Archbishop Dolan Pulled Back From The Brink

Archbishop Dolan’s transatlantic travel plans have been cancelled. I see that the Vatican has shelved plans to send a delegation of bishops to Syria.

Syria is a horrific story to follow. The whole world is watching. Well, the part not consumed and obsessed by “threats to American religious freedom” anyway. And the world is seemingly powerless. To me the escalation of hostilities by both sides (This resistance did start as non-violent, didn’t it?) illustrates perfectly the impotence of violence. And it shows that military and economic might is simply not enough to enrich and embellish human existence on its most basic level: growing up, becoming educated, marrying and having a family, finding meaningful work that contributes to one’s person and one’s society. And following God. Ugliness, bitterness, and anger will overtake us at any turn.

I was actually looking forward to seeing what the Jovial One would say and do after he returned from Damascus. They say that grim realities of life were an education for the conservative prelate of San Salvador in the 70′s. Would that all bishops were open to the post-installation education of Oscar Romero. Then maybe Archbishop George’s oft-cited witticism (full story on that here) would have some real teeth, rather than being an ironic predictor of future sex abuse cover-ups.

Not far behind is the impotence of rich businessdudes who advocate for revolution in our own country. I suppose that from the penthouse of Trump Tower, it would look like a scene on faraway tv. And just as one can turn off the tube, Mr Trump can close the curtains. And delete his tweets, pretending it never happened.

Even more disturbing that the robocalls haven’t been turned off (I got two messages last night on my cell.) are the calls on Catholic blogs calling for revolution, resistance, and “taking the gloves off” the next time. Are they trying to tell me all those fists with tense knuckles were really mittens? The Anchoress says people need time to “process.” I suppose she’s right. I hope that processing will lead to more civility, more listening, and more discernment. She’s been among those who have suggested that truth knows no civility and we shouldn’t be shy about being firm and in-your-face about what we believe and what we believe others should believe.

Where do you suppose Archbishop Dolan will go next?

 

New Hymnal Dust-Ups

James Frazier has completed a five-part review for PrayTell of three new publications: the Vatican II Hymnal, the Adoremus Hymnal, and the St Michael Hymnal.

Some disclaimers: I’ve commented liberally on the PT threads in question. I have no intention of blowing up ninety percent of my parish’s musical repertoire, so I’m not a potential buyer of any publication that eliminates all texts and many tunes from the past half century. Except for viewing the online pages offered by these publishers I have not seen the books in question.

That said, I have read about some aspects of these books in the reviews. If true, they would be a serious concern:

At least one composer acknowledges his submissions are not ackowledged in print because of an “oversight.” Is he alone?

One defender of the V2H offers the ecclesiastical approval of Mass settings and the hymnal as a whole. But this is not a license to infringe on copyrights.

Another commenter online lamented that the Church’s liturgy is copyrighted, and that this doesn’t seem right. Well, the NAB is too. Which is probably why archaic English texts of the propers were given on one sample page I viewed. There are approved translations for these antiphons. Even if they are sung in Latin, should they be translated “accurately”? And more importantly, translated texts of the Church’s liturgy are, like it or not, copyrighted. In English, by ICEL.

These notices of source material belong in print–somewhere in the book. I’ve been asking people all day: are they included or not?

 

 

More From The Cult of Celebrity

I see David Gibson’s piece on Father Frank, freed. Entertaining, if not informative, are the comments. Including:

Yes, we need Father Corapi back, and now Father (Groeschel) as well back on EWTN to be running full speed ahead!!!!!!!!!

I guess Bishop Zurek has learned his lesson well. Endure a few months of anger from some political pro-lifers, witness a Vatican clap on the back for the crusader, then jettison the dude like when you find a chip of a shell in that mouthful of Oysters Rockefeller.

Are there any Catholics left in Dinesh D’Souza’s court? What do you think about his explanation on post-Catholic post-marriage relationship ventures?

