Archdiocesan Strategic Planning Task Force Responds to CCCR

The Progressive Catholic Voice is a founding member organization of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR), which recently received the following response to its co-chair’s open letter to James Lundholm-Eades of the Archdiocesan Strategic Planning Task Force.

As Lundholm-Eades notes, many members of CCCR also sent him copies of this open letter. His letter to the co-chairs of CCCR therefore serves as his reply to these people as well.

One final note: The CCCR Board is prayerfully reflecting on how to respond (if at all) to Lundholm-Eades’s letter, and would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. You can comment here, or e-mail CCCR at info@cccrmn.org.

__________________________________________________


October 29, 2009

Catholic Coalition for Church Reform
2080 Edgcumbe Road
St. Paul, MN 55116


Dear Paula, Michael, and Bernie;

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 19th, 2009. Thank you for your input to the planning process.

As you know we have been gathering the voices of the Archdiocese now for many months. During that time I have clearly heard a number of coalition members speaking your message and asking questions at those meetings. I am glad you and your coalition membership have taken advantage of the opportunity to be heard. I have personally had the pleasure of one on one conversation with some coalition members after some of the consultative meetings and have taken note of the concerns expressed in those conversations. Your letter and those concerns expressed during and after consultative meetings have become part of the record to be passed to the Task Force in summative form. Since receiving your letter, I have received photocopies of it from several of the members of your coalition. Please take this response as my response to them all.

I read with particular interest your list of questions. Some of them are clearly outside the scope of this planning process. Some others call into question the framework of the Catholic faith that are simply part of our Catholic belief and tradition as delineated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You and your membership will know from your attendance at the meetings where you added your voice to the consultative process that the outcomes of the planning process will be consistent with the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church.

Finally, if your questions are a reflection of ongoing and serious concerns you have about the beliefs and traditions of our Catholic Church to the degree I sense they are, then it may be that your journey to God may well be served by exploring protestant denominations where your views will find broader acceptance. I prayerfully wish you well in your journey wherever it leads you.

Thanks again for your input to the planning process.


Yours in Christ,

Jim Lundholm-Eades
Director of Parish Services and Planning

A Demoralizing Process

In an open letter to James Lundholm-Eades, the co-chairs of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform highlight a number of concerns related to the St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocesan Strategic Planning Task Force, of which Lundholm-Eades serves as director.

_______________________________

October 19, 2009

James Lundholm-Eades, Task Force Director
Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis
328 West Kellogg Blvd
St Paul MN 55102


Dear Mr. Lundholm-Eades:

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the people of the Archdiocese in addressing the problems we face as a local church.

We understand that both the Archbishop and the Task Force want to enable a vibrant Catholic community at the Archdiocesan level. We appreciate this goal since we believe the Church’s mission is to create a diocesan community that manifests God’s love for humanity as embodied in Jesus. So we too want a vibrant local church.

From our point of view, vibrancy in a human community is not possible unless all the relevant questions people want to ask are allowed on the table. The process for the strategic planning, although ostensibly an attempt to listen, is flawed in one essential aspect: it does not allow for the discussion of what the facts mean. What should be done will depend in large part on the analysis of the facts in relation to the Church’s mission.

To call the process “highly consultative” while barring questions about why the current situation is as it is will only demoralize people. We have heard many say they do not trust this process. Despite reassurances to the contrary, they say the decisions have already been made. They say that the emails, phone messages, and letters go into “a black hole.” People’s refusal to accept the obvious good will of the reassurances is symptomatic of the flaw in the process. We fear the goal of creating a vibrant local church will not be accomplished, though the resources may be efficiently re-allocated to look better on paper.

We request an Archdiocesan-wide discussion of all the relevant questions people want to ask. The meaning questions we would like to address are the following:

• Why do young adults abandon faith formation classes immediately after Confirmation? Why are such a large percentage of children offered no faith formation at all or, if the offer is made, why are they not accepting it?

• Why don’t two-thirds of registered Catholics go to Mass?

• Why are good and capable men not stepping up for ordination as priests?

• Why is celibacy required for the role of priest?

• Why aren’t women’s vocations to the ordained priesthood recognized and accepted?

