Brian Weaver
6 years 2 months ago
Sorry Juan, we will just agree to disagree. 
The facts show that an English (Anglo) church existed outside of Rome (Synod of Whitby) and stating that the Anglican church was started by Henry VIII is factually incorrect.  That is my main premise. 
It is my hope that we as RC can remain dignified and state facts, not slurs (Henry VIII starting Anglicanism is a slur to Anglicans). 
We Catholics are always saying that if one wants to know the truth about Catholicism then read information written by Catholics about Catholicism...  That is also a double edge sword.  Want to know about Anglicanism then read Anglican authors to help learn about Anglicianism.   Judging Anglicanism by reading Catholic authors is no different than reading the anti Catholic Chick to find out about Catholicism. 

*******Now back to the ORIGINAL blog.

Father Martin, I think most Catholics don't really care, after all, if we don't like the translation what can we do about it?  We know we can do nothing....  Care to comment on this Fr. Martin, is there anything that can be done?  It does seem to go against Sacrosanctum Concilium #34 with all the emphasis on catechisis and useless repetitions (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa):

34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation(catechesis).

Personally, I am taking a wait and see approach, I don't like the mea culpa's, consubstantial I can live with, dewfall in the Epiclesis is factually incorrect, dew doesn't fall. But nothing is carved in stone (except 10 commandments)and there may be revisions?

ps, if the next pope elected is a progressive I wouldn't be surprised we end up with a Rite I (new translation) and Rite II (1970 translation).  This is how the Episcopal church solved the dillemna when they updated their translations.
Yes, yes, I know, sorry Juan, Walter and Tom to bring up that great apostasy the Episcopal Church.... but I think it would definitely calm the waters.
Vince Killoran
6 years 2 months ago
For some scholarship based on actual field work and empiricism see C. J. Pascoe's DUDE, YOU'RE A FAG: MASCULINITY & SEXUALITY IN HIGH SCHOOL (UCalf. Press, 2007).
Anne Chapman
6 years 2 months ago
Steve, thank you for your kind post.  I am indeed weary of the battles in the Catholic church - so weary that I have been attending an Episcopal parish for almost three years now, where the relative peace allows me to try to discern my future path.  There are several people who post here now and then who currently attend the Episcopal Church and a couple of have been formally received. I have realized  over the last several years through study and attending mass and other events at the parish, talking with the priests, etc, that I am thoroughly Episcopalian in my head -  I think that Anglicanism actually best models the early Christian church of all the various ''wings'' of christianity (Roman, Orthodox, Protestant, and Anglican), and is also the most open to hearing the whispers of the Holy Spirit - those living behind the ancient and very thick walls of the Vatican, having closed all the windows that were opened by Vatican II, seem to have a lot of trouble with that!

 The hard part is the heart. I was a very involved, very active Catholic for most of my life (I am not in my early 60s), often a daily mass goer (the main thing I miss - most Episcopal parishes only have the Eucharist twice/week), a volunteer,  etc, etc.  So, emotionally it is hard to leave because being Catholic is as much part of my identity as being American is - this is a common problem with Catholics and may be why a majority of Catholics who leave the church remain unchurched (the second largest ''denomination'' in the US is ''former Catholic'' according to the polls).  They can't be Catholic anymore, but they can't be anything else either - on the emotional level.  I am getting very close to becoming Episcopalian formally however.  It just gets worse and worse in the Catholic church, and I am too old to try to wait it out.

David, I have found that many (most) Catholics are woefully ignorant of RC history, much less of the history of other churches.  One problem, as seen in this thread, is that too many read only what the Catholic church itself says about these matters rather than turning to more objective sources.  I doubt that any of them would think that Rowan Williams would be ''right'' if he suddenly proclaimed that RCC Holy Orders are invalid (all those multiple papacies, popes who gained their thrones through murder, extortion, bribery, etc -clouds the apostolic ''title'' a bit, no?) yet because a late 19th century pope got annoyed with Anglicans, and declared their orders invalid, then it must be Truth with a capital T! 

