Enlightened Catholicism

News Flash: Change The Mass Translation--Jesus Did Die For All

2013-05-23T09:04:00.003-06:00

Well, according to Pope Francis, the correct answer is a resounding 'YES'.

The following is the full text from Vatican Radio of Pope Francis' homily at yesterday's Mass. A Huffington Post article covering this sermon is currently their number one read post. This sermon is sure to generate a great deal of conversation, if not angst, in the Catholic world. When I first read this I couldn't help but reflect on the brouha over the new English translation and it's change from Jesus dieing 'for all' to Jesus dieing for 'many'. In Pope Francis' world Jesus died for all. I doubt that in this particular case, this Pope's words are going to end this particular discussion. Judging from the headline that Vatican Radio chose to run, someone at Vatican Radio needed to change the emphasis of the Pope's homily because the headline does not exactly mention the idea that Jesus died for all--even atheists. Bold parts of the article are in the original text.

Pope at Mass: Culture of encounter is the foundation of peace

(Vatican Radio) “Doing good” is a principle that unites all humanity, beyond the diversity of ideologies and religions, and creates the “culture of encounter” that is the foundation of peace: this is what Pope said at Mass this morning at the Domus Santae Martae, in the presence of employees of the Governorate of Vatican City. Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai, Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites, concelebrated at the Mass.

Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”:

"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. Instead, this ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. That we can kill in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.”
“Instead,” the Pope continued, “the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in the depths of our heart: do good and do not do evil”:

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
“Doing good” the Pope explained, is not a matter of faith: “It is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always.”

This was the final prayer of Pope Francis:

"Today is [the feast of] Santa Rita, Patron Saint of impossible things – but this seems impossible: let us ask of her this grace, this grace that all, all, all people would do good and that we would encounter one another in this work, which is a work of creation, like the creation of the Father. A work of the family, because we are all children of God, all of us, all of us! And God loves us, all of us! May Santa Rita grant us this grace, which seems almost impossible. Amen.”

Text from page http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445
of the Vatican Radio website

*****************************************

"The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good." This quote will most likely go over like a lead balloon in some areas of US Catholicism--even some very high ecclesiastical areas of US Catholicism. Especially when it's followed up by this quote: ""The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all!

I've often thought that fully understanding the mission of Jesus in the way that Pope Francis articulated it yesterday is the demarcating line between those who understand Jesus' Way, and those who need the 'way' of Catholicism. One is very inclusive and the other is very self justifying and exclusive. As Pope Francis points out emphatically, Jesus very definitely came down on the side of inclusion.

I suspect Pope Francis is going to get some blow back over this homily, but speaking of backs, on the thoughts he articulated in this sermon, I have his.

Cardinal O'Brien Represents A Major Challenge For Pope Francis. Business As Usual Won't Deal With It

2013-05-18T12:19:00.000-06:00

I can't say I was surprised to find a photo of Cardinal O'Brien with the pedophile Jimmy Savile. Apparently they did a lot of fundraising together. O'Brien did revoke Savile's papal knighthood after the explosion of allegations against Savile surfaced in the British Press.

Pope Francis has a mess on his hands. The mess is Cardinal Keith O'Brien and what O'Brien really represents. In Cardinal O'Brien's case it's not just the worst aspects of clericalism, it is also the worst aspects of the official Church teaching on homosexuality, and the seemingly untouchable status of reaching high rank in the Church. O'Brien's behavior of harassing and abusing his lower clergy is of a different order from the kinds of sexual harassment laity encounter in their work places. In theory and practice laity have resources and systems of accountability they can use to get some justice. This is true even in male dominated professions like the military. Although the US Military has a spotty record to say the least, when the evidence is there, even highly decorated generals like David Petraeus can be disciplined and forced to resign. Not so Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church and O'Brien is hardly the only Cardinal who used his position for sexual favors with impunity, for decades, and without fear of sanction.

Cardinal O'Brien has been 'ordered' by the Vatican to leave Scotland for the Catholic version of penitential R&R. O'Brien seems to have incurred this penalty because he couldn't stop himself from engendering more publicity. He failed to 'let this die down and blow over' like a good Cardinal should. I strongly suspect he is being publicly penalized because many Cardinals are seriously upset with the threat O'Brien's press exposure is to them personally. The following is from today's Guardian UK. It aptly discusses these points and others. It also debunks some of the misinformation that is currently making the media rounds.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien still a danger, say abuse accusers

Catherine Deveney - The Observer - 5/18/2013
The four men whose accusations of sexual misconduct led to the dramatic resignation of Britain's leading Catholic cleric as archbishop have attacked a Vatican announcement last week that he will leave the country for a period of "prayer and penance". The three priests and one ex-priest, whose complaints were first reported in the Observer in February, say Cardinal Keith O'Brien should have been sent for psychological treatment instead.

One of the priests warns: "Keith is extremely manipulative and needs help to be challenged out of his denial. If he does not receive treatment, I believe he is still a danger to himself and to others."

The four men are demanding an investigation into O'Brien's "predatory behaviour" and say that stripping him of his cardinal status should not be ruled out. Despite making statements to the papal nuncio three months ago, they have heard nothing about a formal investigation into the cardinal, who was a vociferous public opponent of homosexuality.

"Removing O'Brien from Scotland might temporarily reduce the embarrassment to the church authorities but this story has not been fully told yet," says Lenny, the ex-priest complainant. "We have been patient but I'm still waiting to be told what, if any, process the church has in mind."

"They're all passing the buck on this," agrees one of the priests. "It's a smokescreen. We need an investigation and Keith needs to be challenged by professionals to acknowledge the damage he has done to people, himself and the church." (It's certain O'Brien won't be challenged by his own professional peers.)

The Vatican's statement followed O'Brien's recent return to Dunbar, in his old diocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh, where he was due to retire. Peter Kearney, director of communications for the Catholic church in Scotland, told the Observer that no one in Scotland had the authority to challenge O'Brien's behaviour, his return to Scotland or his residence in church property. "We are part of the Roman Catholic church and the ultimate authority for the way the church functions in Scotland lies in Rome. The only person who is senior to the cardinal is the pope."

"That," says one complainant, "is farcical." "I don't care about red hats," says another, "but if the red hat is shoring up his perceived power, it has to go." (That is a prime issue--the red hat and the type of governance it represents. Just as it was for Cardinals Law and Bevilaqua and Rigalli and Mahony and Egan and on and on and on.)

Although there is no official investigation by the Scottish church, behind the scenes Bishop Joseph Toal of Argyll and the Isles has been asked to talk informally to the complainants. "It's been hard listening to what's being said," he admitted to the Observer. "But it's important we hear what they're saying and the gravity of the situation. If I can help in some way, I will." (But of course, as far as exacting some measure of justice, you can't help in any way at all.)

Calls for an investigation have been backed by Catholic theologian Professor Werner Jeanrond, master of St Benet's Hall at Oxford University. "Instead of dealing with issues we are constantly presented with this half-baked solution of removing people. It is not a grown-up church handling this case. I am in favour of investigation on the personal level, so that he can own up to his concealment and own his own life again, but because he was in the clerical life it also has to be a formal investigation. We also have to have an investigation into why we are in this mess."

O'Brien's downfall reveals a bigger tragedy, argues Jeanrond. "As a church, we have failed to come to terms with homosexuality. Once and for all we have to face up to the fact that there are homosexuals, gays, lesbians and transsexuals." Jeanrond has been shocked by the absence of an organised laity in Britain compared with other European countries. "As soon as something happens on the clerical side, the whole church is paralysed. That's ridiculous. Is the whole of Jesus's mission coming to an end because Keith O'Brien has sinned?" (I suppose it does when clerical deference is so ingrained that it becomes all mixed up with the authority of Jesus---exactly as all the ingraining is designed to do.)

The four complainants say an investigation is about justice, not vengeance. "I will give forgiveness if asked," says one, "as long as the damage has been recognised. At times, we don't do ourselves a lot of good by throwing pardon around like confetti without a change of heart. I am angry at the system that licked his boots and allowed him to get on with it." (So am I.)

***************************************************

The Cardinal O'Brien story is one of those Catholic stories that got temporarily lost in the pageantry of a papal election and the Easter season and the sheer novelty of Pope Francis. I, however, have not forgotten that the accusations against Cardinal O'Brien reached EP Benedict's desk three days before he retired. Nor have I forgotten the report written by Benedict's three cardinal investigators and left for Pope Francis to peruse at his leisure. Rumors before the papal resignation/election cycle intimated that gay issues in the upper clergy were prominent in this report. That would hardly be shocking news and I suspect it is information that is probably underscored by the allegations against Cardinal O'Brien.

The Cardinal O'Brien story is truly a mess for Pope Francis and I have my doubts about whether he is the Pope who can meaningfully deal with it. It is first and foremost an issue of unbelievable clerical hubris in which Cardinal O'Brien acted on his understanding that he was untouchable in Scotland. A personal belief which was directly verified by the Archdiocese' own spokesman. And yet this begs the question why O'Brien also acted as if he was untouchable by Rome until Benedict's resignation and that reason may be contained in that report of Benedict's three octogenarian cardinals. If O'Brien represents business as usual in the cardinal ranks, reforming the curia will take more than shuffling lines of communication and downsizing the curia. It will take changing the clerical culture itself. This is one case of reform where it certainly seems starting at the top and having that change cascade down is going to have to be the chosen path. For all of Francis' talk of tacking careerism in the Church it seems to me the first place to start is to demonstrate there will be no advantage to holding higher clerical offices. The operative principle should be the higher a man progresses the more stringent the accountability.

The second issue which O'Brien represents is the sick expression of the 'homosexual lifestyle' in the priesthood. I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Werner Jeanrond, the Church has to come to grips with the fact there are real people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, and transgendered people in God's creation. The Church has to face the fact these are not disorders, they are facts of human life. These are people, equally God's children. They are not just 'sexually deviant acts' or 'gender assignments'.

Unfortunately I am not convinced that Pope Francis is the right pope to deal with this aspect of the O'Brien debacle either. Nothing Francis has done to this point indicates his ideas of gender and sexuality have evolved to take the Church to some more 'grown up' position as advocated by Professor Jeanrond. Sending O'Brien off on some short term penitential placement is not dealing with any of the really important dysfunctions the O'Brien case raises. O'Brien truly represents a pastoral and reform challenge for Pope Franics. I hope and pray Francis is up to it.

The Winds Of Change Are Stirring More Strongly

2013-05-06T10:03:00.003-06:00

The effects of clerical sexual abuse on the Church have been this bad. "Francis, repair My Church" is more relevant than ever.

The following is the Change.org petition begun by Australian Bishops Geoffry Robinson and William Morrison. For me this is another indication that the election of Pope Francis has freed some of our bishops and cardinals to speak that which could not previously be spoken. If there was one area, among many, that sorely disappointed me about the previous two papacies it was their inability to really grasp the causes and damage clerical sexual abuse has done to the Church. Even to this very day there are bishops like Meyers and Finn who still think they are above both church and secular law, that from their positions as bishops their judgment is above accountability. Lay Catholics have for too long sat back and let the hierarchy dictate the response and solutions, which have included neither valid responses nor any real solutions. Here are two bishops who are willing to bring the laity into the discussion. I encourage readers to read Bishop Robinson's post, the letter being sent to Pope Francis, and please sign the petition. We can not let a third papacy continue to failed policies of the last two.

