A Pastoral Magisterium: Bp. Nickless' pastoral letter (part 5)

This is part five of a ten-part series on the recent pastoral letter of Bishop R. Walker Nickless for the diocese of Sioux City, Iowa.  I will be providing the full text of this letter (slightly edited for formatting) with emphasis and commentary.

(Warning:  This is a long post!)

Bishop Nickless is addressing two fundamental aspects of the life of the Church:  her inward identity as the Body of Christ called to holiness, and her outward mission to evangelize the whole world and sanctify it.  Let us turn our attention to Section IV, Pastoral Priorities for the Diocese of Sioux City. There are five priorities given, all of which are meant to first turn our discerning gaze inward (to measure ourselves against the full stature of our Lord) and then outward (to take up our vocations in sincerity and faithfulness).  Each of the five priorities will be given a separate post. The first is:

1. We must renew our reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament, within and outside of Mass. A renewal of Eucharistic Spirituality necessarily entails an ongoing implementation of the Second Vatican Council's reform of the liturgy as authoritatively taught by the Church's Magisterium, the promotion of Eucharistic Adoration outside of Mass, regular reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Eucharist and our Mother.

Each of these points (liturgical reform, Eucharistic adoration, regular Confession, devotion to the Mother of God, with the addition of one other, the Divine Office) will be covered individually in the following paragraphs, after a lengthy introduction to the liturgy in general.  Remember that the core of these five points is renewed Eucharistic spirituality.

The Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the Christian life because it contains our entire spiritual good, namely, Jesus Christ himself. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 10; Lumen Gentium 11) His "once and for all" sacrifice is made present on our altars, offered to the Father on our behalf and received as food for our pilgrim journey. (Heb. 7:27; cf. Ecclesia de Eucharistia 11) All that we are and do should flow from our participation in the Eucharist and lead back to it. It is absolutely central to our identity and faith as Catholics. It enables us to engage in our mission. Without a proper reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Eucharist and the liturgy, we are lost.

Drawing on the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and using what is probably the most well-known phrase from the Council — surpassing "full, conscious, and active participation" and even "the People of God" — Bishop Nickless explains briefly what the Eucharist is:  it is the making-present of Christ's perfect sacrifice which is then offered to the Father (something often overlooked) before it is given to us in the Paschal banquet.  ("The Eucharist is not a meal among friends," said Pope Benedict in his homily at the close of the 2008 International Eucharistic Congress, but rather "a mystery of covenant.")

As our source and summit, everything we are and do as Catholics (identity and mission) flows from our participation in the Eucharist (whether by reception or offering or contemplation) and leads us (and others!) back to the Eucharist.

That being said about the Eucharist, Bishop Nickless now turns his attention more generally to the liturgy and its purpose and object:

The primary purpose of all liturgy, and especially of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is the worship of God. We sometimes forget this. We go to Mass to worship God, simply because He deserves to be worshiped, and we, his creatures, ought to worship him. Too often we forget that God is transcendent and ineffable, incomprehensibly greater than we can imagine. He is infinite truth and goodness shining forth in radiant beauty. He has created us, keeps us in existence, and redeems us from our sins. In short, He is worthy of our worship.

That first sentence should be memorized by every Catholic, period.  Liturgies (and Mass in particular) are not occasions of socializing.  We do not go to Mass to hear parish announcements.  We do not go to Vespers to hear the choir.  We do not go Eucharistic benediction so we can be somewhere quiet for a change.  We might hear announcements at Mass, we might hear the choir at Vespers, and we might be somewhere quiet for a change at benediction, but those are not the reasons we participate in these liturgies.  The liturgy is meant first and foremost for the worship of the Triune God.

Bishop Nickless points out some particular characteristics of God:  transcendent, ineffable (i.e. indescribable); truth, goodness, beauty.  It is God who made us in the first place, Who sustains us even now, and Who redeemed and redeems and will redeem us.  Why do we worship God?  Because He deserves it!  After describing Who God is, he continues by describing how God comes to us:

He comes to us at Mass as a Father through His Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. He makes Himself tangibly present to us in the assembly, the ordained ministers, and the proclaimed Word of God. He is also present most especially and immediately in the Eucharist, which has a perfect and infinite value before His eyes. He graciously comes to us, not only to be with us, but also to raise us up to Heaven, to the Heavenly liturgy, where we worship in union with all the angels and saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the eternal offering of Jesus Christ to the Father on our behalf. Thus we enter the heavenly sanctuary while still on earth, and worship God in the full manner that He laid out for us!

Here we find a condensation of the liturgical catechesis contained in Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei and Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium.  First, he gives a simple Trinitarian understanding of the Mass:  God the Father comes to us through His Son (cf. Matt. 21:37; John 20:21) in the power of the Holy Spirit. (cf. Matt. 1:18; Luke 3:22; Acts 10:38)  Second, he explains the modes by which God is present at Mass:  in the assembly, in the ordained ministers (especially the priest who celebrates Mass in persona Christi), in the Word, and most importantly and wondrously in the Blessed Sacrament.  Third, he explains that God comes down to us to raise us up to Himself, to Heaven, to the eternal liturgy with all the angels and saints (portrayed in the book of Revelation).

When we worship God in this way, He sanctifies us, that is, He makes us holy. This is the second purpose of the Liturgy. We are made holy by Jesus when we participate in His divine Sonship, becoming adopted sons and daughters of the Father. We are changed, transformed from the inside out. This comes about through hearing and acting on His Word and by being strengthened and steadily sanctified by a worthy reception of Holy Communion. This in turn leads to a true communion of saints within the local and universal Church.