Those involved in the discussion of apostolic succession might be interested in something Father Richard McBrien of Notre Dame wrote:
We must reject the simplistic, mechanistic notion of apostolic succession, or the passing-the-baton theory. To say that the church is “apostolic” means that it continues to be faithful to the word, worship, witness and service of the apostles. A longer article is at http://www.ca.renewedpriesthood.org/page.cfm?Web_ID=1130
Finally, I about the translations  - from all I have read they are clumsy, fail to convey meaning clearly, are the product of people who aren't native English speakers who are essentially forcing this translation down the mostly unwilling throats of the various English speaking countries without having followed the defined process (a combined thousands of priests all over the English speaking world have signed letters asking Rome to please wait and go over this with those who are going to have to impose this on their congregations, but, as usual with such attempts to be heard in Rome, they have not been heard!).  However, since I have attended an Episcopal parish for almost three years I am fully aware of how well their solution works. As David noted most parishes have both Rite I and Rite II masses every Sunday - take your pick!  No fuss, no liturgy wars dividing either the church or the parish - genius.
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
David - we are certainly interpreting the meaning/import of historical events differently. Perhaps the following will clarify why I believe that part of your main premise is wrong. 

Imagine a company aligned with Company A (let’s call it Company B) breaks off from Company A, changes its “corporate culture” (beliefs) and “structure” (Primacy, etc.) by retaining some things and discarding others, including appointing a new leader.  Ok, is Company B a new company and is the self-appointed leader its founder?  I say yes.

Now if I tell someone from Company B that I believe their claims about X are wrong, is that really a slur?  

Regarding your final paragraph, I agree 100% and that’s why I have read the writings of those for and against a claim including Jack Chick tracts and Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism.  I’ve also works by Anglicans and former Anglicans like John Henry Newman, Cardinal Dulles, and Louis Bouyer – whose book, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, I highly recommend.

Yes, let’s agree to disagree and let’s not let that fact be an excuse to not consider this as the beginning of a beautiful friendship. 
*********************************

Anne - I just sent an e-mail to you.
Thomas Piatak
6 years 2 months ago
The claim that the losing side in the Synod of Whitby, centered on the monastery at Iona established by St. Columba, represented a church independent of the Pope is nonsense.  The Stowe missal, containing the liturgy used at Iona, includes prayers for the Pope in its Eucharistic prayer.  Indeed, the same sort of Celtic monks who established Iona also went to the Continent, including St. Colombanus, who establised a monastery in Bobbio, in Italy.   And this is what Colombanus wrote to the Pope:  "We Irish, though dwelling at the far ends of the earth, are all disciples of St. Peter and St. Paul... Neither heretic, nor Jew, nor schismatic has ever been among us; but the Catholic Faith, just as it was first delivered to us by yourselves, the successors of the Apostles, is held by us unchanged... we are bound to the Chair of Peter, and although Rome is great and renowned, through that Chair alone is she looked on as great and illustrious among us... On account of the two Apostles of Christ, you (the Pope) are almost celestial, and Rome is the head of the whole world, and of the Churches."

It wasn't until the Reformation that it occurred to anyone to portray the losing side at Whitby as a church independent of Rome.  In one of history's little ironies, this argument was taken up not by Celts but by Anglican apologists, who were English, and who also soon set about seeking to extirpate indigenous Christianity from Ireland.  It was also taken up by English-speaking Scottish Presbyterians, who were to join in the attempt to extirpate indigenous Christianity from Ireland and who also sought to extirpate indigenous Christianity from the Gaelic speakers in the Highlands.  The Gaelic speakers in Ireland and Scotland, the descendants of those converted by Patrick and Columba, remained loyal to Rome, just as their ancestors had been.

I don't quite know how we've gotten on the subject of the Synod of Whitby, since it has nothing to do with Leo XIII's ruling in Apostolicae Cuare, which is based entirely on what occurred after Henry VIII unlawfully declared himself head of the Church in England and began torturing and killing all those who disagreed with him.  It was the actions of Henry's successors that broke apostolic succession in England, not what occurred in the 7th century.
Anne Chapman
6 years 2 months ago
Jim, I was sort of hoping that those who might not know who he is would actually read what he wrote with an open mind, before rushing off to consult some neo-conservative Catholic source in order to be told what to think about him.  Oh, well.  At least we probably don't have to worry about people quoting Corapi anymore. 

I tend to agree with McBrien, and frankly, am little concerned about the whole issue of bishops and apostolic succession. However, clearly a number of people are concerned about it, so they can continue their competing sources debate. It's a no win situation because too much is shrouded in the fogs of history, interpretations are often guesswork at best, - and too much revisionist history-making goes on in all camps.