Pope Francis, The Vatican: For Christ's Sake Stop Sexual Abuse.... for good!

Sexual abuse within the Catholic Church has been nothing short of an epidemic of catastrophic proportions. The devastation of victims, the ruination of priests and religious, the damage to a major world religion and its faithful are horrendous and incalculable.

Australian Bishops - Geoffrey Robinson and Bill Morris call on the new Pope to seize the opportunity of his appointment to not only sweep the Church clean but to put His /God’s house in order for all time.
ROYAL COMMISSION WILL NOT PREVENT SEXUAL ABUSE FROM HAPPENING – FOR GOOD.
Bishop Robinson identifies three major tasks to be performed in eradicating sexual abuse from the Church: identifying and removing all offenders; reaching out to, and assisting, all victims and survivors; and identifying and overcoming the causes of both abuse and the poor response to abuse by the Church’s hierarchy. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is investigating the first two of these tasks however it does not have the scope or power to make the changes necessary to ensure that systemic sexual abuse NEVER happens again in the Catholic Church.
Bishop Robinson has considerable expertise, having been involved in these first two fields for eighteen years. He and Bishop Morris firmly believe there is a desperate need to address the third element: preventing abuse from happening in the first place . . . for good! He is calling for nothing less than a Council of the whole Church, inclusive of the laity, to confront the issues that contribute to the causes of systemic sexual abuse.
MANY CATHOLIC GROUPS CALL FOR CHANGE.
There are many people and many groups around the world seeking change in the Catholic Church. Though they may have slightly different emphases, there are a number of changes, common to all groups. These groups are calling out for:-
1) Greater Inclusiveness – a Church that is as much for women as for men, for laypeople as for clergy, for the marginalised as for those in the mainstream.
2) Greater Openness – if there are scandals, it is better to bring them into the light and confront them rather than seek to conceal them.
3) Greater Participation – not taking away the power of the Pope, but asking for greater participation and consultation, so that the whole Church may have a more active role in the mission of the Church.
4) Greater Sense of Mission – a greater concentration on the person and mission of Jesus Christ rather than on authority, laws, obedience and theological conformity.
Bishops Robinson and Morris believe it’s time to unite as one voice that the Vatican can no longer ignore.
IT’S TIME FOR ACTION
This global petition will give Catholics a collective voice. It will let the new Pope know the intensity and solidarity we feel in relation to the sexual abuse issue. It will show him that the whole Church wants to help him, to work with him on this issue of paramount importance. We want the new Pope to lead the Church into a future he and all Catholics yearn for - and the world needs.
FOR CHRIST’S SAKE - FIND YOUR VOICE AND GIVE YOUR SUPPORT
By signing this petition you are assisting every Catholic group calling for change. You are helping to create something very special: - the voice of the faithful. You will be helping to create a church for the future, free of sexual abuse, full of participation and inclusiveness–, a Church where loving God, through Jesus Christ makes us proud and full of the Holy Spirit. This is the voice we want the Vatican to hear. .
So if you are Catholic and believe that it’s time for the Church to listen to its people; if you’re a Catholic who wants to stamp out sexual abuse from ever occurring again please sign this petition.

For Christ’s and our Church’s sake encourage your family, friends and fellow parishioners to do the same. Together, as Catholics we can make a change.
For more details on Bishop Geoffrey Robinson’s action plan to end sexual abuse¬- for good, read his latest book, For Christ Sake: End Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church…for good.

To:
Pope Francis, The Vatican

We, the undersigned members of the Catholic Church, have been sickened by the continuing stories of sexual abuse within our Church, and we are appalled by the accounts of an unchristian response to those who have suffered.

When so many people either offend or respond poorly, we cannot limit ourselves to blaming individuals, but must also look at systemic causes. The situation is so grave that we call for an Ecumenical Council to respond to the one question of doing everything possible to uproot such abuse from the Church and produce a better response to victims. An essential part of this call is that the laity of the whole world should have a major voice in the Council (for it is our children who have been abused or put at risk), and that the following subjects be included:

1. The continuing influence of the idea of an angry God
2. The immaturity that arises from passive obedience in adults
3. The teaching of the Church on sexual morality
4. The part played in abuse by celibacy, especially obligatory celibacy
5. The lack of a strong feminine influence in every aspect of the Church
6. The idea that through ordination the priest is taken above other people (clericalism)
7. The lack of professionalism in the life of priests and religious
8. The unhealthy situations in which many priests and religious are required to live
9. The constant placing of right beliefs before right actions
10. The passion for secrecy and the hiding of faults within the Church, especially in the Vatican
11. The ways in which the protection of papal authority has been put before the eradication of sexual abuse
12. The provision of structures to make a reality of the ‘sense of faith’ (sensus fidei) of all Catholic people
13. The need for each Conference of Bishops to have the authority to compel individual bishops to follow common decisions in this matter.

Sincerely,

******************************************

And again, here is the link to the petition: http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/pope-francis-the-vatican-for-christ-s-sake-stop-sexual-abuse-for-good

Although I am aware that previously the Vatican has blown off all such efforts, seemingly to prefer single anonymous letters from right wing traditionalists, I have a feeling under Pope Francis this time things might be different. He said over this weekend that sexual abuse of children has to stop. I can only hope he understands fully that sexual abuse of children will not stop on any level if real change is not implemented in ALL the areas which contribute to clerical and Catholic family sexual abuse. If he does nothing else during his papacy, really attempting to solve this issue would precipitate serious reform. For Christ's sake, Amen.

Update: This link is to a story coming out of Africa that I have been following, but not writing about because it was hard to substantiate in the American mainstream press. Now however, the LA Times has written about this very courageous priest. Should anyone think Africa will not be the next pressure cooker to blow over clerical abuse of children, they need to read this article. Clerical abuse is global, systemic, and the hierarchy responds the same everywhere. It has to stop.

If you have the time, check out some of Fr Musaala's Utube videos. He has a real gift.

Cardinal Dolan's 'Dirty Freddy' Story Was No Joke

2013-05-06T09:02:00.001-06:00

No dirty hands can pass through the doors of St Patrick's Cathedral on Cardinal Dolans' watch. Well, unless they belong to OD bishops.

The following is an excerpt of an article written by Joseph Amodeo from Huffington Post about a small demonstration--10 people--they attempted to conduct at St Patrick's Cathedral. It was in response to Cardinal Dolan's 'dirty Freddy' blog post from the previous week. I wrote about this blog post myself. The response from the Archdiocese was completely over the top. It was all about fear, not dirty hands and not dirty gays. I'm quite sure in a future blog post, Cardinal Dolan will tell us he had nothing to do with it.

Cardinal Dolan Denies Catholics Entry at Cathedral Because of Dirty Hands

Jospeph Amodeo - Huffington Post - 5/5/2013
"Ask and it will be given to you; 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" (Matthew 7:7-8).

Today, myself and others knocked at the door of St. Patrick's Cathedral, but the door was not opened, rather it was slammed in our faces. As I begin to write this article, I'm cognizant of the raw emotions that I feel deep inside my heart. It's a feeling that I'm unfamiliar with, because until today, I have never been denied a seat at Christ's table. In fact, today marks the first day that I have ever felt disowned, abandoned, and lost.

Earlier today, a group of Catholics including myself gathered on the corner of East 46th Street and Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. We gathered for a simple purpose, to dirty our hands as we prepared to attend Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral. We were soiling our hands as a silent response to Cardinal Dolan's column last week in which he suggested that LGBT people were welcome in the church so long as they washed their hands. As we began to rub our hands together with pieces of ash, our hands took on the look and feel of the effort that has defined our work to receive an equal seat at the table of Christ in the Catholic Church. Those participating were not only LGBT Catholics, but also allies and, perhaps most importantly, parents of LGBT children. We gathered not in protest, but as a silent witness.

It is what transpired in the moments after soiling our hands that I have trouble understanding and placing in the context of the Christian experience. At around 9:30am, the ten of us gathered were greeted by four police cars, eight uniformed officers, a police captain, and a detective from the Police Commissioner's LGBT liaison unit. The detective informed us that the Cathedral would prohibit us to enter because of our dirty hands. It was at that moment that I realized the power of fear. The Archdiocese of New York was responding out of fear to a peaceful and silent presence at Mass. Even in light of this, we decided that we would walk solemnly from our gathering spot to the Cathedral with hopes that we might be welcomed.
As we reached St. Patrick's Cathedral, we were approached by Kevin Donohue, who identified himself as being in charge of operations for the cathedral. Sadly, Mr. Donohue's tone was both cold and scolding. What astounded me most was when he said that we could enter the cathedral so long as we washed our hands first. Even now, writing those words I find myself struggling to understand their meaning, while coming to terms with their exclusionary nature.......

********************************************

It took 10 of New York's finest to respond to this 'threat' from 10 of Cardinal Dolan's sheep? Are you kidding me? Over dirty hands? Or maybe the real message is no one gets to poke fun at Cardinal Dolan's expense and protecting his dignity necessitates 10 of New York's finest including a precinct Captain. If I had any doubts that Cardinal Dolan was a walking, talking, joking, smiling, bundle of personal insecurity, I don't any longer. He strikes back like any other bundle of insecurity we usually call a bully. Dirty Freddy indeed.

I feel for Joseph Amodeo. From the rest of his post it is obvious he was nurtured in a very different form of Catholicism from one that Cardinal Dolan represents. It does hurt when that other form, the one with all power, strikes out from it's black and white view of 'us vs them'. The US Church seems especially plagued with black and white bullies in the Episcopal ranks. Just ask the LCWR. All Catholics need do to be received by this bunch of bishop bullies is admit they are apostates and can't lead themselves, wash their hands, or completely disempower themselves is some symbolic fashion to gain admittance to the table. Wash their hands, bow their heads, and I assume brown our noses while we're at it.

In the meantime I have another question. Why is it that Opus Dei Bishops like Kansas City's Finn and Newark's Meyer's are never disciplined when they egregiously violate not only the Dallas Charter, but secular law? Why don't they have to wash their figuratively dirty hands? Why isn't Cardinal Dolan demanding these men wash their dirty hands? I can only come to the conclusion that at his childhood table the dirty Freddies may have had to wash their hands, but that rule didn't apply to dirty priests. There is no other conclusion to draw.

My Cardinal Hero Speaks Up And I Say WOW!

2013-05-05T13:47:00.002-06:00

Cardinal Braz de Aviz during his question and answer session for the gathering of global women religious superiors. Photo credit: NCR/Robyn J Haas

I have had an instant connection with Cardinal Braz de Aviz since I first read his personal story a few years ago. I have been following his career with more than a little interest. My intuition tells me this man holds key cards to the future of Catholicism. The following article was just posted on the National Catholic Reporter and details his interaction with the International Union of Superiors General.

Vatican religious prefect: 'I was left out of LCWR finding'

Rome - Joshua McElwee - NCR - 5/5/2013
The controversial Vatican decision last year to place the main representative group of U.S. Catholic sisters under the control of bishops was made without consultation or knowledge of the Vatican office that normally deals with matters of religious life, the office’s leader said Sunday.

