Where Is Virtue?

I have high hopes for this month’s conclave. I really do. March 11th, I see. Enough time for a few days of voting, then get the new pope fitted for Holy Week vestments.

Against a baseline of the life of faith of the ordinary laity (among whom I count myself as an unorthodox and orthopractic member) there’s not a whole lot any pope can do that can’t be freed up by a concerned and active laity. And alas, the converse is true, that we could get a really good pope doing really good things–but without an active laity, the cause is sunk for another generation or two. So what’s the point? I’d like to think we’re entering into a millennium of the laity. Fresh out of a millennium of monarchy. And good riddance to those aspects that chain human beings to waiting on what their leaders do before stepping out. So I have high but cautious hopes on that count, too.

Over at PrayTell, Bill deHaas assessed Cardinal George’s 1998 commentary on the “exhausted project” of “Catholic liberalism.”

Where to start with sad Cdl George and his conclusion – we have a crisis of truth:
- *exhausted* or *truth* – would suggest that since 1998 exhausted/lack of truth is what we have been living through from unresolved sexual abuse denials; ROTR imagined movements; finanical shenanigans; VatiLeaks; appointment of litmus tested bishops; campaign against theologians we don’t agree with; failed accommodations from SSPX to Anglican Ordinariate; plunging catholic participation in the West; sad efforts called New Evangelism; promoting papal prelatures at the expense of the whole church, in the US church the FOF efforts, anti-HHS mandate, anti-PPACA efforts; Republican catholic bishops; his quote that the next cardinal of Chicago will die in prison, etc.  His conclusion is a lack of truth in the liberal and visible church authority. We haven’t had a liberal church authority for 25 years – his approach has led to where we are today; an exhausted and failed conservative movement that cries out for resolution.

Bill is right. We can pretty much lay the craziness of the last third-of-a-century at the feet of the neo-orthodox who, in an attempt to swing the pendulum back into their court, have mostly knocked themselves in the face. They have missed the lessons of the Theology of the Body–the Pauline theology described here, in which the apostle gives the smackdown to the negativism of the suggestion that a smaller, purer Body is somehow superior.

Cardinal George and others more extreme miss the simple point: Jesus decides who is in, who is out. And all of us sin and fall short of the glory of God. Even the self-styled orthodox.

Although the balance of cardinals would probably be counted “in” these days, the project of Catholic retrenchment has undeniable problems: credibility and immorality among them. As Jesus said, there’s nothing wrong with being blind. The problem is when the blind say, “We see,” and the blindness remains.

I have hope that even if the conservatives sweep the day this month, we will still have their witness–the negative witness of their bishops: Finn, George, Rigali, and others who have fallen far short in the virtue more important than orthodoxy. And that is virtue.

 

“No Plans”

Can the institutional Church afford “no comment” on Big News like the Cardinal Mahony slapdown? Some seem happy to inhabit the conservative half of the blogosphere, where indeed the archbishop’s dust-up with Mother Angelica has not been forgotten. These folks are already Catholic. I’m interested in the commentary on the other side, where, supposedly, the evangelization (new or otherwise) will kick start. And where the institution hopes to make inroads among the youth to whom it admits it struggles to connect. This is a near-catastrophe for evangelization. Year of Faith? This is the Year of Losing Face.

The NCRep commentariat is expectedly skeptical. Long years of cover-up scandal cast a cloud of suspicion over a prelate who, by all media admissions, has done something unprecedented. Is he doing it to smooth the way for a quicker red hat in LA? Is this just a PR move for a guy who has had access to these records for the past two years–and only now makes a public move?

I’m inclined to go light on the guy. No way would he jump the gun on the legal process. It looks suspicious, but I think he had to wait. Unless he was willing to preempt the law and throw his cardinal to the wolves. I also don’t think Archbishop Gomez deserves any special kudos. He did nothing heroic, extraordinary, or something none of the rest of us would do.

Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson, told NCR that although he has received several requests for comment from news agencies, there are no plans at this time to issue a statement. Among other things, he said, the Vatican needs time “to better understand the situation.”

Rome does need time to understand what to do when an archbishop calls out a cardinal–whether or not they approved it. I’m not sure they did. If Archbishop Gomez “went rogue” on this, he’s in an almost invulnerable position, short-term. The Vatican is powerless to criticize him. The Vatican, however, was in a place to temporize. They could have issued a generic statement that the cover-up of wrongdoing in the clergy is gravely wrong. But it’s illustrative that Rome didn’t even say that.

