Dear friends in Christ, I personally know Jim Lundholm-Eades, and he is very fair, sincere and truthful in what he has shared in his letter. Until a change is formalized and sanctioned by the Catholic Church leadership (management-magisterium) first, then the Archbishop and the Archdiocese will not consider any change or reform in that specific area of church belief, experience or practice. Unlike the early church, our church decisions today are made “top down” rather than from the “grassroots up”, however, “’grassroots” church folks questions, experiences, challenges, and lived experience as it is brought to light for church leadership will influence the church community slowly and the church leadership even more slowly. Still, I believe many of these changes will take place over time. For an understanding of this concept consider the changes that Martin Luther wanted to make in the Catholic Church.
Remind me why I DON'T go to the Catholic church. Mr. Lundholm-Eades’ letter is patronizing and advises those who are outside official teachings to leave the Church and go to those with a broader acceptance. He does offer you his "blessing" and "wishes you well in your journey wherever it leads". Hopefully it will lead to more visible protests of the church. I have never forgiven/forgotten the archdiocese shutting Dignity Twin Cities out of the Newman Center. I want "people in the pews" to "just say, "No!" to the lies "the Church" has perpetuated about many things. The largest travesty is that many "former Catholics" I know have no church home. The Catholic church was "family" to us and the betrayal of this family to the values we were taught is traumatic. The values we were taught were about justice, love and compassion. Why are "church teachings" exempted for Anglicans the Church is trying to woo presently? Why are any teachings more valued than people
With true good wishes, thanks for your moral leadership, and wisdom of response.
I have two comments right off.
First I think it more important that we adhere to the Traditions of our church than the traditions of our church, especially when one is on conflict with the other.
Second, I find the suggestion that I explore 'protestant denominations' needlessly and purposefully divisive.
We are all one Body. I search my heart repeatedly to continue to welcome point's of view that differ from mine. This letter gives me a big challenge!
With incredible thanks for all you do . . .
I continue to be your soul mate in this "battle" you're having with your Archdiocese, even as I live in distant Wisconsin.
I'm truly amazed that Mr. Lundholm-Eades has the temerity to respond in the way he did. He could have simply said, "Take us or leave us. End of discussion." I think the only effective rebuttal to that kind of stance would be to focus on the tradition claim. When there's no substantive argument for a particular stance, the debater is forced to use the "we've always done it that way" argument. In the case of our Church, even that doesn't hold much water, since our church hasn't ALWAYS done ANYTHING that way.
Hang in here; don't give up. Right now, it seems that you guys in the Twin Cities represent the front lines of the progressive movement. Count on theVaticanto use its vast resources in opposition to you.
Peace and Justice to all of you.
Perhaps the best response to such a "get lost" letter is no response. The Protestant reference strikes me as something of a final straw. His brusque brush-off reference to following the church's "teachings" is another, as if the current hierarchy is not straying from key and vital teachings of our church's long tradition. And, now that he brings it up, are not leaders in the current hierarchy the ones who are reaching out to Protestantism - the most reactionary wing of Protestantism? They are drawing closer-and-closer to conservative evangelicals in this country to pursue their narrow political agenda, to even more conservative evangelicals in Africa and other third world countries, and to the most reactionary and judgmental branch of the Anglican Church? It is this hierarchy that is straying from the most crucial teachings of our church.
So why not express regrets and move ahead without this narrow hierarchy? That just might be the course of action most likely to bring back the younger generation. I believe more and more strongly that our best course of action might begin with Rohr's concept of an "EmergingChurch," forming small communities where we can worship as we feel the spirit calling, drawn by the teachings of Vatican II and the deepest, inclusive yearnings in our hearts. The Spirit of St. Stephen Community is one wonderful example of how we might proceed.
Thank you for your excellent leadership.
I read the response and was slightly taken aback when the message was to try a protestant church for a broader interpretation of Church teaching and the faith. This seems to be the tack that the hierarchy is taking, 'the Catholic Church, love it or leave it'. Not exactly the way I believe Jesus acted in his ministry. The new bishop of NYC has informed the National Association of Catholic Chaplains that he will continue the policy of his predecessor and not endorse lay chaplains. I've been unemployed since March and was let go by two Catholic organizations and left a hospital in another part of town where the bishop said he didn't care if it closed. So, it looks like it's time to go into the catacombs and keep the faith as best we can.
It occurs to me that there are Catholics in high places around our nation that would cringe at the idea that we cannot discuss our faith because it is set in stone. Maybe in our reaching out to their writings and to them personally we can develop a file of evidence that faith is an organic dynamic living reality. I think of Joan Chittister, Richard Rohr, James Carroll, Daniel Berrigan. and there must be many more. It reminds of a little kid saying I don't want to grow up.
I sent a response to Jim Lundholm-Eades suggesting that he should apologize to CCCR for his suggestion that we leave the church.
An arrogant response from a closed-minded individual unwilling and/or unable to enter into healthy dialogue with those who differ under the guise of "the Catholic Faith."