That lack of discussion over whether to sharply criticize the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), said Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, caused him “much pain.”

“We have to change this way of doing things,” said Braz de Aviz, head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious.

“We have to improve these relationships,” he continued, referring to the April 2012 order regarding LCWR from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- approved by Pope Benedict XVI -- that ordered the U.S. sisters’ group to revise.
“Cardinals can’t be mistrustful of each other,” Braz de Aviz said. “This is not the way the church should function.”

Braz de Aviz, who has led the Vatican’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life since 2011, made the comments Sunday during an open dialogue session with some 800 leaders of sisters’ communities at the triennial assembly of the International Union of Superiors General.
Answering questions from the sister leaders for over an hour and a half, Braz de Aviz spoke openly, referring several times to tensions between sisters and bishops on church authority, questions of obedience, and the future of religious life. (Answering direct questions for an hour and a half is mind boggling in itself.)

At one point the cardinal even called for wide-ranging review of structures of church power.
“We are in a moment of needing to review and revision some things,” Braz de Aviz said. “Obedience and authority must be renewed, re-visioned.”
“Authority that commands, kills,” he continued. “Obedience that becomes a copy of what the other person says, infantilizes.” (Yes, yes, yes!)

Braz de Aviz also told the sister leaders that “women’s leadership needs to grow a lot in the church,” referring to a remark made by Pope Paul VI during a session of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) -- where the late pope asked the council fathers: “Where’s the other 50 percent of humanity that isn’t here?”
The Vatican mandate regarding LCWR, which was released in April 2012, appoints Seattle Archbishop Peter Sartain as the group’s “archbishop delegate.” It gives him final authority over its workings, and requires the group to revise its programs and statutes.

LCWR, which traces its roots to the 1950s, represents about 80 percent of the some 57,000 U.S. sisters.
Braz de Aviz spoke Sunday in Italian with his words being simultaneously translated into five other languages.

He said that his office -- which is tasked with overseeing the work an estimated 1.5 million sisters, brothers, and priests around the world in religious orders -- first learned of the move against the U.S. sisters’ group in a meeting with the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after the formal report on the matter had been completed.

At that meeting, Braz de Aviz said, he told Cardinal William Levada, an American who has since retired as head of the doctrinal congregation, that the matter should have been discussed between the Vatican offices.
“We will obey what the Holy Father wants and what will be decided through you,” Braz de Aviz told the sisters he had said to Levada. “But we must say that this material which should be discussed together has not been discussed together.”

“I obeyed,” Braz de Aviz continued telling the sisters. “But I had so much pain within me.”
He also said it was the first time he was discussing the lack of consultation publicly, saying previously he "didn't have the courage to speak." (Not many did have the courage to speak during the last two pontificates. More than a little infantilizing was the order of the day--even, and maybe especially, amongst senior curial officials.)

Speaking at a press conference following his talk, Braz de Aviz said that while his office “always obeys” the pope, “the problem very often is what kind of news goes to the Holy Father.”

Saying that different Vatican offices will sometimes give the pope varying viewpoints on situations like the LCWR matter, Braz de Aviz said “there’s a sort of like ‘Who is going to win?’”

“This struggle of who is going to win is not good, he continued. “But Peter and Paul also had problems. The answer is: ‘the Holy Spirit’ will win.”

LCWR’s status with the Vatican has been the subject of much discussion at the global sisters’ meeting. Franciscan Sr. Florence Deacon, LCWR’s president, told the assembly in a speech Saturday that the situation with the group indicated that “serious misunderstandings” exist between Vatican officials and Catholic sisters. (If readers haven't read the article linked in this paragraph, it's well worth your time.)

Asked during his dialogue with the sisters if it would be possible to have a meeting between LCWR and Pope Francis to discuss the matter, Braz de Aviz responded: “I think so.”
“But I know the pain is very big,” he continued, repeating: “Very big.”

Several former leaders of LCWR expressed pain and disappointment weeks ago when a Vatican press release said Pope Francis "reaffirmed" the doctrinal congregation's move.
“I don’t think Pope Francis would be a stranger to you,” Braz de Aviz told the sisters Sunday. However, the cardinal said, the pope “has confirmed the doctrinal review, he wants that to go forward.”

Braz de Aviz also responded to a question regarding a separate investigation of U.S. Catholic sisters launched by his Vatican congregation under his predecessor, Cardinal Franc Rode.
That investigation, known as an apostolic visitation, examined individual orders of U.S. Catholic sisters and resulted in a detailed report that was quietly submitted to Rome in January 2012.

That report, Braz de Aviz said, “has been sent to the pope, it is up to him to see if he will make it public.”
Earlier Sunday, Braz de Aviz had told the sister leaders during his homily at Mass with them that they are “co-essential” with the church’s bishops and the two groups must “walk together” in their leadership.
Referring to consecrated life as a “charismatic dimension” of the church, the cardinal told the sister leaders: “Today we need to rediscover that in the church there are two dimensions that are both co-essential, equally essential: The hierarchical dimension and the charismatic dimension.”
(This sentence is a definite departure from the ecclesial understanding of the previous two popes.)

“We need to walk together, following, listening to the Holy Spirit -- men and women together,” he said during the homily.
Reflecting on Sunday’s reading from the Acts of the Apostles, which recounts the apostles’ decision to not require circumcision for Christians, Braz de Aviz said the account indicates the church has to discern when it is in a “new moment.”

“This is something we always have to be doing in the church, to discern constantly in order to move forward,” he said. “This also gives us the opportunity today, it seems to me, to understand the important question in our life as consecrated persons.”

During his dialogue session with the sister leaders, Braz de Aviz spoke again about men and women in the church working together, referring to the Genesis account that “God created them, man and woman. God created them in the image and likeness of God.”
That account, the cardinal said, emphasizes two things: “Man and woman are not God; they are creatures” and “man, without woman, is not humanity; and vice-versa.”

Part of the struggles between men and women in church leadership, said Braz de Aviz, stem from to “reconstruct our relationships” with one another. “Our relationships,” he said, “are sick, profoundly sick.” (Two thousand years of imbalance will produce a profoundly sick relationship.)

Regarding the advancement of women into church leadership positions, Braz de Aviz said “we can take a lot of steps in this direction” to create “a church more maternal” and not only paternal.
“The two aspects together would be much more balanced, much more human,” he said. “We must not be afraid of this.”

During his homily earlier Sunday, Braz de Aviz also revealed how Pope Francis had chosen the new second-in-command for his Vatican congregation, Franciscan Fr. Jose Rodriguez Carballo.
Rodriguez, formerly the minister general of the Orders of Friars Minor, was announced as the secretary for the Congregation for Religious April 6.

Pope Francis, Braz de Aviz said, asked him when making the decision: “Who do you want as your secretary? Give me three names.”
“So I gave him three names,” Braz de Aviz told the sister leaders. “But [the pope] said, ‘Of the three, which is the one you want?’ I said this one, Carballo. [The pope] said, ‘Good, fine.’ And he gave us Jose Carballo.”

“It’s a wonderful, simple way of doing things: I trust you, I trust Carballo, so that’s it,” Braz de Aviz said. “He doesn’t complicate it.”

***********************************************

I have to say Cardinal Braz de Aviz is such a ray of hope in an otherwise still dismal Vatican scene. The LCWR can't help but feel a little better after this exchange with Cardinal Braz de Aviz. I know I do--especially after having just written about a bishop of a totally different stripe.

Holy Wisdom Monastery Off Limits For Diocese of Madison Wi. Priests and Religious

2013-05-05T12:06:00.003-06:00

Holy Wisdom Monastery was finished in 2010 and was awarded the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design platinum award as the most eco friendly new construction in the US. Of course, caring about the Earth is one the charisms of the Benedictine Women of Madison--amongst other concerns.

My favorite bishop, Robert Morlino, is back up to his favorite thing. After threatening a parish with interdict I wondered when he would get around to Holy Wisdom Monastery which is now infamous for inspiring the words 'going beyond Jesus'. Those are the words that all trads who think the LCWR are a bunch of pagan New Age priestesses will use with regularity to dis the LCWR. The words come from the paper Sr Lauri Brinks presented to the LCWR back in 2007. The very paper for which the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith took serious umbrage and in fact, directly mentioned in it's 'assessment'. Given all of this, I am truly shocked Bishop Morlino took so long to inform his diocesan priests that Holy Wisdom was off limits. The following is from the Wisconsin State Journal.

In the Spirit: Holy Wisdom Monastery now off-limits to Catholic priests

Bishop Robert Morlino is continuing to put more distance between the Madison Catholic Diocese and Holy Wisdom Monastery, a former Catholic monastery on the outskirts of Madison that is now a non-Catholic ecumenical retreat center.

In the latest development, Morlino is now prohibiting priests in the diocese from “attendance or participation at all events held at Holy Wisdom Monastery and all events sponsored or co-sponsored by Holy Wisdom Monastery or the Benedictine Women of Madison,” according to a March 7 letter to priests leaked to the State Journal.

A February visit to the monastery by Sister Simone Campbell, an outspoken, progressive Catholic nun, appeared to be the final straw for Morlino. (I bet it was the final straw. Sr Campbell happens to be the head of NETWORK, a social justice lobby which itself was mentioned by name in the CDF assessment.)

The monastery, in the town of Westport on the northwest side of Lake Mendota, once was a Catholic high school for girls run by Benedictine nuns. After the school closed in 1966, the nuns turned the site into an ecumenical retreat center, offering a place of hospitality to a wide range of people and groups.

In 2000, the monastic Catholic sisters at the site welcomed a Protestant woman to live with them, a move that led them to seek independence from the Catholic Church. The Vatican approved their request in 2006. The monastery is now managed by the Benedictine Women of Madison, an ecumenical community led by Sister Mary David Walgenbach, who is Catholic. (It is a community of exactly three consecrated women.)

Morlino’s action highlights a longstanding beef some Catholics, especially those who are more tradition-minded, have with the monastery. The monastery’s worship services, they say, retain so many elements of a Mass that unsuspecting Catholics could be duped into thinking the services are valid representations of Catholic teaching. This is especially worrisome, they say, because the worship services diverge from church doctrine in profound ways, such as allowing women to preach and embracing the relationships of gay couples. (Well, if these poor unsuspecting Catholics were duped, it wouldn't be a sin anyway and if these Catholics think women are allowed to preach, they can't be good upstanding Catholics and deserve to be duped by some hybrid ecumenical service. LOL)

“Holy Wisdom Monastery is perhaps best known among local Catholics for substantive rejection of the Catholic faith, so I would think priests or sisters should know they are not sending a good message if they attend events there,” said Elizabeth Durack of Madison, who attends the Cathedral Parish in Downtown Madison and has been vocal in encouraging “faithful Catholics” not to attend activities at the monastery.
The monastery’s worship services, while attended by people from many Christian backgrounds, have become particularly popular among liberal Catholics and those displeased with Morlino. (How utterly unsurprising.)

Morlino, in his letter to priests, said it was his duty “to protect the integrity and unity of the faith.” There “is a grave potential for scandal and confusion among the faithful, owing to Holy Wisdom Monastery’s status as a former Catholic monastery,” he wrote.

Diocesan spokesman Brent King said no single incident or priest precipitated the bishop’s decree; however, King said, publicity surrounding Campbell’s Feb. 14 appearance at the monastery “brought more attention to a Catholic giving an address at a former Catholic monastery” and “added to the ongoing confusion.” (Probably has nothing to do with the fact Sr Campbell has a higher media profile than Bishop Morlino.)

Campbell led the “Nuns on the Bus” campaign last year in opposition to Janesville Congressman Paul Ryan’s federal budget proposal, which she viewed as detrimental to the country’s social safety net. Her February appearance at the monastery was sponsored by the Interfaith Coalition for Worker Justice of South Central Wisconsin. (Also probably has nothing to do with the fact Morlino gave cover to Ryan's budget, against the statements of the USCCB, while the Nuns on the Bus did the exact opposite.)

Among those at the event was the Rev. Stephen Umhoefer, pastor of Nativity of Mary Catholic Church in Janesville, who gave the benediction and spoke warmly of Campbell’s work. His parish is part of the Madison diocese, and he is a diocesan priest. He declined comment.

Walgenbach also declined to comment. In the past, she and others at the monastery have said they do not consider themselves less Catholic because of their ecumenism. “The Catholic spirituality is bigger than the Roman Catholic Church,” Walgenbach told me last year.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/religion/in-the-spirit-holy-wisdom-monastery-now-off-limits-to/article_a451b181-1eab-5657-98d5-8ae5989a3e94.html#ixzz2SQmsg3UQ

****************************************

When reading the above article I couldn't help but remember a comment of Pope Francis from his Holy Thursday homily:

"Those who do not go out of themselves, instead of being mediators, gradually become intermediaries, managers. We know the difference: the intermediary, the manager ... doesn't put his own skin and his own heart on the line, he never hears a warm, heartfelt word of thanks," he said.

Bishop Morlino doesn't quite fit the above description because he does go out of his way to placate orthodox Catholics. In doing so he doesn't need to become an intermediary or a mediator because operating from one end of the Catholic spectrum negates him even having to mediate anything coming from the Vatican. All he needs to reference is in his head and his head is full of Canon Law and the Catechism. In this particular case of Holy Wisdom Monastery, there isn't much question the Benedictines of Madison are outside or 'beyond' the catechism and the Vatican itself freed them from Canon Law. I'm just surprised it took an appearance by Sr Simone Campbell for Bishop Morlino to finally give the word about Holy Wisdom Monastery, but then that would be two strikes against the CDF assessment. Two strikes and they are out.

I can't help but wonder why it is OK for Pope Francis to conduct services in a detention center but not OK for Madison priests and religious to attend any events at Holy Wisdom Monastery. I bet I might even find instances in the Madison Diocese where Roman Catholics share service space with other denominations. This kind of thing happens everywhere anymore and no one gets scandalously confused. Ecumenical services happen in their hundreds on a daily basis, and even Bishop Morlino has no problem with mixing with protestants during political prayer breakfasts and what not. Of course, I'm not sure those ecumenical political things actually include any Democrats or other kinds of progressive Catholics, but I'm prepared to be wrong. Which leads me to believe this latest edict is really about LCWR nuns--x LCWR or not-- and their ecumenical services and their politics. On that, I'm willing to bet I'm not wrong.

A Red Flag Over The New Pope

2013-05-04T12:01:00.002-06:00

While there are many things about Pope Francis I find laudatory, there are also some things which throw up some serious red flags. I happen to believe one of those red flags will color too many of his decisions. That flag is illustrated in a homily he gave this morning. The following excerpt is taken from Vatican radio's translation of his homily. The link is at the bottom of this excerpt.

“You may ask the question,” continued Pope Francis, ‘Father, what is the weapon to defend against these seductions, from these blandishments, these enticements that the prince of this world offers?’. The weapon is the same weapon of Jesus, the Word of God - not dialogue - but always the Word of God, and then humility and meekness. We think of Jesus, when they give that slap: what humility! What meekness! He could have insulted him, no? One question, meek and humble. We think of Jesus in His Passion. His Prophet says: ‘As a sheep going to the slaughter.’ He does not cry out, not at all: humility. Humility and meekness. These are the weapons that the prince and spirit of this world does not tolerate, for his proposals are proposals for worldly power, proposals of vanity, proposals for ill-gotten riches.”

“Today,” continued Pope Francis, “Jesus reminds us of this hatred that the world has against us, against the followers of Jesus.” The world hates us, he repeated, “because He has saved us, redeemed us.” Recalling the “weapons to defend ourselves” he added that we must remain sheep, “because sheep are meek and humble, [and when we are sheep] we have a shepherd.” The Pope concluded with an invocation to the Virgin Mary, asking her, “to help us become meek and humble in the way of Jesus.”

Text from page http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/04/pope_francis_at_mass:_fighting_evil_with_meekness_and_humility_/en1-689083
of the Vatican Radio website

*****************************************

I have a difficult time believing Jesus came to teach us how to weaponize the spiritual attributes of humility and meekness. I don't think Jesus came to teach spiritual principles as battle strategies or to use as weapons in military campaigns of any sort. Spiritual or secular. Jesus came to teach love and compassion as the two attributes which enact the will of the Father on earth exactly as they do in heaven. There is nothing in the Lord's prayer about wars and weapons. There are lines about forgiveness and forgiving, and about being delivered from evil. There are no lines about conquering evil in the name of Jesus or remaining sheep under the protection of some shepherd as military protector.

Pope Francis has consistently used this kind of military weaponizing language when speaking about Jesus and Catholic spirituality. I find this trend of Francis' irritating if only because the first thing humanity usually does with a new technology or scientific discovery is weaponize it. I would sincerely hope spirituality could be evolved in such a way that it precludes weaponization of it in any way shape or form. Actually, I'm beginning to believe it is precisely this use of spirituality as a weapon in a some inner dimensional war that is precluding Catholicism from leading it's followers in engaging in the spiritual acts that Jesus did. The aim of any spiritual system should not be to further the kind of dualistic split inherent in an 'us against the enemy' mentality, but to transcend such dualisms by seeking a more holistic and encompassing point of view. The idea is to heal such divisions, not conquer them.

As long as Francis preaches the war and weapons form of spirituality, rather than reducing the dualism in Catholicism, he will increase it. That for me, is a very big red flag.

An Important Challenge From The German Church

2013-04-29T07:53:00.003-06:00

Germany's Cardinal Kasper has also called for women deacons and Cardinal Reihard Marx, one of Pope Francis' Great 8 is on record for this statement about women's ordination: We must go on thinking about this intensively. Perhaps we have not yet come to the end of the road we set out on together.”

While the USCCB head is discussing 'dirty hands' and and how this gives him permission to exclude Catholics, his German counterpart is talking inclusion and reform. Pope Francis has some work to do in getting his upper leadership on the same page.

Women Catholic deacons 'no longer taboo'

The Local - 4/29/2013

Germany's top Roman Catholic has called for women to be allowed to become deacons, which would enable them to perform baptisms and marriages outside of mass - a novelty for Catholic women.

Archbishop of Freiburg Robert Zollitsch, who chairs the German Bishops' Conference, called for the change at the end of a four-day meeting to discuss possible reforms.

The conference, the first of its kind, invited 300 Roman Catholic experts to propose reforms. Zollitsch's comments echo year-long calls from the Central Committee of German Catholics to permit women to become deacons. On Sunday, Zollitsch said that aim was no longer a 'taboo.'

Zollitsch said the Catholic Church could only regain credibility and strength by committing to reform. He described an "atmosphere of openness and freedom" at the conference.

Deacons assist priests during church services and can perform baptisms and marriages outside of mass. Their primary role however is to serve the needy in their community and their duties are considered secular rather than pastoral.

Another proposal to emerge from the conference was to extend the rights of remarried divorcees to sit on church bodies such as parish councils. Conference members also discussed the possibility of granting them the right to receive Holy Communion and attend confession.

"It's important to me that, without undermining the sanctity of marriage, these men and women are taken seriously within the church and feel respected and at home," said Zollitsch. At present the reforms remain speculative and there is no proposed time-frame for their implementation. The position of divorcees remains highly controversial within the Church.

The conference also touched on the difficulty, particularly in eastern Germany, of recruiting people to work for Catholic institutions such as hospitals and kindergarten. At present the Church can only employ Roman Catholics. However Zollitsch called for work permits to be extended to non-Catholics and to those with "different lifestyles." This would technically apply to homosexual people too. However Church labour reforms are unlikely to be introduced in the next three years. (But the odds are all these reforms will begin happening now, as Zollitsch has verbally opened the door.)

While reform might be slow to come, the sentiments expressed at the conference are a signal to many that change is on the way. "I have never experienced a process of strategy development as transparent as this one," said Thomas Berg, of the Baden-Württemberg Leadership Academy, who attended the conference.

***********************************************

I wrote before, I think in a comment, that the resignation of Pope Benedict and the election of Pope Francis has opened some fissures and let off some pressure. This German conference and AB Zollitsch's remarks are another major indication of this phenomenon. More and more bishops are talking meaningful reform and not just rearranging deck chairs--except in the US. This latest from Germany is unique simply because it's a request from an entire national Church, an important national Church whose financial clout is second only to the US. I cannot imagine this sort of thing happening during the papacies of Benedict or JPII. Yes, the German Conference put it's foot down about a few things, most notably a couple of bishop appointments, but to advocate for major changes in the Diaconate, hiring and firing practices, and for pastoral ministry to irregular marriages is huge, and could never have happened before February 28th.

Here in the US we are still mired in the Benedict/JPII Church as can be seen in the tripe written by Cardinal 'dirty hands' Dolan, the removal of gay employees simply on the reception of single anonymous letters, and the continued coddling and mishandling of abusive priests. There is an arrogance in too many of the US bishops that is breath taking in it's application. If there is one national Bishops conference that exudes a fundamental cancerous clericalism, it's the USCCB. None of this is really not all that surprising since it seems to be molded in the image of Cardinals Bernie Law, Justin Rigali, and Roger Mahony, and this is not to forget the boys from Bishop Bruskewitz's Nebraska stable. They may differ in terms of theological emphasis, but not in clerical privilege and diocesan 'ownership'. God only knows how much money the California crop has spent on Cathedrals. It's most likely only exceeded by the amount they spent on clerical abuse. It's no wonder Cardinal O'Malley is the US Cardinal selected by Francis for his kitchen cabinet of 8. There was no other real credible choice.

As to these proposals from Germany, they are the first necessary steps in restoring gender balance in the Church. The next step is to free priests to marry. These are not truly reforms, but the recovery of past practices. They will be easily accepted in the third world because women hold real positions of spiritual authority in Indigenous cultures. Unfortunately, while they would be welcomed in the US Church, they would not be forthcoming from our current crop of bishops--at least not all of them. What I would like to see is a similar gathering of laity and bishops in US, and more than that I would like to see Pope Francis mandate similar gatherings in all national Churches. It is the only feasible way for lay Catholics to have meaningful say in the Church. It's not democracy, but at least it's a long step from absolute monarchy. The German Church has opened an important conversation and laid down an important challenge--not that this exact scenario hasn't happened before--the question is will the result be different.

Synchronicity Gives Me A Perfect Example

2013-04-28T11:20:00.001-06:00

No dinner for this child at Cardinal Dolan's table.

In my previous post I made the point that a celibate male priesthood has only the experience of being the child in the parent/child relationship and that leads to directly to a authoritarian paternal paradigm. There is never the kind of dialogue that carries on between parents and adult children. The following is from Cardinal Dolan's personal blog. It illustrates this issue in spades.

All Are Welcome!

April 25th, 2013

It was a lesson I began to learn when I was seven or eight . . .
My buddy Freddie from across the street and I were playing outside. Mom called me for supper.
“Can Freddie stay and eat supper with us?” I asked.
“He’d sure be welcome, if it’s okay with his mom and dad,” she replied.
“Thanks, Mrs. Dolan,” Freddie replied. “I’m sure it’s okay, because mom and dad are out, and the babysitter was just going to make me a sandwich whenever I came in.”
I was so proud and happy. Freddie was welcome in our house, at our table. We both rushed in and sat down.
“Freddie, glad you’re here,” dad remarked, “but . . . looks like you and Tim better go wash your hands before you eat.”
Simple enough . . . common sense . . . you are a most welcome and respected member now of our table, our household, dad was saying, but, there are a few very natural expectations this family has. Like, wash your hands!…
So it is with the supernatural family we call the Church: all are welcome!
But, welcome to what? To a community that will love and respect you, but which has rather clear expectations defining it, revealed by God in the Bible, through His Son, Jesus, instilled in the human heart, and taught by His Church.
The Church is Catholic . . . that means all are welcome;
The Church is one . . . that means we have a Person — Jesus — and His moral teaching that unite us;
The Church is apostolic . . . that means that His teaching was entrusted to His apostles, and carefully handed-on by His Church. The sacred duty of the Church is to invite people, challenge people, to live the message and teachings of Jesus.
This balance can cause some tensions. Freddie and I were loved and welcomed at our family table, but the clear expectation was, no dirty hands!
Blessed John Paul II used to say that the best way to love someone was to tell them the truth: To teach the truth with love. Jesus did that — He was love and truth in His very person — and so does His Church.
We love and respect everyone . . . but that doesn’t necessarily mean we love and respect their actions.
Who a person is? We love and respect him or her . . .
What a person does? Truth may require that we tell the person we love that such actions are not consonant with what God has revealed.
We can never judge a person . . . but, we can judge a person’s actions.
Jesus did it best. Remember the woman caught in adultery? The elders were going to stone her. At the words of Jesus, they walked away.
“Is there no one left to condemn you?” the Lord tenderly asked the accused woman.
“No one, Sir,” she whispered.
“Neither do I condemn you,” Jesus concluded. “Now go, but sin no more.”
Hate the sin; love the sinner . . .(Uhmm Tim, Jesus welcomed and forgave her BEFORE the 'sin no more' statement and his forgiveness was not contingent on her 'sinning no more.")

************************************************

This is Cardinal Dolan's take on why the Church loves gays but kicks them from the table. Gays have dirty hands like little Freddy. We are not to take the message that gays are dirty hands, but just that good daddies make sure there are no children with dirty hands at the dinner table.

Someone needs to sit down with Cardinal Dolan and spend some time explaining to him that Jesus did not have a contingent form of love. Jesus did not relate to people as if they were seven or eight year old children and he was some uber parent. Jesus referred to his followers as his brothers and sisters not as his children and there is nothing in the Gospels where Jesus refused to feed people if their hands were dirty.

And I don't know about Cardinal Dolan's family, but it was my mother who decided who was or was not welcome at the table in our house, and I don't remember her kicking too many people from the table for dirty hands, sexual orientation, or an alcohol problem. If she had the family ranch would have had too few to labor in it.

When Insanity Is Taught As Reality

2013-04-28T10:26:00.000-06:00

I have to blame my daughter for getting me started on this particular insanity--again. But it's nice to know poor Mario will never find his princess presiding in a cathedral--ever. I can keep my search strictly to castles.

This has been a chaotic week for me and so I've fallen behind with blogs I cherish reading. This morning I was able to catch up somewhat and found a brilliant piece by Bill Lyndsey over on Bilgrimage. In it Bill is pondering the events at the funeral he recently attended for his uncle. He wonders why churches let women talk before the services, astute brilliant caring women, but not during services where the ownership of a phallus trumps the intelligence of any female. I wonder that myself, because I think it's the underlying elephant in the room when it comes to the CDF and the LCWR. The following is an excerpt from Bill's post:

Something about this seems not quite right to me. Something about this seems screamingly wrong to me, and what's wrong about it all seemed to me to be in stark relief at my uncle's funeral. Women whose moral insights are far sharper than the conventional moral insights of preacher men who haven't had to think much about the complexities of making the gospel message they deliver critically pertinent to the world in which they live are permitted no say at all once the preaching and the praying begins, with the invocations of Father God and the songs to the Father in Heaven who sent His Son to save us all from sin.

Half the church sits in silence while the other half claims to be God. What struck me very strongly at my uncle's funeral is not merely how wrong--how insane--this arrangement and the theological system undergirding it are.

What struck me is also how much damage this arrangement (which is how most cultures in the world do business, so that patriarchal religion is merely aping the culture at large with its ideology of male entitlement and female subordination) damages us. How it damages the world in which we live. How it damages our religious institutions to shut out the interesting, accomplished, morally astute voices of women while letting the voices of less interesting, less accomplished, less morally astute men posture as God speaking to the rest of us who sit in meek submission and silence receiving God's words from God's phallic emissaries.

**************************************************

The gender issue is not going to go away. Argumentation which leads with 'that's the way we've always done it' is not going to persuade in cultures in which 'the way we've always done it' have gone the way of the Dodo bird. More and more people are waking up to the fact that relegating the thoughts of educated intelligent women secondary to possession of a penis is truly, as Bill writes, insane. Women's 'genius' is not limited to family and pregnancy. No matter how many times women are told by men that this is their genius, this constant repetition will not make it true. This mantra also has the negative impact of minimizing the contributions of men to family life and lets men off the hook when it comes to taking responsibility for their children while giving secular legal systems a free reign to curtail male rights to interact with their own children. It's promoted a situation in which too many men can pay for them but not play with them.

In Catholicism, the other situation I've found somewhat insane, is promoting celibate childless men as the experts on families and family life. When one's sole experience of family is strictly from the child end of things, it shouldn't be surprising that an authoritarian paternal mode is the default method of interaction. Actual parenthood involves many more paradigms than using reflexive authority to make your point and influence behavior. Anyone who has raised teenagers is well aware of this fact, and the older one's children become, the more listening and the ability to dialogue become more and more prominent. A parent reaches the stage where the relationship becomes far more about equals than parent child. Unless it involves grandchildren. Then, as my own mother informed me, grandparents get to enjoy and spoil the grand children without the problems of raising them. The actual parents are not allowed to voice any opposition to this arrangement. This resulted in driving back to Nevada from the ranch with a seven year old on a sugar high with a car full of toys informing me I was 'really mean and not nice like Grandma' because I wouldn't stop at every tourist trap for seven hundred and fifty miles to check out the toys. But I digress.

There was one time when the celibate childless men allowed married lay people with children to have a voice. That was back during the papal commission on birth control. That lay voice was an eye opening experience for the vast majority of the clergy on that commission. They voted to allow for artificial birth control because they heard from thousands of Catholic men and women that family life was not like Ozzie and Harriet, father did not always know best, and that Mr Ed had better advice than Fr Ed. Pope Paul VI opted to reinforce the authority of childless celibate popes and the results of that decision are seen in generations of empty pews and fewer and fewer vocations. We have now reached the point that young women are less inclined to participate in religion than young men. That's a first and that is a damning sign for the future. Unless Pope Francis can work some sort of gender miracle with in the Church, his predecessor will have gotten precisely what he wanted, a much smaller remnant church in the West with almost all vocations coming from Africa. This will last only as long as women bring up the rear in access to educational and economic opportunities in Africa.

I'm well aware that the conservative Catholic will say it was birth control itself that caused all these problems for the Church. Fewer children equals fewer vocations they will say and birth control most definitely raises the 'it's all about me' quotient. I've found that interesting in that it implies vocations are directly dependent, not on God, but on women having many children. The historical idea seems to be that God calls some of the surplus children to religious vocations. There is of course, another truth. God wouldn't have to rely on the surplus children if Catholicism didn't insist on a completely celibate male clergy. God could rely on volunteers from all of His children which seems to be the message from the Pentecostal and Evangelical movement. If all Catholics could participate in the sacramental life of the Church, including leading the liturgy, we would have more than enough sacramental leaders and no gender issue.

Pope Francis is certainly familiar with the explosion in Pentecostal and Evangelical churches in Latin America. He's also familiar with the popularity of Christian Base Communities in Catholic Latin America, a movement which was severely curtailed by his two predecessors precisely because Benedict and JPII felt these lay led communities diluted the theology of the celibate male priesthood. Gender is one elephant in the Catholic livingroom, but the other is the celibate male priesthood itself. Is Catholicism defined by it's desire to follow the teachings of Jesus or by it's uniquely celibate male priesthood? Pope Francis appears to me to believe that for him the Church is both/and. Unfortunately as far as women are concerned this is not really a both/and statement. It's an 'I am/you are not' statement and that is not what Paul tells us Jesus taught.

Reform Is Coming: Italian Bishops Need Not Apply

2013-04-22T20:51:00.002-06:00

Looks like the Catholic version of the Emerald City is going to get an influx of employees from other countries and none of them will have ruby red slippers.

Since it's back to work tomorrow, I wanted to post this article from the TelegraphUK about yesterday's article in the London Sunday Times which was behind a pay wall. The eight cardinals Pope Francis selected to help him with reforming the curia are not kidding around. Adding women to the mix is just part of what they are thinking. It doesn't appear to be a good time to be an Italian bishop in the curia. It seems those men will be given employment elsewhere.

Pope Francis 'to appoint more women to key Vatican posts'

By Tom Kington in Rome - The TelegraphUK - 4/21/2013

Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras said he was backing more posts for women after the Pope named him this month to lead a task force of eight cardinals from around the world to reform the Roman Curia, an alleged hotbed of intrigue, infighting and corruption.

The cardinal's comments, made to The Sunday Times, were backed by Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi on Sunday.

"It is a natural step – there is a move towards putting more women in key roles where they are qualified," he said....

.....In his general audience on April 3, the Pope noted how women were the first witnesses of the Resurrection, adding that, "The Apostles and disciples find it harder to believe in the Risen Christ, not the women however!"

This was a message about the importance of the role of women in the Church," said Carlo Marroni, a Vatican expert at Italian daily Il Sole 24 Ore. "That said, the question still gets handled cautiously as it touches on the issue of ordination for women."

Women have taken on a number of key roles at the Vatican, including Sister Nicla Spezzati, the undersecretary of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Flaminia Giovanelli, the undersecretary, at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

St Peter's is run by a woman, Maria Cristina Carlo-Stella, who is the head of the Fabbrica di San Pietro, the Vatican office in charge of the basilica. (Wonder if the theologian of Benedict's papal household was aware of this. Why she could be fixing the roof or something.)

