Posted on 10/13/2006 4:59:56 PM PDT by NYer
Back in 2001, when I first started writing about the child sex-abuse scandal in the Church, Father Tom Doyle, the heroic priest who ruined his own career by speaking out for victims, warned me, "If you keep going down this path, you are going to go to places darker than you can imagine." I thought I understood what he meant, but I didn't. Even if I had, by then, I couldn't have stopped. What brought me in touch with Fr. Doyle was my having stumbled upon a cell of clerical molesters at a Carmelite parish in the Bronx. They had preyed on a teenage immigrant boy who was troubled, and whose father was back in Nicaragua. His mother sent him to the priests for counseling, thinking that maybe being around some men of God would do the boy some good. The priests ended up molesting him. When the boy's father arrived in the States and found out what had happened, he went to the Archdiocese of New York to tell them what happened. They offered to cut him a check if he'd sign a paper agreeing to let the Archdiocese's attorneys handle the matter.
And that's how it began for me. At the time, as the father of a young boy, I couldn't shake the thought What if this had happened to my family? Would we be treated this way by the Archdiocese? ...
The sex-abuse scandal can't be easily separated from the wider crisis in the American Catholic Church, involving the corruption of the liturgy, of catechesis, and so forth. I've come to understand how important this point is, because if most other things had been more or less solid, I think I could have weathered the storm. But I found it impossible to find solid ground.
...
After months, we finally made a decision: we would visit an Orthodox parish. As Catholics, we knew at least that the Sacraments there were valid. Though we couldn't receive communion, we could at least be in the presence of the Eucharistic Christ, and worship liturgically with them, and draw close to God on Sunday morning, however imperfectly. I can hardly express the burden of guilt I felt when I crossed the threshold of St. Seraphim's parish that morning. But you know, it was a wonderful place. The liturgy was breathtakingly beautiful. The preaching orthodox. And the people -- half of them Russian, most of the others converts -- could hardly have been kinder and more welcoming. As a new Episcopalian friend told me a couple of weeks ago after he visited St. Seraphim's, "There is life there."
We kept going back, and finally got invited to dinner at the archbishop's house. I feared it would be a stiff, formal affair. I was astonished to turn up at the address given, to find that it was the shabby little cottage behind the cathedral. We went in, and it was like being at a family reunion. Vladika's house was jammed with parishioners celebrating a feast day with ... a feast. There was Archbishop Dmitri in the middle of it all, looking like a grandfatherly Gandalf. I had never in all my years as a Catholic been around people who felt that way about their bishop. The whole thing was dizzying -- the fellowship, the prayerfulness, the feeling of family. I hadn't realized how starved I was for a church community.
Over time, we got to know the people of the parish. They became our friends. It was a new experience for me to be in a parish where you can be openly small-o orthodox, and the priest and the people support you in that. In "Crunchy Cons," the Orthodox convert (from RCism) Hugh O'Beirne says that Catholics new to the Orthodox Church may find it surprising that they don't have to be on a "war footing" -- meaning the culture wars don't intrude into worship. People are on the same page, and if they're not, they're not out trying to get the Church to change her position on abortion, gay marriage, inclusive language, and all that. As someone who more or less is on the front lines of the culture war every day in my job as a journalist, I found it a new and welcome experience to be able to go to church on Sunday and get built back up for the struggle ahead, instead of to find mass the most debilitating hour of the week.
Julie and I could see what was happening to us: we were falling in love with Orthodoxy. On several occasions, we stopped to check ourselves. But we couldn't bring ourselves to leave this place, where we were back in touch with Christ, and learning to serve Him in community, to return to what we had experienced as a spiritual desert. I know this is not every Catholic's experience, but this was ours.
......
I had to admit that I had never seriously considered the case for Orthodoxy. Now I had to do that. And it was difficult poring through the arguments about papal primacy. I'll spare you the details, but I will say that I came to seriously doubt Rome's claims. Reading the accounts of the First Vatican Council, and how they arrived at the dogma of papal infallibility, was a shock to me: I realized that I simply couldn't believe the doctrine. And if that falls, it all falls. Of course I immediately set upon myself, doubting my thinking because doubting my motives. You're just trying to talk yourself into something, I thought. And truth to tell, there was a lot of that, I'm sure.