I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings.  Obviously I would not have introduced Denise as my fiancé at a Christian apologetics conference if I had thought or known I was doing  something wrong. But as a result of all this, and to avoid even the appearance  of impropriety, Denise and I have decided to suspend our engagement.

Okay. In some Christian circles it is considered wrong to be married after being divorced. It can be considered a breach of propriety to appear at the same early morning hour with one’s love interest, even with separate sleeping arrangements.

Do celebrities like this think they get a pass on relationship proprieties or on obedience to a bishop just because they have a Big Cause that needs winning? We’ve had nine previous presidential elections since Roe v Wade, and despite the GOP winning five of those, we’re still not really pedalling back on abortion to the political pro-lifers’ standards. Every movie needs a 1000% return on investment, too. The money has to keep rolling in somehow. Part of the blindness of the cult of celebrity is that one grows to believe the rules are made for other people, not oneself. No profit is too big. No number of fetuses is too small.

It shows the value of surrounding yourself with upright, trusty, and sound people who can disagree with you and call youout when you need a reality check.

This certainly isn’t to say that I or other liberals haven’t transgressed in the area of propriety and moral behavior. The difference is that I don’t make a living calling out my ideological opposites as bad people because of what they do. Their comboxes are very amusing, especially during a moral stumble. Let’s just say that orthodoxy is absolutely no guarantee of virtue.

Now … I need to add a few Republicans to my parish’s liturgy commission.

 

On “My Wife”

I’m seeing a third century quote attributed to Jesus getting a load of blogplay the past few days. I think I’m going to stay on the fence and not read too much into/of this stuff. Even if genuine, which I cannot imagine, there will be enough deniers to withhold universal traction, wherever that would lead.

Otherwise, interesting cocktail talk, but move along, theologians.

We all know Jesus was a carpenter, a son of a carpenter. Christians do not have a sacrament of woodcarving, let alone cabinet-making, so that strikes me as an appropriate follow-up of what we do know. Clergy don’t convert to Judaism before ordination, so we know that the masculinity of those at the Last Supper (which I’m not so sure we’re sure of) is more important than what we do know. And as for the connection to the fishing industry, the pope has a ring. But no mother-in-law.

Now, let’s get back to what really makes a difference in the imitation of Christ: how and what one does for others to exemplify the Lord, not how we look for little clues to indulge our fascination.

 

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.

 

An Unhelpful Comparison

With a broad range of internet sources, I find the spectrum of Catholic responses on various issues to be … interesting, to say the least. I’d like to tease out a few recent news bits and offer up an unhelpful comparison. Why unhelpful? Mainly to underline the occasional lack of logic among some believers who are otherwise trying their best to align themselves with the Truth, as they understand it. I will note that some recent events, like the conviction of Bishop Robert Finn, tends to open up divides in what often seems to be a Catholic conservative internet monolith. It’s not the only case. And it won’t be the last. The internet gives hundreds of millions of people the opportunity to make a judgment on an issue before some Celebrity issues a decree on it.

One of the students I know follows lifesitenews, and in my Facebook feed I found this brief opinion piece a few days ago. It’s the one I blogged about on Tuesday.

(T)hose 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.

For (at least) two generations now, there has been a wide range of Catholic opinion and political acitivity on abortion, which is what this stance from HLI is all about. One can oppose abortion in all circumstances, something like the absolute pacifist approach to war. Killing is always, always, wrong. And a Christian just shouldn’t kill under any circumstances. Or there would be the individual personally opposed–which is likely most Catholics. But some Catholics would see the criminalization of abortion as an ineffective or impractical or unpopular solution, and therefore an optional stance for a believer.

Between the two positions there are all sort of concession spots. The GOP presidential ticket absolves the situation of rape. Presumably the mother’s danger-of-death clause, too. And then one would have more extreme positions: anti-abortion folks who endorse the assassination of providers, plus people who, despite medical evidence to the contrary, have no problem with ending a life with a heartbeat, brainwaves, and all the natural infant qualities.

