She describes these people as 'lost opportunities'.

Young, a pastoral worker who once worked in a large diocese, says that city dioceses, hospitals, schools and parish communities are generally well resourced and have good systems in place, however, there is an issue on the "missionary edges".

As a sacramental church, the limited resources go first to priests who can celebrate sacraments Young told Flashes of Insight.

She thinks that people are missing out and the Church is sacrificing lots of opportunities by not being able to offer sacraments to people who are being cared for by those who love them and committed to them.

"Sacraments add just so much to ministry", she added.

Young says she loves the fact the Catholic Church is a sacrament-based church but wonders what might be when something so valuable to those on the margins is not available to them.

"Our church is perhaps sacrificing the ability to be there with people Jesus would have been with", she said.

Young says we love the Church but in these times need a lot of hope in Christ, as the Church continues to develop.

Kate Bell a theologian and catechist with the Palmerston North diocese in New Zealand makes the issue tangible.

She describes women's ministry, as, at times, "doing the role with our hand behind our backs and a gag in our mouths."

Bell says it is the Church that is making the sacrifice; the sacrifice and cost to the Church is the loss of potential not being brought into actuality.

It is a point that Jo Ayers, an Auckland theologian and author amplifies, saying she often wondered what would happen to the church if women went on strike for a generous amount of time.

Shifting the conversation back to liturgy, Ayers told Flashes of Insight that women's role of service in the community needs to be reflected in all areas of the liturgy; preaching, welcoming, blessing, missioning, breaking and distributing the bread and ultimately leading the Eucharist.

However, in an apparent contradiction, Ayers however says she is not advocating for women priests!

"A lot of women would not want to be part of priesthood at the moment", she said.

"Women are not into hierarchy and layers of clericalism".

With the conversation ebbing and flowing around ‘women sacrificing to belong to the Church' and the ‘Church's sacrifice by not having women fully involved', Fiona Dyball, a theologian and office holder at the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference says the Church has to find a way forward so women can feel more a part of the Church's liturgy.

She recommends people read "Faithful Stewards of God's Grace" a document for lay pastoral ministers in the Australian church.

Warning of a potential fracture, Dyball says "If the Church does not engage people in the liturgy people will end up doing it for themselves".

Dyball says the Church, women and society are very different to even a few years back when women had a strong focus on the Church".

"It's good that women are not as involved. That's then, this is now".

Women have different things they want to put their lives into and she is glad people do not spend "every waking moment at the buildings".

Dyball emphasised the proper role of sacrifice, and that today it is primarily measured in time.

She was quick to respond saying women, people, are not cheap labour, and that it is important to know what gifts people have in order that they might rightfully offer them to the community.

She says it is just as important for people to know their boundaries.

There is little point to making sacrifices in the name of a power structure that no longer exists and is not serving the community today, she concludes.

Sadly, however, evidence would suggest that war will remain a means for political ambition and solution for impasse. Hope for better may be forlorn. Perhaps the will to struggle for personal advantage, to win and impose order is too strong in the human DNA.

Is universal peace merely an ideal hope? Is it merely an intuitive and intellectual landscape of those who inhabit their vision with commitment, searching beyond mundane struggles, for ascendancy of love over self-will and competition for earth's produce?

Armistice Day became particularly sobering as news agencies reported the calamitous destruction in The Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan wreaked terrifying violence. What were we witnessing? A bad storm? A record event on the scale of dire metrological events?

Or was it more, much more? While one cannot attribute reason to the earth, it is becoming more likely we have become mere witnesses to the planet's response to humankind's profligate, careless use of its resources? It may be too strong to argue the planet and humanity are at war. It is not too strong to argue we are not at peace.

Universal peace between people and nations may be a forlorn hope. However, humanity has little choice but to seek peace with the planet that is our home. The only refuge is within. Simply, there is no place of retreat, no place of refuge, nowhere to run.

Armistice Day will always serve to remind us of the cost of politics that place ideologies above the value of all human life. It is a stark reminder of our ability to kill one another for the likes of power, profit and ego.

It is time for a body such as the United Nations to promote a universal armistice for the planet. To gather up the ideals of its own Charter, Human Rights, Millennium Goals and the like for the sole purpose of seeking common cause for a reasonable quality of human life on this planet.

However, how deep is the competitive tribal nature of we humans? Can we overcome the need to devise treaties and moratoriums as expediencies, the desire to impose political will, acquire resources to the relative advantage of a few, and ignore the damage being left to future generations for immediate gain and comfort?

Armistice Day reminds us of the cost and worth of sacrifice. An outcome of such sacrifice is freedoms we might not have had. Will our descendants have a world we would be prepared or even happy to live within? I fear not, yet hope so.

John Fairbrother is the Director of Vaughan Park Anglican Retreat Centre in the Auckland Diocese.

The trouble with the crucifix is we no longer see it, but rather filter the image through our eyes of faith. Some people wear it as an accessory like gold earrings or a necklace; others use it as a talisman to ward off evil, if not vampires. A few brave souls even have it tattooed on various parts of their anatomy. The truth is, if we actually took the time to see the crucifix, we, like the Chinese, would be shocked, if not thoroughly scandalized.

While the Romans did not invent this particularly brutal form of capital punishment, they certainly perfected it. They were not interested in simply killing criminals; they intended to demean and dehumanize them. The slow, tortuous death was a bonus. The public spectacle served not only as a punishment for miscreants but also as a warning to anyone who harbored similar rebellious thoughts.

When I ask Bible study groups why Jesus was crucified, I get the formulaic "He died for our sins" or sometimes "He died to show God's love for us," which are true enough, but not complete. Certainly the powers-that-be who conspired to silence the pesky rabbi from Nazareth didn't have the salvation of the human race in mind. Rephrasing the question: "What did Jesus do to deserve crucifixion?" proves more thought-provoking. Clearly Jesus and his message posed a threat to the status quo, both religious and political. His cleansing of the Temple was the last straw. But the physical expulsion of merchants and moneychangers from the Court of the Gentiles was simply the final, dramatic manifestation of Jesus' scandalous message throughout his ministry: God loves everybody, unconditionally. Continue reading

Sources

• Joseph R Veneroso in National Catholic Reporter
• Image: Vimeo

Maryknoll Fr. Joseph R. Veneroso is a former editor and publisher of Maryknoll magazine and Revista Maryknoll.