But what I noticed during all this Sturm und Drang over doctrine was this: we were happy again as a family, and at peace. Julie said one day driving home from liturgy, "Isn't it great to look forward to going to church again?" ... Here I was beginning to live a more Christ-like life as a fellow traveler of Orthodoxy, and knowing that if I went back to full-fledged Catholicism, I would be returning to anger and despair. What does it mean to live in the Christian truth in that situation? How would I feel if I approached the Judgment Seat and said to God, "I lived as a depressed and embittered man, lost my children to the Christian faith, and was a terrible witness to your goodness. But Lord, thanks to you, I never left Catholicism."
It was not an abstract question for me. I wondered: is the point of our life on earth to become like Jesus, or is it to maintain formal affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church? ...
I can look back also and see that my own intellectual pride helped me build a weak foundation for my faith. When I converted to Catholicism in 1992 (I entered the Church formally in 1993), it was a sincere Christian conversion. But I also took on as my own all the cultural and intellectual trappings of the American Catholic right. I remember feeling so grateful for the privilege and gift of being Catholic, but there was a part of me that thought, "Yay! I'm on the A-Team now, the New York Yankees of Christianity. I'm on Father Neuhaus's team!" ...
A few weeks back, I mentioned to Julie on the way to St. Seraphim's one morning, "I'm now part of a small church that nobody's heard of, with zero cultural influence in America, and in a tiny parish that's materially poor. I think that's just where I need to be."
...
As far as tradition goes, I have moved with my family to a church that I believe stands a much better chance of maintaining the historic Christian deposit of faith over time. To be more blunt, I have moved to a church that in my judgment within which I and my family and my descendants will be better able to withstand modernity. Basically, though -- and this is as blunt as I can be -- I'm in a church where I can trust the spiritual headship of the clergy, and where most people want to know more about the faith, and how we can conform our lives to it, rather than wanting to run away from it or hide it so nobody has to be offended.
I agree with you there, but I don't agree with using his position as a journalist to publicize the priest's past to large numbers of people who will never have occasion to interact with the priest. Did the bishop, who is responsible for assigning the priest his duties, know? Did Dreher attempt to communicate with the bishop or the priest? Did Dreher even consider trying to work on the parish and diocesan level before going national with the news?
"Hmmm trying to find more on the betrothal and what actually is occuring..."
It is the first part of the overall wedding ceremony when the rings are blessed and exchanged. The bride and groom say nothing. Centuries ago the betrothal ceremony apparently could and did occur separate from the actual marriage sacrament. There is the belief that this allowed the man certain marital rights with his intended. Maybe it did; I don't know.
A couple of years ago a couple of immigrant Greeks came to the priest in our parish asking him to conduct a betrothal for their no good son and his unbaptized live-in (in the family house) girlfriend, apparently believing that this would somehow legitimize the illegitimate goings on. The priest refused and the Greeks exploded. Later when the girl became pregnant and the boy paraded her at the Divine Liturgy, the parish was scandalized (these people vome to Liturgy maybe twice a year). But it got worse when he approached for communion and the priest refused him quietly, blessing him with the cup instead. This time the Greeks really went bizerk...during the Liturgy! They apparently plan to bring all the other immigrant Greeks who never come to Liturgy to the general assembly this year to "get rid of that priest"! Just lovely people!
In modern practice (i.e. for many, many, many centuries), the betrothal ceremony in Orthodox practice has been, as you know, linked to the marriage ceremony. The reason for this is fairly obvious -- chastity is still expected while in the state of betrothal, and that proved very difficult to maintain. I think that the Ethiopians still maintain a separate betrothal service, and apparently it is very common for them not to show back up for the marriage -- but it *is* common for them to show back up with a child to be baptized!
The betrothal is the part that comes closest to being contractual in the ceremony, and is a promise and pledge to marry. It is a formal declaration of intent to enter into a union, but it is not the union itself. I'd have to review the texts themselves, but I don't recall off-hand anything indicating that the marriage part simply blesses a pre-existing relationship that was created by a betrothal.
But then I wouldn't notice, since in modern practice, it is a single service that has two parts -- just like Vespers used to be comprised of two separate services that are now linked into a single service. Same with the the Midnight Office.
Let me know what you find out.
Between those who left because the Church was too strict and those that left because it was too lenient (the changing over to the New Order Mass from the Tridentine,most often) there was a whole lot of movin' going on in the 70's especially.
That was probably better than the decade that followed when those who thought it was too lenient just stayed and proclaimed that whatever they did or said was just fine with God, all He seemed to require was that we all be "happy little Catholics". Ugh!!