But let’s get back to the clause, “it would be more honest to leave rather than betray.”

Certainly Bishop Finn has given grave scandal to the people of his diocese, for a single thread of mismanagement that permitted a person with an admitted addiction to child pornography to circulate among Catholic children. A good percentage of Kansas City Catholics are outraged. Would it be more honest for Bishop Finn to leave the Roman Catholic Church? Would it be more honest for him to just leave the diocese? To be sure: I’m certainly not arguing for the man to be ejected into the Anglican Communion. But this would be an “unhelpful” comparison to the HLI spin on the Pope Benedict talk. Can one make a case for Pope Benedict suggesting Bishop Finn leave Catholicism? If one is prepared to take the point of scandal seriously and follow the HLI reasoning to a logical conclusion.

Or perhaps we’re talking about the betrayal of the political pro-life movement instead of the Church. Then, naturally, the comparison doesn’t fit and isn’t very helpful.

The deeper issue is really people we don’t like with whom we’re stuck. A lame duck bishop for sixteen years. Catholics who vote in contrary ways to us. People who don’t even argue the same positions we do on the core moral issues of the day. Lots of Catholics earnestly say that “Life” is the number one issue. But it’s really not. For Christians, faith is the core issue. Christians routinely and historically set aside their lives for the witness of the faith. And I think the matter of a Catholic chased out of the Church possesses a similar gravity to the ending of a human life. And if you don’t think that way, then compare to what Christ said in the Gospels about losing one’s life. And maybe that’s unhelpful for some readers. Just like the people who won’t leave the Church, you’re still going to have to wrestle with the reality of faith. Your own. Other people’s too.

 

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

 

Vanished: NCReg Pulls Controversial Interview

The National Catholic Register has pulled its controversial interview with Fr Benedict Groeschel from its web page. This story seems to be slower in gaining blogotraction than a western bishop’s DUI arrest. But if the NCReg has been shamed (or scared) by the fallout, consider that their editorial process gave the piece a clean bill before it was posted. That can mean one of two things:

• The editor didn’t see anything wrong with the viewpoints expressed by Fr Groeschel.
• The editor didn’t care about the viewpoints expressed.

That last one might include the possibility that the editor was asleep at the wheel. If I had an interview subject who embarrassed herself or himself I would talk it over with my editor, if I were a writer. Or with my writer, if I were the editor. I’m surprised that an outlet with such an ideological leaning would allow someone so favorably viewed by its readers to appear in such a bad light.

Someone at dotCommonweal described Fr Groeschel’s thoughts as “unspeakably evil.” That strains perspective I think. What sex predators have done to the innocent is “unspeakably evil.” Ignorant opinions about these acts are gravely misinformed, but I think they fall short of being “unspeakably evil.” Unless a person were totally hard-hearted to victims, and resolutely unwilling to entertain the notion that brother priests and bishops have committed grave sins in abusing and covering up. I don’t see that here.

What do you make of NCReg’s behavior, especially any of you who enjoy and support that publication?

Note: The NCReg has updated the link to the interview.

 

Where Not To Go For Daily Readings

An example of when not to send a pajama journalist to do a liturgist’s job: Patheos’ Daily Catholic Readings.

Where does this go wrong? The archaic English translation–not even an attribution to the translation, though I’m guessing at a glance it’s Douay-Rheims. Leaving the verse numbers in a text that has been clearly just cut-and-paste into the post. No reference on the liturgical day: Saint Monica or the Monday of the 21st week in Ordinary Time? No refrain of the psalm–just the verses set prose-style. It’s probably an American effort–the Patheos people probably don’t even realize that other English-speaking countries and even religious orders may operate on a different liturgical calendar when it gets down to the level of memorials, and the occasional feast.