• Why are third and fourth generation American Catholics leaving the church in great numbers?

• How is the money collected by the Archdiocese spent? We want the Archbishop to be accountable for his expenditures as the parishes are accountable for theirs.


The Task Force’s response when these questions are raised is that they are outside the scope of its mandate. Of course, they are, and that is the problem. We do not think that response will suffice.

If the Task Force requests the power from the Archbishop to facilitate such a discussion with the people of the Archdiocese and is denied that power, we suggest that as a matter of conscience you consider resigning en masse unless and until a full communication process is approved.

Though we are not experts, we have many ideas about how this process could be organized and will be happy to discuss them with you. There are many professional discussion facilitators in the Archdiocese who would, we are sure, be available to help. Some of the crucial elements are that all subjects be allowed to be discussed, no threats of job loss or excommunication will follow open discussion, and that representatives from all the people, not just those chosen by leadership, be involved in planning the discussion.

We think this is the only way to legitimate the process.

Sincerely yours,

Paula Ruddy
Michael Bayly
Bernie Rodel

Co-Chairs, Catholic Coalition for Church Reform

Holding the Courage Apostolate Accountable

. . . The Catholic Church, Homosexuality,
and Reparative Therapy

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

St. Martin’s Table Restaurant and Bookstore
(2001 Riverside Ave., Minneapolis)

5:00 -6:30 p.m. – Soup supper ($5.00)
6:30 – 8:30 p.m. – Program (free and open to the public)

Almost 30 years ago Archbishop John Roach called for “competent and compassionate pastoral ministry” for LGBT persons and their families within the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis. Under subsequent archbishops we’ve sadly witnessed such ministry undermined and usurped by rigid doctrinal fundamentalism and discredited pseudo science.

Recently, the American Psychological Association repudiated “reparative therapy,” i.e., attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation through therapy and prayer. Yet the Courage Apostolate of the Catholic Church, which employs a 12 step-like program to help their members “recover” from “same-sex attractions,” continues to support individuals who seek “reparative therapy.” Courage also maintains links on its national website to pseudo-scientific organizations that endorse and/or offer reparative therapy.

On November 17, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) will host a forum featuring three speakers sharing their perspectives on this situation and offering steps that can be taken to hold the Courage Apostolate accountable – both locally and nationally –for its support of reparative therapy.

Speakers will include:

Dr. Simon Rosser, Ph.D., M.P.H., L.P.
Internationally renowned researcher on sexuality and sexual health

Philip Lowe, Jr.
Former member of the St. Paul-Minneapolis chapter of Courage

Michael Bayly
Executive coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on
Sexual Minorities and author of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT
Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective


The program component of this event is free and open to the public,
although a free-will offering will be requested.

For more information, call 612-201-4534.

CCCR's 2010 Synod: A Second Progress Report

Paula Ruddy reports on the second joint meeting
of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform’s
Work/Study Groups

Elsie’s bowling alley, bar, restaurant, and parking lot in NE Minneapolis was jam packed on Wednesday night, October 7, 2009. About 70 of the people were CCCR work/study group members and friends, gathered into the back room away from the din of strikes and spares and gutter balls. About 30 people arrived at 5:30 for drinks and dinner and informal conversation. Threading our way through the Northeast neighbors, we were all ready to engage in the mini-workshop by 7:15.

During the presentation by Dr. Lois Yellowthunder and Dr. Glenda Eoyang on methods of adaptive change, the energy in the back room was as high as the energy in the bowling alley. Glenda is founder and director of Human Systems Dynamics Institute, a training center and consultant to governmental units, companies, and other organizations wanting to improve their function in service of their missions. Lois is an anthropologist and urban planner who often works with Glenda. Some of you may have heard their presentation at Call to Action in Milwaukee in 2007.

Most of us in the room were of a certain age, meaning we grew up in the 40’s and 50’s, in an era that believed change is initiated from the power positions at the top, that it is predictable, controlled, and that you can look to history to tell you the future. We believed we could make large mapped out plans for human systems as we could for mechanical and structural systems and engineer them to completion. We now know that human community is organic, but the old programming is hard to uninstall.

