I'm reminded of the expression, the more things change, the more they stay the same, especially after this evening's preformance of "The Importance of being Earnest".

For those who don't know the play this quick exerpt from Wikipedia may help: 

...a comic play by Oscar Wilde, it premiered on 14 February 1895 at the St. James's Theatre in London.  Set in England during the late Victorian era, the play's humour derives in part from characters maintaining fictitious identities to escape unwelcome social obligations. It is replete with witty dialogue and satirizes some of the foibles and hypocrisy of late Victorian society. It has proved Wilde's most enduringly popular play.

Wilde was pointing out that institutions and people take on roles that are convenient but not necessarily useful.

So here on mychurch these last few weeks there's been all sorts of talk to not change page formats and to return to the older (meaning comfortable) format because it was better (meaning familiar).  My experience of websites, their masters and administrators is that really the more they "impove" things the more its the same thing.  Look carefully, they are just magicians using slide of hand tricks, its all the same just rearranged.

And while I'm thinking about the illusion called change or new or improved, isn't Wilde right?  People and institutions may look to be doing new things but in reality its not, its just rearranged.

During tonight's intermissions my friends and I got to talking about the church, in this moment I mean the Roman Rite to which this group of friends belong.  We were, with bitter-sweet reflection thinking about how in the early 1960's the church was on the cutting edge of reform, renewal.  Documents abounded that promised change for societies and cultures.  They spoke of social justice and equality, they promoted prophetic and dynamic missions.  And people got excited.  People began to respond to this call for change.  Change is good.  Change means life. Change means growth.

"A grain of wheat remains a grain of wheat, but if it dies (changes) it produces thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold."

Now flash forward forty years. 

With each day the church is retracting the energy and direction given it by the Holy Spirit.  It is fast becoming the church of 1950.  And the result is a stagnant institution that speaks to old women's piety and children's need for baptism.  So for all the energy of change the institution remained the same.

Sadly, for the sake of comfort and familiarity many people call for the "old formats" and the trade-off is that anyone not familiar with the old formats meet a church that doesn't address their need.

The church, if it were true to the real charter given to it by the Holy Spirit it would be dynamic.  It wouldn't be so concerned with devotions as it would be with justice.  It wouldn't be so worried about rubrics as it would be with mercy.  It would really try and make The Beatitudes (Matthew 5) real to a hurting world.

Why do we allow ourselves to fall into this "the more things change the more they stay the same" attitude?  I guess because no one likes getting out of their comfort zone.  Okay.  But at what cost?

I'd seen the Claddagh design used in many ways.  It seemed interesting to me but I didn't understand it.  Finally I began a bit of a search and found articles and YouTube videos about the Claddagh, its history and use.

At first it seemed to be "Irish". Then it seemed to be about romantic love, and users of the Claddagh discuss that. 

But there seems to be something more, at least to me, about its meaning, something about the character of the wearer declaring who he is or aspires to be.

The Claddagh, named for a town in Ireland, bears three symbols:  a heart, a crown, and a pair of hands.  The symbols are interpreted as "love", "loyalty" and "friendship".  One article I looked at put it this way:

"With my two hands I give you my heart, and crown it with my love." Yet, the expression, "Let love and friendship reign forever" can be found as another meaning for the symbols.

The ring belongs to the much older Italian tradition of "mani in fede" (hands in trust); and this to the Roman tradition before it of "dexterarum iunctio" (joined right hands meaning marriage).

As I thought about it more and more and understood better the origin and story for this little design and its symbols I thought to myself, "Well - isn't this who I aspire to be?"

In putting my thoughts together here I thought that I'd do one of those searches and pull up all the texts that talk about love and loyalty and friendship.  But I thought the better of it because that wouldn't make much sense.  So instead, I decided on one portion that I've used before.  Here goes, from Sirach 6-8, excerpts:

Say nothing harmful, small or great, be not a foe instead of a friend.  A kind mouth multiples friends, and gracious lips prompt friendly greetings.  Let your acquaintances be many, but one in a thousand your confidant.  When you gain a friend, first test him.  For one sort of friend is a friend when it suits him, but he will not be with you in time of distress.  Another is a friend who becomes an enemy, and tells of the quarrel to your shame.  Another is a friend, a boon companion, who will not be with you when sorrow comes.  When things go well, he is your other self, and lords it over your servants; but if you are brought low, he turns against you and avoids meeting you.  Keep away from your enemies; be on your guard with your friends.  A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter; he who finds one finds a treasure.  A faithful friend is beyond price, no sum can balance his worth.  A faithful friend is a life-saving remedy, such as he who fears God finds; for he who fears God behaves accordingly, and his friend will be like himself.  Discard not an old friend, for the new one cannot equal him.  A new friend is like new wine which you drink with pleasure only when it has aged.

Why do I wear the Claddagh?  Because its attributes remind me of who I am called to be in Christ.

