Saint Henry, Emperor and Confessor, "the Pious", protector of the Pope and founder of bishoprics

Henry, surnamed the Pious, was first Duke of Bavaria, then King of Germany, and finally Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He devoted himself zealously to the spread of religion. The bishopric of Bamberg, which he had founded with his family wealth, he made tributary of St. Peter and the Roman Pontiff. He received Benedict VIII when he was a fugitive and restored him to his See. To protect the Roman Church, he undertook a war against the Greeks and recovered Apulia, which they had held for a long time. Protected by divine aid, he fought the barbarian nations more with prayers than with force of arms. When Hungary was still pagan, he gave his sister in marriage to its king, Stephen, who was baptized and brought the whole kingdom to the faith. Henry joined matrimony with holy virginity, and when he was near death he restored St. Cunegunda, his wife, as a virgin to her family. Finally, even more famous for his holiness than for his temporal rule, he was called to the reward of the heavenly kingdom in the year 1024, and was added to the number of the Saints by Eugene III.

Saint John Gualbert: Reconciled to a mortal enemy through the Sign of Christ's Holy Cross

John Gualbert, born of a noble Florentine family, took up a military career at his father's wish. His only brother, Hugh, was slain by a relative, and it happened that on Good Friday, attended by armed soldiers, John met the slayer alone and unarmed on the road where they could not avoid each other. Because of John's reverence for the sign of the holy Cross, which his enemy, seeing death at hand, made with his arms in supplication, John graciously spared him and received him as a brother. Then he went to the Church of St. Minias, where, as he adored the Crucified, the image bent its head to him. Moved by this, he gave up the military life and, at the persuasion of St. Romuald, then living in the hermitage of Camaldoli, he put on the monastic habit. Later he founded a monastic Order under the Rule of St. Benedict in Vallombrosa, which had as its primary aims to do away with the stain of simony and to promulgate the apostolic faith. Full of virtues and merits and blessed with the companionship of Angels, he went to the Lord in his seventy-eighth year, the 12th day of July, 1073, at Passignano.

When it comes to gestures that restore the grace of Faith, "the customer is always right".

Remember the old saying, "The customer is always right"? When it comes to Faith I believe that well-worn adage holds true. If a parishioner says a simple phone call can restore Faith then I say, whenever in doubt, make the call.

God uses simple human contact to bring us into an experience of His compassion and love. All we need to do is to cooperate with His grace and miracles can happen.

A story from Fox News about a woman who called the Vatican after her son died to say that she lost her Faith makes the point well:

"On Friday, weeks after Nicolo made the call, she awoke at 6:40 a.m. to find a missed call and voice message on the cellphone sitting in her living room from a man — speaking in accented English — who identified himself as a representative from the Vatican.

"The voice of an older man, who Nicolo believes is the Pope, can be heard in the background at the beginning of the recording.

"A Vatican spokesman could not immediately confirm if it was indeed His Holiness in the background on Nicolo’s message, but she is taking it on faith.

“' I missed it by 10 minutes,' she said. 'I couldn’t believe it. I had to play it several times.'

" 'I’ve always loved my faith, but when your child is taken, you can’t help but question it,' said Nicolo, who described herself as a devout Catholic. 'It renewed my faith and belief in God.'

"After receiving comfort from the Holy See, her faith has been restored. “ 'I want him to know I love him. He has helped me so much in my time of grief. There are no words to describe what this phone call has done for me.' "

If you dress better for work than you do for Mass don't expect your children to think Mass is more important than work. #SundayBest