Glenda and Lois did not go into the causes of the cultural shift that occurred around mid 20th Century. We didn’t take time for the trace-back to quantum physics and evolutionary biology, chaos theory and complexity theory, but they spelled out the differences in how we now look at creating human systems. We now know that each person is an agent in the creation of the future. We know that each action has unpredictable influence on other actions because of the connectedness of everyone within the systems. What emerges from each set of interactions creates the future. We don’t look to “the man” to have a master plan. We are in charge of the future ourselves. Every person has power; every action counts.

But how, then, do people direct change? Isn’t this theory all a bit helter-skelter? That is where the Adaptive Action Model comes in. The self-organizing system moves in the direction of its goals. An individual agent is, after all, a conscious, thinking, feeling, imagining, and willing person. A community is made up of conscious individuals. An individual and a community can envision a good life, a good society, or the ultimate goal of human life. People have created ethical systems and religions in this visioning, and these provide the goals toward which the self-organizing system moves. The Christian vision of humanity’s union with God is the goal toward which a community could move if it held the belief steadily in consciousness and acted with intention.


What? So What? Now What?

But Glenda and Lois did not talk about what the vision should be. That is up to us. They brought us into the here and now of directing change by acting with intention. In the Adaptive Action Model, we ask, “What is the situation here?” “So what does it mean in context; how should it be interpreted according to our vision?” and finally, “Now what shall we do?’ The What?-So What?-Now What? questions, asked in each situation you find yourself, give you power to influence the system in reiterative patterns. What we choose to do to further our vision causes patterns of ideas and values to emerge that in turn influence the actions of others in the system and cultural change happens. That is power.

Glenda and Lois talked about the power of language to influence change. Negative words can make us feel powerless, diminished, hopeless, decreasing our power to interact. Positive, affirming words build us up and give us a sense of our own power to choose our path. Using words that describe imbalances of power can diminish a person’s view of his/her place in the scheme of things. For example, the phrase “the hierarchy” puts the people referred to in a superior category within the system. A person with the leadership role might be called bishop but “the hierarchy” sets him apart and creates classes of membership. What does the word “magisterium” mean? Is everyone infused with the Holy Spirit within it? We can re-think our language to reflect an egalitarian balance of power.

We need some simple rules, Glenda and Lois suggested, like virtual “boids” in computer experiments. Program them with three simple rules and they fly in successful patterns like instinctively programmed birds do. Individual agents form working teams and can create coherent patterns if each follows some simple rules. The Golden Rule, derived from the vision of every major religion and ethical philosophy, is a rule that could, if everyone followed it, create a beneficent social system. Glenda and Lois suggested we may want to adopt it for our working teams. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or negatively, Do not do to another what you would not have him/her do to you. Or Love your neighbor as yourself.

In the last section of their presentation, Glenda and Lois asked us about our hopes and dreams. What is our vision of a fully functioning local church? What is our vision of the Church’s mission? If we keep that vision steadily in our communal consciousness, our self-organizing system will move in that direction. Each action of each individual agent acting intentionally within the connectedness of the system triggers the emergence of the future we long for.

The CCCR vision is a church fully alive, locally and universally, that radiates Jesus' core teaching of radical equality, unabashed inclusivity and transforming love. It is humbling and exhilarating to think we have the power to do this.


Paula Ruddy is co-chair of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR).


For the first progress report of the 2010 Synod, click here.

AIDS, Condoms, and Africa

By Michael Bayly

Father Giuseppe Caramazza’s recent argument that “The Catholic Church is Right: The Condom is No Cure for AIDS in Africa” sounds very similar to Dr. Edward C. Green’s. Green, the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, is frequently cited by those who support the Vatican’s view that condoms are non-effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. For instance, in an article in the National Review, Dr. Green declared: “We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.” Green made this comment in response to Pope Benedict’s remarks on the effectiveness of condoms earlier this year.

“The pope is correct,” said Green, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments.” He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”

The BBC’s William Crawley, has the following to say about Dr. Green and the complex issue of AIDS and condom use. (Note: I've added the emphasis in certain parts of the text).

Writes Crawley:

Dr. Green is sometimes described as an AIDS researcher in press coverage. We should be clear about his area of expertise. He holds a PhD in Anthropology from the Catholic University of America and studies public health strategies “at the level of population.” He is not a medical doctor, nor is he a virologist, nor is he an epidemiologist. He is a widely-respected academic who examines the impact of various public health strategies in various populations.