My suspicion is that they have yet to recognize that their policy has long been seeped in moral relativism, to use the popular conservative term. If a priest is caught in predation, it can be justified that the deed is done. If the situation can be controlled, then keeping the offender out of circulation brings a moral satisfaction to predator-church relationship. Clearly, the victims are not at the center of the picture.

Additionally, this latest episode in California shows us that the prime sin is getting caught. Archbishop Gomez probably couldn’t make a move until his Church’s legal obstructions were depleted.

The institution in Rome comes off looking very bad–they must have been briefed on this. I wonder what their new Fox News bureaucrat would want to do …

The worse issue for Rome is the subjective way they handle scandal in the episcopacy. A long list of American bishops: Finn, Rigali, Bevilacqua, Law, McCormack, Walsh, Egan.. some cardinals, some well-respected–all with a strong stench of misconduct, if not actual sin. None disciplined. A few actually whisked away from consequences.

The worst part, if something like this were ever to break, would be if money were found to be at the bottom of any selective “fraternal correction” among bishops. The Legionnaires, Opus Dei, EWTN’s backers–these people have the money. Do they have the power behind the cathedrae, even if such power is exercised selectively against those not their own?

This is all evidence of a small (minded) church. The result for evangelization? Getting smaller.

 

Sampling Some Bitterness

I see the Chant Cafe commentariat is excited about a new sheriff bishop riding into Portland. There’s a good bit about which to comment about this move.

Careerism, first. I remember feeling hopeful about Pope Benedict’s early episcopal appointments in Marquette and Nashville. Wasn’t Nashville’s bishop even baptized in the cathedral? In my thinking, it’s about more than tradition for tradition’s sake. There is a serious pastoral disconnect in the episcopacy these days. That’s not to say that skilled bishops are achieving success or fruitfulness in a third, fourth, or even fifth diocese. But the serious matter is the jockeying for plums, rather than contentment in serving one’s local church. I could understand a bishop being appointed from outside a troubled diocese to bring a degree of healing and order. But the pipeline of otherwise good candidates from small cities to larger doesn’t benefit those smaller communities, and seems to perpetuate a certain insular subculture, separating bishops from the laity. Not to mention the clergy.

Canon law, second. Bishop Sample is a canon lawyer. Ho hum. Is the Church well-served by having so many bishops with such similar resumes? If music is so important, what about a singer, a conductor, or even (gasp!) a person with a liturgy degree. Personally, I’d say the route from abbots and spiritual directors would be more fruitful. One doctor of the church came to us from the catechumenate. And consider: the main interface between canon lawyers and the laity are through marriage cases. What else do we need them for? Appealing to the Vatican on closed parishes? Maybe that’s the idea from the Congregation of Bishops: appoint an episcopacy that knows how to dot its ecclesiastical i’s and cross its episcopal t’s. Fair warning: lots of lay people have canon law degrees, too.

Music. Wow. A canon lawyer from Upper Michigan is going to “clean up” OCP? Are music publishers really, and still, on the list of the Church’s biggest problems. Declining inner city and rural parishes. Not enough pastors. Sex abuse and cover-up settlements. Priests in non-sexual bondage. Bishops have enough on their plates–I doubt they are aiming for church music publishers.

Some of the more humorous comments, especially from people who live nowhere near the Pacific Northwest:

This news makes me feel like when the lights go on at the Easter Vigil!

Really? Christ brings light to the world, rises from the dead, and frees us all from sin. I don’t usually make connections between ideology and the very stuff of salvation.

They had 1700 years of Christian art to choose from (for the Breaking Bread cover), and they chose a picture of an explosion in a confetti factory.

Nice. Not only does the music suck, but the bishop will reform the graphic art department.

Going to Portland is to go to the heart of the issue. Fixing this fixes nearly everything.

I suppose it fixes even the art department.

Speaking for myself, I was never into heroes so much. When I was in Catholic high school, I noticed a minority of teachers were petty gossips, or who had affairs with students, or who had little sense of the self-control, dignity, and honesty my parents tried to instill in me. I listened to teachers I disliked, and I learned from them. But I didn’t emulate them. And I didn’t have really high expectations of them.

I never expected such people to come to my rescue. I prayed to God. I relied on a Savior, not a savior.

If things weren’t working well in my parish, I would look to my own failures and fallibility. I would try to change the things I could: my own attitude, my deficiencies as a musician or a pastoral person. I didn’t need to blame Father N for being a bad pastor. I can’t control Father N. I can make an effort to reform myself.