"But that is still very few," said Marco Politi, a Vatican watcher at Italian daily Il Fatto Quotidiano. "Look at Germany and the US, where women have many key positions in the dioceses." (Three barely qualifies for tokenism.)

Cardinal Maradiaga, the head of the group, who speaks six languages, plays the saxophone and trained as a pilot, said he would be scrutinising the controversial Vatican Bank, which has been linked to scandals.
Pope Francis formed the task force after complaints that the Vatican was unresponsive to the needs and requests of cardinals outside Italy and Europe.

Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, the retired archbishop of Santiago, Chile, and one of group, has warned that the Vatican was overpopulated with Europeans.
"Forty European bishops working for the Holy Father and for the government of the Church are too many," he said. (40 is not tokenism. It's excessivism. Maybe by the time this group of Cardinals is done the numbers of bishops vs women will be reversed.)

********************************************

Pope Francis' gang of eight cardinals certainly seem to have a different perspective on management than I had first thought. The above article contains some interesting and potentially reform inducing thoughts. The addition of more women certainly would raise the level of input from women and coupled with downsizing the quotient of bishops would more than likely enhance their voices--and the voices of laity in general. I would also think reducing the number of bishops would put real breaks on careerism amongst the clergy.

I would love to be present when Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga starts in on the IOR or Vatican Bank. As it stands right now, there are no longer any Italians involved with the IOR Board of Directors and the bank's president is a German. Board members are German, Swiss, or American. Credit card transactions are being handled by a Swiss financial services group. All this is no doubt due to the Bank's troubles with the Italian banking system which has in the past frozen substantial transactions, accused the Bank of money laundering, complained of the lack of transparency in regard to account holders and others could use those accounts, and stopped credit card transactions through Duetsche Bank--again because of money laundering concerns. It certainly looks as if the Vatican, under Bertone, has switched to non Italians and non Italian financial services to put some distance between itself and Italian banking regulators. Perhaps Cardinal Maradiaga might want to start his investigation with the previous bank president, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, who was summarily fired, complete with character assassination by the Bertone led board and specifically under the signature of the American KofC CEO Carl Anderson. Tedeschi complained about lack of transparency at the bank, but was also implicated in IOR money laundering as well as questioned about the same issue at another bank.

There were Italian reports that Cardinal Bertone received a two million euro 'charitable donation' at the last IOR Board meeting in 2012. It may be that this was a method of helping the Salesians pay off their legal and settlement fees from multiple abuse cases, but it's fishy none the less. I have not been able to find an article about this in English, but this would be relevant with regards to Cardinal Maradiaga as he is also a Salesian. I'd appreciate it if anyone finds any links verifying this story about Cardinal Bertone. In any case, Pope Francis has already cancelled bonuses for the four other Cardinals who are tasked with supervising the lay Board and the over all management of the IOR.

Any way one looks at it, these cardinals seem very serious about changing the culture in the Vatican. I can easily believe this last conclave was a referendum on the Italian curia and their method of doing business by non Italian cardinals. The truth is the Church is no longer an Italian or European enterprise and it's better for all concerned the Vatican reflect that fact. This is not to say the Church is doing swell in Latin America because it isn't, but continuing along the same path was not going to fix anything anywhere and fresh eyes do sometimes come up with fresh solutions. Besides, it will be nice to have some female faces, and truth is, there isn't any real canonical reason some of them couldn't wear cardinal red.

A Strange Link Between Two Very Different Men Continues Unto Heaven

2013-04-22T12:57:00.001-06:00


Maybe some dysfunctional relationships are made in heaven and maybe for God's inscrutable purposes.

I read early this morning in the National Catholic Reporter a John Allen story about 'unblocking' the canonization process for Oscar Romero. While not really surprised, because this was expected under Pope Francis, I was none the less happy. Here's the first part of the story:

Francis 'unblocks' Romero beatification, official says

A Vatican official responsible for the sainthood cause of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador announced Sunday that the cause has been "unblocked" by Pope Francis, suggesting that beatification of the assassinated prelate could come swiftly.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia spoke Sunday in the Italian city of Molfetta at a Mass honoring the 20th anniversary of the death of Bishop Antonio "Tonino" Bello, known as one of Italy's premier "peace bishops."
In addition to being the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Paglia also serves as the postulator for Romero's sainthood cause.

The Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints has been studying the Romero case since 1996, after the church in El Salvador formally opened the procedure in 1990.
At the end of his 20-minute homily Sunday dedicated to the memory of Bello, Paglia said: "Just today, the day of the death of Don Tonino, the cause of the beatification of Monsignor Romero has been unblocked."

Happy that the cause for AB Romero has been 'unblocked', I clicked over to Vatican Insider and learned about another Canonization process. This one not being blocked, but fast tracked at the speed of light as far as these things usually go.

The Vatican doctors approve the miracle to make Wojtyla a saint

"A saint now!" The canonisation of Wojtyla is getting closer quickly and it could be celebrated next October. In fact, in the past few days, the medical council of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints has recognized as inexplicable one healing attributed to the blessed John Paul II. A supposed "miracle" that, if it is also approved by theologians and the cardinals (as it is very likely), will bring the Polish Pope, who died in 2005, the halo of sainthood in record time, just eight years after his death.

It all happened in great secrecy, with maximum confidentiality. In January, the postulator of the cause, Mgr. Slawomir Oder, submitted a presumed miraculous healing to the Vatican Congregation for the Saints for a preliminary opinion. As it is known, after the approval of a miracle for the proclamation of a blessed, the canonical procedures include the recognition of a second miracle that must have occurred after the beatification ceremony.

Two doctors of the Vatican council had previously examined this new case, and both gave a favourable opinion. The dossier with the medical records and the testimonies was then officially presented to the Congregation, which immediately included the examination in its agenda. In the past few days it was discussed by a committee of seven doctors, the council (presided over by Dr. Patrick Polisca, Pope John Paul II's cardiologist), Pope Benedict XVI's personal physicians and now Pope Francis's. The medical council also gave a favourable opinion, the first official go-ahead by the Vatican, by defining as inexplicable the healing attributed to the intercession of the blessed Karol Wojtyla.

**********************************************

So once again these two men are linked with major events announced with in the same 24 hour time frame. The last such day was when AB Romero was assasinated and JPII signed the document which would have removed Romero from his position as Archbishop of San Salvador. Pretty amazing coincidences I have to think.

JPII was always going to be declared a saint. He himself set the process in motion that would see that he would be fast tracked when he removed the position of Devil's Advocate. That particular task is now in the hands of his official promoter. One might think that would be a conflict of interest, but I guess it's much easier to move saints through the process without someone trying their best to 'block' said process. Unlike Romero whose process has somehow managed to be 'blocked' for over thirty years. He must not have gotten a very good promoter or his promoter didn't find the necessary doors to sainthood nearly as wide open as did JPII's promoter. In any event, Romero could be canonized in the same time frame as JPII because if Pope Francis determines Romero is a true martyr -which he is - than the miracle business isn't necessary. It is distinctly possible both men could share the same Canonization day. Pope Francis could save the Vatican some money and the entire Church could try to sort through the all the mixed messages.

Things Are Changing And They Won't Stay The Same

2013-04-21T07:36:00.002-06:00

This Photo from the NY Daily News demonstrates cell phone photography at Benedict's and Francis' papal elections. This photo strikes me as potentially prophetic about how much lay participation each will have engendered.

Here's a couple of stories that have the rad trads going this Sunday morning. The Sunday Times article is behind a pay wall and I have been unable to find a free copy. NCR has just begun their annual donation drive so that link will begin with a video appeal.

Pope’s strongman blasts old guard aside

The pontiff is to give more women top jobs and break the grip of Italian cardinals, his key aide tells John Follain in Vatican City

John Follain - The Sunday TimesUK - 4/21/2013
POPE FRANCIS plans to appoint lay women to top jobs in the Vatican and to dilute the power of Italian cardinals in a radical shake-up of the Catholic Church’s government following a series of scandals.
In a move branded as “revolutionary” by Vatican watchers, the Pope last weekend appointed eight cardinals to advise him on the governance and reform of the Curia, the church’s bureaucracy which has been tainted by controversies over child sex abuse by priests, leaks of papal files and allegations of corruption.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras, whom Francis named to head the panel and who is now seen as a “power behind the papal throne”, predicted a difficult fight ahead for the Argentine pontiff.

Another Vatican voice backs civil unions for same-sex couples

John Allen - National Catholic Reporter - 4/21/2013
Another veteran Vatican figure has signaled openness to civil recognition of same-sex unions, in the wake of similar comments in early February from the Vatican’s top official on the family. It’s a position also once reportedly seen with favor by the future pope while he was still Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
The latest expression of support for civil recognition as an alternative to gay marriage comes from Archbishop Piero Marini, who served for 18 years as Pope John Paul II’s liturgical Master of Ceremonies.

“There are many couples that suffer because their civil rights aren’t recognized,” Marini said.

************************************************

This is going to be one interesting papacy. I have to agree with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, Pope Francis may have some hard sailing ahead. John Allen remarks later in his article that the comments of Archbishop Marini and the earlier comments of Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family appear to be undercutting French and US Bishops. I would agree, and that's because both archbishops framed their statements as a matter of civil rights and the French and US bishops have consistently stated in one form or another that gays have no rights to a legalized form of partnership. I'm sure the same right wing argument will be leveled against women holding meaningful positions in the hierarchy--women have no rights to any leadership position in the Roman Catholic Church which would make male clerics subordinate to them. Rough sailing ahead indeed.

I don't know where all this will eventually finish. I don't think Pope Francis does either which is why hope and trust are recurring themes for him. His multiple references to the Holy Spirit at large in the Church is another indication to me that he is willing to tip a few dominoes without having to know how many will then go down. I don't know if that's a John XXIII kind of Pope or something new altogether. I do know it takes a lot of faith and a lot of courage to make major decisions, even with the best of information, not knowing precisely how it will all come out. I think that's called leadership.

I have no doubt Francis knows his main opposition will come from the right and it will come hard, strong, and not particularly Christ like. He experienced that himself over the civil union question in Argentina. This was the only issue he lost as president of the Argentine Bishops Conference. I will keep that in mind when it seems he is keeping progressives on something of a roller coaster ride.

I also think Francis is a very strategic pope. If the Rodriguez Maradiaga interview turns out to be correct, last weeks affirmation concerning the investigation of the LCWR makes some sense. If Francis intends to appoint lay women to high positions in the curia he gave the right wing a sop. Since lay women includes all sisters and nuns I will be curious to see how many religious women are included in these appointments. Personally, I would really hope one of them is Leslie Anne Knight. I have reason for my hope.