In 2003, he published a book, Rethinking AIDS Prevention, which challenged the general approach to AIDS preventing in the developing world. Specifically, he argued that the most successful strategy for preventing the spread of HIV in Africa was not the distribution of condoms but campaigns encouraging people to reduce their number of sexual partners. Monogamy was a powerful behavioural defence against HIV, he said. Condoms, though technically able to prevent the spread of HIV when used correctly, have failed, according to Dr Green. Why have they failed? According to Pope Benedict, condoms encourage promiscuity and this drives the AIDS pandemic. According to Dr Green – who has no moral or religious objection to the use of condoms – this strategy in Africa has had the counter-effect of encouraging people to engage in riskier behaviour while believing that they are protected by condoms. “This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology,” he says.

These conclusions led Dr Green to change his view on the usefulness of condoms in Africa. Notice that he maintains their usefulness in other parts of the world, such as the United States; he regards Africa as a special case for cultural reasons. [Interestingly, Caramazza also admits that condoms may work in places outside Africa.]

. . . The upshot is that [unlike the Pope, and presumably Fr. Caramazza] Dr Green strongly supports the ABC model in HIV prevention: “Abstain, Be faithful, or use Condoms if A and B are not practiced”. In the same year that Rethinking AIDS was published, Dr Green was appointed by George W Bush's Advisory Presidential Council on HIV and AIDS.

It is vital that we have a serious debate about HIV prevention and that we locate that debate geographically and culturally. It is wrong at the outset to simply assume that an HIV prevention model that works in the United States or Europe would necessarily work in sub-Saharan Africa. Researchers who believe condoms are an effective strategy represent the majority position within the HIV prevention community.

Against Dr Green’s concerns about “risk compensation,”, they argue that this points to a greater need for accompanying education programmes explaining the proper use of condoms and challenging risky behaviour.

The UN AIDS programme accepts – who wouldn't? – that “other components [of a successful HIV prevention strategy] include delay of sexual initiation, abstinence, being mutually faithful to each other when both partners are uninfected, and reducing the number of sexual partners.” But the UN emphasises that condoms still play a very significant role and their promotion must be culturally sensitive: “Condoms must be promoted in ways that help overcome sexual and personal obstacles to their use. Complex gender and cultural factors can be a challenge for HIV prevention education and condom promotion. Due to gender norms and inequalities, young girls and women are regularly and repeatedly denied information about, and access to, condoms, and often they do not have the power to negotiate the use of condoms.”

Against Dr Green’s [and Fr. Caramazza’s] claims that condoms have been ineffective in countries such as Uganda, the World Health Organisation maintains that “recent analysis of the AIDS epidemic in Uganda has confirmed that increased condom use, in conjunction with delay in age of first sexual intercourse and reduction of sexual partners, was an important factor in the decline of HIV prevalence in the 1990s.” This statement references a 2003 research paper exploring the Ugandan experience, “The Roles of Abstinence, Monogamy and Condom Use in HIV Decline.” published by The Alan Guttmacher Institute in Washington DC. (Read the paper in full here.)

This analysis concludes that “positive behavior change in all three areas of ABC - abstinence, being faithful (monogamy) and condom use - have contributed to the decline of HIV in Uganda to sustained lower levels.” It’s a long way from that statement to the claim that condoms are making the problem of AIDS worse.

To read Crawley’s article, “The Pope and Condoms,” in its entirety, click here.

CCCR Plans Second Joint Meeting of Work/Study Groups

Members and friends of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform’s work/study groups are invited to the second joint meeting of these groups at Elsie’s Restaurant (729 Marshall St. NE. Minneapolis) on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 (7:00 - 9:00 p.m.).

Since April 18 of this year, Catholics of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis have been gathering in work/study groups so as to grow in knowledge about topics that are of concern to them — Catholic identity, Catholic spirituality, social justice, human sexuality, clericalism/mandatory celibacy, bishop selection, faith formation of children, authority and governance, ecclesiology, communication among polarized people, and patriarchy. In a September 7 letter to Archbishop John C. Nienstedt, the three co-chairs of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR) - Paula Ruddy, Bernie Rodel, and Michael Bayly - said that the purpose of the work/study groups is for Catholics to deepen their faith and spirituality as well as their knowledge.

