On Self-Absorption

CNS had a teaser of a piece yesterday. Pope Francis, before his election, took his turn talking at the pre-conclave meetings. A message that seemed to point at the institution has a resonance with Christian ministry. I’d like to read the whole speech. But CNS only gives us snippets. One of them:

The evils that, over time, happen in ecclesial institutions have their root in self-referentiality and a kind of theological narcissism.

What does that mean? Is this always true? Does it hold for parishes and chanceries as well as the curia?

In part, I interpret this as a direct criticism of the Small Church Getting Smaller meme we’ve seen of recent years. Why? Because that SCGS outlook, even the nuanced one presented by Pope Benedict that many of his followers have grabbed, pretty much takes God out of the equation. SCGS swims in self-reference: the way believers define membership, orthodoxy, what-have-you. Rather than do the work and let the Judge determine final placement. Like Jesus suggested. There is a tragic flaw in that self-reference often tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, rather than a natural consequence of some people being presented the Gospel, then walking away. To be sure, walking away happens. But maybe not in the same way as the self-styled orthodox expect.

The Holy Father’s approach seems essentially Ignatian. Trust. See what happens. Focus on God. But also look for God in the unexpected. I think the prime fault of Catholic neotraditionalism is that its advocates and believers have nailed down that God was to be encountered in certain ways at a certain time in the past. And so the instinct–the human instinct–is to return to the past, to what worked before. It’s like Moses going back to the burning bush in Exodus 4. Isaiah going back to the Temple in Isaiah 7. Isn’t there that saying, “You can never go back home.”

Certainly, there are things that have “always” worked, and will continue to be a good starting point. But Christians, especially in the postmodern age, should be prepared to ask, “What else might work?” and serve from there.

As believers, we do think we’re with the Lord, and he is with us. Why does that not always translate into our actions?

In Revelation, Jesus says that he is at the door and knocks. Obviously, the text refers to his knocking from the outside in order to enter, but I think about the times in which Jesus knocks from within so that we will let him come out.

The self-referential church keeps Jesus Christ within herself and does not let him out.

Put simply, there are two images of the church: a church which evangelizes and comes out of herself by hearing the word of God with reverence and proclaiming it with faith; and the worldly church, living within herself, of herself, for herself.

This should shed light on the possible changes and reforms which must be done for the salvation of souls.

This insight seems essentially evangelical. We can own our closeness to the Lord. We can acknowledge that we have been prepared as God’s instrument in the world. We have a place as a person within a community, and with a role to play. This is original Theology of the Body: the eye sees, the hand works, the legs propel. We work with others, and the mission gets accomplished … though we often don’t see how.

What does this mean in a parish, especially for its pastor and ministers? I’m going to need to give that a lot of thought as I reexamine my role in my parish. In what is mostly a bookkeeping measure, my new job title will be liturgy/campus ministry. Practically I’ve done campus ministry for the past five years, as about half the liturgy volunteers are students. On one hand, this is just about half of my personnel expenses coming out of the campus ministry endowment. But it also reflects a gradual refocus in the liturgy/music position in this faith community.

I’m going to be watching more carefully what is coming out of the pope’s mouth and from his pen in the coming months. Not that I wasn’t paying attention to Pope Benedict, but this evangelical focus with a wide swath of discernment is an opportunity. One side of that opportunity is personal: keeping watch that my service to the Church does not become something that’s about me. But also that I continue to explore the possibilities of the border between worship and evangelization.

 

Gloria Sends Cardinals To Conclave

Liam sent me an e-mail noting that the Conclave opening Mass sang the Gloria. I wasn’t terribly surprised. With MR3, it’s not so much about elevating the cardinals to the level of Saint Joseph (19 March) or the Blessed Mother (Annunciation, 25 March–but not this year). The Gloria may also be sung at wedding Masses during Lent, for example.

I was curious that they or Msgr Marini chose Gloria VIII instead of XV, the US choice. A better choice, I think.

 

Mamapapabile

Someone should cover the mothers (and other family members) of the papabile more carefully. Quote of the day from Eleonore Schönborn:

Christoph would not be up to the bitchiness in the Vatican. The intrigues in Vienna are enough for him.