A lot of bloggers just link the daily readings in the sidebar and let someone else do the dirty work.

Another approach, though one that would take considerably more work, would be to assemble a team of people to do daily reflections on the readings. A little bit of Scripture commentary, a little bit of linking between the passages, a few homily suggestions. You’ll probably never see that on Catholic Sensibility–I just don’t have time for a daily effort like that. But it sure would beat the steady drumbeat of Catholic forays into blogopolitics.

 

Dreher on Isaac @ BBC: “Blessing in Brokenness”

Many in the Catholic blogosphere have followed Rod Dreher in his career and personal shifts to his Louisiana home and away from Roman Catholicism. I haven’t checked his blogging in awhile, but I was pleased to see this good piece up as one of the headlines at BBC this morning.

Now, as you read this, the hurricane is upon us. Forecasters say it will rain hard for three days; there will be terrible flooding in places. We will have tropical storm winds for 24 hours and the threat of tornadoes. We may lose power for weeks.

But come what may, we will all be in it together. The storm will give us opportunities to sacrifice for each other, and even for strangers who show up on our doorsteps.

There can be blessing in brokenness, if you know how to look for it.

And if we families, friends, and neighbours find ourselves in the days to come sitting together around the fire cooking meat and telling stories to ward off the weariness, the drear, and the black of night, well, what could be more ancient and human than that?

 

The Cult of Popularity, Or Is It?

More often I see complaints in the Catholic blogosphere along the lines of this. N values popularity of a constituency more than speaking out for the truth. One recent example:

The flock has been scattered on our watch. Vast numbers of our people have been deceived by innumerable errors and too often we have been silent, or, at best, an uncertain trumpet. Often our silence has been due to concerns with remaining popular and accepted.

I’m not sure where Msgr Charles Pope is going with this one. He’s analyzing a perceived failure of the Roman Catholic priesthood in the US in light of Ezekiel 34. But what sort of popularity do American clergy desire? Are there really so many pastors who clam up rather than say something that will rub some or all parishioners the wrong way? Are there others who fawn over their bishop and older chancery-connected priests so as to get prime assignments? Is all the missing hard news a one way street: pulpit to pew?

Does feather-ruffling reveal a truth-telling? If so, I must have a lot of resentful fans on the Catholic Right. I’ve never sought popularity online, and I’ve told it straight to any number of Catholics: lay bloggers, priests, and even the occasional bishop. My day doesn’t depend on anyone giving me that little blue thumbs-up. As for my real life, I’ll admit that I enjoy getting affection, gratitude, and love from people in my life, especially my wife and daughter. But that doesn’t mean my wife and I avoid discussing tough topics or that I don’t occasionally deliver unwanted news to a teenager’s ears. I would hope that parishioners feel free to approach me with concerns. When they come with praise, I pay attention if its specific. When they criticize, I listen.

The blogosphere itself cultivates popularity in many corners. We have only to Google “Mark Shea Father Corapi” to check the combox commentary of two well-known Catholics, each with their battling segment of fangirls and boys. Mr Shea, to his credit, rarely shies away from taking a stand that we all know will ruffle a good portion of his readership. I caught Fr Corapi once on EWTN while my wife was channel surfing. He was a tough talker, to be sure. But for some Catholics, maybe it’s more about the group they want to see ruffled, rather than an honest appreciation for honesty across the board.

Scratch the popularity complaint, and not too far under the surface, maybe there’s a bit of envy.

That said, I do think there’s a danger in any social circle of a cult of celebrity. Check the list: politics, sports, media–on the bigger world stage, leaders want to be popular because it guarantees income, endorsements, and other adrenaline rushes. Check our local communities, too. In parishes, I think some leaders cultivate a certain celebrity. Charismatic clergy and the occasional lay person are much-admired. But the key to the veracity of their ministry comes when they leave. Do the ministries continue? Or are people left adrift?