By worshiping God, we are sanctified.  These are the two purposes of the liturgy:  glorification of God and the sanctification of His people.  At my previous parish, I was a reader (i.e. a "lector", more properly, the substitute in the absence of an instituted lector) and at every liturgy at which I was to proclaim the Scriptures, I made a habit of saying this prayer beforehand:  "I beseech You, O Holy Spirit, be in my heart and on my lips, that I may worthily and fittingly proclaim that Word which You inspired in prophets and apostles, unto the glorification of God and the sanctification of His people. Amen."  This prayer, based on the prayers of the priest or deacon before proclaiming the Gospel, reminded me of the two purposes for which the Scriptures are read at Mass:  to give glory to God and to build His people in holiness.

True participation in the liturgy comes from membership in Christ, sharing His divine Sonship by means of adoption through the sacrament of Baptism.  We listen to the Word of God and act on it. (cf. Luke 6:46-49; Luke 8:21; Phil. 4:9; James 1:22-24)  We prepare ourselves to receive the Lord in the Eucharist by prayer and penance.  You can go through all the motions of the Mass, but without that interior participation which is made possible through Baptism, exterior participation is hollow.

Too often, the purposes of our participation in the liturgy, worship and sanctification, are passed over in a misplaced attempt to "create community," rather than to receive it as a fruit of the Holy Spirit's activity within us.

In other words, we do not "create community" with the liturgy.  Rather, the Holy Spirit builds community (or better, communion) among us by our participation in the liturgy.  The liturgy is not an occasion for creative and often artificially designed community-building exercises.  Rather, the liturgy is for the worship of God and the sanctification of His people, and any genuine community must flow from that worship and sanctification.  Community — communion — is a fruit of the Holy Spirit in us, which is why one of the greetings used in the Mass is St. Paul's closing words to the Corinthians:  "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Cor. 13:14; cf. 1 John 1:1-3)

Since, in the Church's liturgy, we meet God in a unique way, how we worship – the external rites, gestures, vessels, music, indeed, the building itself – should reflect the grandeur of the Heavenly liturgy. Liturgy is mystical; it is our mysterious encounter with the transcendent God, who comes to sanctify us through the sacrifice of Christ made present in the Eucharist and received in Holy Communion. It should radiate Heavenly truth and goodness. This radiance, the splendor of truth, is called beauty. Our liturgy should radiate true beauty, reflecting the beauty of God Himself and what He does for us in Christ Jesus. It should lift up our soul – first through our intellect and will, but also through our senses and emotions – to adore God as we share already in Heaven's eternal worship.

Remember the Bishop's description of God as "infinite truth and goodness shining forth in radiant beauty"?  He returns to this description when describing the liturgy.  The Church's worship of God must be a vibrant expression of God, a mirror reflecting His majesty, which fittingly conveys our awe in His presence.  It must draw our attention to things of Heaven, and so it must be mysterious and mystical.

In this vale of tears, the liturgy should be a lodestar, a transcending place of wonder and comfort in the midst of our day-to-day lives, a place of light and high beauty beyond the reach of worldly shadows.

This sentence is footnoted with a reference to p. 901 of The Lord of the Rings.  The passage being evoked is: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."

A lodestar, in navigation terms, is a star by which one navigates (often associated directly with Polaris, the North Star); lode comes from lead, rather than load.  In more general terms, a lodestar is a model, guide, or exemplar; it is a principle that guides one's actions.  Because the Eucharist is our source and summit, the liturgy of the Eucharist, through which we participate in the Eucharist most fully and perfectly, should be our compass as we complete our pilgimage here on earth, keeping us on course:  growing in holiness (identity) and witnessing Christ to the world (mission).

So many people only connect with the Church, and sometimes with prayer and God, through Sunday Mass. Should we not offer an experience of beauty and transcendence, compellingly different from our day-to-day lives? Should not every facet of our offering be proportionate to the divine reality? Many small details can make liturgy either beautiful or banal. In recent decades, in place of beauty and "noble simplicity," our main principle for discerning and choosing the "little things" has tended toward utility, ease, and even cheapness. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, before his election as Bishop of Rome, wrote the following about Church music, that is easily applicable to all parts of the liturgy:

Vatican II, in describing the liturgical reform it envisioned, spoke of the rites as being "distinguished by a noble simplicity." (SC 34)  Furthermore, speaking of sacred art as being "oriented toward the infinite beauty of God" (SC 122), the Council Fathers said the following:

122. ... Holy Mother Church has therefore always been the friend of the fine arts and has ever sought their noble help, with the special aim that all things set apart for use in divine worship should be truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world, and for this purpose she has trained artists. In fact, the Church has, with good reason, always reserved to herself the right to pass judgment upon the arts, deciding which of the works of artists are in accordance with faith, piety, and cherished traditional laws, and thereby fitted for sacred use. ...

124. Ordinaries, by the encouragement and favor they show to art which is truly sacred, should strive after noble beauty rather than mere sumptuous display. This principle is to apply also in the matter of sacred vestments and ornaments. Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense. ...

How many of us have walked into churches built since Vatican II which fail to evoke the supernatural world and the infinite beauty of God as did so many churches of the last several centuries?  How much traditional art and architecture has been replaced by works which are banal, unbecoming, unbeautiful, mediocre, and lacking in artistic worth?  This is an example of the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture which is a false and dissenting interpretation of the Council.