Putting on this ring is my little reminder that I have put on Christ who is love; over all these put on love, that is, the bond of perfection. (cf: Galatians 3:27, Colossians 3:12-17)

AMDG

One of the greatest things I do is walk with people who are dying.  Everyone, of course, handles this little matter of life differently:  some are in denial, some are angry, some feel short-changed, some feel regret; but there are a few, a very rare few who embrace death with such peace and joy that their passing is truly holy.  These souls are inspiring.

About ten years or so ago I was asked to witness the marriage of Nep and Della.  They were both on their second marriage, each with kids from former spouses.  They had dated and had finally decided to tie the knot.  They came to me and I got a chance to talk with them about being married in Christ - a new concept from their former marriages.  They married and as circumstances would have it I really didn't see much of them for the next ten years.  Thanks to a phone call some two years ago I knew Nep was ill.

Earlier this year, in May, I got a call telling me that Nep had taken a turn for the worse and was asking for me.  I went.  He told me the story about the development of his liver failure and new lung cancer.  He told me that his last doctor's visit concluded with, "I'm taking you off the transplant list, there's nothing I can do, call hospice".  I was with Nep and Della the day the hospice nurse arrived, took his vitals and then proceeded to tell him what to expect for his upcoming death.  All of that, while real, seemed too clinical and cold.

I had already visited Nep a few times and during his hospice in-take visit I became his official hospice chaplain.  From then on I visited him and his family weekly, praying with them, anointing them, giving them communion. 

With each week Nep grew physically weaker and spiritually stronger.  Perhaps the best moment was the day I visited and after leaving he coughed a little and some of the Eucharist he had received came up; his family noticed this, handed him a tissue and he wiped his face gathering the particles into the tissue.  The family came forward and asked him for the tissue at which Nep closed his fist tight and said, "No, he's mine".  Nep held that tissue with the Eucharist tight in his hand until he dozed off.

That moment says a lot.  First, we believe that Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist and Nep's declaration spoke to both his belief in the Eucharist and to his union with Him.

When I heard the story I knew that Nep was on a clear and steady path.  We had led him by the hand to Christ and as we let go Christ would lead him forward.  That was the last time Nep received communion. 

I visited him two more times and again just after he died.  As he drew nearer to the end of his earthly life I could sense his confidence in beginning his eternal life.

Few people are so blessed as to have a priest attend them in this journey.  Many are taken suddenly and without warning, many die alone.  I guess whatever life Nep led drew Christ's attention so that he would be assisted through those last days.

I trust that whatever sins Nep may have committed in life were wiped away and that now he knows better than before the meaning of the words, "No, he's mine".

The Vatican's premise concerning the Society of St. Pius X is the same as the Sadducees against the Apostles.  But the Apostles stood their ground and proclaimed the Lord Jesus in the midst of that persecution because they had a mission.

3. After the Apostles had established the first Christian communities along came Saul, aka Paul, and they in turn acted harshly towards him.  Paul was forced to defend himself by saying:

and again:

Now I am not really a conservative and I don't have any real interest in what the Society of St. Pius X does just as I'm not really interested in what the Anglicans or the Baptists or any other Christian group does.  What does matter is that every group is part of the Body and Paul taught that every member of the Body is important, whether large or small and no part of the Body can say to another, "you are not of the Body".  For me it is a matter of being nurtured and fed according to one's own heart and soul:  every person, every journey is unique and one size does not fit all.

For anyone to say that anyone else does not exercise legitimate ministry is really rooted in fear and control.  That position denies Christ who said:

Fear tactics did not remedy the Great Schism of 1054; they did not remedy the Reformation.  And if those tactics didn't work then why should they work now?

Jesus, speaking to Pilate said, "you have authority over me only because it was given to you by God" a sentiment also noted in Paul's letters to Timothy.  So if a group of Christians is formed, however it is formed and for whatever reason it is formed, isn't is utlimately formed by God Himself?  Doesn't every Christian group know Christ who said, "wherever two or three are gathered in my Name there I am in the midst of them"?  Isn't every Christian group alotted a portion of Christ's mission and ministry?  If the answer to these is no, then Christ is a liar, a fraud.

Now if a group wants to be Catholic Christian so be it, if they want to be conservative Catholic Christians so be it, if they want to be liberal Catholic Christians so be it.  The descriptives aren't important, the noun is.  Are descriptive terms so dangerous that we can't use them?  Are they truly divisive?  I doubt it because for these the core is the same.  Descriptive terms neither invalidate nor make something illegitimate, variety is the spice of life.

The Vatican's position is flawed at so many levels.  Let people worship how they want to worship, let them pray how they want to pray.  Instead of controlling and scaring people into conformity I think we would all be better off looking for common ground and the common ground is this:  "to love God with your whole mind, heart and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself; all the commandments rest on these" - JESUS.