Long long ago, I followed an extremely popular and charismatic person in a parish. She was able, as I was made aware, to draw people in. “I would do anything for her,” I often heard. But when I got to know people, I found a core of ministry leadership that was very tired and burned out. A handful of key people promised they would continue for my first year in the parish. But they made it clear that I would need to find new leaders those first six to twelve months to fill in the gaps of my second year.

One, I appreciated the honesty. Two, I noted the difference between people who were attracted to a married lay woman and a single guy. And three, my pastor was alarmed at the hemorrhaging (as he saw it) in leadership. I wasn’t as popular as my forerunner. I didn’t think it was my job to cultivate a circle of loyalty. I wanted people to be involved in ministry for the right reasons, well-discerned, and for the service they could offer others. I didn’t want groupies.

I’m still convinced that is the way to go. I even go out of my way to decline the cultivation of close friendships among parishioners in my ministry areas, out of concern for other reasons intruding on the right ones.

So, are there priests out there who don’t preach on abortion, birth control, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia because they fear unpopularity? I have no idea. I imagine the number might be in the dozens. I suspect that more don’t preach it because they know it’s a message of comfort for some conservative Catholics who, for various reasons, prefer to see other people squirm. That’s not a matter of popularity misplaced as much as it’s about turning the homily into a cheerleading session.

I don’t think that leadership is about making equal-opportunity discomfort for the factions. I think that’s misunderstanding the means and the end. The end result of good ministry is that people are holier. Every holy person undergoes metanoia, and almost all the time metanoia feels like hell. And quite often, the person delivering the message is unpopular. But it doesn’t figure that every homily is supposed to result in a voluntary and partial exodus of worshipers from the pews.

In worship, a preacher must remain closely faithful to the Scriptures and the liturgy. The thought that people must be shaken up every four to thirteen weeks or so is a false one. Certainly, a preacher needs to have a pulse on the community. And certainly, there are elements of a preached message that will elicit discomfort in some hearts. My sense is that if a leader is praying, and truly engages a community she or he knows, that the needed messages of challenge will come through at the right time and place.

 

As A Priest, Acts of God

I note that blogocommenters are going either goo-goo or gah! over Archbishop Dolan’s invite to pray “as a priest” at Tampa’s GOP Convention in a few weeks. I confess I can’t get excited either way. The Cardinal is a US citizen, perhaps a card-carrying Republican. And if the local bishop is okay with it, why is it a bother to me? Or anyone else?

The New York archbishop stumbles in the eyes of some by inviting the president to dinner. The blogocritics pile on. Yawn. This is pretty much the same, isn’t it? Cardinal Dolan gets places, and he’s not afraid to spread it around, is he?

I just point out that actions have consequences. He associates with the president, and some critics will pounce, and pounce with bile. He associates with the GOP in a rather formal way “for a priest,” and that action has predictable consequences too. For me, it seems to be part of the cult of celebrity. Our culture is soaked in it, and the Church has its moments of hero-worship too. Me, I just can’t get excited about it one way or the other. I am watching Hurricane Isaac. What do you want to bet that Rep Bachmann and conservative others don’t think a hurricane strike on the GOP is an act of God?

 

MHR In the Blogo-Big Time

Frequent commenter and friend Jimmy Mac has been keeping me updated on the drag queen not welcome/welcome flap at his parish. Religion News Service’s daily roundup has linked to this secular outlet’s news piece. The news has hit the blogosphere big time, and it’s all a big mistake, it seems.

The drag queen question? MHR business manager Michael Poma:

Father Brian wasn’t educated about the importance of drag queens in the gay community. Once it was explained to him, he said they were welcome  to attend as long as their behavior was church-appropriate.

Mr Poma again:

This is not a ban on drag queens or an insult to the gay community whatsoever. In the church hall there have been issues with weddings and other  groups, so we decided to put an end to them altogether. We are part of the  community here and to think that we’re banning drag queens is obnoxious and  ridiculous.