The words of then-Cardinal Ratzinger on music, from Feast of Faith, p. 126:

A Church which only makes use of "utility" music has fallen for what is, in fact, useless. She [the Church] too becomes ineffectual. For her mission is a far higher one. As the Old Testament speaks of the Temple, the Church is to be the place of "glory," and as such, too, the place where mankind's cry of distress is brought to the ear of God. The Church must not settle down with what is merely comfortable and serviceable at the parish level; she must arouse the voice of the cosmos, and by glorifying the Creator, elicit the glory of the cosmos itself, making it also glorious, beautiful, habitable and beloved.... The Church is to transform, improve, "humanize" the world – but how can she do that if at the same time she turns her back on beauty, which is so closely allied to love? For together beauty and love form the true consolation in this world, bringing it as near as possible to the world of the resurrection

Bishop Nickless continues, quoting Pope John Paul II on the state of the liturgical reform in 1998:

Pope John Paul the Great, addressing some bishops of the United States on October 9, 1998, recognized the same urgent spiritual needs:

To look back over what has been done in the field of liturgical renewal in the years since the Council is, first, to see many reasons for giving heartfelt thanks and praise to the Most Holy Trinity for the marvelous awareness which has developed among the faithful of their role and responsibility in this priestly work of Christ and his Church. It is also to realize that not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the necessary explanation and catechesis; as a result, in some cases there has been a misunderstanding of the very nature of the liturgy, leading to abuses, polarization, and sometimes even grave scandal ... . The challenge now is to move beyond whatever misunderstandings there have been . . . by entering more deeply into the contemplative dimension of worship, which includes the sense of awe, reverence and adoration which are fundamental attitudes in our relationship with God.

Many liturgical abuses are the result of a failure to acknowledge what the liturgy truly is, an encounter with the mystery of God.  Catechesis about the nature of the liturgy, especially its contemplative dimension, is necessary to fix the root of the liturgical abuse problem.

From here, Bishop Nickless addresses specifically the five points.  Remember that this letter, while pastoral, is an instruction to his diocese; pay close attention to his exhortations and encouragements and statements of support.  First he deals with ongoing liturgical reform under the guidance of the authentic Magisterium of the Church.  He dwells for some time on the definition of participation in the liturgy:

It is imperative that we recover this wonder, awe, reverence and love for the liturgy and the Eucharist. To do this, we must feel and think with the whole Church in "reforming the reform" of the Second Vatican Council. We must accept and implement the current stream of magisterial liturgical documents coming from the Holy See: Liturgiam Authenticam (2001), the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal, and its new General Instruction on the Roman Missal (2002), Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy (2002), Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003), Spiritus et Sponsa (2003), Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004), Sacramentum Caritatis (2007), and Summorum Pontificum (2007).

It is refreshing to hear a Bishop of a diocese, as opposed to one sequestered to some arm of the Curia in Rome, speaking of thinking with the Church (sentire cum ecclesia).  Even more refreshing is seeing a Bishop providing a list of recent magisterial liturgical documents.  Each of the documents listed is significant and important.  Liturgiam Authenticam is about improving the translation of the Roman Missal from Latin into the vernacular; it governs the new English translation which will be received in the next year or two.  Ecclesia de Eucharistia is Pope John Paul II's encyclical on Eucharistic spirituality, Spiritus et Sponsa is one of his documents on liturgical reform, and Redemptionis Sacramentum is an instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments about the proper celebration of the Eucharist (including plenty of details on particular liturgical abuses).  Perhaps the most significant document in the list is the last one, Summorum Pontificum, which was the Apostolic Letter of Pope Benedict XVI which acknowledged the 1962 Missal of Bl. John XXIII as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and promoted its celebration.

It seems that all is not well with the Liturgy, and the Church is trying to help us. The pendulum swings, the hermeneutic of discontinuity, and the divisions within our Church have been seen and felt in the Liturgy more than anywhere.

When there are liturgical pronouncements from the Church, these are meant to help us celebrate the liturgy better.  It is not an intrusion on something private, for the liturgy is the public worship of God by the whole Church.  Neither is it an attempt to make things harder or more complicated, although it may present a challenge to us.

The Church's Magisterium, not our private opinions, is our authoritative guide in this ressourcement. The liturgy belongs to the entire Church, and in a special way to the faithful – not to a particular Diocese or parish, and certainly not to individual priests. I exhort everyone, especially our priests, to keep up with the Church. I expect them to read, study, and understand the above documents and their inner logic and place within the ongoing reform of the Church. It is vitally important that we offer resplendent worship to God alone, with understanding and excellence, obedient to the Church. My own liturgies at the Cathedral, though imperfect, are also meant to be exemplary for the whole Diocese.

Not only does he provide a list of these documents, but he says he expects the documents to be read and followed!  Certainly not every member of the diocese has to sit down and read them, but priests and others responsible for liturgical celebrations should read and be familiar with them and convey the necessary information to the faithful.  These documents, not our opinions and whims, govern the celebration of the liturgy.

It is a grave error and a form of clericalism, whether by clergy or lay ministers, to change the liturgy, or even to choose ungenerously among legitimate options, to suit only our own preferences and opinions. This respect for the whole of Tradition is not simply for the sake of "rules and regulations"; this is not legalism, as some have said, but our love for Christ, so that from His Eucharist with all its preeminent beauty and sanctity, He can shine forth for all to see and love.

Concerning the liturgy, we have certain rights, one of which is the right to the liturgy celebrated properly!  This means a liturgy without illicit changes.  When the liturgy is celebrated according to the mind of the Church, it is more clearly about God and His glory, and less likely to be seen as a pageant or performance or display centered on us.

Next Bishop Nickless turns his attention to topic of liturgical participation:

The Council's goal in reforming liturgy was, of course, to facilitate the "fully active and conscious participation" of all the faithful. We have made great strides in this area. In the same address to bishops cited above, the Holy Father said:

Full participation certainly means that every member of the community has a part to play in the liturgy; and in this respect a great deal has been achieved in parishes and communities across your land. But full participation does not mean that everyone does everything, since this would lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the priesthood; and this was not what the Council had in mind. The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic, respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise.

Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy, lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism. But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the implicit explicit, since this often leads to a verbosity and informality which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship. Nor does it mean the suppression of all subconscious experience, which is vital in a liturgy which thrives on symbols that speak to the subconscious just as they speak to the conscious. The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part, but this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially the chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman Rite, should be wholly abandoned. If subconscious experience is ignored in worship, an affective and devotional vacuum is created and the liturgy can become not only too verbal but also too cerebral.