“We’re very much aware of the great numbers of people who are abandoning the Catholic faith,” the co-chairs wrote. “Many of these people have abandoned the Church because of matters of conscience. This situation is of serious concern for many of us.”

The three co-chairs note that the Catholic laity and clergy who comprise CCCR are people who are intensely aware of the problems of conscience in the life of the Church that the work/study groups have identified and are facilitating dialogue around. “That is why we want to work together –including with our church leaders – in analyzing the problems and instituting practices that will alleviate them,” they wrote in their letter to Archbishop Nienstedt. “We consider the problems to be both structural and cultural. The discussion has to go deeper than a focus on single issues.”

The CCCR co-chairs are well aware that there are some who dismiss and malign as anti-life, anti-family, and anti-authority anyone who seeks reform within the church. This is unfortunate, they believe, as they “do not want to contribute to the angry polarization in the Church that mirrors the political ‘culture wars’ in our country.”

To this end, the leadership of the CCCR has been attempting to engage local church leadership in dialogue. So far their efforts - including the co-chairs’ September 7 letter to Archbishop Nienstedt - have been unsuccessful. Undeterred, the group continues in its own discussions and planning. The bulk of this activity occurs within what the Coalition has termed “work/study groups.” Currently there are ten such groups meeting regularly across the Twin Cities. Each group is focused on a specific topic, and approximately 75 people are involved in one or more groups.

“We started with topics as people wanted to address them,” note the co-chairs. “We hope to give some shape and order to the process and develop a program for the conference we are planning in September 2010. We’re calling the conference a Synod of the Baptized and entitling this one ‘Claiming Our Place at the Table.’ From this conference, we hope to spread the discussion of our problems of conscience and some suggestions for practices that will bring about cultural change throughout the archdiocese. We believe that this discussion is for the good of the local church.”

The members of CCCR’s ten work/study groups met jointly for the first time in July. The October 7 joint gathering will feature a presentation by Dr Glenda Eoyang and Dr. Lois Yellowthunder. This presentation will focus on facilitating organizational change, and will be based on Eoyang and Yellowthunder’s ideas and insights on complexity theory and applied to the organization of our own archdiocese. Their presentation aims to assist participates in 1) understanding the church as a “self-organizing system;” 2) recognizing the creative options for action within this system; 3) becoming familiar with language that empowers; 4) identifying rules for effective action; and 5) acknowledging the hopes, dreams, and expectations that continue to move forward the work of CCCR and the work/study groups in particular.

For more information about October 7’s second joint meeting of CCCR’s work/study groups, call Paula Ruddy at 612-379-1043.

Removing the Plank in Our Own Eye

By Paula Ruddy

I went to hear Michael Crosby, OFMCap, talk to the peace community, Pax Christi MN, at its annual assembly on Saturday, September 26. Inspiring is the word for it. Michael is the author of numerous books and consults widely. To learn about him go to www.michaelcrosby.net and to learn about his new program to teach the positive use of power go to www.choosingcompassion.net.

What was inspiring to me was the peace community itself in a day long workshop, about 80 strong, men and women who have been dedicated to the ideal of peace and the work of peace year in and year out. We clapped for a young person in attendance because he was a young person in attendance. They are living the mission of the Church from the strength of their own community. Nothing so beautiful as the experience of the moment within a community of caring persons.

Michael Crosby talked about power. First he asked us if we wanted it, and he got the expected ambivalence. Tentative hands went up for yes, lots of hands went up for no. We didn’t know what to think of the question. Should we want power or not? Crosby over several years has developed a constructive vision of power and its uses, undergirded by a theology of the Trinity that borrows from analogs of quantum physics and personalist philosophy.

All matter is composed of interrelated parts. Nothing exists in singularity, all the packets of energy combining and exchanging in constant communication to create power in the material universe. Analogously the individual person does not exist in singularity but in relationship.

