A New Dictatorship

Pope Benedict’s “Dictatorship of Relativism” always struck me as a soft adversary. Relativism, as I understand the broad sense of it, is often used as an excuse by some people who otherwise have good intentions. Even the deeply religious Catholic. We explain away war by making it just. We dodge the excesses of hierarchy with encrusted excuses. Some nebulous greater good insulates prelates from consequences for common sins. And those same someones have the nerve to preach a lack of a sense of sin to the laity.

With Pope Francis, I detected in his address to ambassadors today, a new dictatorship. This is one that will be far less elusive. And it’s a cruelty and oppression which is very real for hundreds of millions in our world. If not more.

Consequently the financial crisis which we are experiencing makes us forget that its ultimate origin is to be found in a profound human crisis. In the denial of the primacy of human beings! We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old (cf. Ex 32:15-34) has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.

The worldwide financial and economic crisis seems to highlight their distortions and above all the gravely deficient human perspective, which reduces (a person) to one of (their) needs alone, namely, consumption. Worse yet, human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away.

The dictatorship of an inhumane economy. Now that’s a real dragon.

Money has to serve, not to rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but the Pope has the duty, in Christ’s name, to remind the rich to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them. The Pope appeals for disinterested solidarity and for a return to person-centred ethics in the world of finance and economics.

Rock mentioned this was one of the few times the Holy Father has referred to himself as “the Pope.” That’s the kind of Pope we need today.

 

What A Difference A Week Makes

What is the truth?

Regarding the legal and professional agreement of the service of Michael Fugee, the official position of the Archdiocese of Newark, as of 28 April 2013:

(Archdiocesan spokesperson Jim) Goodness denied the agreement had been breached, saying the archdiocese has interpreted the document to mean Fugee could work with minors as long as he is under the supervision of priests or lay ministers who have knowledge of his past and of the conditions in the agreement.

The quoted words of the spokesperson:

We believe that the archdiocese and Father Fugee have adhered to the stipulations in all of his activities, and will continue to do so.

Another direct quote:

To make the assumption that lay people in authority or priests who know and are friendly with Father Fugee would be less professional or diligent in terms of ensuring the safety of the children they serve seems like an outright attack on the integrity of these individuals.

And the result? Trenton bishop David O’Connell:

The work of the youth ministers at St Mary’s Parish in Colts Neck has been terminated and Father Ton Triggs has offered his resignation as pastor to me this morning in a meeting I had with him at the parish. I have accepted his resignation, effective immediately, and have given Tom a sabbatical.

The official statement of the Archdiocese of Newark, as of 3 May 2013:

Neither Archbishop Myers nor others in the leadership of the Archdiocese gave Fr. Fugee permission to work in any ministry other than those ministries that were physically located within the Archdiocesan Center.  He did not seek, nor would he have been granted, permission to engage in activities involving minors either through the Archdiocese or at any other diocese in the state.  He failed to follow established procedures and protocols in place among all of the dioceses in the state designed to prevent unauthorized ministries.

So which is it? Are chancery paper-pushers and muckety mucks scrambling to make sure they don’t follow three St Mary’s staff members down the drain?

Clearly, the supervision wasn’t so close or careful, as the Newark office has done a total one-eighty on this, leaving Bill Donohue twisting in the wind. Maybe they just didn’t know. Or maybe they underestimated the effects of a combination of investigative journalism and parental outrage.

I’ll tell you: I have enough parental issues with my former bishop and my daughter’s former favorite priest. I’ve seen the damage done to the teenager I love the most in the world. No parent wants to see their child go through that sort of disillusionment.

I thank God for a good Confirmation process in my parish, for the thoughtful programming, and the outstanding sponsor the young miss chose. We had a few obstacles to overcome just getting her on the first retreat. I certainly wasn’t in a position to insist she get confirmed. And my wife and I didn’t exactly see eye to eye on it, either.

You readers will pardon (I hope) my own struggle with these continuing issues with bishops. As long as this bone-headedness continues, I will continue to harp on them and their antigospel antics. These are good men, I am sure. Good men who, in the attempt to do good, have done grave harm to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the kerygmatic and sacramental ministries that power his Church.

Archbishop Myers needs to ‘fess up fully. Tell the whole truth. Be an example of contrition and personal honesty. Be a man about it. Resist every urge to blame someone else for these troubles. Realize that three people outside of his diocese have lost their jobs over this lapse in moral judgment. Check his own conscience about that, and the pay check he draws and the pension he will draw as a member of the clergy. Resign or not–I really don’t care. But it’s time to man up.