Full, active and conscious participation: we have made great strides in this over the years. But often this has happened in a superficial, partial way resulting from a narrow and truncated interpretation of these terms. It is time to dig deeper, "to put out into the deep," into a new and authentic liturgical spirituality that is both old and new, active and contemplative, historical and mystical, Roman and Iowan, familiar and challenging. All of this also applies to our "fully active and conscious participation" in liturgy outside the Holy Mass, especially in Eucharistic Adoration, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, Marian devotions, and the Liturgy of the Hours.

True participation in the liturgy has both an internal and an external dimension (analogous to the two themes of this letter).  To just be "doing" something at Mass without knowing what you're doing and why you're doing it is akin to empty ritualism.  Conversely, our participation at Mass does not necessitate a physical act; we do not have to be the ones reading Scripture:  listening is part of our participation.

Bishop Nickless calls for the both/and approach to the liturgy, rather than an either/or approach.  (I thought the "Roman and Iowan" was a nice touch.)

Then he addresses the other four topics he will mention in the next few paragraphs.

Eucharistic Adoration is not, as some have said, a distraction from the central meaning of the Mass, or from the reception of Holy Communion. It is instead a great help and one that I wholeheartedly support and encourage in the parishes of this diocese. Eucharistic Adoration is an extension of our reception of Holy Communion, and brings about a deeper longing and preparation for our next reception. Just as you cannot be exposed to the sun without receiving its rays, neither can you come to Jesus exposed in the Blessed Sacrament without receiving the Divine Rays of His grace, love and peace. I exhort all communities of the diocese to explore ways of making the Eucharist more central in our lives through periods of Exposition, Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and Eucharistic Processions.

One of the "some" who recently spoke of Eucharistic Adoration was Fr. Richard McBrien, who called the devotion a step backwards.  Also note another one of Bishop Nickless' statements of encouragement and exhortation.  When the Eucharist is central to the lives of Catholics (the way it is central to the life of the Church), the Church's mission in the world will be more fruitful.

In far too many places and among too many of our people, the regular reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation has fallen by the wayside. This must be remedied if we are to grow in humility and holiness, and truly benefit from the gift of Jesus in the Eucharist. Without this Sacrament, we lose a sense of sin in our lives, and overlook the obstacles it places in our path. Unless we confess our sins, they fester in our hearts, corrupting our good works and spiritual practices. Indeed, many, without knowledge and unheedingly, now receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin, making their Communion unfruitful at best and damning at worst. Too many parishes only offer one hour of Confessions, and sometimes less, on Saturdays. I exhort and encourage priests to make themselves available in a generous way for this great Sacrament, on days and times convenient for the faithful. If priests set aside time, and preach on the need for repentance and sacramental confession, they will come.

The need for Confession is far greater than the apparent demand.  The sacrament is necessary for growth in humility and holiness (identity) so that the Church's mission can be genuine.  Bishop Nickless draws attention to the problems that arise from not receiving this sacrament; it is refreshing to see a Bishop address the issues of the effects of sin and of the travesty of unworthy reception of Communion.  And he again exhorts and encourages his priests to provide greater access to this important sacrament.

Devotion to the Blessed Mother, such an important part of our tradition and spirituality, also leads to a deeper appreciation and love of the Blessed Sacrament. She is the Mother of the Eucharist, the one who gave Jesus Christ to the world. She is also our Mother in the Order of Grace. "Having been Assumed, body and soul, into Heaven, she does not lay aside her saving office," but always and everywhere leads souls to her Son, telling them, "Do whatever He tells you." When we are fervently devoted to the Blessed Mother, especially through the Rosary and Consecration to her, she leads us to her Son, most especially present in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Devotion to Mary cannot be divided from, and in fact is ordered to, devotion to Jesus Christ her son, and especially appreciation and love of His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.  Her words from John 2:5, which Bishop Nickless has quoted, were the words which convinced me that true devotion to Mary is never about detracting from Christ in any way but in being directed to Him in the best possible company!

The final topic he mentions is the Divine Office (the Liturgy of the Hours) which is the "other" official prayer of the Church, next to the Divine Liturgy (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).

The Liturgy of the Hours is the prayer of the whole Church. By this constant prayer, we consecrate the day and all its activities to our Savior, and offer ourselves in union with His suffering. Priests and deacons are required to pray the office every day. It is and can be a great source of support and help in pastoral ministry and growth in personal holiness. The Church has always desired that the faithful also share in this Liturgy. I encourage all parishes to consider how they might develop such opportunities.

The Second Vatican Council, in its document on the liturgy, commended the participation of the faithful in the communal prayer of the Divine Office:  "Pastors of souls should see to it that the chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts. And the laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 100)  Bishop Nickless is simply echoing the Council and expressing his desire to be faithful to the Church and her liturgy:  clerics are obligated to pray it, and the laity are encouraged to pray it.  Once again, he draws the connection between the gaze inward (growth in holiness) and the gaze outward (effectiveness in pastoral ministry).

The next post will deal with the second of the five priorities for the diocese of Sioux City:  to strengthen catechesis.

Fr. Corapi and Bp. Nickless: identity and mission

I was listening to EWTN radio this morning in the car as I drove to work, and Fr. Corapi was speaking about the nature and mission of the family:  the nature is holiness, and the mission is to sanctify.  Nature and mission, or, identity and mission.  It struck a cord with what I had re-read and blogged about last night from Bp. Nickless' pastoral letter.  Fr. Corapi even went on to quote the Latin adage nemo dat quod non habet ("one cannot give what one does not have") which Bp. Nickless himself quotes later in his letter.