This discussion has wandered pretty far off track - it started with a finding that most Catholics are unaware of upcoming changes in the translation of the prayers of mass.  They'll figure it out eventually - since few of them know much about the underlying theology of either the current translation or the new one, it won't matter much once they get the hang of it.
Thomas Piatak
6 years 2 months ago
Mr. Rodriguez:

St. Colombanus' statement preceded the Synod of Whitby by half a century.

No sensible person disagrees that there are many exceptional Christians who do not belong to the Catholic Church.  Most of us have personal experience of exceptional Christians who are not Catholic.  But that fact does not diminish the truth claims of the Catholic Church, claims that I fully accept and that I believe are well supported by history.
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
Anne - I agree that it’s best that Catholics stick with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Edition) - which is affirmed to be an “authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith” and “a sure norm for teaching the faith” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text.”  With that resource anyone can check if whatever a “black sheep dog” or “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, orthodox (and I am not referring to an Orthodox Church) or heterodox website or writer affirms actually coincides with authentic Catholic teachings. 

David -
I am shocked that you were surprised to discover that “cafeteria priests” exist - wow dude, where have you been living?

Getting back to the topic of the post,
as an ordinary Catholic, I am thrilled that we will be saying “and with your spirit” as we currently say when I attend a Mass offered in Spanish and look forward to doing to helping my fellow ordinary Catholics understand why a formal equivalence dynamic translation is better than what we currently have.  

I’ll conclude by saying that I admire and greatly respect the willingness of the America Blog staff to allow a conversation to unfold without jumping in to squash it - cudos to America Mag.
 
Good night to all.
Thomas Piatak
6 years 1 month ago
Mr. Rodriguez:

Here is an Anglican blogger (who is not fond of the Catholic Church) citing the quote from St. Columbanus:  http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/06/pope-wades-in-to-irish-eu-referendum.htm

Here is a further discussion from the Catholic Encylopedia (1913), dating the quote to the early 600s:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04137a.htm  Indeed, Columbanus was dead by 615, nearly half a century before the Synod of Whitby. 

And here, from that same excellent source, is a good discussion of the papacy, which exercised authority over other dioceses by the end of the first century:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Thomas Piatak
6 years 1 month ago
You're welcome, David.  Keep in mind that this edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in 1913, so there are anachronisms, but it is quite good on historical matters, in my view.

Anne Chapman
6 years 2 months ago
Walter, it is absolutely not my experience that the majority of Catholic have even the slightest idea of the breadth and depth fo the sexual abuse scandal in the church.
You know, and I know because we both read - I have seen almost nothing about the reports in Ireland, etc in my local paper (the Washington Post - not a small-town paper but one with extensive international coverage).  I know there is nothing in the diocesan newspapers that people (a very few) read. They will only get lovely little stories about World Youth Day with all of the bad stuff carefully selected out.

  Only those like you and me, who read widely - America being just one source of information among many - know about these things. I know that some people who work in parish offices have said the same thing - the people in the congregation really don't know because they don't read widely. And they're sure not going to hear about it all from their own pastors and bishops.

 It's not front page news anymore except purely locally and briefly. So the people in Kansas City know that Bishop Finn swept aside information they had about a priest who presented a clear danger of pedophilia, taking pornographic pictures of children in the parish and schools where he worked.  He and his staff eseentially ignored the letter from the principal expressing the school staff's concerns, and when he finally ''reported'' the findings of photos on the man's computer to ''the police'', it turned out to be an informal contact with one policeman acquaintance, and he described one photo - one of the more innocuous ones. The police officer gave a personal opinion based on carefully edited information he received about one photograph.  The sick pattern of protecting priests and the institution still goes on. And the Pope still sits on his hands. And too many Catholics who do know what is going on blindly defend the church, enabling this situation to continue.

There has been next to no coverage of the ongoing scandal in Philadelphia outside the city itself. Nothing in the Washington Post even though Philadelphia is not far from DC, and they are going through round 2 of sexual abuse judicial proceedings - all new - nothing whatsoever changed there after round 1. It's a reported story in selected Catholic media - America and National Catholic Reporter, for example, but not National Catholic Register and similar (the conservative Catholic media tend to ignore these stories, or relegate them to a paragraph buried in the middle somewhere).  I have heard people who regularly watch EWTN say that there is next to nothing about this ongoing scandal ever mentioned on their shows (I don't watch that channel, so can't say from personal experience). 

Yet I do see coverage in the Post of local problems with sexual perverts - those who teach in local public/independent schools, or who coach, or, for example a relatively recent in-depth story that was the cover story of the Washington Post's Sunday Magazine - a youth minister who seduced a number of teen-age girls in a local Protestant church.

When the schools/coaching cases have been reported or alleged, there is imnediate action taken by the school principals, police, etc. Instead of hiding what may be a crime, they call in the authorities, they make it known to the school population and the general public.  That is not what the Roman Catholic bishops did, and too many apparently still do attempt to hide the crimes and protect the criminals. Even now, as we know from Philadelphia and Ireland, many bishops have ignored the lessons of the last decade and are still protecting priests, hiding crimes, and failing the children.

Walter, you seem totally uncaring about what happens in your own church.  Why? Why have you no desire to see  the sickness apparent in too many of the leaders of your own church held accountable and the church purified of this ''filth'', to quote the pope - who actually doesn't seem too concerned about it. He lets the bishops stay in office, or even promotes them, unless of course, they suggest that ordaining women might help with the priest shortage. Then they're out the door in a flash!  But, what can you expect - this is a leadership that equates the evil of pedophilia with the ''evil'' of suggesting that women should be recognized as fully equal to men because they are made in the image of God.  They seem to have no moral understanding at all and yet claim to be teachers of morality.  And not many Catholics know about this madness either.

So the people in the pews, ignorant of what goes on beyond the parish doors, continue to pay, pray and obey. They will indeed adapt to the new translation, as awkward as it may be, and as deficient theologically. Because few really understand the theology underlyling the mass - that is why they don't understand the true significance of the changes the pope has been making one step at a time - he is undoing all the theology that was expressed in the Vatican II liturgical reforms.  But, the people in the pews have not the slightest clue about any of it.
Anne Chapman
6 years 2 months ago
Juan, you have made my point - you read widely, I read widely, Walter reads widely, everyone who posts on this forum reads widely. The average Catholic in the pews does not read widely - most don't even read their parish bulletin (documented!).  And it does you no credit to adopt Fr. Z's rather puerile approach to discussing publications whose point of view differs from your own. 

BTW, you maybe should read some of what Joseph Ratzinger wrote during the period of Vatican II. Quite different from what he came to say later - he would probably investigate/silence a theologian today who expressed similar views. Sadly, the man became a literal example of what it means to become a ''reactionary'' - his views did a 180 after the student riots in 1968.  He ''reacted'' almost irrationally to this brief period of violence; he retreated as do so many overcome with fear and decided to try to seek ''safety'' by turning back the clock and relying on authoritarianism.  It's really quite sad what happened to his thinking because he allowed himself to be taken over by fear.
Anne Chapman
6 years 2 months ago
Vince, I am not a scholar and have not studied the translations in depth. But I did study Latin for several years, as well as French, and I lived in France as a student for a year. I would have had failing grades in these subjects if I had translated literally as these men have done - the whole point is meaning, and that often means a non-literal translation.  ''One in being with the Father'' has far more meaning for English speakers than does ''consubstantial.''  Jesus wasn't pretentious - he spoke the language of his people (he did not speak Latin and the early church mostly used Greek. It was only after the church wed itself to the Roman empire that Latin was used - and it was the vernacular!).
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
Yes Anne, I agree that a puerile approach is not always the best approach to use but, in some cases it is. ; )  I do appreciate the caution though.

I have read Ratzinger’s writings of that period and what he has said about that period in interviews.  Perhaps it was the shock of seeing the fruit of the distortions that were taking place that woke him up rather than fear, as you posit.  Moreover, it’s not unusual for human beings to radically change their views on a topic for a variety of reasons (I know I have and I surmise that you have too) so let’s not fault him for doing what all of us do.

Since you studied Latin you’ll now better than I do that it is more precise than English.  Additionally, many religions have an official language (Hebrew or Arabic for example) and the Official Language of the Catholic Christian Church is Latin.  No problem there as far as I am concerned.

Regarding your assertion that 'One in being with the Father' has far more meaning for English speakers than does 'consubstantial', I strongly disagree.  If we took a poll I think we’d find that many have no idea what either really means because, as you rightly said, people don’t read as deeply or as often as they should.  Also, I am hoping that the “newness” will wake people up from their slumber and prompted them to actually learn something.