Tell us all the truth.

 

Liberal? Looks Like Narcissism To Me

I saw this piece on Father Roberto Francisco Daniel (Padre Beto) posted at UCA News. The original is from Yahoo News.

This caught my attention:

In one of the recent videos he posted on YouTube.com and his own Website, the priest said a married person who chose to have an affair, heterosexual or otherwise, would not be unfaithful as long as that person’s spouse allowed it. “If someone is in an extramarital relationship and that relationship is accepted by the spouse, then faithfulness still exists there,” he said.

This doesn’t strike me as a liberal view, particularly. So I have an objection to the Yahoo headline. Frankly, there are a lot of human beings out there, including many conservatives, who yearn for freedom from duty and responsibility. And lots of conservative spouses who, for various unhealthy and codependent reasons, are willing to grant something I’m not sure is theirs to grant. Marriages aren’t just for the two individuals who splice together for the appearance of a couple. Duties and responsibilities are part of the big picture.

Padre Beto’s bishop (Caetano Ferrari)

… gave Daniel a letter asking him to take the videos offline and publicly retract his statements. In an interview posted on the diocese Web site shortly afterward, Ferrari called Daniel “brilliant,” but characterized him as a “rebel son” who “crosses the line.”

This isn’t brilliance. This is sham intellectualism masquerading with empty promises of freedom. It’s not necessarily liberal, either. See conservative luminaries such as Mark Sanford or Arnold Schwarzenegger or John Corapi for others who seem to think that rules are made for others, and not them.

Whether or not this dude deserves to be excommunicated for narcissism, I’m not sure. I don’t have much interest in the canonical details of the case. This celibate priest, like many of his brothers on Holy Orders, doesn’t seem to have any sort of bead on what marriage is. So he could just stay the hell away from stuff he doesn’t understand. Padre Beto’s statement doesn’t give confidence:

I feel honored to belong to the long list of people who have been murdered and burned alive for thinking and searching for knowledge.

Sheesh.

A few things.

He wasn’t murdered.

He wasn’t burned alive.

So he’s not on those lists.

But he is on the long list of people who think more highly of themselves than others. For his followers, this advice: watch this man carefully. Ask and test if he really has the authentic interests of others–especially the needy and the persecuted–ahead of his own.

Meanwhile, Padre Beto is just out of a job. And momentarily, hopefully, in the outer courtyard of the house of the Lord.

 

Rights

I read a lot of fussing back and forth about the Boston bombing suspect’s situation. Read/don’t read him his rights? It’s a serious thing, but silly at the same time.

He’s accused of a crime. Read him his rights. Then book him, or however that is done when a suspect is in the hospital. Politicians and pundits don’t get to make exceptions when the tide of passions are high. Above all, don’t do something silly that will harm the prosecution. The individual is a naturalized American citizen and as such, has rights, whether they are read to him or not. Or he’s given a piece of paper. In the 21st century, really: it’s not like everyone doesn’t know them already. Above all, there is no need to create a side show over this. The focus should be on bringing an alleged criminal to justice, preserving the common good, and mantaining the America way.

The ordeal is over, but people will start to question matters like why a whole metro area was in lockdown if the suspect was in Watertown all the time. Other questions about “pajama-investigators” stirring up suspicion on the innocent. All those discussions need to happen, and happen openly. These are good matters to hash out in the public sphere.

Professionals focus on their procedures in difficult times. They know you don’t rewrite the rulebook for casual reasons. Otherwise, who’s to say Wall Street bankers weren’t economic terrorists for bilking the nation’s investors out of hundreds of billions? Maybe they were too big to be read their rights.

 

More on LCWR/CDF

I was pondering another post on the LCWR-CDF dust-up. Honestly, I didn’t think there was anything more to say about it. It seems to be in the hands of the bishops and the sisters. I think the bishops are in trouble, in the sense that they have much more to lose in this tussle. The LCWR, as a particular entity may well dissolve. But there’s nothing to prevent American sisters from calling conferences, maintaining collaboration, and starting a different organization to accomplish the same ends. Women religious will still serve people in parishes, schools, hospitals, and all the other outposts they did yesterday and today.

Today’s NCRep editorial gives a good lead-in:

“A church that does not go out of itself, sooner or later, sickens from the stale air of closed rooms,” Pope Francis has written in a letter released Thursday to his fellow Argentine bishops. This is a similar message to the one he delivered to his fellow cardinals before the conclave, impressing them enough to elect him bishop of Rome

In his new note he went on to say in the process of “going out” the church always risks running into “accidents,” adding, “I prefer a thousand times over a church of accidents than a sick church.”

A church of accidents … a church willing to take risks on the edges … a church dedicated to service of the most needy … a church working on behalf of mercy, peace and justice…

This sounds a lot like the church U.S. Catholic sisters have been building in recent decades. Not only U.S. women religious, but also women religious around the world have been at this work. It is the women who have lived closest to the marginalized; it is the women who have worked on the “peripheries;” it is the women who have gone precisely where Francis is encouraging others to go.

I think this is right. Whatever Pope Francis intended with the encouragement of the CDF to move forward against the LCWR, it seems clear he’s describing the attitude and approach of American sisters. Does he know it? Doesn’t matter. And that’s suggesting that “accidents,” however we arrived at that interesting term, are something that needs correction. In the case of the LCWR, I’m not sure that’s always the case. Even giving the CDF the benefit of the doubt, it doesn’t look to me like the pope is on the same page as they. Pope Francis sounds willing to risk accidents if the main mission of the Gospel is accomplished.

Most every woman religious I know has her eyes on the target and heart deep into ministry. Are some of them ignorant, misinformed, blundering, flawed, sinful, or harboring heretical beliefs? Sure. But that point means nothing, because you can say the same thing about bishops, priests, lay people, this parish or that parish, this community or that, this committee or that, and it would still be right.

The investigation’s problem has come to a difficult spot for the institution.

The sisters could just walk away. And nobody could stop them.

Archbishop Sartain was either the willing volunteer or the sucker for this task. He would seem to have motivation for the project to arrive at a successful conclusion. If he pushes the sisters too hard, they will walk anbd he will have failed in his first big assignment as an archbishop.

As I understand it, the LCWR was established to facilitate communiation between sisters and with the institutional Church. Women religious don’t seem to think the church is listening. So they lose nothing by walking away. And there is nothing to prevent them from maintaining communication among whoever want to organize under a new umbrella.

I also think we’re seeing a new administration in Rome that is concerned about looking out, not looking in. Pope Francis can tell the parties, “Stop fighting. Settle this, and get on with your work.” And what do you think the parties would do?

One way or another, this standoff is history.

 

Thanks For A Good March

I don’t think it’s the Francis effect, but I do appreciate you new readers as well as those long-time visitors who keep coming back here for more. March 2013 bested this site’s previous best-month for visits and hits 68,000 to 57,000. I recall one of my conservative friends suggesting last year that my blog traffic was nowhere near what I said it was or what it should be. <shrug>

I confess I enjoy seeing the stats tick upward here, but I’m still largely under the radar of the more rude commentariat I see elsewhere, especially at the corporate blogs. Something for which I am grateful. But one request, please: do not nominate this site for any awards like this. Okay?

As I’ve written before, I get an occasional spasm of doubt about Catholic Sensibility. We’re getting close to ten years and 9,000 posts–well over one offering per day. It’s hard to walk away from that–is it accomplishment, or is it just compulsion?

I haven’t been feeling the urge to walk away just yet, but I also don’t foresee cranking things back to over a hundred posts a month, either. You will likely not see advertising on this site, at least not of my own doing. I’m sure the corporate masters and commanders of the world are doing all they can to squeeze a few dollars out of every corner of the internet. Again <shrug>

A few friends (and you know who you are) should know they have a standing offer to write here. If you’re not sure about that status, you can contact me, and we can discuss things. If you ever want to begin a private conversation, check the contact box near the bottom of that right sidebar.

Otherwise, I’m toying with a return to liturgy documents. I realize I have Redemptionis Sacramentum untouched, and that’s one sorry piece of parchment that may need to be taken down a few notches. I’ve been promising a full examination for a few years now. I confess I haven’t read through the whole piece cover to cover. Almost 200 numbered sections. That will pad the post count to close to 9,000 all by itself.

For a little fun, now that March Madness is done, I’ve been thinking about a poll on favorite Bible verses. I have an outline to give you a choice of one Old Testament and two New Testament passages (one Gospel, one other) and whittle brackets down from threes: 81 to 27 to 9 to 3 to a winner. That kind of contest would run daily for forty days. I vaguly considered it for Lent, but I’ve been too busy. But now that all the other voting mechanisms have spent themselves, we all can focus a little more on the Bible.

As with any endeavor here, it all depends on life’s other commitments. I do have the domestic Church of which I’m a part, including material responsibliities. I also have ministry. Wading through our hopeful return to our church building in two weeks. Confirmation, including the young miss. First Communion. Students commencing and a new 2013-14 of leadership for which to prepare.

Meanwhile, Happy Easter; stay in touch; keep reading.

 

“Ortho-Agape”

Still finding the stomach for an occasional lurk in the Catholic blogosphere these days. Of course, the progressives seem to be leaning to crowing and the Catholic Right seems split between disarray and spinning the new pope faster than a neutron star.

As a side bar, the discussion has heated up about who’s meaner: a liberal or a trad. I have to watch my own snark and temper, of course. But sometimes meanness is more a perception of the listener. Sometimes people experience life as a series of beat-downs, so they are sensitized to reacting to anything, or even everything, as if someone is abusing them. This is the well-known victim mentality. Pope Benedict might have referred to it as part of the hermeneutic of relativity. If one self-identifies as a victim, then all one’s unpleasant social interactions are the mark of persecution, or even hate.

It really doesn’t matter if the people involved, victims or tormentors are “orthodox” or not, virtuous or not. This is true for two reasons. First, as I mentioned already, to a victim, every adversary is a persecutor. But we also have to concede that any mortal being is imperfect. And liable to sin. Virtue can never be the identifying mark of the orthodox, not in this world. All fall short of the ideal of Jesus Christ.

Increasingly, I’m thinking that orthodoxy matters less and less. More important is the cooperation with God’s grace to present an “Ortho-Agape” (Orthocaritas sounds smoother, but mixing languages like that is a question mark.)

We could be aiming more to a “right-charity/love/kindness” in presenting ourselves as believers and followers of Christ. Though it doesn’t appear in this week’s Lectionary, the parable of the two sons does occur after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. In some way, that should point the way that Christians are called to an integrated stance of being ordered to God and to other people, and that this is not a natural conflict.

 

Ten Days In

NCRep editorial on Pope Francis. I’d like to take a look at some of the conclusions drawn in the middle of the piece.

The editorial board suggests that the hierarchy has been behind the times in assessing the state of the Church and the deepest needs we face, both within the Body and in the world. I think this became painfully evident to the cardinals. Clearly they weren’t distracted by the combination of celebrity, legacy, and grief as they were eight years ago:

It became evident that the church’s troubles had grown to such proportions that they could no longer be ignored, not even by the gathered cardinals. This interregnum and conclave were quite different in tone and content from the last precisely because subjects that were swept aside in the tide of sentiment accompanying John Paul’s death came roaring back to shore. Curial corruption and infighting had been documented and were no longer a matter of mere speculation. Figures like the late Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado and his order, the Legion of Christ, still seen eight years ago as unfairly under siege, were now, beyond dispute, a world-class fraud and a failed project respectively.

The condemnation of Fr Maciel is devastating, but too true.

As for the curia, corruption may well be too strong a word, given what we know. But corruption is eminently plausible, given what we see: not only the infighting, but also the careerism. And then we have scandals with banking, conservative prelates’ sexual escapades, leaks, and such. This would be my strongest criticism of the previous two popes. Their role as the Church’s guardians of unity cannot be understated. Each, perhaps, was blinded by their own fallibilities to the notion that unity extends more broadly and deeply than uniformity on public issues. The handling of bishops and conferences has been particularly difficult for these men, and in some locations, especially the United States, a near total failure. What we’ve been handed is a classic case of Old Testament lament: why do the just suffer and the guilty prosper? More on that:

John Paul II’s notions of heroic priesthood lay in tatters, his episcopal appointments too often a collection of hot-blooded and imprudent ideologues who love to parade around in yards of silk and fine lace. Eight years ago the gathered cardinals would have smirked at talk of a church in crisis; this year they spoke of it themselves.

The silk and lace I can tolerate. I just want competence. Cardinals Wuerl and George, to name the two most high-profile American prelates, and touted for the intellectual heft they brought to the USCCB, have been far from stellar thinkers. Lack of prudence is clear. Willing to be led by the nose by curialists with agendas doesn’t speak at all to their leadership style. Cardinal George couldn’t be bothered with his own archdiocesan review board and placed children in his parishes at risk from a known predator. Clearly, some cardinals have learned something by the repeated smackdowns delivered to the Catholic Right from the Iraq War to the 2012 elections.

I wouldn’t want to lose John Paul II’s “notion of heroic priesthood.” Let’s just call it unneccessarily limited and inadequate. Every Catholic believer should be a hero in the sense of an outward looking, joyful, and confident presentation of the Gospel in every corner of the world. It might be nice if one in every thirty or forty Catholics were a priest. Then the JP2 Method might work. But the Church has never been awash in priests everywhere. An active and engaged laity is the key. JP2 gave us plenty of fodder to start that. Let’s honor it by building on it and moving beyond the clerical focus of the past two pontificates.

The 34 years of Wojtyla and Ratzinger comprised a three-and-a-half-decade attempt to rein in the impulses of the Second Vatican Council. The first 15 post-conciliar years were alive with a rich, if at times messy and excessive, enthusiasm for the possibilities of this Christian community called Catholic. Wojtyla and Ratzinger set out to re-square the corners and redraw the lines. What once was so outward-looking became inward and withdrawn, in Francis’ term, “self-referential.” Both popes spent an inordinate amount of time and energy going after those who raised inconvenient questions or explored areas of theology that didn’t fit their prescriptions of church. All the while, the real sins against the community were being committed by priests and hidden for years, under elaborate schemes and at unconscionable cost, by the community’s bishops.

It’s been clear to the Catholic imagination, at least in America, that the past decade has continued the adventure of those who couldn’t shoot straight.

In a word, the past several years has seen the screeches of the antigospel preached louder than the message of Christ.

Francis will, very soon, have the opportunity to show how serious he is about re-establishing integrity and sound judgment within the church with appointments to major sees, such as in this country the Chicago archdiocese, and with appointments to the Curia. Our hope is that his humility and sense of service and concern for the poor will guide his choices. Without such qualities, his wish that the church look beyond itself will remain unrealized.

This is right. It has to be about more than symbols. My sense is: thanks for the symbols. Let’s wait out the discernment period with patience, and then we’ll see how well Pope Francis can accomplish a rejuvenation of the Gospel within the hierarchy. And in the meantime, it’s as good a season as any for the rest of us to present and proclaim the real Gospel to those around us.

 

Optimism

I have yet to hear major things I dislike on the Pope Francis front this week. Now he wants to engage the Evil Empire the Dictatorship of Relativism non-believers as partners in the struggle for environmental conservation and for peace. Now that’s the Vatican II I’m talking about.

The truth is that the world isn’t entirely on board with the Church. And we needn’t be with them. But offering a Gospel partnership with individuals, and accepting who comes: this is good. Writing off the whole lot, not so much.

 

The Stuff of Legends

So the various early stories about Pope Francis are coming up short on truthiness. No matter. I think what we are seeing is a groupthink of Catholics and a few others who have plugged into the Hope. I have to count myself among them. Face it: we want the Church to succeed. And we don’t think the path involves ermine, six candlesticks, bureaucracy, and doubletalk. We want symbolic leadership. Real symbols that speak to something deeper than what we’ve seen in and from Rome the last decade or two.

Many Catholics are dismayed over this. They identified and attached to Pope Benedict and they identified and attached to the symbols associated with him. And, of course, his words. They became slogans: the dictatorship of relativism, continuity in reform. They provided a cautious optimism about a Church navigating the rough waters of a 21st century world.

But other Catholics had very valid questions. Why does the pope reach out to Holocaust-denying schismatics and not to my divorced-and-remarried family members? Why do bishops harp on lay people about a loss of a sense of sin and yet totally blunder about when managing sex predators? Why do Catholic populations of whole nations go into meltdown over the sins of bishops? Why do bishops get fired under mysterious and not-so mysterious circumstances, while convicted criminals stay on the cathedra? Why the witchhunts on women religious?

It’s no wonder many of the faithful have been thirsting for some sign of real leadership from the top. And if stories get made up to push the matter along, it’s a mild surprise to me. But no shock.

I can accept that Pope Benedict did the best he could, with the tools he had, in the time he was given. Looking back to 2005, I know I wanted him to succeed. But I think his ministry as Bishop of Rome has been an interlude. The ship didn’t sink or blow up or run aground. Maybe the winds have tossed us much. Maybe we heard some scraping on the bottom in Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Kansas City, Philadelphia, and a few other places. But the Church isn’t a Big Problem that needs fixing. Just some pieces.

Now is the time to be setting sail for the big ocean and casting into the deep. Now is the time for courage. And checking stories. And looking for the real story that inspires.

 

Pope Francis On Liturgy II

What strikes me most about this image posted at PrayTell is the predominance of women, perhaps as many as four generations represented. Contrast that with the images of popes at liturgy–nearly all surrounded by men. Fawning men. Here, the focus is on the liturgical act. On Christ, if you will. Not on the celebrity. Even Peter got that right, fussing about the act.

From a Palm Sunday homily in 2008 (also via PrayTell):

Jesus goes out to meet people, instead of waiting for people to come looking for Him. He goes out to be encountered. Today is the day Jesus goes to be met and He enters the city. Many Christians today have also gone out, in the name of Jesus, to meet the sick in the hospitals[, etc.]…the Church spills into the street because today Jesus is the king of the street, as He was that Palm Sunday in Jerusalem. The place to worship Jesus on this day, more than a temple, is the street. There he was acclaimed, there He was blessed, there He was recognized as the Lord. Out in the street. Later, on Friday, in the corridors of power, among the groups of influence, He was bought and sold [i.e.,
His fate was debated and decided] But where the people are faithful, where the people are believing, out in the street, He was acclaimed.

I think we have a pope who is far from Benedict XVI’s vision, and that of my traditionalist sisters and brothers, that the liturgy itself serves as a seed for the world. And I mean the institutional face of that liturgy in its correctness, propriety, and sobriety. Note the disdain for the “corridors of power … the groups of influence.” This is not where Christ is to be acclaimed.

Instead, it seems the man wearing the fisherman’s ring will use the liturgy as a means to a greater end: the proclamation of the Gospel to the widest possible audience. Even in the US, consider the impact of an evangelical Palm Sunday–what that might be if the Church spilled out to make an impact on our worship spaces larger than that one Easter swelling? And we went out on Easter, too, and were not aimless and dishearted like those on the road to Emmaus. But we had a singular message to spread.

 

One Last Post On The New Pope

NCR’s John Allen profiled him the other week. This spot didn’t give me cause for alarm:

These were the years of the military junta in Argentina, when many priests, including leading Jesuits, were gravitating towards the progressive liberation theology movement. As the Jesuit provincial, Bergoglio insisted on a more traditional reading of Ignatian spirituality, mandating that Jesuits continue to staff parishes and act as chaplains rather than moving into “base communities” and political activism.

This is right. Base communities and political activism is for lay people. Clergy have no business in it, and except for basic duties as citizens should leave it to the laity, one-hundred percent.

Some of my liberal sisters and brothers might disagree with me on this, but I think this is essentially a progressive position for modern Catholics. Exceptions might be made, but these would be vanishingly rare. I certainly think the clergy can throw their support behind lay activists. And they should, regardless of ideology. Activism needs to be formed by a deep interior reflection and contemplation. Not by assuming we’re getting contemplatives and reflectors in our midst.

 

Pope Hope

My friend Charles took exception to my observation:

I think most Catholics and all non-believers will care once the pope demonstrate what kind of person and believer he is.

And asked:

Todd, brother, would like to retract and reiterate the last clause of your sentence? (Judge not, lest ye be judged.)

Well, no I wouldn’t. First, I’m stating my analysis of the state of the Church, and what I think Catholics are thinking about the pope. I may be wrong. But I’m hearing from people who wish for a Holy Father who is a hardliner, more pastoral, who will clean house with the curia, who will clamp down on predator-easy bishops, etc.. Sometimes these wishes are well-founded in morality, spirituality or such, at least as they assess it. And some of it might be coming from people who have totally uninformed opinions about Catholicism. In many cases, they might give the new pope the benefit of the doubt–until the first disagreement pops up. Or they may, given recent discouragement, wait and see. I’m leaning to more “wait-and-see” Catholics. Non-believers definitely.

So when my brother suggests …

It seems to me that that tho’ we may, indeed, have been created in the likeness of God, we weren’t bestowed Pantocrator status as part of the deal. At best, your mistatement is naive, at worst, very Dan Brown. Not sufficient either way.

… I’m pretty much discounting it. At best, I’m right. And large segments of the Church are going to wait and see because it’s not likely we know how the man will serve as pope until we have him under our belts for a few years. And at worst, if I’m wrong, the Church is in a much better spiritual place than I thought: that we will receive the next Bishop of Rome with joy and he will make his ministry emphasis quite clear early on. And I’m on board with that, too.

Either way, it doesn’t matter. I hope for the best. I’m not thinking the Holy Spirit will stick us with the worst. I’m also not invested with being right or wrong. The day moves on.

But it’s good to be clear about what constitutes the difference between being the cause of bad news and being only the bearer of it.

 

Curia vs Who?

I admire Rocco Palmo’s enthusiasm and optimism about the Church that infuses most all of his writing. Even when he reports bad or difficult news, he wants to draw the reader into his own sadness or disappointment.

I have to take exception to his headline, “The Curia vs. The World.”

The world is very close to not caring about the curia at all. The pope still matters. The real headline should be: The Curia vs The Church. There is a long list of people who dislike or distrust the curia. Or some dis in between.

Rock’s analysis:

So powerful is the urge to “take the Vatican back” that, even if should a besieged Curial-Italian superbloc hold together – a development that would turn a cornerstone element of the prior “internationalized” Conclaves on its head – it wouldn’t seem able to withstand the drumbeat coming from those outside.

Again, though, a number unable to win can still thwart an otherwise strong push, forcing it to become more amenable to get over the top. In that scenario, other possibilities able to break the resistance down or peel it away will need to be sought.

In another shift of the scene, the elections of 1978 and 2005 saw ideology – of course, as determined by the legacy of the Council – as a key factor. That’s not the case this time – as ecclesial issues go, “reform” of governance usually belongs to the progressive camp, but many who wouldn’t be considered “liberal” by any stretch appear to be on-board.

In this election, the fault line can duly be termed “The Curia vs. The World.” And as a corollary to it, even if the scene remains immensely uncertain, yet another great upending of what’s long been taken for granted is thought to be taking place.

The curia isn’t a monolith. Cracks have appeared there. And the anti-curia bloc may well be able to pry enough cardinals away to achieve a reform of government with the next papacy.

That reform is essential. For better or worse, the pope has a certain teflon character. But we don’t pray for the curia every day at Mass. The curia isn’t much different from a diocesan chancery. Except that it’s largely less competent and more filled with clergy.

Twenty-four hours before “extra omnes,” I’m feeling rather hopeful about all this. Lent is here and a penitential attitude may be afoot in some cardinals. One, I heard, delayed his arrival in Rome because he was on retreat. It might not be a bad idea for future red-hat meetings before a conclave to include a retreat instead of a conference. A retreat would be a far better way to be open ot the Holy Spirit. Far less secular.

 

Too Much Information

Too much for sure from the Vatican’s viewpoint. The Frequently Misspelled One broadcasts that the Vatican wanted him to come to Rome. Insisted:

Without my even having to inquire, the nuncio in Washington phoned me a week or so ago and said, “I have had word from the highest folks in the Vatican: you are to come to Rome and you are to participate in the conclave.”

I’m not sure this is a good thing, especially for the Vatican. Minds have been made up on the retired Los Angeles archbishop. But for him to suggest publicly that “the highest folks” wanted him in Rome–that strikes me as a public relations blunder. Maybe minor. Maybe not.

The comment from the Vatican’s Father Federico Lombardi:

(Cardinal Mahony’s statement) can be understood in light of the communique of the Secretariat of State that insisted on the importance of not giving in to external pressures that might limit the freedom of the electors and the conclave.

Said document criticizes a potential influence of “public opinion that is often based on judgements that do not typically capture the spiritual aspect of the moment that the church is living.”

Fair enough. And yet, the “public opinion” is grounded in a morality that embraces responsible management, truthfulness, and cooperation with the rule of law. The public, especially the Catholic laity, have moral reasons for being critical of the man. They don’t strike me as especially political. Except in the sense of the relationship between two church factions: the Vatican bureaucracy and the American laity.

On the other hand, a moral equivalency might be for the laity to tell the bishops they don’t wish themselves to give in to external pressures. What might that mean if it gets thrown back into the laps of the episcopacy? I suspect it already has.

I’m actually starting to worry about Cardinal Mahony. Every public statement coming from him these days strikes me as cringeworthy. He doesn’t get the gravity of the consequences of his actions. The “highest folks” share that blindness. These are the people who will select the next pope. Maybe we should be worried … a little bit.