I do think things are getting much better as the old guard dissident bishops are dying off and the poor uncatechized or discontented catholic groupies are appalled and disturbed by the orthodox Catholic Bishops,who are replacing them. Many are now disgruntled and leaving although some are still fighting furiously.Imagine that!!
Then there was the liberal retreat house I used to visit...
I can't tell you how many people I know in the last few years who have defected to conservative fundamentalist/evangelical churches.
I'll probably always be a Catholic at heart, but I'm thinking of visiting the Orthodox church just a couple of miles away.
I know "the faith." I've read the books. My family is so catholic we should be related to the pope. LOL I know who Steve Wood, Scott Hahn, blah, blah, blah. I just don't have faith that it's the only real faith anymore.
I"m looking into the Orthodox church a couple of miles from my house. I just can't take it anymore. Two men in my family were approached by pedophiles in the church, including my husband as a teen.
Stick a fork in me. I'm done.
It is Dreher who is guilty of rash judgment, not I. He is the one who passed judgement on the whole Church as being rotten. Why else would he blame the whole Church for the actions of a few? Obviously, he is ignoring the good done by the rest of the clergy and by the laity, for that matter. As for your assertion that 60% of the American bishops admitted transferred abusive priests, I don't know whether that is true or not, but I'm not just going to take your word for it.
The bottom line is that Dreher is just using the sex abuse scandal to rationalize his decision to leave the Church. It really doesn't take any courage whatsoever to do what he did. Anyone can cut and run when things get hard. So let me add
"cowardice" to the list of reasons that Dreher left, along with self-righteousness.
Good point.
You are in Davenport also? Man I feel for you.
My wife drives across the bridge to Moline just to try to find a priest who doesn't slur his "s's", and I like the fact there is a cross in the sanctuary.
Great point. To big and it becomes a business, not a parish. Seen it happen to much.
The lack of respect some folks have for their priest or bishop is truly scandalous in some places.
I'm on a lot of MP-ROCOR reunion lists where fringe schismatics spam volumes about how they hate the MP all the while spouting purly protestant rhetoric to justify their shishmatic stance.
Another reason I've heard for combining them is making sure that no way for someone to subsequently call off the wedding (leaving things in a very questionable state) or God forbid someone die between the two...
Very well, but that is essentially a technicality. The point being was that Luther's beef with Catholicism had as much to do with doctrine - if not more - than corruption.
He has never done any such thing. I am distressed that you would write a falsehood like this; it shows that you have not read what Dreher actually wrote about the Church.
"As for your assertion that 60% of the American bishops admitted transferred abusive priests, I don't know whether that is true or not, but I'm not just going to take your word for it."
Sorry, it wasn't 60%. According to Fr. Thomas Doyle, secretary-canonist of the Apostolic Delegation which investigated the situation, it was 75%
Going by this (granted it's from a Coptic church I'm still searching other places) it does seem a union occurs during the betrothal, and that this union is latter blessed. Certainly though it seems all sources agree it is God who creates the union, and it does not seem that the Orthodox stance has anything like the couple acting as their own ministers.
Quote:
Betrothal (Engagement)
It precedes the Sacrament of Matrimony, but is not one of the Church’s Sacraments. Betrothal is a voluntary agreement resulting from a pure and holy love between a man and a woman, who accept to marry each other willingly and by their own choice. The man is called the ‘fiancé’, and the woman is too the ‘fiancée’, being an engaged couple.
The word ‘betrothal’ is derived from the word ‘oratory’; a public declaration whereby the man’s folks speak to the woman’s family to propose marriage. Discussions are open and honest, concerning issues relating to the matter of betrothal, and the wedding and dowry, and the roles and responsibilities of each family in regards to ensuring the agreement of both man and woman about the marriage. The betrothal must be legal as it is accomplished between a Christian, Orthodox, adult male and female. The minimum age for marriage is 18 years for the male and 16 years for the female.
If one of the partners is unknown to the priest, being from another diocese/country, they must provide a certificate of Recommendation for Marriage from their local parish priest or father of confession, to prove no previous marriages had taken place. The priest must be completely sure of this information, and so write and sign an official Certificate of Betrothal in the presence of the couple, and, witnesses, who also countersign. Information contained on the Certificate of Betrothal, may include the name, address, and the timing for the wedding, together with any other relevant information.