Vince, what’s wrong with smells and bells?  Sure, they shouldn’t be the number one priority but if they contribute to one’s perception of the beauty we are encountering, why not?  Regarding the translation, do you really think that the “dynamic equivalent” ICEL translations were really better?  If you haven’t already done so, compare them to the Latin and count how many ideological changes were introduced – it is astounding.  Sure, a formal equivalence translation can be awkward but it’s better than a distorted and/or agenda driven translation any day as far as I am concerned.  And, as Chesterton said, “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.”  So, it’s a start (Thanks be to Christ!) that can be tweaked later. 
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
I like the article very much Steve - thanks for the link.  I am now going to call myself an "Evangelical Catholic" and I am going to tell my friends to do that as well!  Yes, we see the damage that the "old ones" have done and we are conscioulsy rejecting it in favor of the Truth (with a capital T) who is the Lord Himself in His Church.  Viva Christo Rey!
Gabriel McAuliffe
6 years 2 months ago
Really

tired

of

negative and

uncharitable

comments

on the

America Magazine blog.

Unsettling?  Yes.
Anne Chapman
6 years 2 months ago
Walter, I guess I can't email my post to you because either something is wrong with the website, or you are not abiding by the rules of this board regarding having an active email account to link to.  It gives me an error - perhaps the staff of the magazine can check and correct it if you have a real email address.  Until then, you can email me by clicking on my name and I will respond to you privately.
Brian Weaver
6 years 2 months ago
Jim, you're exactly correct.  As a matter of fact if one were to visit Eastern Orthodox sites they specifically state that THEY are the true church of Christ. 

I personally am tired of people like Lino knocking other churches w/ biased and incorrect info.  The Episccopal church was not begun by Henry VIII but has existed for almost 2000 years and has valid apostolic succession, they trace their succession to the bishops from the continent who visited England and Ireland during the third century.  It wasn't until William the Conqueror in 1066 that  all bishops in England were replaced with bishops appointed by Rome.  That is why there are two archbishoprics in England, York and Canterbury, with York retaining succession prior to 1066 and Canterbury bowing to Rome appointments prior to the reformation.  In was in the Edwardian era that the Book of Common Prayer was developed.

  Furthermore, we accept the Orthodox apostolic succession, and the orthodox do NOT reordain Anglican priests who convert to orthodoxy so in essence we accept Anglican priests who convert to orthodoxy and are not reordained!

(In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1930, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Meletios of Alexandria wrote:
 …the Church of Alexandria withdraws its precautionary negative to the acceptance of the validity of Anglican Ordinations, and, adhering to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained…)
 
As a matter of fact there are those who state that ONLY the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox churches maintain valid apostolic succession, Rome has broken succession from the 16th century and has invalid orders except for religious communities which derive their succession from Abbotts etc.  So wouldn't it be ironic that Lino has had invalid sacraments!

In other words, stop knocking others Lino, your self righteousness and ignorance  in these matters are palpable.
Juan Lino
6 years 2 months ago
David - I am well aware of the fact that the Orthodox Churches believe that they are the True Church of Christ; and yes, I have read their Anti-Catholic writings.  And?  

I called the Episcopal church “an American version of one started by Henry VII” and you assert that I am offering biased and incorrect information.  I, respond, proof please?  Is the way I phrased it exaggerated and not very PC - sure.

I noticed that you fail to mention what Henry VII and Cranmer did and the fact that the term “Episcopal Church” arose at a precise moment in history as did the term “Roman Catholic Church.”  And if you are going to say that the Anglican Church is the “middle way” then read what John Henry Newman said about that position. 

Why should I care that the Orthodox do not reordain Anglican’s?  What does that prove?  Is that supposed to validate Cranmer’s ordinals?  

Send me an e-mail if you want to hash this out offline as this is far from the original topic of this post. 

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

If we, the people, are ourselves responsible for the good of the state, then we have the same obligations that a medieval monarch once had.
Terrance KleinOctober 18, 2017
Poet Kim Bridgford hopes to publish an essay on every woman poet who has ever lived through the Mezzo Cammin Women Poets Timeline, which she edits.
Colleen DulleOctober 18, 2017
The Catholic Church in the United States is being transformed by its black and brown parishioners, whose numbers and voices are rising.
Mary C. CurtisOctober 18, 2017
Pope Francis prayed for the victims of a terrorist attack in Mogadishu, Somalia, that left hundreds dead and countless wounded in one of the deadliest attacks in the country's history.