It seems that yesterday was a good day to write about that part of the letter, since Fr. Corapi spoke about the very same thing this morning.  He has also reminded me that those two concepts (identity and mission) apply to all areas of life.

He also talked about consecration and profanation, which I'll use next month as I begin to teach 6th graders about Moses and the Exodus.  (It took us September through December to finish Genesis, and now I only have from January through May to finish Salvation History.  That'll take some creative condensing on my part!)

A Pastoral Magisterium: Bp. Nickless' pastoral letter (part 4)

(I apologize for the delay between the last post and this one.  Things got busy at work, and then at home – my wife and I bought our first house and are finally fully moved into it.  After Christmas and the New Year, I'll get back to regular posting.  In the meantime...)

This is part four of a ten-part series on the recent pastoral letter of Bishop R. Walker Nickless for the diocese of Sioux City, Iowa.  I will be providing the full text of this letter (slightly edited for formatting) with emphasis and commentary.

Remember that Bishop Nickless is fundamentally focusing on two aspects of the Church:  her inward identity and her outward mission.  Concerning her inward identity, utmost importance must be given to the pursuit of holiness, of the divine life.  Concerning her outward mission, utmost importance must be given to engaging the world by sharing the Catholic faith and serving as a herald or minister of Christ's call to holiness to each and every human being.

With that in mind, let us turn our attention to Section III, The Current Context:

There was a great excitement immediately after the Council: excitement for innovation, change, freedom, renewed dynamism. There was a great desire to implement the Council immediately, with the best of intentions. In doing so, the Church after the Council achieved many things. The Council’s aggiornamento brought about a great breath of fresh air, a new freedom and excitement about being Catholic.  However, this era of change and freedom took place during a most tumultuous time. The 1960’s and 1970’s brought about a wholesale change within our culture and society, so that it seemed that everything was “up for grabs.” The Church seemed to be going the same way as society, suggesting that nothing was certain or solid. If the Church could change some things, it could change anything and everything. Sometimes we set out to convert the world, but were instead converted by it. We have sometimes lost sight of who we are and what we believe, and therefore have little to offer the world that so desperately needs the Gospel. A pendulum effect began in the Church and has not yet stopped swinging. In the effort to correct exaggerations or one-sidedness in various areas, the reform often times swung to the exact opposite pole.

It can be argued that the Second Vatican Council could not have happened at a worse time.  Just as the world is undergoing multiple revolutions — sexual, political, racial, etc. — the Catholic Church convenes a Council seeking to update her methods of reaching modern man.  The door was opened for change, and it appears that some used that open door to usher in change of anything and everything!  There was a widespread loss of identity (manifested in a drop in the number of priests and consecrated religious, not to mention lay faithful leaving the Church) leading to confusion as to our mission as the Church (misguided attempts at ecumenism, "kumbaya" liturgies, focusing on the body and neglecting the soul).  The pendulum swung so wildly to the left that some who sought to compensate went too far right.

This pendulum swing can be seen in the areas of liturgy, popular piety, family life, catechesis, ecumenism, morals, and political involvement, to name just a few. It seems to me that in many areas of the Church’s life the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” has triumphed. It has manifested itself in a sort of dualism, an either/or mentality and insistence in various areas of the Church’s life: either fidelity to doctrine or social justice work, either Latin or English, either our personal conscience or the authority of the Church, either chant or contemporary music, either tradition or progress, either liturgy or popular piety, either conservative or liberal, either Mass or Adoration, either the Magisterium or theologians, either ecumenism or evangelization, either rubrics or personalization, either the Baltimore Catechism or “experience”; and the list goes on and on! We have always been a “both/and” people: intrinsically traditional and conservative in what pertains to the faith, and creative in pastoral ministry and engaging the world.

The last sentence of this paragraph is addresses yet another false dichotomy, that the Church cannot look both inwardly (identity) and outwardly (mission).  It is presumed that if she tends to herself, she will neglect the poor, the hungry, the marginalized; but if she concentrates on ministering to others, she'll overlook the flaws of her own members.  To this, Bishop Nickless clearly says no:  the Church can and does look inward and outward.  It would seem that the lens between those two gazes is none other than Christ Himself:  it is Christ by Whom we know ourselves as Catholics and as the Church, and it is Christ who impels us to go out to the whole world and make disciples.

My brothers and sisters, let me say this clearly: The “hermeneutic of discontinuity” is a false interpretation and implementation of the Council and the Catholic Faith. It emphasizes the “engagement with the world” to the exclusion of the deposit of faith. This has wreaked havoc on the Church, systematically dismantling the Catholic Faith to please the world, watering down what is distinctively Catholic, and ironically becoming completely irrelevant and impotent for the mission of the Church in the world. The Church that seeks simply what works or is “useful” in the end becomes useless.

Remember, this section is about the "current context" of the implementation (and interpretation) of the Second Vatican Council.  His Excellency makes it clear that the wrong interpretation is one which emphasizes discontinuity with and rupture from the past.  It fails to retain the "both/and" approach regarding identity and mission and instead discards the identity (the Catholic faith) in favor of engaging the world at any cost, at the world's terms.  If we forget who we are, what we believe, and how we are called to live, our message to the world can be as changing and ephemeral as the current trends and fads:  in other words, the world itself can dictate our message!  While it is reasonable that the present condition of the world should influence our approach and emphasis, it is irresponsible and unfaithful to let the world dictate what we will and will not say.

Regarding "usefulness" leading to uselessness, Cardinal Ratzinger had the following to say:  "A Church which only makes use of 'utility' music has fallen for what is, in fact, useless." (Feast of Faith, p. 126)  This quote will be used again in the next section of the letter.