Just to review, Leslie Anne Knight was the president of Caritas Internationalis until 2011 when she was refused the necessary nihil obstat to run for another four year term. This nihil obstat was under the purview of the Secretary of State's Office and not to grant her this Vatican seal of approval was a decision of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. The Cardinal who led the Board of Directors for Caritas and was sandbagged by this decision, taken completely behind his back, was none other than Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga. The following is taken from the Tablet's coverage:

"Cardinal Rodríguez wrote to all directors of the 165-member international confederation on 5 February to inform them of the Vatican’s decision. The letter, which was seen by The Tablet, notes that Secretariat of State officials met a CI delegation on that same day and gave only a verbal account of why the Vatican refused to approve Dr Knight’s candidacy. The cardinal does not mention those reasons in his letter, but does say that the CI bureau, in an extraordinary meeting, “expressed their incomprehension at the reasons provided” and “reaffirmed their positive view of Lesley-Anne Knight’s work for Caritas and the Church”.

Anyway, I will be very interested in Pope Francis' appointments because there's a new dealer at the table and he is not going to use the old stacked deck. Amen.

When Art Is Too Real And Jesus Becomes An Inconvenient Truth

2013-04-20T14:38:00.002-06:00

This is one powerful depiction of Jesus by sculptor Timoth Schmalz, drives home the challenge of His message for 21st Century Catholics.

I might be a little late with this post, since it's been featured on Huffington Post and other outlets, but art is timeless. Problem with this piece is it may be too timely, at least in the sense that Jesus might actually have had to sleep on a few benches if He were here today living and teaching amongst the marginalized of our large inner cities.

The following is an excerpt of an article by Leslie Scrivener originally in Toronto's theStar.com. It explains how 'Homeless Jesus' actually was rejected and made homeless by two prominent Cathedrals, the Catholic one in New York and the Catholic one in Toronto. Artist Timothy Schmalz calls this ironic. I call it typical of protecting a particular Catholic mindset from the hard truths of the Gospel--or not wanting to appear hypocritical, or both.

Sculpture of Jesus the Homeless rejected by two prominent churches

Leslie Scrivener - theStar.com - 4/13/2013
Jesus has been depicted in art as triumphant, gentle or suffering. Now, in a controversial new sculpture in downtown Toronto, he is shown as homeless — an outcast sleeping on a bench.

It takes a moment to see that the slight figure shrouded by a blanket, hauntingly similar to the real homeless who lie on grates and in doorways, is Jesus. It’s the gaping wounds in the feet that reveal the subject, whose face is draped and barely visible, as Jesus the Homeless.

Despite message of the sculpture — Jesus identifying with the poorest among us — it was rejected by two prominent Catholic churches, St. Michael’s Cathedral in Toronto and St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York.

“Homeless Jesus had no home,” says the artist, Timothy Schmalz, who specializes in religious sculpture. “How ironic.”

Rectors of both cathedrals were enthusiastic about the bronze piece and showed Schmalz possible locations, but higher-ups in the New York and Toronto archdiocese turned it down, he says.

“It was very upsetting because the rectors liked it, but when it got to the administration, people thought it might be too controversial or vague,” he says. He was told “it was not an appropriate image.”

The Toronto archdiocese tried to help him find an alternative location, including St. Augustine’s Seminary in Scarborough. But Schmalz, who describes his work as a visual prayer, wanted to reach a wider, secular audience. “I wanted not only the converted to see it, but also the marginalized. I almost gave up trying to find a place.”

Now the sculpture stands near Wellesley St. W., outside Regis College at the University of Toronto. It’s a Jesuit school of theology, where priests and lay people are trained, with an emphasis on social justice.

Bill Steinburg, communications manager for the Toronto archdiocese, says the decision not to accept the sculpture at St. Michael’s may have had to do with renovations at the cathedral and “partly to do with someone’s view of the art.”

To some who have seen it, it speaks the message of the Gospels. When theologian Thomas Reynolds came upon it he felt “the shock of recognition.” He quoted the biblical passage: “ … the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”

“I’m so used to seeing images of Jesus that are palatable,” says Reynolds.

But recent depictions of Jesus in political and social contexts have spurred controversy.

At Emmanuel College, the educational arm of the United Church where Reynolds teaches, there is a graceful sculpture showing Jesus’ suffering in a crucified woman. Schmaltz says he intended that his Jesus the Homeless can be interpreted as either male or female....

....Jesus the Homeless is provocative, says Reynolds, because it ‘punctures the illusion of normalcy.

“In certain ways, Christian communities have been privileged and considered themselves the norm in society and that has made Christians comfortable in our complacency.”

Schmalz, 43, roots the sculpture in his experiences in Toronto, where he trained at the former Ontario College of Art. “I was totally used to stepping over people. You’re not aware they are human beings. They become obstacles in the urban environment and you lose a spiritual connection to them. They become inert, an inconvenience.”......

******************************************

I don't know if this sculpture was rejected because of gender issues or hypocrisy issues or because it isn't a comfortable presentation for Catholics who prefer Jesus safely on the Cross dieing for their sins. Whatever the reason, Homeless Jesus is a powerful and haunting statement of just how hard Jesus' teachings really are. Under this Pope, it may be that Homeless Jesus could find a home in the heart of the Vatican. It would make an interesting contrast to some of the other art in St Peter's. After all Jesus was a homeless vagrant teacher long before He became Catholicism's 'King of Kings'. It never hurts to celebrate and remember one's roots. Sometimes it helps one see where everything started going wrong.

AB Chaput On The State Of His Archdiocese--It's A Mess

2013-04-20T10:12:00.001-06:00

For AB Chaput, trading the Rockies for the Phillies was easier and more successful than swapping Archdiocesan management jobs.

Archbishop Chaput recently gave an acceptance speech for an award bestowed on him by Philadelphia's Catholic Philopatrian Literary Society. He joins a long list of Philadelphia movers and shakers. In this speech he was his usual pull no punches self. His take on the state of health of the AD of Philadelphia is that of a patient on life support. It's hard to see how Philadelphia will be able to pull off the World Meeting of Families with it's papal visit scheduled for 2015 without a huge influx of help from other dioceses. The following is taken from CatholicPhilly.com with thanks to the NCR for first bringing this to my attention.

Archbishop gives stark, frank assessment of archdiocese at Philos dinner

CatholicPhilly.com - 4/15/2013
In his acceptance speech it became clear that if you ask Archbishop Chaput a question he is not apt to sugar-coat the answer. Although he is happy to be Philadelphia’s Archbishop, he said his answer as to how he has enjoyed the past 19 months is, “I haven’t liked it at all.”

Quite honestly, “It has been an awful time,” he said. “We’ve had huge problems with the clergy which has been a great sadness to the Church, a great sadness for the priests and a great sadness for all of you here. I have had to make decisions about the future of their lives that have been extraordinarily difficult not only for them but for their families; their moms, their brothers and sisters.” (And no words about the victims of these priests and the difficulties for their families, and so in this respect, he carries on in a line of other self referential Philly clerics.)

Coupled with this, he said, “I have had to close about 50 schools and will be closing parishes in the next couple of years in a way that will be disappointing to a lot of people. We have financial problems that are unimaginable.”

The Philadelphia archdiocese does have a distinguished history and Archbishop Chaput listed some of its past accomplishments, for example the home of two saints, an honor shared in America only by Hawaii. It had the largest Catholic school system in the country. It is home to a large number of Catholic colleges and universities. It still had more parishes (until recently) than Los Angeles, which is more than three times as large in Catholic population.

“This is an extraordinary place,” Archbishop Chaput said. “But things have changed immensely.”
He pointed to the practice of faith, with Mass attendance hovering around 20 percent when it once was about 75 or 80 percent. The church and schools were built on the assumption that the high numbers would always be there. (It's a very different story when one's Archdiocese isn't being bolstered by immigration as was Denver during his tenure. The truth of the Philly numbers speak directly to the disconnect between the Church and the post modern world.)

“Things have changed,” he said. “The problems we have financially are not admitting we have to change. Not in terms of our values and enthusiasm but in terms of how we look at our structures. We can’t keep open parishes that are empty; we can’t keep schools that have only 80 kids in them, we just can’t.” (And neither can you ignore the all important question: "Why has this happened?" for which the answers might just involve 'values and enthusiasms').

Change, he said, is going to be awkward and difficult, but “if we are going to be the Church that Jesus Christ wants us to be, we have to be different.” (That's an understatement.)

The Archbishop reminded his audience that the early Church as established by Jesus had no buildings. The first Christians continued to worship at the Temple and synagogues until they were expelled and then the churches they built were very small. The Church, he said, “is not a building it is the people of God, all of us together.”

Dealing with all of these problems that have built up over the years is a distraction. “I spend all of my time trying to figure out how we are going to do the next thing,” he said. “I ask your patience.” (Poor man. It's the price of monarchical leadership.)

As an archdiocese, “we have a lot of work to do,” he said. “I hope that when I turn 75 and the Pope says it is time to retire and get out of here you will have a reason to give me an award. You don’t have any yet. But we will do it together because I know you love the Lord and love His Church. Let’s do it together.”

*****************************************

Wasn't it Jesus who said 'by their fruits you shall know them?' Seems to me this was a cogent observation on the part of Jesus. This stark assessment of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia proves His point. Forty years of princely mismanagement has cost the Church in Philly 71% of it's practicing Catholic population. Of course, the Princes of the Archdiocese had a lot of help from the Kings and Princes in the Vatican, but even with that help, Philly is a prime candidate for an award for Pope Francis' definition of a 'self referential' church.

I actually have some empathy for AB Chaput. He's worked his whole clerical life at the beck and call of Rome, participated in many a political machination, was involved in more than one 'investigation' and his reward is to oversee the rapid decline of one of America's premier historical Archdioceses. He was the quintessential careerist and is now in a place where he must think and act creatively on his own. He is thoroughly enmeshed in what the governance structure of Rome, the one he faithfully and blindly served, has produced in Philadelphia.

Unfortunately, he is singularly unprepared to deal with this mess with any kind of effectiveness now that his main enabler is off the papal stage. He is too concrete a thinker, too black and white a decider, and too frequently reacts from the victim perspective. When he is finished, most of the financial numbers will add up. The one for Mass attendance will not. That one will continue to drop, unless Francis can somehow effect a global change in structure and pastoral emphasis that bypasses all the concrete thinkers, black and white deciders, and perpetual victims that his predecessors elevated to the hierarchy.

AB Chaput in some ways is already a Francis cleric. He is not ostentatious, has lived simply, was a member of a religious community before he was a bishop and maintains his connections. But unlike Francis, Chaput has relished being in the political spotlight and used his episcopal positions to garner favor amongst right wing political and curial elites. Since he doesn't appear to have done this for the usual perks, (other than career advancement which may not have been one of his goals) I have to believe he is truly a concrete, right wing, victim thinker. That is not the definition of a pastoral bishop. If Chaput is to have any real impact on the one number that actually counts--the practicing Catholic number--he is going to have to undergo a radical conversion in his world view. But in order to do that, he is going to have to stop thinking of himself as an unworthy victim constantly reacting too things, dependent on higher authority to bolster his authority. He has to learn to accept himself as having the personal competence and the innate worthiness to successfully complete what he has been tasked to do. He has to stop whining and start winning hearts and minds. He has to learn to trust in others where he mistrusts in himself. He has to pick up, what will be for him a true cross, in living Pope Francis' pastoral expectations. If he can do it though, he will find that the fruits are different and the burdens are lighter. He will then understand it's going to take real change on the part of the entire church hierarchy to really untangle the mess in Philadelphia. It's not just on his shoulders. If he can get that, he can then become part of meaningful solutions for the Philadelphia's everywhere on the Catholic globe, and there are a lot of them.