Michael Crosby speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not as two men and a bird, but with language that gets to the heart of personhood, the “I am-ness” of the self and its essential relatedness. God is the I Am, in communion with Another, Thou Art, in a dynamic We Are. God’s life is a community, a communion of love. Jesus of Nazareth is humanity identified with the Thou with whom the I Am communes, from which communion breathes the We Are, alive in the universe. All humanity is destined for communion with God through our brother Jesus and in his Spirit. That is the Christian vision.

So what about this God-inspired human power? It is the energy of the person to influence others in relationship. The power to influence, exercised freely, can be positive or negative. Relating negatively produces control, coercion, exploitation, manipulation, domination resulting in fear, abuse, injury, conflict, violence, hate, and ultimately, indifference. Destructive control kills the ability to care. The person abused by power stops caring. Indifference, or hardness of heart, is the antithesis of the life emanating from the Trinity of persons related in love. A Christian cannot be indifferent. S/he must care.

The ability to care, power used in positive ways of relating, produces respect, affirmation, challenge and correction, resulting in freedom, trust, healing, collaboration, understanding, peace, love and compassion. The person influenced by loving care himself/herself becomes a caring person. A community of caring persons is in the image of the life of the Three-personed God.

Michael Crosby’s construction of the uses of power fit right in with all I have been thinking about during the past weeks. As a member of a work/study group of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR) preparing for the Synod of the Baptized in September 2010, I have been thinking about the Church’s mission. What is the mission of the Church? Our study groups have been trying to articulate the mission first so we can think about what practices will create a culture that will help fulfill the mission. You can imagine my mental “Oh, Yesses!” as Michael Crosby spoke. Some people did say Amen out loud.

What is our vision of Church? First off, it is a community. Isn’t each community to be modeled after the Trinity in loving relationship? The Christian Church is a vast community of smaller communities of persons baptized into Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is one very big community within the Christian Church. Our Archdiocese—bishops, clergy, lay people--is one community within the Roman Catholic Church. Each parish is a community within the Archdiocese. Circles within circles.

And what is the power/energy within the community to be used for? Isn’t it about equality, respect, inclusion, affirmation, patient kindness, support of full human development through relatedness: in a word, love? The ability to care exercised within the community makes it a caring community to act in the world to spread the word and deeds of God’s love for humanity demonstrated in and by Jesus. That’s how I applied Michael Crosby’s power analysis to the question of the Church’s mission.

It was getting late in the day and I had a daydream during Michael Crosby’s last sentences.

Just as Michael finished, a bishop came into the church basement room where the peace community was gathered. He wasn’t dressed like a bishop, no cope or mitre, or even a Roman collar, but I knew he was a leader by the energy that emanated from him. As he was making his way to the front of the room, he was greeting people, “Hello, Joe and Marilyn. Tom and Darlene, how are you? Chris, thanks for all the great work! Hello, Florence, good to see you. Brigid, I knew I’d see you here! How are you Mary and Angelo. Duane. Steve. Mary. Kathleen. How wonderful to see you all.”

First he thanked them and acknowledged the years of good work they had been doing. His sincere praise was like water on a struggling garden. People came alive to it, their own energy uplifted by his.

His next words were electrifying, “How can I help?” Sitting down among the gathering, he said, “The people working in CCCR have recommended an Archdiocesan Peace Commission. We have saved some money out of the Chancery budget, but it may not take much money. We could publicize your projects and arouse wider interest among the parishes for the work you do. We could have training sessions for non-violent communication in parishes. We could have Peace Sunday once a month with materials suggesting help for homilists. We could show how the negative use of power in families is destructive of children’s development; we could show how affirmation causes children to bloom. What do you think? There are lots of possibilities here. I think it is at the heart of our mission. Any volunteers to help plan this? “ He must have earned their trust in their prior dealings with him, because many people volunteered.

The dream ended. But I was left with a glimpse of a church community mirroring the loving energy within the Trinity and the spark igniting the Church’s mission. Hmmm. A Peace Commission. Is it a good idea? Contact www.cccrmn.org and leave us a message if you want to work on it.

For more information on Pax Christi International, Pax Christi, USA, and Pax Christi MN, go to the following websites: www.paxchristi.net, www.paxchristiusa.org, and www.paxchristimn.org.