Dear Anne:

There has been a renewed interest in Labyrinths in recent years. For the most part the motivation and practice of the Labyrinth is new age garbage. Unfortunately many of the parishes that are getting into this movement are not very careful about it and are promoting new age occultism and other things not Catholic.

Labyrinths can be useful if proper catechesis is done. For example:

1. Labyrinths have NO power of healing or any other power, explicit or implicit. It is just a sidewalk.

2. Labyrinths do NOT tap into the "power of the universe" like an antenna or have any other mystical power or significance.

3. Labyrinths can be helpful in that walking the Labyrinths requires a person to slow down. Usually they cannot be walked quickly without getting off track. They may be useful in getting a person to "stop and smell the roses" and "to be still and know that God is God."

4. Walking through the woods, a bike path, a hiking trail can do the EXACT same thing as a labyrinth does. All the Labryinth is suppose to do is provide a disciplined pathway for a person to take a contemplative walk -- slowing, meditatively.

   Frankly, the only ones who might "need" a labryinth are those who cannot or will not take a walk through the woods or hiking trail for whatever reasons (such as not being an outdoor person, living in the inner city, not able to get away to the woods often enough, etc.), or those lacking in self-discipline and need a disciplined guide.

If the labyrinth is kept in proper perspective -- seen as only a means to aid in taking a contemplative walk -- then they can be useful. If anything else is put into it, some sort of power, spirit, mysticism, or whatnot, then we are engaging in superstition which is condemned by the Church.

In the case of the use of the Labyrinth in your parish I would be greatly suspect of its use given the other things that went on -- the "Native American" Prayer service and the "Crime" (yes it is a crime -- that is a violation of Church law) of having the kids pass the ciborium around and self-communicate. This is a sacrilege and should be reported to the Bishop.

The homily on the Prodigal Son, has you describe it, has little to be desired and certainly, in my opinion sends the wrong message.

The Prodigal was NOT a risk-taking in the positive sense of the word. He was a selfish, petulant, ungrateful,

A Protestant commentator, Albert Barnes, makes some good points about the Prodigal. He said that the story of the Prodigal shows:

1. That the disposition of a sinner is selfish. He desires to get all that he can, and is impatient of delay, Luk_15:12.

2. Sinners waste their blessings, and reduce themselves to a state of want and wretchedness, Luk_15:13. A life of sin brings on spiritual want and misery. It destroys the faculties, benumbs the mind, hardens the heart, abuses the beneficence of God, and makes us careless of him who gave us all that we have, and indifferent to the consequences of our own conduct.

3. Sinners disregard the future woes that will come upon them. The young man cared not for any calamities that might be the result of his conduct. He went on heedlessly - like every sinner to enjoy himself, and to squander what the toils of his father had procured for him.

4. Afflictions are often the means of bringing sinners to reflection, Luk_15:14. While his property lasted the prodigal cared little about his father. When that was gone, and he was in the midst of a famine, he thought of his ways. When sinners are in prosperity they think little about God. When he takes away their mercies, and they are called to pass through afflictions, then they think of their ways, and remember that God can give them comfort.

5. We have here an impressive exhibition of the wants and woes of a sinner.

6. The sinner in this situation often applies to the wrong source for comfort, Luk_15:15. The prodigal should at once have returned to his father, but he rather chose to become a servant of a citizen of that region. The sinner, when sensible of his sins, should return at once to God; but he often continues still to wander. He tries new objects. He seeks new pleasures and new friends, and finds them equally unsatisfactory. He engages in new pursuits, but all in vain. He is still comfortless, and in a strange, a famished land,

7. The repentance required in the gospel is a return to a right mind, Luk_15:17. Before his conversion the sinner was alienated from God. He was spiritually deranged. He saw not things as they are. Now he looks on the world as vain and unsatisfactory, and comes to himself. He thinks "aright" of God, of heaven, of eternity, and resolves to seek his happiness there. No man regards things as they are but he who sees the world to be vain, and eternity to be near and awful; and none acts with a "sane mind" but he who acts on the belief that he must soon die; that there is a God and a Saviour - a heaven and a hell.

Barnes continues on with points about the Prodigal coming to his senses and repenting, but the above description is the result of this boy's immature "risk-taking." If this priest presented this "risk-taking" side of the Prodigal, instead of his humilitated and repentant side, and held that up as a role model to the children, all I can say is that this priest ought to get on his knees and thank God I am not his bishop :)

I do not think you over-reacted. But most of this is "fuzzy" and would be difficult to quantify in a complaint to the Bishop, EXCEPT the illegal act of the kids passing the ciborium around and self-communicating. This is an outright crime against Church law and the Priest should be censured for this act of disobedience and sacrilege.

The faithful have a "right" according to canon law to express their concerns about the faith and the Church to their pastors. Thus a well prepared, calm and business-like letter to the Bishop detailing the "facts," not suppositions,  may be in order.

I would first confront the priest himself with your concerns and see what he says. Listen carefully to how he responds and take notes (at least immediately after your meeting with him) trying to be as accurate as possible to the priests actual words spoken. If the priest gives an answer that is problematic that can be included in the letter to the bishop.

At least that is my take on it.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary