Is Anonymous Protest Helpful?

PrayTell posts from an anonymous priest preaching morality to the non-anonymous 99%.

I’ve already made my strong distaste for this type of anonymity made known there. It was pointed out that speaking out has its cost. Frankly, I don’t need clergy coaching me on ecclesiastical politics and the cost of discipleship.

Fr Jim Blue, defender of Father Anonymous:

In a world where serious input is requested and welcomed by ecclesiastical authorities that would work, Todd, but the sad truth is that no cleric can speak the truth about the VC2010 without sacrificing his career. That goes for clerics at all levels.

So instead we get this piece of wishy-washy preaching:

Perhaps it would be more honest just not to show up, and to pray at home or elsewhere—but perhaps too it’s important that we not overreact to the moral failures of our hierarchy by letting these failures provoke us into absenting ourselves from the Church of our baptism. Such integrity from the ordinary members of the Church amid authority’s failures has noble precedent.

I think I get it. This priest is happy to preserve his path to glory, or at least in keeping stocked in whisky and cigars and in-house plumbing. But it’s fine to muse about advising people to skip Mass. Or maybe not: he can’t decide. Maybe this is just a typing exercise, and it has nothing to do with morality at all.

So as to my question in the title above: I vote two thumbs down. This sort of pontificating is even worse than the MoroneyMissal, which, as many agree, is horrific enough.

Taking a stand, a public stand, in the face of opposition is indeed dangerous, unnerving, and challenging. But a believer, not to mention a priest, is called by God, by nature of baptism, to imitate the Master. If an issue is important enough to merit an internet sermon on morality, then by God, the person taking the Church to task should step out from behind the computer, the curtain of anonymity, and do what is needed. And do it publicly. And if it’s not important enough to imitate the Lord and demonstrate the Paschal Mystery, I don’t think the message is worth hearing.

 

Tough Questions

… being asked in full-color illustration. I was noticing in the Des Moines Register Sunday paper, there was a whole page of OWS news. Six items, I think it was. From all over the country.

Don’t think this effort is going away anytime soon. It’s going to be a long winter–and I don’t mean for the people drinking hot cocoa in city parks.

 

The Catholic Way

Nice the confluence of the study of Catholic lay independence from our hierarchy and the reaction to the Vatican document on economics.

As a long-time observer of Catholics, especially the internet brand, it’s all too predictable. Catholics, bishops and laity alike, are human beings. When unenlightened, they are liable to the same blind spots as anyone else. People look for a ready excuse to go their own way. In other words, they make the decision they want, then alter the current around them to justify what they say or do.

But really: where else can an observer of people be so entertained? You know the social and moral wreckage is coming. The only novelty is where the debris will land this time. Archbishops Chaput, Dolan, et al. want to be relevant. But let’s face it: they are not.

By the way, blogging will continue to be light for the next few days. I seem to have landed the flu, either from my shot or from my family. When in the full upright position, light-headedness ensues. So I think it’s time for a nap.

 

Laughing At The Days To Come

As one commenter here pointed out, Christians make up 78% of the American citizenry. So why are Christians, all of a sudden, running scared contemplating being carted off to prison or being martyred for the faith? Bishops have talked about it. But it’s far more likely a bishop will go to prison for his personal crimes than for any injustice perpetrated upon his conscience.

I think the canticle to the worthy wife at the end of the book of Proverbs is a healthier approach, even in times of political turmoil, and worldwide economic depression. Especially this line:

She is clothed with strength and dignity,
and laughs at the days to come. (Proverbs 31:25)

To be clear, while I’m tempted to laugh at doomsayers, I honestly try not to. People have real concerns. And powerful interests in our society have a vested interest in keeping people afraid. We should be laughing at celebrity pratfalls, not the fatcats at the top of the heap at Bank of America. We should be laughing when the corporate sponsors cue us on television sitcoms. We should be worried about who will survive, who will be our next idol, and for heaven’s sake, who will win the next round at the bread-n-circus productions at the local stadium or arena.

For people who criticize the culture at-large, many conservatives seem to relish rolling in the mud with all the rest. Don’t you think it’s time to laugh at the future?

 

Spinning Assisi

And I don’t mean very bright celestial objects turning silver and rotating overhead. The Vatican is trying like heck to pacify the Temple Police (some of whom are ready to excommunicate the last pope) and you have to love this quote from Cardinal Peter Turkson:

During the pilgrimage, the walk, in silence …

And the silence is not prayer? Same destination. Same saint.

(T)he real prayer will be here at St. Peter’s on the vigil (Oct. 26) when the Holy Father is with the Catholic faithful.

The real prayer? Is Cardinal Turkson for real? Catholics really pray and everybody else are kind of unreal?

The emphasis is on pilgrimage rather than on praying together.

I thought a pilgrimage was prayer. If a good Catholic spots a Buddhist on the El Camino de Santiago –or even a Protestant– does she or he have to scoot on ahead. Avoid the same footsteps?

(F)or the first time, four nonbelievers — three philosophers and an economist — have accepted a papal invitation to attend.

That just sounds like a bad joke. (Did you hear the one about the three philosophers and the economist who went on a pilgrimage to Assisi …?)

There’s really something to the notion that by try not to offend anyone, one might well end up with the worst offense of all.

 

Occupy the Church?

Tom Beaudoin suggests another occupation site.

At Occupy London, organizers moved from the London Stock Exchange to St. Paul’s Cathedral, where as many as 250 protesters set up tents. As police prepared to “protect” the building, the cleric in charge of the facility, Giles Fraser, intervened. “Canon Fraser came out to greet us. It was amazing,” protesters said. “He defended the right to protest [and] asked the police to leave, and they did!”

Occupy, of course, is not a new concept. Christ invited occupation, even when it’s an annoyance.

Suppose one of you has a friend to whom he goes at midnight and says, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, for a friend of mine has arrived at my house from a journey and I have nothing to offer him,’ and he says in reply from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been locked and my children and I are already in bed. I cannot get up to give you anything.’ I tell you, if he does not get up to give him the loaves because of their friendship, he will get up to give him whatever he needs because of his persistence.

“And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:5-10)

The corporate media sites are centering on what will sell: tales of violence and a lack of manners. The violent and unmannerly are also to be found behind the locked doors of boardrooms.

Speaking for myself, I would like to see churches occupied. When my last parish was mentioned as a target of SNAP protests on a particular upcoming Sunday, I urged we welcome the protesters. Invite them in after Mass for coffee. Speak kindly to them outside. We have nothing to fear from those who ask, seek, and knock.

 

Occupy Anti-Apologists

Needless to say, our corporate masters are scared spitless that they are the targets of a few thousand worldwide protests. I note that even in the Catholic blogosphere (such as here), the attempt is in full flower to discredit:

… perpetual adolescents … babies (having trouble getting the age group nailed down here, I see) … sheer ignorance … (they) live in their own filth … too many degrees in grievance driven fields like Gender Studies or unicorn and glitter … Leftist dirtbags … OWS scumbags (so which is it: scum or dirt?) … squatters … their filthy lucre …

It’s all entertaining to a point, if you like comedy.

Comforting to know the all-seeing, all-knowing Catholic commentariat is on the ball with yours truly: I’m a hypocrite, naturally, just for smelling up their echo chamber with a hint of doubt. Personally, I think they need a higher level of skepticism when it comes to what the conservative media, pajamas and suits both, are feeding them. Me, I prefer a nice smoked turkey sandwich on pumpernickel bread.

I have no direct experience with either Occupy or the Tea Party. Took advantage of an opportunity to take my wife out for lunch yesterday instead of wandering over to see what Occupy ISU was up to. I see my city has its second Occupy group. Good. Maybe I’ll check out one of their events. Being the good Boy Scout I was raised to be, I can assure you I’ll be picking up my own trash, thank you. Unless it should instead be recycled.

 

Bishop For President

My friend John is in the US, visiting. I think he hits town here in the Midwest sometime next week. His bishop (John’s image from his blog, right) will be resigning soon, and is seeking Vatican permission to run for president. I have to ask him for the inside story on what appeared in the CNS news briefs yesterday, item #7.

Bishop Luis Santos Villeda of Santa Rosa de Copan:

But now that I’m retiring as bishop, I hope to speak with the pope and get his permission. I would no longer be bishop or have any church office, but would remain a priest. I could celebrate Mass privately in the morning before showing up in the presidential office at 8 a.m.

More of CNS on that diocese. Wow. Two stories in two days. That’s probably more stories than any major librul news network has done on Central America in any given year.

 

Occupying Our Attention

This Occupy movement is really getting under some people’s skins, isn’t it? Good. Tom Tomorrow has his usual insightful offering here.

My governor isn’t happy:

The governor said he was worried about the effect the protests could have on businesses and the economy.

(Terry) Branstad warned against “attacking people who want to invest and create jobs.”

Sounds like a typical (and not terribly original) GOP talking point we’ve heard from Wall Street. I think the Republicans and their corporate overlords are getting worried. Good.

I confess I was surprised to see rotten tomatoes headlining the Columbus Day weekend at CNS. Silly legislation doesn’t get the anti-business scrutiny if it has GOP and corporate backing, eh?

In local news, I see the Occupy movement has finally come to town. Good. I was wondering when this was going to happen.

 

BBC on BCE and CE

I find it hard to get as excited as some about the BBC’s decision to keep the numbers but adjust the lettering. L’Osservatore Romano, as quoted on CNS yesterday:

To deny the historically revolutionary importance of the coming of Christ on earth, which is also accepted by those who do not recognize him as the son of God, is an act of enormous foolishness.

Or have the Anno Domini apologists been punked? BBC’s Aaqil Ahmed:

Whilst attending the recording last Sunday some people asked me about a story that had made the headlines that day concerning the use of date systems BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era). The story, suggesting we had dropped AD (Anno Domini) and BC (Before Christ), was quite simply wrong. We have issued no editorial guidelines or instructions to suggest that anyone in the BBC should change the terms they use. The BBC, like most people, use BC and AD as standard terminology.

But we recognise that it is possible to use different terminology, and that some people do: that is what is reflected on our Religion website. Even though we told the newspaper this, they ran the story anyway.

Just for the record, for our religion and ethics programming on BBC television and radio we generally use AD and BC. It is a shame that people seeking to make mischief should cast a shadow over the wonderful celebration of our Christian religious heritage that is Songs of Praise.

You would think that the truth would settle things. But probably not. Not only does this story have legs, but more importantly, it has bile.

Which brings me to a more serious musing for the day. Do you think anything will ever supplant AD/CE in terms of numbering our years? Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series gives two dating systems, that of the Galactic Empire and later in the stories, that of the Foundation era. But those stories take place about fifty millennia into the author’s future. What sort of event, other than the obliteration of human civilization, would ever replace something as entrenched as dating time from the young childhood of the Lord?

 

The Unread Letter

Interesting story on Vatican Insider. Do you wonder if President Bush or anyone else ever did read the letter? Their inside source:

Laghi knew his mission had failed, but he also realized that the Bush administration was very naïve about the consequences of war.

Ya think?

On a cultural note picking up that theme, there is this terrific song by a duet far more harmonious than the GOP and the Catholic Church.

 

Marriages and Recognized Relationships

An Australian priest in Queensland seems to have sorted out the separate issues in the matter of same-sex unions and marriage. Church marriage for heterosexual couples only, and civil unions otherwise:

I’ve got no problem with people wanting their relationships recognised.

…

The issue for me is that [same sex relationships] is not what marriage is.

Is there a potential benefit to all this? George Weigel would not approve of the “soviet” development, but Fr Mick Lowcock wonders …

… if we should take up a European system where couples go to the courthouse to get their relationship recognised by the state and then the church if they want to have it blessed.

 

Temporary Amarillo Priesthood?

From CNS today, I’m not sure what to make of Fr Frank Pavone’s quote:

I fully expect that my time in Amarillo, both in terms of this immediate trip and in terms of my affiliation with that diocese is going to be temporary.