— Father Kevin Cusick (@MCITLFrAphorism) June 4, 2014

On the Occasion of the 30th Jubilee of the Fordham Class of ‘84

By Father Kevin M. Cusick Welcome class of ‘84, spouses, family and friends. This Mass is the occasion for expressing through Faith our gratitude for our years at Fordham and to thank Almighty God for the blessings our formation and education have brought into our lives. Things have changed a lot since 1984. Don’t they always? There are even new ways of bridging time through memory as I found in my recent experience: through a smartphone, a post on Twitter by an Italian man, and a video on Youtube on the internet, all of which did not exist in the 1980's, I viewed something I witnessed firsthand together with many of you in September, 1981: the Central Park reunion concert of Simon and Garfunkel. At the time for me it was a mere "event" and the place to be because 500,000 other people thought the same thing. Now it serves as a window into the past, my past and ours, and with that trip back in time the emotions, even a sense of loss. Confronting the passage of years in any way brings us against the barriers and limitations imposed upon us by time. We need a bridge over those waters. Looking back in Faith, however, enables us to see even now that Christ was and is the “bridge”. Some of you may remember the Sunday night Masses at 10 pm in the University church crowded with young believers, many of us among them. Another memory which is we encounter it through time past shows us that even then the Lord was at work through our Faith. Priests and the Pope are often referred to as a "pontifex" or bridge builder. That is because our role is to serve your Faith so that Christ becomes the bridge of our lives, here on earth with heaven as the goal. There is no greater distance possible than that between here and heaven and it is one we cannot span by ourselves. God builds the bridge for us if we cooperate with Him through incorporation of our lives in His Son who by dying destroyed our death and rising restored our life. The darkest line of that song Art Garfunkel sings so beautifully is, "I'm on your side, oh, when times get rough and pain is all around, like a bridge over troubled waters I will ease your mind." As some of you know I have served in the military as a veteran and chaplain for over 20 years now, and one of the most difficult pastoral challenges I faced was to help a widow and her children bury their young husband and father. My grief was great as well because he was a very close friend of mine on board the aircraft carrier IKE as a faithful Catholic man. Each of us have our own stories to tell of the troubled waters that shake the foundation of our lives and beyond which we must find a bridge if we are to carry on: the death of a parent, spouse or child: so much more real in comparison from the mere ripples that disturbed our very blessed days during our youth here at Fordham: studying for exams or trying to find a date for the senior ball. And the death of our Fordham classmates for whom we pray today in a particular way at the Lord's Altar. And that is now where we turn for it is Christ in fact who has been our bridge through Faith over troubles great and small, more evident through the lens made possible by our mature Catholic Faith and therefore also now the Divine Object of our greater love and worship. "I'm on your side": now, more than ever, over thirty years after experiencing that concert in Central Park as a young Fordham student together with so many others, this song is essentially for me about Christ, the "pontifex", the One who builds the “bridge over troubled waters" through the grace of Faith. Today as I celebrate this holy Mass, a Holy Sacrifice which is also "ours" because we all offer this prayer through the grace of our Baptism, we do so for all of you and for our Fordham College '84 classmates living and deceased. I rejoice in the Faith that bridges every distance forced upon us by time because in Him whom we have believed we touch Eternity. As we go up to the Lord's Altar for the Eucharist let us ask that our Faith may be in Him always for each of us this daily and lifelong bridge over the passing waters of time toward His eternity. Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever. Amen.

In response to sacrilege, blasphemy and unbelief, "Hold Up the Eucharist Even Higher"

I stand with Father Robert Barron and, in response to the deplorable "Black Mass" at Harvard, I hold up the Eucharist even higher.

Cardinal Müller statement to LCWR: "religious moving beyond the Church or even beyond Jesus."

Meeting of the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)

April 30, 2014

Opening Remarks By Cardinal Gerhard Müller

I am happy to welcome once again the Presidency of the LCWR to Rome and to the Congregation. It is a happy occasion that your visit coincides with the Canonization of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII, two great figures important for the Church in our times. I am grateful as well for the presence and participation of the Delegate for the implementation of the LCWR Doctrinal Assessment, Archbishop Peter Sartain.

As in past meetings, I would like to begin by making some introductory observations which I believe will be a helpful way of framing our discussion.

First, I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the progress that has been made in the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment. Archbishop Sartain has kept the Congregation appraised on the work regarding the revision of the LCWR Statutes and civil by-laws. We are glad to see that work continue and remain particularly interested that these foundational documents reflect more explicitly the mission of a Conference of Major Superiors as something centered on Jesus Christ and grounded in the Church’s teaching about Consecrated Life. For that collaboration, I thank you.

Two further introductory comments I would like to frame around what could be called objections to the Doctrinal Assessment raised by your predecessors during past meetings here at the Congregation and in public statements by LCWR officers. We are aware that, from the beginning, LCWR Officers judged the Doctrinal Assessment to be “flawed and the findings based on unsubstantiated accusations” and that the so-called “sanctions” were “disproportionate to the concerns raised and compromised the organization’s ability to fulfill its mission.” This principal objection, I note, was repeated most recently in the preface of the collection of LCWR Presidential Addresses you have just published. It is my intention in discussing these things frankly and openly with you to offer an explanation of why it is that we believe the conclusions of the Doctrinal Assessment are accurate and the path of reform it lays before the LCWR remains necessary so that religious life might continue to flourish in the United States.

Let me begin with the notion of “disproportionate sanctions.” One of the more contentious aspects of the Mandate—though one that has not yet been put into force—is the provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. This provision has been portrayed as heavy-handed interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its part, the Holy See would not understand this as a “sanction,” but rather as a point of dialogue and discernment. It allows the Holy See’s Delegate to be involved in the discussion first of all in order to avoid difficult and embarrassing situations wherein speakers use an LCWR forum to advance positions at odds with the teaching of the Church. Further, this is meant as an assistance to you, the Presidency, so as to anticipate better the issues that will further complicate the relationship of the LCWR with the Holy See.

An example may help at this point. It saddens me to learn that you have decided to give the Outstanding Leadership Award during this year’s Assembly to a theologian criticized by the Bishops of the United States because of the gravity of the doctrinal errors in that theologian’s writings. This is a decision that will be seen as a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal Assessment. Not only that, but it further alienates the LCWR from the Bishops as well.