 

Curia vs Who?

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

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

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

Rock’s analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

If You Don’t Feed The Lions …

Nice quote from Fr Thomas Reese, NCRep correspondent in Rome:

If the Vatican won’t give the media proper information, then all the creative writing and conspiracy theories start coming out. You have got to feed the lions – if not they will bite you!

This in response to the Italian contingent’s crackdown on American cardinals giving daily press conferences after the morning general congregation red hat meet-up.

The American briefings were virtually the only time reporters could hear directly from the cardinals themselves. Because of the U.S. cardinals’ straightforward style, their press conference was drawing growing interest from the more than 5,000 journalists who have flocked to Rome for the conclave.

That clearly ruffled the feathers of some other cardinals, notably the Italians who still feel they have certain territorial privileges when it comes to events in Rome. On Wednesday, an hour before the U.S. briefing, reporters received an email saying it was canceled and would not be held again.

Nice.

Maybe American Catholics would be wondering … why all the openness in Rome and not so much back home? And alienating a sub-clique of cardinals, well, it’s not like these guys are serious papabile, right?

How the USCCB media spun it:

Concern was expressed in the general congregation about leaks of confidential proceedings reported in Italian newspapers. As a precaution, the cardinals have agreed not to do interviews.

…

The U.S. cardinals are committed to transparency and have been pleased to share a process-related overview of their work with members of the media and with the public, in order to inform while ensuring the confidentiality of the General Congregations.

John Thavis, CNS sums it:

It’s ironic and a bit sad that the Americans, who have been completely above board, are being shut down because someone else is leaking anonymously to the Italian press.

Yes, well, I’m sure the Italian cardinals are a little anxious their super secret leaks were getting upstaged by actual information given to the press.

 

Too Much Information

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

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

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

The comment from the Vatican’s Father Federico Lombardi:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

 

And Then There Were 115

David Gibson characterizes a campaign season as “nasty, brutish.” Doesn’t it seem to be the case? Another breach from the secular culture into the Church. These red hats had better watch out–at this rate they might end up at the fringes of the so-called Culture of Death.

Not intending to defend Scotland’s Cardinal O’Brien, who’s never struck me as a favorite, but isn’t it strange that three days after the man offers a thaw on mandatory celibacy, he’s out? And if he can’t be a kingmaker, is someone else in the college a kingbreaker?

Indonesia’s another big country without a “vote.” Cardinal Julius Riyadi Darmaatmadja will stay home form Rome due to failing health.

Good thing Pope Benedict allowed conclave opening to move up, eh? What if the College continues in conclave through Holy Week? Is there a person to celebrate the Triduum at St Peter’s if there’s no pope? All almost all the cardinals will be holed up in the Sistine Chapel, right? Does some random Italian bishop take over? Or will sede vacante be expanded to triduum vacante and all the parishes in Rome on their own for hosting the pilgrims?

 

A More Reasonable Look

I cannot read the original Italian article to make an assessment anything like Robert Moynihan’s piece on the gay lobby/blackmail/college of cardinal news bomb of the past few days. His “Letter #19″ strikes me as sensible commentary.

Toward the end of the piece, a link to which Jimmy Mac posted in the comments today, there were two points that struck me. Mr Moynihan:

I think it is critical to discern whether the Church and her leaders are: (a) being slandered by the attacks of her enemies, or (b) whether human weaknesses, sins and betrayals are preventing the Church from carrying out her mission effectively, and subjecting her to forces from outside her. It is part of my work as a writer about the Church to try to discern these things.

My own sense is that (a) and (b) are both happening. I think the former is about twenty, perhaps thirty percent. But I also think most of the digging for scandal is part of the lamentable modern process of driving up subscriptions and sales to generate a corporate profit. Bad news attracts attention. And the modern media in all its forms, including the blogosphere, gains a currency by drawing attention.

And I think that human weakness is always with us. The more insular sinners are, the less likely they are to be confronted and engage in personal repentance and reform. Is there a Nathan who can confront David in today’s Church? Shouldn’t there be?