Our urgent need at this time is to reclaim and strengthen our understanding of the deposit of faith. We must have a distinctive identity and culture as Catholics, if we would effectively communicate the Gospel to the people of this day and Diocese. This is our mission. Notice that this mission is two-fold, like the Second Vatican Council’s purpose. It is toward ourselves within the Church (ad intra), and it is to the world (ad extra). The first is primary and necessary for the second; the second flows from the first. This is why we have not been as successful as we should be in bringing the world to Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ to the world. We cannot give what we do not have; we cannot fulfill our mission to evangelize, if we ourselves are not evangelized.

The repeated theme of these first three sections has been this healthy tension between the inward gaze and the outward gaze.  Here the two gazes are necessarily prioritized, and the Bishop notes their urgency:  the members of the diocese of Sioux City (and truly all Catholics, but especially American Catholics) must rediscover their identity and culture as Catholics (and this will certainly come with growing — and fasting — pains) in order to be to the world who God is calling us to be.  The axiom about not being able to give what one does not have will be brought up again later in this letter.

Our mission in the world is more than just humanitarian aid, more than just social justice.  To reduce the Gospel, the good news, to a mere temporal release for captives and liberty for the oppressed, we are forgetting that Jesus came to earth ultimately to save us from our sins, which have not only temporal ramifications but eternal ones as well.  To evangelize without paying attention to the spiritual end of man is not the true Gospel.

With all this in mind, how do we, the Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa, reclaim and strengthen our faith, identity and culture as Catholics so as to engage more effectively in our mission?

The first end (identity) is ordered towards the second end (mission).  I cannot make it any more clear than Bishop Nickless has, and I have a feeling the reason he repeats this so many times is because he wants to avoid any Catholic soul under his care from forgetting one or the other.  While the Church has cloistered communities in her membership, that is not the calling of every Catholic.  The Church is a city on a hill which cannot be hidden; she is a light to be set on a lampstand, not covered by a basket.  For her members to seek the divine life, a life of holiness, and sequester themselves away from other sinners who are just as in need of the same saving knowledge of Christ is a terrible failure to obey our Lord's great commission.

The next post will deal with the first of the five priorities for the diocese of Sioux City:  to renew an authentic Eucharistic spirituality.

A Pastoral Magisterium: Bp. Nickless' pastoral letter (part 3)

This is part three of a ten-part series on the recent pastoral letter of Bishop R. Walker Nickless for the diocese of Sioux City, Iowa.  I will be providing the full text of this letter (slightly edited for formatting) with emphasis and commentary.

In this post, we will look at Section II, The Second Vatican Council and the New Evangelization:

As is well known, Blessed Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council to be the moment of renewal for the Church in the modern world. The world had changed a great deal since the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Counter-Reformation, the so-called Enlightenment, and the secular revolutions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Church now found herself beset on all sides by a world that could no longer understand her, and from within by an unfortunate tendency to isolation, fearing engagement with the rapidly changing world.

In opening the Council, Blessed John stated that the “greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council” was twofold: “that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be [both] guarded and taught more efficaciously.” (Pope John XXIII, Oct 11, 1962) Later in the speech, he elaborated on this: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.” (Ibid.) The teachings of the Church, our identity and culture as Catholics, must be loved and guarded, yet brought forth and taught in a way understandable to the modern world.

The opening speech of Bl. Pope John XXIII is perhaps not as widely read as it should be.  It provides the clear context for the Council's goals, work, and documents.  The Council was not called to change teaching but to safeguard that teaching and present it more effectively to the world.  As Bishop Nickless wrote in the preceding paragraph, the Church's inward gaze was becoming insufficient in the face of a rapidly progressing world:  the Church needed to look with loving, motherly concern to the world and engage the world.

But in the midst of this outward gaze (to present the doctrine), perhaps the necessary inward reflection (to safeguard the doctrine) was weakened or passed over.  Bishop Nickless will address the state of catechesis and knowledge of the faith later in his letter.

Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul the Great constantly preached the same thing in calling for a “New Evangelization” of the faithful, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, and all those who do not know Jesus Christ or the Church. This New Evangelization was to be “new not in content but in ardor, methods, and expression.” (Address to the Assembly of CELAM (March 9, 1983), III; cf. Ecclesia in America 6)

The "new evangelization" is a direct response (in theory, at least) to the safeguarding of the Church's doctrine and the need to present that doctrine, unaltered in substance and meaning, to the modern world.  To allay fears, this does not mean we can no longer speak of transubstantiation, but rather that we must explain this doctrine in a way that can be grasped by faith and reason.  We cannot change what it means, or introduce words which do not mean the same thing, as some tried in the 1960's with transignification and transfinalization (cf. Mysterium Fidei 11).

Not only non-Christians, but Catholics and other Christians must be evangelized again today, with great zeal and fervor.  This is not because God has changed, for "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb. 13:8), but because we are changing and losing sight of Who God is and what He calls us to.

It is readily apparent from his teaching and ministry that for Pope John Paul the Great, the New Evangelization was the true fruit of the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, the Council was the beginning and blueprint for evangelization in the modern world. He explicitly stated this as his particular mission at the time of his election, and he lived it to the end. (e.g. Inaugural Address of Pope John Paul II, October 22, 1978)  He spent his entire pontificate interpreting and implementing the Council’s documents according to the light of the Holy Spirit, given in virtue of his office, amid the changing circumstances of the Church and the world.

You will find in the rest of this document that Bishop Nickless is firmly grounding himself and this letter in the recent papal magisterium of the Church:  Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

We now find ourselves forty-four years since the close of the Council. Many questions still need to be asked and answered. Have we understood the Council within the context of the entire history of the Church? Have we understood the documents well? Have we truly appropriated and implemented them? Is the current state of the Church what the Council intended? What went right? What went wrong? Where is the promised “New Pentecost”?