I realize I am speaking rather bluntly about this, but I do so out of an awareness that there is no other interpretive lens, within and outside the Church, through which the decision to confer this honor will be viewed. It is my understanding that Archbishop Sartain was informed of the selection of the honoree only after the decision had been made. Had he been involved in the conversation as the Mandate envisions, I am confident that he would have added an important element to the discernment which then may have gone in a different direction. The decision taken by the LCWR during the ongoing implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment is indeed regrettable and demonstrates clearly the necessity of the Mandate’s provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. I must therefore inform you that this provision is to be considered fully in force. I do understand that the selection of honorees results from a process, but this case suggests that the process is itself in need of reexamination. I also understand that plans for this year’s Assembly are already at a very advanced stage and I do not see the need to interrupt them. However, following the August Assembly, it will be the expectation of the Holy See that Archbishop Sartain have an active role in the discussion about invited speakers and honorees.

Let me address a second objection, namely that the findings of the Doctrinal Assessment are unsubstantiated. The phrase in the Doctrinal Assessment most often cited as overreaching or unsubstantiated is when it talks about religious moving beyond the Church or even beyond Jesus. Yes, this is hard language and I can imagine it sounded harsh in the ears of thousands of faithful religious. I regret that, because the last thing in the world the Congregation would want to do is call into question the eloquent, even prophetic witness of so many faithful religious women. And yet, the issues raised in the Assessment are so central and so foundational, there is no other way of discussing them except as constituting a movement away from the ecclesial center of faith in Christ Jesus the Lord.

For the last several years, the Congregation has been following with increasing concern a focalizing of attention within the LCWR around the concept of Conscious Evolution. Since Barbara Marx Hubbard addressed the Assembly on this topic two years ago, every issue of your newsletter has discussed Conscious Evolution in some way. Issues of Occasional Papers have been devoted to it. We have even seen some religious Institutes modify their directional statements to incorporate concepts and undeveloped terms from Conscious Evolution.

Again, I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important to dress up in flowery language. The fundamental theses of Conscious Evolution are opposed to Christian Revelation and, when taken unreflectively, lead almost necessarily to fundamental errors regarding the omnipotence of God, the Incarnation of Christ, the reality of Original Sin, the necessity of salvation and the definitive nature of the salvific action of Christ in the Paschal Mystery.

My concern is whether such an intense focus on new ideas such as Conscious Evolution has robbed religious of the ability truly to sentire cum Ecclesia. To phrase it as a question, do the many religious listening to addresses on this topic or reading expositions of it even hear the divergences from the Christian faith present? This concern is even deeper than the Doctrinal Assessment’s criticism of the LCWR for not providing a counter-point during presentations and Assemblies when speakers diverge from Church teaching. The Assessment is concerned with positive errors of doctrine seen in the light of the LCWR’s responsibility to support a vision of religious life in harmony with that of the Church and to promote a solid doctrinal basis for religious life. I am worried that the uncritical acceptance of things such as Conscious Evolution seemingly without any awareness that it offers a vision of God, the cosmos, and the human person divergent from or opposed to Revelation evidences that a de facto movement beyond the Church and sound Christian faith has already occurred.

I do not think I overstate the point when I say that the futuristic ideas advanced by the proponents of Conscious Evolution are not actually new. The Gnostic tradition is filled with similar affirmations and we have seen again and again in the history of the Church the tragic results of partaking of this bitter fruit. Conscious Evolution does not offer anything which will nourish religious life as a privileged and prophetic witness rooted in Christ revealing divine love to a wounded world. It does not present the treasure beyond price for which new generations of young women will leave all to follow Christ. The Gospel does! Selfless service to the poor and marginalized in the name of Jesus Christ does!

It is in this context that we can understand Pope Francis’ remarks to the Plenary Assembly of the International Union of Superiors General in May of 2013. What the Holy Father proposes is a vision of religious life and particularly of the role of conferences of major superiors which in many ways is a positive articulation of issues which come across as concerns in the Doctrinal Assessment. I urge you to reread the Holy Father’s remarks and to make them a point of discussion with members of your Board as well.

I have raised several points in these remarks, so I will stop here. I owe an incalculable debt to the women religious who have long been a part of my life. They were the ones who instilled in me a love for the Lord and for the Church and encouraged me to follow the vocation to which the Lord was calling me. The things I have said today are therefore born of great love. The Holy See and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith deeply desire religious life to thrive and that the LCWR will be an effective instrument supporting its growth. In the end, the point is this: the Holy See believes that the charismatic vitality of religious life can only flourish within the ecclesial faith of the Church. The LCWR, as a canonical entity dependent on the Holy See, has a profound obligation to the promotion of that faith as the essential foundation of religious life. Canonical status and ecclesial vision go hand-in-hand, and at this phase of the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment, we are looking for a clearer expression of that ecclesial vision and more substantive signs of collaboration.