Fr Pavone’s bishop has questions about thepriest’s management of a financially lucrative operation.

I sure hope we’re not going to land in Corapiville on this one. A few observations:

- Lay ministers are free agents. Bishops don’t provide for us. Pastors do, and at their own initiative. We are free to move anywhere, work anywhere the Church will have us serve.

- Diocesan clergy are not free agents. They answer to a bishop, work with their brother priests, and serve the people of their assignment. I don’t know how to get around that and maintain integrity. If a movement is political, a lay person should be in charge.

- A priest-member of a religious order is answerable to his community.

In which category does Fr Pavone fit?

I don’t understand what appears to be a lack of integrity in a statement that essentially says, “I’ll obey, but I’m not long for greener pastures.” Isn’t this Fr Pavone’s second diocese, not counting some religious order he once formed?

 

The Mayor and the Non-Invited

Some NYC Catholic bloggers (here and especially here) are banging the drum on the no-clergy-speeches-edict at the 9/11 memorial tomorrow. Recognizing that I was driving six miles below Air Force One on that day, and not near the targets of attacks, I don’t get the level of angst about this. It seems like a local political decision, and that, by a wealthy politician who walked around the rules about term limits. New Yorkers elected him regardless. If you don’t like him or his decisions, vote him out in 2013. Can you recall him? It sure sounds serious enough to look into it.

The only local politics that interest me are in my own locality. I can’t perceive this as more than local politics, though with a good dollop of symbolism for the country and for religious people.

I’m aware one of the foundation stones of St Blog’s is 9/11.

Yet I’m surprised at the venom staining the mayor’s $7000 suit.

I think it can be argued that clergy wouldn’t be out of place at the 9/11 memorial, even if they weren’t invited to speak. It might be that in a city the size of New York, there might need to be a lot of folks invited: Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Evangelical, Muslim … Does it get to be a headache deciding which? Especially that last category? I can see somebody shrugging it off and deciding it’s a lot simpler, venom included, to just junk the whole idea.

Don’t know what’s wrong with Sunday evening Vespers at the cathedral, or at a bunch of other churches. And if Mayor Bloomberg gets to make this call, people are free to disinvite themselves and go elsewhere, right? The guy campaigned for a third term on the premise that a businessman was needed to lead people out of an economic crisis, right? Nothing religious about that, except maybe worshiping at the altar of mammon.

Or maybe there’s some bigger reason I’m missing. If so, let me know.

 

Those Brits Worry The Right

The sex-obsessed Right (here and here, for example) is all atwitter about one British politician who wants to take civil marriage out of the purview of religion because some churches oppose same-sex civil partnerships. More George Weigel/Archbishop Dolan stuff.

It reminds me of a conversation overheard between one of my staff colleagues and a TP-leaning student last year. Said student didn’t want government interference in people living their lives as they thought best: fewer regulations, lower taxes, less socialism–that kind of stuff. My colleague pressed that point when the conversation turned to same-sex unions in Iowa. Why wouldn’t the same principle apply to a gay or lesbian union? Don’t other people get bothered being told what they can and can’t do in society?

I think the Right’s kerfuffle over this will get a lot more traction when a gay man forces me to divorce my wife in order to have a church marriage with him.

Then maybe I’ll line up with the conservatives on this one.

Frankly, I don’t think it would be a bad idea to turn over civil marriage to civil authorities. Religious people can always celebrate their marital commitment in any ritual, liturgical, sacramental, or other holy way they want to within the walls of their home or church. And nobody outside can do anything about that.

Personally speaking, I have more than enough relationship, sacramental, and parenting issues I share with my wife. I don’t want, and I don’t need to have a say in what other couples do. I have plenty of work to do every day to support my traditional marriage. Maybe when I get that figured out, I might have something to say about other people. For now, unless the bishops want to make a big deal about outlawing what the Church teaches is the immoral part of same-sex unions–namely the sex–this argument against same-sex unions strikes me as anti-gay. And I want no part of that.