Likewise with the situation of church music today. Like my friends at the Cafe, I find many aspects deeply disappointing. I don’t affirm everything I see in the major publishers. But I also don’t think they’re colonies from hell looking to seduce the faithful, even the orthodox, into pelagianism or Wicca or such.

When it comes to art, I don’t expect quick fixes. Especially from a canon lawyer-made-archbishop. You can’t legislate quality. You can’t persuade with a fist. Music, like any kind of ministry, is darned hard work. There are no short cuts. It requires prayer, persuasion, passion, and tenacity. It doesn’t happen because a human being has suddenly been transformed into a savior. Hoping for it is a sure path to disappointment. And with that disappointment, I see the bitterness of the Catholic Right continuing to deepen.

So I wish Archbishop Sample the best on the left coast. I think it would have been better had he stayed put. But that’s not something I’m looking to the next pope to remedy. It will remain, in my view, a serious flaw in ministry. But at the end of the day, I think about what I can control: loving and serving my family and engaging my sacramental life there and in the Eucharist, loving and serving my parish community by being the best liturgist and campus minister I can be. Such a life allows me to focus on personal reform and renewal, and bringing Christ (when I can get out of the way) to a relatively small circle of people. Which is as it should be.

 

Teaching and/or Responding to Atheism

To some, it seems to make sense that a Jesuit college would teach a course on atheism. More accurately, the offering is entitled, “Responding to 21st-Century Atheism.” Which is somewhat different in most (but not all) circles from actually teaching atheism as a discipline. It might be suggested that those who don’t perceive the difference might need some college-level learning themselves.

Atheism “has become militant, aggressive and proselytizing,” said (Rev Scott) Lewis, a Jesuit scripture scholar, who teaches the class with three other scholars. “It’s made great in-roads and is now socially acceptable. If you’re young and educated and believe in God, you’re (seen as) a jerk.”

Usually the combination of being young and educated, plus tenacious in belief or ideology is enough to get you labelled a jerk. My internet foils would say I don’t even have to be young. Or educated.

I find it interesting that some people would even find the idea of this course offensive. Is atheism a player in the arena of ideology? I would think so. Does it make sense to prepare oneself for the best arguments that can be hurled at Christ and Christianity? Could we at least dispense with the silly arguments? More from Fr Lewis:

One idea for atheists to leave behind is that people who believe are stupid or naive. And perhaps we should leave behind the idea that an atheist is someone who is not ethical or a good person.

A person can be a believer and be quite intelligent. A person can be an atheist and be quite a morally upright person.

“Responding to Atheism” strikes me as an apologetics theme. Apologetics is supposed to be on the rise, too. The commentariat at RNS is fairly active, for that site.

My sense is that believers should be prepared for many eventualities. Not all of our discussions will focus on the fractional disagreements within liturgy, biblical interpretation, or the color of the tablecloths in the social hall. Militant Christians should understand that most of all. Isn’t the concept of success in battle tied closely with the notion of knowing one’s enemy well?

Given that, is eight weeks of atheism enough?

 

Accidental Religion?

I was reading about the yoga fuss in Encinitas, California public schools. Maybe a person views yoga as exercise, and the use of brain, breathing, and stretching to feel better. So, can that person accidentally practice religion?

I suppose the same could be asked of a pope praying at the Wailing Wall. Or a Jew reading the Gospels.

Or for that matter, an atheist confronted with the singing of Christmas songs, or the posting of the Ten Commandments, or a Christian prayer before a meeting. Is this a sauce simmering for the gander?

 

Clergy Unrest in Kansas City

The NYT surfaces the concerns of Kansas City priests, several conceding that their bishop’s resignation would be a good idea. Fr Michael Clary:

I think it would be easier for us to move forward without Bishop Finn as our bishop.

Bishop Finn is not without defenders, like Fr Vince Rogers:

Yes, there is a divide in the presbyterate, but in my opinion it’s the same old tired divide that has existed from the day he arrived. In a word, some of the priests wish that we had a more liberal bishop, and they are willing to use any means to achieve that end.

On the other hand, some people might posit that having a discredited conservative bishop is better than having an effective conservative. Robert Finn continues to serve as an example that serious sin can be blind, and that committed Catholics who style themselves “faithful” or “orthodox” or “obedient” are no more inclined to be virtuous than those who pose questions, or who are unorthodox, or who otherwise think the Church is going in a bad direction with poor leadership and ministry priorities.