A word on blackmail:

Few things could be more dangerous to the Church than that her leaders be subject to blackmail. If a friend or member of my family would be subject to blackmail, I would move heaven and earth to help that friend or family member to be free of such evil tentacles.

There are serious influences other than blackmail. We know that monied interests get access to the hierarchy. Resources can be scarce in today’s world. The Church competes with many other endeavors that ask a charity dollar of us. Some such endeavors amass great wealth.

When I read the article I was thinking less, “Uh oh, blackmail,” and more “Uh oh, money and influence.” Lobbyists. The curia is beset by people willing to trade currency for favors. And yes, I think such tentacles are a danger. They seemed to blind one pope to the danger presented by the LC.

My own suspicion is that this story reflects some nuanced aspects not easy to see in the catchy headlines and the panic. It might be overstated, but there still is a lot of ungodly stuff going on. How to discern which lay people, clergy, and religious groups have an honest intent to speak a mond to a curial official, or a cardinal? Or who is just looking for influence?

 

More Conclave Thoughts

Here’s a quote of the day from last month, via RNS. Robert Mickens, The Tablet:

It’s not clear that it would make any difference to have a pope with an African or Latin American face if he turned out to be more Roman than Caesar.

The North American and European cardinals talking about going “outside Europe” are crazy like foxes. They know well that a pope from outside Europe will work out about as well (nor not) as the last two choices from outside Italy. I think I’m sticking to my meme of the past decade: a bishop should be chosen from among the priests of the diocese. Perhaps a see as important as Rome might merit someone from the region. But generally, I’d say a bishop in Marquette, Michigan, say, should be chosen from among the clergy of Marquette. A bishop for Portland from the clergy of that Oregon diocese. Selecting a pope, a bishop for Rome, from the ranks of bureaucracy, from another country even, and from anything less than a pastoral and administrative position in working with people makes no sense practically, traditionally, or Scripturally.

At minimum, nobody campaigning for the spot should be considered. That said, I noticed a blog commentator somewhere talking about the “via negativa” factor from embittered cardinals. Maybe those with king-making aspirations will be limited to the role of king-breaker, passing on stories, and urging journalists and even other cardinals to consider supporting doomed candidates.

It’s why I’m praying for the conclave. We need a good pastor. I’m not convinced that another diehard conservative will sway the Barque enough for another Council. But regardless of ideology, we need a good pastor who can pull the plug on the curia.

 

Cardinal Turkson Doesn’t Get It

RNS linked Cardinal Peter Turkson’s CNN interview. He steered the conversation well from the political concerns of the day, and focused on the essential of the Gospel.

And this, at the 7:05 (question)/7:31 (answer) mark:

When Amanpour asked Turkson about the possibility of the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal spreading to Africa, he said it would unlikely be in the same proportion as it has in Europe.

“African traditional systems kind of protect or have protected its population against this tendency,” he said. “Because in several communities, in several cultures in Africa homosexuality or for that matter any affair between two sexes of the same kind are not countenanced in our society.”

A troubling answer. Cardinal Turkson misses on two points.

First, that sex abuse isn’t about same sex attraction as much as it about using sexuality to dominate, humiliate, and impose upon the innocent. There is probably nothing more intimate and personal than a person’s sexuality. Throwing out the gay thing is just a smokescreen.

Second, the scandal is less in the misconduct of clergy and much more in the mismanagement of predators. Could she have asked him about bishops who had mishandled wayward clergy? That would have been an interesting exchange to see.

He does concede the restoration of credibility is very needful. But he doesn’t address the problem of bishops.

I’ve seen commentary that Cardinal Turkson is too much in the news, and has campaigned his way out of consideration by his fellow cardinals. I think that if he were elected, he would need to listen to the facts and learn of the situation. Africa is not Eden. The powerful in Africa have certainly used sex to exert domination over the innocent, the weak, and the vulnerable. African bishops have not avoided their own sexual escapades.

I wish the interviewer had been more incisive and better researched on these points. At least Cardinal Turkson recognizes the credibility gap. That he doesn’t take it for granted suggests the higher-ups in Rome don’t count on it either. That can be a good thing.