These are very important questions to ask, and none of them can be tossed aside as frivolous or academic.  Asking these questions and seeking their answers are necessary for the Church's continued vitality and mission.  Without asking them, we move forward without direction or reflection.  Without answering them within the Church's tradition, we risk scrapping the first 1900 years of the Church and starting over with a blank slate, which would have destructive results for the Church and the whole world.

Pope Benedict XVI reflected on these important questions in an address to the Roman Curia in December, 2005:

The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult? Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarreled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform,” of renewal in the continuity of the one subject – Church – which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council.

Pope Benedict asks similar questions and begins by pointing out that there are two approaches to the Council, one which inevitably leads to the wrong answers, and one which leads to the right answers.  If the Council is perceived to be a split from tradition, from the past, from our heritage, we will reap only confusion, discord, and obstacles to holiness and the mission of Church.  If, on the other hand, we recognize the sense of continuity and reform, we will be better equipped to determine how well we have met the goals of the Council, what is left to be implemented, and what has been poorly or wrongly implemented.

And, of course, we must remember that the spirit of the Council is not "trapped" in its letter, waiting to burst free and progress wildly beyond the intentions of the Council Fathers.

Notice, first, Pope Benedict’s honest acknowledgment that the implementation of the Council has been difficult and is not complete. Notice also his clear-sighted grasp of how two rival interpretations have led to different “camps” within the Church. This division has weakened our identity and mission.

In drawing attention to the division which is a produce of these two hermeneutics, Bishop Nickless returns to the two gazes of the Church:  inward (identity) and outward (mission).  When the Church is divided, there are perceived to be two identities and two missions (at least); such lack of unity cannot be an effective witness of faith to each other nor to the world.

It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council. This interpretation sees the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church almost as two different churches. It sees the Second Vatican Council as a radical break with the past.

The Bishop states decisively that this interpretation of rupture cannot be recognized as the true approach to the Council, despite popular opinion.  This was not the interpretation used at previous Councils, and it is not the one to use now.  Separating the Church now from the Church then is a dangerous proposition which would lead to a Church without roots, without a trajectory to maintain.

There can be no split, however, between the Church and her faith before and after the Council. We must stop speaking of the “Pre-Vatican II” and “Post-Vatican II” Church, and stop seeing various characteristics of the Church as “pre” and “post” Vatican II. Instead, we must evaluate them according to their intrinsic value and pastoral effectiveness in this day and age.

I hear in these words a faint echo of Pope Benedict's words in the letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum:  "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

Therefore, we must heed the Holy Father’s point that one interpretation, the “hermeneutic of reform,” is valid, and has borne and is bearing fruit. This hermeneutic of reform, as described above, takes seriously and keeps together the two poles of (1) identity (the ancient deposit of faith and life) and (2) engagement with the world (teaching it more efficaciously).

Yet again the Bishop mentions the inward concern ("identity") and the outward concern ("engagement with the world") in relation to the proper hermeneutics of interpreting and implementing the Council.  Remember, as we progress through this document, these constant themes:  inward concern ("identity", "pursuit of holiness") and outward concern ("mission", "engagement", "fidelity to [our] mission").

Lastly, the Holy Father, going into greater detail later in the address, explains that the “spirit of Vatican II” must be found only in the letter of the documents themselves. The so-called “spirit” of the Council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work.

Those are bold and blunt words from a bishop!  Praise be to God that he has the courage to write them to the members of his flock, let alone think or say them.

The next post will deal with the current context of the implementation of Council.

A Pastoral Magisterium: Bp. Nickless' pastoral letter (part 2)

This is part two of a ten-part series on the recent pastoral letter of Bishop R. Walker Nickless for the diocese of Sioux City, Iowa.  I will be providing the full text of this letter (slightly edited for formatting) with emphasis and commentary.

In this post, we will look at Section I, Introduction:

Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever! It has now been almost four joyful years of being your bishop. It has been a time of learning and growth for me as a priest, called beyond my desires and talents, not without God's grace making up for all that is lacking in me, to be the shepherd for the flock in northwest Iowa.

One might wonder why it has taken Bishop Nickless four years to produce his first pastoral letter, but His Excellence will provide the explanation himself in a moment.  Suffice to say, he realizes that the episcopacy, while being the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, is not itself a plateau of spiritual growth.  Rather, he has continued to learn and grow during his years as their bishop.  He also makes it clear that he is their bishop by God's grace, not by his own merits or talents.

As shepherd, I am called to "speak the truth in love" (Eph 4:15), the truth of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, inseparable from His Church, "at the same time holy and always in need of renewal and reformation." (Lumen Gentium 8)

Bishop Nickless derived the title of his letter from an English translation of Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.  The Latin text reads "Ecclesia [...] sancta simul et semper purificanda."  He refers to St. Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, whence he drew his episcopal motto ("Speak the Truth in Love") found on his coat of arms, and in doing so also calls to mind Pope Benedict's recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate in which the Pontiff links "charity with truth not only in the sequence, pointed out by Saint Paul, of veritas in caritate (Eph 4:15), but also in the inverse and complementary sequence of caritas in veritate." (CV 2)

In order to do this, I have traveled to meet the priests and people of the diocese, always listening, asking questions, studying and, of course, praying about the current state of the Church. Now I offer my understanding of the state and direction of the Church, both universal and particular, at this juncture in her history. I propose this pastoral plan — a vision, so to speak — for the future of our diocese, and some practical guidance for achieving our goals.

Over the preceding years, Bishop Nickless was learning about his diocese so that he would be able to address his flock with knowledge, rather than in mere generalities.  The result of his study and discernment is this pastoral letter, with which he shares his understanding as their pastor, designed to plot a course for the future of the diocese and keep them on track.

My understanding begins with these personal reflections. I studied and was ordained a deacon and priest during the exciting, almost intoxicating, time of the Second Vatican Council. I am thoroughly a product of that momentous time, the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries. It has formed the context and culture of my entire ministerial life.