Bishop Finn’s more vocal defenders contribute nothing to the diocese’s practical unity as long as a significant portion of the community think the man should go. And there are concerns that the bishop’s apology seems ambivalent. Fr Matthew Brumleve:

Some say he has made that apology, he has said he’s sorry, but he hasn’t told us what he’s sorry for. Is he sorry he got caught? Is he sorry we don’t see things the way he sees them? Or is he truly sorry for letting down the children of this diocese?

Others think Bishop Finn has satisfied. Fr Angelo Bartulica:

I believe he’s accepted responsibility for what happened and he’s paying the price for it. I don’t understand what more people want.

Let me start a list: sincerity, contrition for specific offenses and the acknowledgement that children were harmed, and that faith has been damaged by scandal, a concession that this is a serious scandal, a disavowal of defenders who perpetrate myths about pornography, an open discussion about what his resignation would accomplish. Bishop Finn will need to symbolic leadership in the range of the witness given by many of his brother bishops of the previous, discredited generation: lifestyle choices and liturgical choices, plus a public ritual not unlike the one given by Archbishop Martin in Dublin.

Otherwise, I suppose I’m content to see him remain in office for what should be sixteen years with a far less effective ministry than it could have been. And if his agenda was more ideological than spiritual, maybe that’s not a bad situation. Too bad that a new Kansas City high school is looking at cutting fundraising expectations 62%. Too bad that sins of exploitation and sex have become a snicker and comedy material. In 2007, I think the bishop was right to focus on the scourge of pornography in the lives of men. I don’t find that effort at all sneer-worthy. Too bad it was limited to the sins of lay people in their homes. Maybe if it included a look at the burdens and temptations within Holy Orders, this episcopacy would have turned out far differently.

Another object lesson in speck, plank, eye. Something we all need to keep in mind. Does Kansas City have a bishop who can lead that mindfulness? And if you think Bishop Finn is the man, why would that be?

 

The Liberal Case Against Cardinal Mahony

I was reading in Tom Roberts’ book The Emerging Catholic Church and found an interesting anecdote about the retired archbishop of Los Angeles. Roberts was writing about research work done by sociologists Richard Schoenherr and Lawrence Young on the projected population of dicoesan clergy. They had troubling news for the US bishops, who, with the Lilly Endowment, commissioned a study on where clergy numbers were heading from 1966 to 2005. It was particularly troubling for the darling of the hate-Right, who was displeased about Dr Schoenherr’s history (as a person who had left active priesthood years before):

I reject that pessimistic assessment and feel that the Catholic Church in our country has been done a great disservice by the Schoenherr report.

…

(The report) presumes that the only factors at work are sociology and statistical research. That is nonsense. We are disciples of Jesus Christ. We live by God’s grace, and our future is shaped by God’s design for his church, not by sociologists.

Most interesting.

The bishops halted their funding for this research in 1990. It’s a puzzler on a few fronts, but maybe not really surprising considering the overall quality of the American episcopate over the past generation.

First, disciples of the Lord are shaped by the truth, and by our commitment to it. Let’s say we have information that the entire world is made up of pagans. Maybe the apostles were dismayed in the first century at this news. Regardless, they did not find it daunting that they were rejected by members of their own faith, and they develed deep into the pagan empire of Rome to spread the Good News. It would have been easier for Peter to say, “Too darn many people. Let’s just stick with Judea, and Matthew’s Gospel up to 28:15.” And perhaps for some of our sister and brother Catholics: they dwell on the smaller, purer church–because the alternative is just to dang hard.

Second, no serious and thoughtful person would decline to receive important news, even if it were bad. I had a repair guy tell me I’m on the hook for a $193 component for my furnace. Maybe I can bundle up in sweaters during the day and tuck myself under a comforter at night, but the reality is that if I want an operating heating system, I’m going to have to face the truth: one important part of my home is broke, and I have to pay to fix it. The sociologists are not shaping the future. They are just telling the bishops that the temperature is going to drop in their mansion if they don’t attend to what’s broken.

This is part of the cult of leadership around many leaders in our society. People have allowed their intellects to dull to the point where they attack messengers of bad news. I’ve felt the sting of people who are infuriated at bad news I bring. Sorry, but I didn’t have forty million abortions. Like them, I just live in a country that has them.

Count me as not surprised, but disappointed in Cardinal Mahony. There’s nothing really wrong with being a conservative. Some of my best friends are. But what is more troubling is a passive and unresponsive mode of engaging the good world God has given us. If a meteorologist predicts cold and snow, maybe I’ll wear shoes instead of sandals. But I won’t blame the weather forecasters if my feet get cold and red if I take option #2.

A wise conservative, when confronted with sociological trends, would take them under serious advisement. A spiritual person, when confronted with sociological realities, might look to her or his interior life, and assess what part of vocation unawareness is due to her or his own fault. Then take steps to change the things that can be changed.

Cardinal Mahony’s response to clergy sociological trends strikes me as neither wise nor spiritual. And what has it got him? Dr Schoenherr’s piece of “pessimism” has largely been right on. If Cardinal Mahony has been praying and beating the bushes for native-born seminarians for twenty years, it got him nothing. Maybe he rubbed his toes before heading out into a snowstorm in sandaled feet. They still got red. They still got cold. The loss seems less that the number of clergy have declined largely as sociologists anticipated. The loss is that the archbishop and his friends seem largely clueless.

Back to Jesus, and his criticism of religious leadership:

Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, ‘Surely we are not also blind, are we” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.” (John 9:40-41)

No, I think liberal Catholics have a lot to criticize in Cardinal Mahony. I wouldn’t count him as a fellow tribesman. Not by a long shot.

 

 

Falsification

Falsification is the principle by which a person tests her or his ideas for possible flaws. In a nutshell, a person considers a plan and then reflects on the possibilities that might derail the effort. Good scientists engage in it. A hypothesis is forwarded, and the researcher considers ways in which a theory can be proved wrong. It strikes me as a rational and orderly approach to the principle “What can go wrong, will go wrong.” Pessimism or pragmatism? Either way, it’s at the core of skilled scientific inquiry.

Something caught my attention in this month’s issue of Chess Life: Andy Soltis’ regular column “Chess To Enjoy.” In it, he looks at the difficult and complex relationship between optimism, worry, and success at the chessboard. In probing the idea of worry, he cites a 2004 study by Michelle Cowley and Ruth Byrne. In this research a group of chessplayers of varying abilities were tested, from average tournament players to the master level, and even a grandmaster. They were given various chess positions and asked to think “out loud” as they analyzed the situation and tried to find the best move.

Top players would find a candidate move, then spend considerable time searching for ways in which the opponent could counter. Players below master level routinely engaged in confirmation bias. When they found a move they loved, they would look for affirmation, then play it. Great chessplayers are thought to be far-thinking in their calculating processes. And the Cowley-Byrne research confirmed this. But more striking to psychologists was the content of the extended calculations. Masters underestimate their candidate move, presume the best of an opponent, and look for flaws in their idea. Amateurs are overconfident, grow attached to their good ideas, and look not so much to the best of what an opponent can deliver to counter their efforts.

Some observations …

In more than a decade online, I have to say that the internet is full of amateurs. People who have good ideas, and who trot them out there with the highest hopes. Often, issues are quickly muddied up, even if they’re citing good authorities. It’s the confirmation bias of chessplayers below the level of master. They don’t test their ideas in the crucible of critical thinking. Things have probably worsened for people who just hang with like-minded allies. Their arguments don’t get poked, probed, and pushed back.

I could use more falsification in my ministry. We’re just starting to revise Communion ministry procedure at the altar in my parish, for a possible implementation after we return to the church and when the pastor comes back from his leave. Lots of things have been suggested, and in one particular suggestion to get the chalices in the hands of the lay Communion ministers more expediently, I take the role of the pessimist. What can go wrong with this procedure? What is the likeliest way for people to mess it up? If it strays too far from old practice, what will I do with the dozen to twenty people our of ninety who never read updates, won’t attend a review session, or who have been doing it for so long they can’t break old habits without great difficulty?

Have I inherited this pessimism from my chessplaying days? Or 25 years of parish ministry? Not as much as would like.

At any rate, it’s a good spur to examine some aspects of my life. What are my presumptions? About parenting, personal finances, hobbies, and even blogging? Is there anything I’m doing that I think is a good idea, but that maybe isn’t? This is one reason I value my wife and our relationship. Being rather different in many personality aspects, we negate the tendency for confirmation bias in one another. We have unity on the essentials: love, respect, faith. We challenge one another on important things: parenting, finances, lifestyle choices. It works better because we’re not the same, because we disagree, and I count my blessings for being a better person and that I don’t have an echo chamber going along with every good notion that pops into my head.

