Productive Business meant hearing reports
from various committees and commissions, voting for 2003 leadership, and taking action on four important
items: the 2003 budget, the pro- posed committee restructuring, the proposed revisions to the NCR Governance Manual, and the proposed revisions to the Fi- nancial Policy. We had time to hear from our “elders” including ACPE President Jim Gibbons and Father Larry Murtagh. Minutes are printed on pages 8 &
9 of this newsletter. Reports are available on the website. There was a special session dedicated to the discussion of ACPE outcomes for various levels of CPE. Ideas and comments were shared about incor- porating them into our curricula and how to use them in the evaluation of students.
Barbara Sheehan addresses the assem- bly as Noel Brown and Scott McRae wait their turn. Seated in the fore- ground are Dean Hokel, David Rum- bold, Ed Foster, and Karl Andersen.
Banquet Master of Ceremonies, Joe Czolgosz,
had a tough time getting to Chula Vista because of car trouble, then was subjected to the Advocate ren- dition of “Happy Birthday”. Sung by staff and pro- gram alumni, it was, put tactfully, horrible!
Things improved with a fun songfest, a fine toast and roast of Phil Olson by Lyle Greiner (Phil received the Re- gion’s Distinguished Service award in absen-
tia.), and a showing of
video clips related to the ethics and practice of supervision done by Jay Hillestad. Featured were clips from “Meet the Par- ents”, “Forest Gump”, Erin Brokovich”, and “What about Bob”. Jay wondered whether any supervisors present could identify with Dr. Marvin in the latter
Letter to the Editor
Just took time to read the July/August 2002 ACPE NEWS of the NCR. Thank you for all the time and work you do to make such communications a reality. While I have been extremely inactive in recent years, CPE will always occupy a central place in my mind, heart and memories.
What especially prompted this response are your com- ments on the talk by Leanne Kaiser Carlson – particu- larly her identification of “verges”. The almost total trend to place pastoral care responsibilities into “the hands of less theologically and clinically trained laity” may well be one of those “verges” – but is integral to the “verge” of having surrendered “pastoral care” to ministries whose goals are to “comfort” people and to make them “feel good”. If those are the goals – and they are for many institutional leaders who employ chaplains – then the battle has been lost [deservedly so]. My mother [may she rest in peace] with only a 10th grade education was highly skilled at “comforting” people and “making them feel good”.
I believed my Call was to be a Healer – and that chap- laincy was the means to that end. I believed, and still do believe, that CPE was theological education so that my skills and talents and wisdom could be better em- ployed as a Healer. Such questions as “What does your illness mean?”, “Why do you think you are sick?” and “How does your faith in God influence or contribute to your treatment and journey towards health/whole- ness?” – those were important.
They also required an understanding of illness that went beyond the allopathic model so dominant in our hospitals and doctors’ offices today. Chaplain Robert Reeves [recently deceased] offered this as a definition of disease: “Disease is the response of he organism as a whole to whatever seriously impacted its equilibrium.” Such a definition permitted one to explore how her/ his life and belief system might be integral in under- standing their illness. Allopathy, however, makes it much more difficult [although it is still possible]. However, in the 1980s many factors converged to make that difficulty almost impossible: shorter lengths of stay, less theological preparation, greater desire by institutions to utilize pastoral care in marketing, etc..
Frank S. Moyer