Period of Betrothal: Begins from the time when an official agreement for marriage was declared, and confirmed publicly on the Certificate of Betrothal. The Engagement period concludes with marriage. The period of betrothal is important, for it is the time when the partners should get to know each other better, and grow together in Christian love. During this period, both partners have a common feeling of spending the rest of their lives together, establishing a happy and successful marriage, and cooperate with each other, without selfish thoughts and desires. During this period, both families become acquainted and cooperate to establish a happy house for the new family. The minimum period for betrothal is a fortnight, and although there is no maximum period, we suggest that it should not exceed a year, so that problems might not arise, resulting in the engagement breakup.
The Rite of Betrothal
The official Certificate of Betrothal is written, containing the name, age, (gift) and proposed timing of the Matrimony. The certificate is then signed by the engaged couple, the witnesses, and finally approved by the priest.
The deacons proceed the couple into the church, chanting the hymn ‘O King of Peace’. The woman stands on the right side of her man, and together they proceed to the place assigned for the prayers, whether it be in church, or in the woman’s house. The positioning of the woman on the right of the man is in accordance with the Psalm which says, “At your right hand stands the queen” (Psalm 45:9). Also, Eve was created from the right side of Adam.
The priest holds the two rings, (and any jewelry which may be offered, such as necklaces, bracelets, earrings) in his left hand in a red silk ribbon or in a handkerchief and says the following prayers together with three signs of the cross ...
On the First Sign of the Cross
The priest prays, “In the name of our Lord, our God, and our Savior Jesus Christ, the founder of the laws of perfection, we [3]declare at this [4]Orthodox ceremony the betrothal of the blessed Orthodox son (...name) to the blessed Orthodox daughter (...name).”
(The priest makes the sign of the cross on himself, then the couple, and then the rings, (and jewelry) saying, “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God, Amen. Blessed be God, the Pantocrator. Amen.” Then the congregation prays the ‘Our Father’.
On the Second Sign of the Cross
The priest prays, “In the name of our Lord, our God, and our Savior Jesus Christ, the founder of the laws of perfection we declare at this Orthodox ceremony the betrothal of the blessed Orthodox daughter (...name) to the blessed Orthodox son (...name),” (The priest makes the sign of the cross on the couple and the rings), “Blessed be the only begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.” Then the congregation prays the ‘Our Father’.
On the Third Sign of the Cross
The priest prays, “In the name of our Lord, our God and our Savior Jesus Christ, the founder of the laws of perfection, we complete at this Orthodox Ceremony the betrothal of the blessed Orthodox son (...name) to the blessed Orthodox daughter (...name),” (Then the priest makes the sign the cross on the couple and rings saying), “Blessed be the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete (Comforter) Amen.” The deacons respond, ‘Amen’, followed by the congregation praying the ‘Our Father’.
The priest then prays the Prayer of Thanksgiving. All the tunes and hymns are in joyful tunes. Following the Prayer of Thanksgiving, the deacons sing, ‘Worthy’, and during this hymn, the rings are placed on the fingers of the couple as follows:
The priest gives the fiancée’s ring to her fiancé, and he places it on her right ring finger.
NOTES:
As soon as the fiancée stretches out her hand for her fiancé to place the ring on her finger, she is giving her consent and confirmation regarding the engagement to marry.
The fiancée wears the ring which has engraved her fiancé’s name, on her right hand ring finger, as a sign that her fiancé’ has became the ornament of her life, and the reason for her joy, “I will make you as a signet ring, for I have chosen you” (Haggai 2:23). Then the same process takes place with the fiancé stretching out his hand for his fiancée to place the ring on his finger.
Being the officiator of God’s sacraments, the priest does not place the rings on the fiancés’ fingers himself, for whatever work the priest does cannot be undone, for his work is from God. However, the engaged couple place the rings on each others fingers as a symbol of agreement and acceptance, so that even if the betrothal is undone, it is considered not sinful.
The fiancé wears the ring onto which is written the name of the fiancée, in his right hand as a sign that his fiancée will be his right hand, “as a signet on my right hand” and will help him and support him honestly and truthfully, in mutual co-operation, after marriage.
Finally, if there are any gifts, such as jewelry which is offered, then the priest gives the fiancé piece by piece for him to place on his fiancée’s wrist, ears or neck.
The two rings (and jewelry) are always gold, as gold is the purest of metals, the most beautiful and expensive, and does not rust, just like the bond of holy Matrimony which is invaluable and precious, imperishable and incorruptible. And even if it encounters hardships, it survives, for the relationship is founded on true Christian love and fidelity. The value of the marriage increases over time, through time spent in companionship and love, and in the Lord Jesus Christ, being the founder of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
The bride in the Book of Songs says, “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for love is a strong as death ... Many waters cannot quench love, nor can floods drown it. If a man would give for love all the wealth of his house, it would be utterly despised” (Songs 8: 6,7).
Afterwards the priest says a supplication, composed of four parts. At the end of each part, the deacons respond, “Amen.”
The priest asks God to grant the betrothed couple His acceptance and grace, and to bless the planned - for wedding to result in happiness and in peace.
The priest asks that their betrothal be kept pure and legitimate, making them one in mind and soul, and granting them a peaceful and spiritual happiness, shepherd by God.
The priest asks God to accomplish and accept the betrothal, and to grant the couple a happy life and to preserve them in His obedience, to adhere to the principles of Orthodox faith and virtues, and to keep them from all division and vices so that their joy will be fulfilled by the blessed Matrimony.
The priest asks God to keep in peace the leadership of the Church: His Holiness the Pope, and the Bishops, and the Bishop if there is a diocese, and to bless the attendants in this blessed happy ceremony.
All pray the Lord’s Prayer, then the concluding Prayer, followed by the blessing. The priest prays to bless the betrothed couple by placing the cross over their bowed heads. They then kiss the cross and the priest’s hand. The priest says, “Pekhristos Pennooti” (that is, ‘Christ our Lord’), and as the people make the sign of the cross, they respond saying, “Amen, Let it be.”
Finally, the priest says, “O King of peace, grant us Your peace ...” followed by the ‘Our Father’, and then he says the dismissal, “The peace of the Lord be with you all.”
The deacons then lead the procession of the engaged couple to the church door, where they stand to receive the congratulations of the attendants.
The Betrothal Rite is hence concluded in peace.
Aims of the Betrothal
For the partners to be better acquainted with each other in terms of their thoughts, motivations, personality and character, style of life, and even level of spirituality.
For the partners to grow in holy, spiritual unity, away from lusts and physical intimacy, for they are only betrothed and not married.
For the families of the partners to become better acquainted with love, understanding and cooperation.
For all concerned, partners and their families, to co-operate in aspects relating to the matrimonial celebration, and helping prepare a house for the couple to live in a Christian spirit, away from extravagance, pretence, misery or failure to commit matters agreed about.
Renouncing the Betrothal
If problems arise during the betrothal that makes it impossible to accomplish the wedding, both must renounce the betrothal correctly. As they were united in love, they should likewise leave each other peacefully, and without trouble.
These are the basis of renouncing the betrothal :
Contact the priest for him to organize a certificate of renunciation.
The rejecting partner returns all the gold and the unconsumed gifts and money. The consumed gifts are now irrelevant.
The priest writes an official Certificate of Renunciation, signed by the two partners in the presence of witnesses, it is then countersigned by the priest, and each partner receives a copy.
If the betrothed couple disagree about materialistic matters, and cannot agree on finalizing certain points, then the betrothal must be broken ecclesiastically (through the Church), through the Theological Council of the diocese, a Reconciliation Council, or even Court if necessary, so that each partner maintains their civil rights.
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/6_matrimony.html
Interesting...
Quote:
In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.
For centuries there was no particular ritual for marriage in the Church. The two Christians expressed their mutual love in the Church and received the blessing of God upon their union which was sealed in the holy eucharist of Christ. Through the Church's formal recognition of the couple's unity, and its incorporation into the Body of Christ, the marriage became Christian; that is, it became the created image of the divine love of God which is eternal, unique, indivisible and unending.
http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=56
If I had to jump I'd go to the Maronite Catholics or one of the other Rites before I'd leave Catholicism entirely.
Matthew 26:33-35
Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will... Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.
The sins of men should never cause us to leave the Church. If they did ---considering how St. Peter and almost all of the Apostles DID disown Christ--- the Church would have been dead-on-arrival.
And if I can't abide sinners, I can't abide myself, so where could I go?
The Church is like Noah's ark. Even if it's dark and leaky and pitching wildly, and full of crazy animals (not to mention the smell), it is the means provided by God for my salvation.
Half of all "Protestants" are not affiliated with a Church, nor do they attend Church. Therefore, they are not even Christian in name only.
Counting them as Protestants is the same as counting lapsed Catholics as Catholics.
A plurality at least of the accused Priests were accused of one singular instance, then did not sin again in this regard. Not to excuse what they have done at all, but everyone has sinned. Why shouldn't we think at least some of these men did something wrong, then repented and turned their life around?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.