Our bishops, alas, do not enjoy this grace. The higher one goes in the church hierarchy, the more one senses that confirmation bias rules the day. Minds and hearts and spirits are like those chess amateurs. They find a good move. They believe in it. They look around them for confirmation. They don’t think of the negative consequences, and they don’t seem to test things morally, intellectually, theologically.

 

Truth and Revision

What to do when the search for the truth and the embrace of it confronts us? To the point where it might suggest a wholescale change in the way we see things?

Christopher Columbus is outed as an advocate and practitioner of sex slavery. This is not really news. Lots of loyal Americans looked on 1992 as an awkward moment, and others no less loyal lamented the beginning of a genocide against natives of our western continents. What on earth to do with this? Am I obligated to renounce my membership in the Knights of Columbus? Or just decline to use the man’s name or even the usual acronym, “KC” or “KofC”?

I was thinking about a city in which I once served. The local Catholic High School is named for “Columbus.” (Why not a saint? Don’t ask me.) Suppose some students, faculty, parents, or other Catholics began a campaign to change the name. Would I be obliged to support it? Would opposition be dismayed from a sense of passing a positive judgment on a person who fell far short of a Gospel ideal as viewed through a modern lens? Would the lack of support from Catholics possibly cede the moral high ground to secular feminists or others supporting or conducting such a campaign?

How much scrutiny should the Church apply to its saints? Does declared sainthood mean or even imply that criticism of the person is out of bounds? What about honest research? Does avoidance of history serve the truth? And which is more damaging to the faith: that heroes are revealed as sinners, or that we hide the “scandalous” news from others?

Looks like a dozen questions, give or take. I have a lot of questions today, and very few answers. Comments are welcome if you have either or both.

 

Popularity Or Adulation?

Most Christians might agree that too much of anything is likely a bad thing.

A common meme/theme of the past few years among some internet Catholics is that “popularity” is a questionable thing. A pastor never preaches on “bad” things like abortion, politics, or sex, and theoretically he’s popular among his parishioners. Especially if the money keeps flowing into the parish and school coffers. And everybody leaves the Sunday assembly with a bounce in their step and an overly loud voice in the narthex while the remnant pray within.

As with many ideological matters, I’m a skeptic on this. Sure, there are some human beings who dislike conflict, and go to great lengths to avoid it. They usually don’t last long at St Blog’s. There are also people who relish a good fight, and the pulpit-to-pew conduit is as good a place as any, as long as someone else is squirming. No doubt there are people who try to cultivate others to “like” them. I would say this is a different issue from popularity. It’s psychological. It’s a matter of a leader’s maturity. Some of the fighters have maturity issues, too. Maturity, or lack of it, seems more the root problem than popularity.

I’d say Western Culture indulges immaturity with our cult of celebrity. Musicians, athletes, actors, and invented “stars” of so-called reality tv–they are mostly all part of a machine that toasts fame. Follow this hero, we are often told. And buy the product they help us to sell to you.

We can’t evade the simple truth that people of all walks of life have heroes. These heroes are often popular. And even in the Catholic internet Age of Orthodoxy, orthodox heroes have massive followings. Occasionally, one of those heroes has a massive fall (or falling out) and then the sides line up: protectors and critics. And then “popularity” takes a hit.

I’m not sure that popularity is as much the enemy of faithfulness as adulation. Adulation is defined by Merriam-Webster as “excessive or slavish admiration or flattery.” The word is rooted in a Latin notion of dogs jumping, barking, and licking a person to annoyance. If we’re used to leaping and yelling and buying product from our Catholic heroes, perhaps the flaw is more in us than in the people we raise to pedestals.

Jesus warns against an empty popularity, but I have to wonder about the context: is this within the Christian community or outside? Does it have more to do with those who feel satisfied with their lives in contrast to those who go without in the faith community or in the world? The Beatitudes refer to those in need. Do leaders address these needs and inspire assistance? Or are they too wrapped up in their followings? That is where the Lord is leveling his criticism at those whom others praise.

One thing I think we can all mostly agree on is that popularity is not the end, nor even really the means. It is a potential byproduct among a subset of believers. Popularity may happen when someone visibly lives an authentic Christian life. Perhaps that authenticity leads others to Christ. This would be good. Perhaps that authentic and public life leads one to gather followers. As long as the situation steers clear of Corinth, where believers competed under the banners of various leaders, we should be on safe ground.

But let’s look at the criticism of popularity carefully. We can assess the maturity of the leader and followers. We can determine if popularity is the goal or merely a byproduct of a genuine leader. We can also assess when things veer into adulation–because it’s then I think the Christian community has a real problem.

 

A Fly In The Soup

Rod Dreher and a few on the Catholic Right are waxing outraged over this piece of the Fr Benedict Groeschel fallout: firing NCReg interviewer John Burger.

I’ve known a lot of colleagues in ministry get fired in far pettier circumstances. Often orthodox conservative Catholics crow when someone they dislike loses a job. Deal Hudson was famous for engineering it. And getting cheered on about it. If this latest episode is poignant for some of my brother and sister believers, then good for them.

I’m more sympathetic to John Burger than you might expect. But still: I hesitate getting fully onboard Rod’s train on this one.

That Fr Groeschel interview was an in-house puff-piece. It was conceived, it seems, as a feel-good feature about a popular guy who worked for the same outfit as the interviewer/editor. It wasn’t serious journalism as portrayed by the Sally Field character getting grilled by her newsroom colleague here. NCReg and EWTN and their followers were supposed to all read it, and feel a little bit better about themselves. There’s nothing wrong with good news, mind you. Until it ran off the rails of good public relations and became a wedge among those on the Catholic Right, and an occasion of shock elsewhere. In that light, Mr Burger didn’t do his job. His mistake was that he didn’t seem to recognize when the interview morphed from a friendly chat into a minor blockbuster hitched to Jerry Sandusky and the disgraced Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado.

Let’s say a food reporter visits a restaurant and sees a fly land in the soup. Maybe that’s news if the whole room is having an Amityville moment. Maybe not if a single wayward insect found its way onto the outdoor terrace. There’s a judgment to be made about what is essential to the story. With a feature that focuses on local restaurants as good places to eat, maybe the journalist just asks for another bowl, please, and reports on the blend of meat, veggies, and spices. The entomology not so much. Unless, of course, the newspaper is part of a conglomerate that owns a rival local restaurant chain. Then the whole story would be journalistic fodder. Maybe the same is true of NCReg and their handling of John Burger.

I’m usually not happy to hear of a person getting fired. A solid, experienced, qualified person is hard to replace, and involves its own costs: search committees, temporary work loads for colleagues, orienting a new employee. Not to mention moving vans, home sales, and change-of-address forms.

I’m sure the employees at the NCReg have gotten a message loud and clear: don’t screw up or you’re next. The only problem from a Christian viewpoint is that the message is to protect the organization at all costs. That doesn’t seem to be very different from the US bishops, the Legion of Christ, or Big Time College Football.

 

What If Second Marriages Were Handled With Probation?

As I was reading over the conditions of Bishop Robert Finn’s probation, I was wondering what would happen if the Church handled divorced and remarried Catholics in a similar way. Two years of good behavior, then a return to the sacramental life of the Church. I hear and read a lot from the Catholic Right making distinctions between justice and mercy. Bishop Finn experienced mercy. Maybe that’s an experience worth sharing.

 

Milwaukee’s 200-Year Plan

I’ve been on the fence commenting about Cardinal Martini’s parting interview which has been getting lots of Catholic blogosphere traction the past few days. For a few days, it seemed enough to let others carry the ball on the supposed “progressive hero” that I honestly didn’t know much about. The news from Milwaukee tips me over. If there’s a good way to link up two stories in some new way, I’m inclined to jump in with both feet.

The deceased cardinal has been quoted all over Google as saying the Catholic Church is two-hundred years out of date. More on the Reuters translation from Corriere della Sera:

Our culture has aged, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up; our rituals and our cassocks are pompous.

…

The church must admit its mistakes and begin a radical change, starting from the pope and the bishops. The pedophilia scandals oblige us to take a journey of transformation.

No spit.

The Catholic Right is in full spin on this one, including Britain’s Catholic Herald:

(P)lease let us remember that reform is not to be confused with abolition.

Even the CH admits there’s nothing about doctrine getting pulled back. So why are they even bringing it up? Just to make sure the alarm spreads, and any potential renewal gets a quick clamp down.

A bit more than a decade ago, Milwaukee’s archbishop got no little Vatican heat for suggesting that rather than close parishes, he would prefer that communities surface viri probati, “proven men” who, though married, would make sound, reliable, and honored clergy to continue the mid-1900′s wave/glut of ordained priests. So much for the proven solution. Slap it down, then let the Jovial One pass on the tough decisions to his sorry-sap successor, who tries to put the best face on it:

Now that a long-term strategy has been determined for the archdiocese, it is extremely important for each parish and cluster to become actively involved in planning for the future. Each pastor or parish director in consultation with the parish pastoral council is charged with the responsibility for these planning efforts. The full implementation of the plan will require the collaborative efforts of everyone in the archdiocese.