No one can accuse Bishop Nickless of being some "traditionalist" who wants to "turn back time" to before Vatican II.  He makes it clear here that this most recent Council is a particularly cherished part of his spiritual heritage, having formed him into the pastor he is today.

Like Pope John Paul the Great, I have no other desire for my ministry than seeing the hopes and reforms of the Second Vatican Council fully implemented and brought to fruition. (e.g. Christifideles Laici 2) Like Pope Benedict XVI, I know that, while we have worked hard, there is still much work to do. (Homily of 8 December 2005)

He clearly aligns himself with the authentic Magisterium of the Church, especially as manifested in the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

My understanding of this work has grown and deepened over the past forty years. So it must be for all of us. The Church is always in need of renewal because it is made up of us, imperfect human beings. This is the deepest reason: as individuals and as a Church, we are always called to grow, change, deepen, repent, convert, improve, and learn from our successes and failures in the pursuit of holiness and fidelity to Jesus Christ and the mission He has given us. Moreover, we need to do this in the midst of an ever changing world, culture and society.

He brings up holiness again (from the preface), linking it with faith, with fidelity to Christ and His mission, the same mission now entrusted to the Church as a whole and to each of her members.

I have experienced this as a priest and now, through the biggest change of all for me, as a bishop. Despite my own unworthiness, I have been blessed abundantly by the Lord Jesus Christ in his call to me, in the graces of my episcopal ordination, and in your support and cooperation. I am happy and blessed to be your bishop. Having been called by God and the Church, I want to do my part to fulfill His mission among you. Thus, we need serious reflection and evaluation of the current state and direction, challenges and opportunities, for faith and ministry in our Lord Jesus Christ in our Diocese.

Closing the introduction, he explains the need for this pastoral letter:  "serious reflection and evaluation."  This letter is part of his contribution to the mission of Christ carried out in the diocese.  In order for the diocese to carry out Christ's mission, they must know who they are, what the mission is, and how they are (or are not) succeeding in fulfilling it already.

A Pastoral Magisterium: Bp. Nickless' pastoral letter (part 1)

This is the first of a ten-part series on the recent pastoral letter of Bishop R. Walker Nickless for the diocese of Sioux City, Iowa. His letter, entitled Ecclesia Semper Reformanda can be viewed online as a single HTML page, or downloaded as a PDF or as a Word document (formatted to "folio" paper size to be printed as a booklet on 8.5" x 11" paper).

I will be providing the full text of this letter (slightly edited for formatting) with emphasis and commentary.

1. Preface
2. I. Introduction
3. II. The Second Vatican Council and the New Evangelization
4. III. The Current Context
5. IV. Pastoral Priorities for the Diocese of Sioux City:  1. Renew Eucharistic Spirituality
6. IV. Pastoral Priorities:  2. Strengthen Catechesis
7. IV. Pastoral Priorities:  3. Foster Faithful Families
8. IV. Pastoral Priorities:  4. Foster Vocations
9. IV. Pastoral Priorities:  5. Embrace Missionary Character
10. V. Conclusion
    

Ecclesia Semper Reformanda

(The Church is Always in Need of Renewal)

A Pastoral Letter on the Future of the Church
in the Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa

To the Priests, Deacons,
Consecrated persons and all the Lay Faithful
of the Diocese of Sioux City

15 October 2009

Memorial of Saint Teresa of Jesus

Virgin and Doctor of the Church

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

Greetings of peace and joy to you and all your families. By God's providence we are privileged to live in northwest Iowa and practice our faith in the Diocese of Sioux City. I am honored to serve you as your Bishop.

Note how His Excellence makes it clear that his vocation to the episcopate is one of service.  The triple office of a bishop – to teach, to govern, and to sanctify – are works of love, of charity.  To be an ordained minister of the Church is to be a servant of the People of God.  Pope St. Gregory the Great described his office as "servant of the servants of God."

I take great joy in sharing with you my first pastoral letter for our Diocese. It is my hope that this document be a source of instruction and direction for all of us: priests, deacons, consecrated persons, and faithful laity. The points shared in this pastoral letter are basic to the celebration and faithful living of our Catholic faith. They are the foundation of all that we are called to do for the Lord in our Diocese and beyond.

This is his first pastoral letter after about four years as their bishop.  We'll see why it took that long in the next section.  He makes it clear, though, that this letter, while pastoral, is an instruction to his diocese; it is not a mere observation or opinion, this is his instruction to his flock.  Bishop Nickless says the letter pertains to foundational elements of living and celebrating the Catholic faith, to the basics of being Catholic.

As I publish this pastoral letter, I do so on the Memorial of Saint Teresa of Jesus. On this day, the Church prays: "O God, you raised up Saint Teresa by your Spirit so that she could manifest to the Church the way to perfection. Nourish us with the food of her heavenly teaching and fire us with a desire for holiness." May Saint Teresa be an inspiration to all of us in our desire to grow in holiness.

This is the Year for Priests promulgated by our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. I express to each of the priests in our Diocese my profound gratitude for their faithful witness of holiness and dedication to you, the People of God and to me, their Bishop. Priests are co-workers with the Bishop in the mission given to us by Christ. Please pray for us.

May all of us, united in love, continue to grow in the same holiness of Saint Teresa and Saint John Vianney as we continue to live our faith in hope and love.

The constant theme here is holiness, not only of priests, but of all Catholics.  This holiness is attained through a unity in love, in charity.  Faith, hope, and love (the three theological virtues) are succinctly brought together here:  by living and celebrating their Catholic faith daily (as individuals, a family, a parish, and a diocese) with the same hope and true love, the faithful of the diocese of Sioux City, Iowa, will grow in holiness.

Your brother in Christ,
Most Reverend R. Walker Nickless
Bishop of Sioux City