Collaboration is indeed a worthy strategy to share. But I can’t help but think Archbishop Listecki is a cover boy for Cardinal Martini’s 200-Year comment. While it may have a time-honored practice in the West, a celibate priesthood is not a matter of faith and morals. It has nothing to do with doctrine. Even if the Church was somewhat preoccupied with Napoleon on the loose two centuries ago, there was no reason not to explore the viri probati solution, say, thirty to forty years ago. Would have done Catholics a lot more good than an Anglican Ordinariate. Or the return of the TLM. Ask Bishop Lennon in Cleveland if he wished he’d have dodged getting taken to ecclesiastical court over his reduction plan.

Let’s not kid ourselves. This has nothing to do with doctrine. Cardinal Martini was being generous with his brother prelates in the curia. They and their neo-aristocrat followers want to dial it back to the Dark Ages. Make no mistake about that.

And as for your own bishop, be aware of his priorities in all this. If he has to close a hundred parishes to prop up the 200-years, he’s going to be his own best advocate, career trail or not. You can bet he will never, ever buck the institution on the non-doctrinal front for you or any of your diocesan parishes.

 

More Antigospel Preaching

This commentary has been getting traction at HLI and among a few FB friends. I think Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro’s point is just plain silly.

(F)or those Catholics who cannot bring themselves to believe the formal teachings of the Church on life and family matters it would be more honest to leave the Church rather than betraying Her.

This commentary is astray on a number of fronts.

First, betrayal is a rather serious charge. In citing Pope Benedict, Msgr Barreiro considers the situation of Judas. But other apostles betrayed Christ. Peter denied the Lord, then abandoned him. Paul conducted a campaign of murder against believers. All three arrived at a moment of contrition. Peter and Paul knew there was a community willing to embrace them. In Peter’s case, he had a lot of company, but the women who did not abandon the Lord still accepted him. And Paul, though there was doubt as to his motives, was eventually received and revered by the early Christians. Judas’ problem wasn’t that he failed to leave Jesus earlier. It was his own sense of profound separation from the Lord and from the community that led him to feel first remorse, and then despair to the point of suicide. There are people all over the Church who are wrong on life and family matters. Some of them are active bishops. I may not like the sins they have committed, but I am obliged to love them. And I must admit, they are as much a part of the Body as I am.

Second, I think it’s extremely problematic for a person who dissents from Church teaching to actually teach the dissenting view. That is where a person should step back, not from membership, but from the role as teacher.

Third, we must all recognize that we are a community of sinners. Within the life issue of abortion, there are distinctions between a person who actively procures an abortion, and someone who might prefer that the ability to persuade others is within one’s skills, rather than place hope on a political system to outlaw some or all procedures. Many pro-life Catholics make a conscious choice to decline to associate ourselves with the political pro-life movement. And the Church does not obligate me to embrace particular political or social methods or to emulate behavior I don’t judge to be Christian. That might cause observers to rub their chins and say, “Hmm.” But adhering to the HLI line is not Gospel. As much as it might make some HLI followers “feel better” about the issue.

Fourth, Msgr Barriero is advocating a self-inflicted penalty even stronger than the one accorded to those who have procured an abortion. That seems drastically out of line.

In light of the challenges of evangelization, I have to wonder if this SCGS* meme hasn’t fallen prey to its own divergence from Church teaching: hopelessness. Believers don’t get to suggest who should be removed from the fold. That duty belongs to the Lord. Not a priest with “a doctorate in Dogmatic theology.” We may not like a pro-choice Catholic or a misbehaving bishop. But we are always urged to cultivate hope, and to avoid becoming like those Jesus did condemn, we likely need to apply hope to people we don’t think are suitable.

Speaking for myself, every baptized person has a place in the Church. Don’t ever let anyone suggest you’re better off elsewhere. Or certainly that we’re better off without you. God’s grace manages the truth of things great and small. No believer has any place making suggestions to leave. That role is reserved to God.

*Small Church, getting smaller

 

A Compassionate Standard For Others?

When I read Fr Groeschel’s comment about ordained sex predators:

And I’m inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime.

… I was thinking of other missed opportunities of mercy. Women ordained to the Catholic priesthood for the first time: maybe they shouldn’t be excommunicated.