Pope Francis Concurs With EPBXVI: The LCWR Must Have Male Coaches

2013-04-15T09:52:00.002-06:00

Pope Francis will continue to rule with aid of 8 elder men in red and the LCWR will remain in the CDF dog house. Oh well, I didn't expect change in either of these areas.

Yesterday I wrote about my angst concerning Pope Francis and today it was confirmed. Under Francis nothing will change for the LCWR. They will continue to be under the direction of three male coaches because Francis believes the CDF was correct in it's assessment--the LCWR was not playing the Catholic game by the rules.

From the Vatican website:

Today the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) in the United States of America. Most Rev. J. Peter Sartain, Archbishop of Seattle and the Holy See’s Delegate for the Doctrinal Assessment of the LCWR, also participated in the meeting.

As this was his first opportunity to meet with the Presidency of the LCWR, the Prefect of the Congregation, Most Rev. Gerhard Ludwig Müller, expressed his gratitude for the great contribution of women Religious to the Church in the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor which have been founded and staffed by Religious over the years.

The Prefect then highlighted the teaching of the Second Vatican Council regarding the important mission of Religious to promote a vision of ecclesial communion founded on faith in Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church as faithfully taught through the ages under the guidance of the Magisterium (Cf. Lumen gentium, nn. 43-47). He also emphasized that a Conference of Major Superiors, such as the LCWR, exists in order to promote common efforts among its member Institutes as well as cooperation with the local Conference of Bishops and with individual Bishops. For this reason, such Conferences are constituted by and remain under the direction of the Holy See (Cf. Code of Canon Law, cann. 708-709).

Finally, Archbishop Müller informed the Presidency that he had recently discussed the Doctrinal Assessment with Pope Francis, who reaffirmed the findings of the Assessment and the program of reform for this Conference of Major Superiors.

It is the sincere desire of the Holy See that this meeting may help to promote the integral witness of women Religious, based on a firm foundation of faith and Christian love, so as to preserve and strengthen it for the enrichment of the Church and society for generations to come.

The LCWR has released a statement, which confirms the above and concluded:

The conversation was open and frank. We pray that these conversations may bear fruit for the good of the Church.

**************************************************

This confirms some of my thinking from yesterday. It's not so much that the LCWR is a group of women leaders, it's that they have an authority to their witness in direct competition to the authority which has been severely eroded in our male leadership. This authority is not seen as appropriately complementary. It if for this reason I dismiss the complaints about a few sisters engaging in acts and speculation which cross doctrinal boundaries. At bottom it isn't about those few sisters, it's about the real authority carried in witness of the LCWR member communities. Even Mueller has to admit the face of the Catholic Church in the US is a product of the historic and continuing efforts of these congregations.

In tandem with this authority of witness, Francis also spoke yesterday on careerism in the clergy. He made the point that one must live their witness. One's walk must match their talk and that all Christians must root out the idols that prevent them from emulating the teachings of Jesus. Personally I think Roman Catholicism should root out the idol of male entitlement which precludes the clergy from truly understanding women are capable of being much more than spiritually dependent children or fertility gardens for boys bound for the priesthood. This kind of 'rooting out' is not going to happen under Francis and never was going to happen. He will encourage his clergy to live more like the sisters, but he will never encourage the sisters to share rule with the clergy. So while the culture moves further and further away from women being dependent on men, Catholicism will not. It will keep it's women sacramentally and spiritually dependent on ordained men. It will keep it's gender definitions rooted in only the second creation story in Genesis and it's sexual morality defined by acts and not relationships. It will become less and less relevant as a cultural insitution, even if Francis is capable of making a dent in clerical careerism. In the end though, if the relationship between men and women does not change to reflect a true equality, all the reform in the world in the exclusively male clerical structures will be futile and ephemeral. The collective consciousness of humanity is moving away from patriarchy and hierarchy and making equal space for the feminine impulse towards creativity and mutual consensus.

Am I disappointed in Francis? Not really. Before this Conclave I had very little hope that underlying gender issues would ever be on the table. Too much of Catholic theology is wrapped up in unexamined male entitlement. As Mary Hunt states it: If God is male, males must be gods. The idea that God has no gender never computes. The idea voiced by St Paul in Galatians that--There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus--has evolved to the point we no longer make distinctions between Jews and others and we no longer approve of slavery, but 2000 years later we still haven't gotten the last part. We still have huge distinctions in gender expectations and Catholicism still insists women are spiritual dependents rather than active agents in their own right.

I can easily believe the LCWR leadership when they write that their conversation was open and frank. I suspect that kind of conversation about women will continue all through the papacy of Francis and most likely beyond him. For me, I will be very happy if all he manages to do is close the Vatican Bank and institute meaningful collegiality because I suspect any change in the place of women is not coming from the top. It will come welling up through the bottom. Decentralization of Vatican authority can only help that bottom up change. So while the men still insist on their rightful place as coaches to the ladies, I do see a future in which this changes. And of course, this explains my observation from yesterday about why so many men hold coaching positions in women's highschool and college athletics--it sends a very real message about traditional male authority over women.

Things Are Changing Very Fast In The Worlds Of Gender And Marriage And This Will Be The Challenge Frances May Not Be Ready To Acknowledge In His Reforms

2013-04-14T12:44:00.000-06:00

Forty years ago I played on this same basketball court to a total crowd of maybe twenty.

I have to admit I am truly stunned with the accelerating change in attitudes about gay marriage. This might be a real-time example of the snowball phenomenon in which a small ball starts rolling down hill and becomes the catalyst for an avalanche. Or to put it differently, get enough effort behind an idea and once the collective consciousness reaches a certain point or critical mass, a chain reaction starts, change occurs, and there is no going back. There will be no going back on gay marriage.

I also have believed for a very long time that the real threat in gay marriage is it's implied gender equality, and that is a legacy of the women's movement. I look back on the women's movement and stand stupefied by the changes in some areas that have occurred just in my lifetime. Back in the early 70's I played basketball on the first team my high school ever had and followed that up by playing on the first team the college I graduated from ever had. I can honestly say I never envisioned women's collegiate basketball reaching the heights it now currently enjoys. And yet, I'm saddened to know that male coaches significantly out number female coaches on both the high school and college levels and I don't why that should be. That too, I never expected. So it seems women still have some more walking to do when it comes leadership roles, and this brings me to Pope Frances and his reforming the Church.

I have really been impressed with Francis in the opening days of his papacy. He has walked his talk and modeled a very different concept of clerical service from what has previously passed as normal in Rome. I have taken a great deal of hope in his sermons and actions--and I have also carried around a certain undefined nebulous angst that I couldn't identify. I think I've now identified my angst. I will not be at all surprised if women under Frances will be allowed to take a higher profile, to operate in more areas, but are never allowed to wield authority in the spiritual or temporal leadership of the Church. Women will be players, but never coaches. This is why I am very curious about what Frances will do with the LCWR situation. EPBXVI through the CDF essentially stated that sisters can play but they will no longer coach themselves. They have to live their respective charisms using the strategies chalked up for them by their male coaches. In Catholicism gender complementarity means women do not infringe on the leadership prerogatives of men. Women are not independent free agents, they are perpetual spiritual dependents.

Frances is going to have to face this gender issue because women no longer accept rigid gender definitions which assign them a dependent role without their consent. The change in gender definitions for women have by necessity changed the gender definitions for men. Younger men and women do not see gender in the same rigid terms as previous generations, and this means they see relationships differently. Marriage is no longer the first relational choice. More and more marriage is coming after children have appeared in the relationship. The dependency issue has evolved into interdependency as both genders work both inside and outside the home. Marriage has moved from mother and children dependent on father to children dependent on both parents with less differentiation in roles. Gay marriage is no threat to this kind of marriage, it only affirms it and this is one reason gay marriage is overwhelmingly accepted by younger generations. But here's the rub for Catholicism. This kind of gender equivalency in marriage carries with it a huge threat to patriarchal religious structures. It does so because neither gender is operating under those patriarchal definitions and reserving authority strictly to males makes no sense and will make even less sense to children raised in this kind of family.

A relational arrangement based in an equal interdependence is very different from one based in a dependent form of gender complementarity. If culture in general mirrors family arrangements then we can expect ever further changes in the culture. The question I have is whether Catholic theology can adapt to changing gender roles and responsibilities. So far the answer is a resounding "NO". That will have to change. The theology will have to adapt to the much larger increase in feminine input and leadership through out the culture. None of this is going to be easy for a Church which has traditionally been led exclusively by men and whose underlying theology is so dominated by male thinking and male analogies.

Unfortunately, I don't actually have a lot of hope in Pope Frances taking the Church very far down the road to gender equality, but I do have hope he takes the Church very far down the road in redefining male leadership and how it's expressed. That would be a bridge to more change in the future and that future could come much quicker than any of us expect. I certainly never thought I would live to see the day when women's college basketball drew the same sold out crowds the men's version does.

Pope Francis Is One Of The Simple People

2013-04-08T09:53:00.002-06:00

No more solo papal walks on the First Class deck of the Catholic Titanic for Pope Francis. He's commanding a different kind of papal barque.

One of the differences between Pope Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict is their definition of 'simple people'. Francis sees 'simple people' as those living a simple less encumbered life, and teaches all should strive for that simplicity. EPBenedict seemed to see 'simple people' as less educated and less sophisticated than himself, and thought these people should be protected from people of similar education, sophistication, and intelligence, like Hans Kung and others. These were the people who didn't meet Benedict's criteria for properly formed Catholic intelligentsia. The following article from Vatican Insider really demonstrates the simplicity of Francis. Francis called a long time friend to wish him happy birthday and then drops the bomb shell about a planned December visit to Argentina. What are friends for other than to share news and views?

Francis: “I’m staying at St. Martha’s House because I don’t want to isolate myself"

ANDREA TORNIELLI - Vatican Insider - 4/5/2013
Pope Francis told a priest friend of his that he will be visiting Argentina in December and also explained why he has not moved in to the papal apartment, preferring to stay in the Domus Sanctae Marthae (St. Martha’s House), the Vatican residence where the 115 cardinal electors stayed during the Conclave. Francis likes dining with others, chatting and sharing news.

Francis telephoned Fr. Jorge Chichinzola, parish priest of the Church of Holy Martyrs in Posadas in the afternoon on Easter day. “He called me at 17:10 to wish me for my birthday. I guessed it was him straight away: sometimes he would call a day before to make sure the phone line was active. “How are you? he asked me.” Fr. Chichizola talked to radio LT4 Red Ciudadana about their conversation and said he had spoken to Bergoglio just a few hours before the Conclave started.

The Argentinean priest, who was ordained at the same time as the new Pope, said Francis confirmed he was going to visit Argentina next December and added that he “never forgets his friends.” But during last Sunday’s telephone call , Bergoglio talked to Fr. Jorge about his reasons for staying in St. Martha’s House. Francis “likes sitting down to table with others, chatting and sharing news. He doesn’t want to be isolated.” When they showed him the rooms in the papal apartment, he said: “This is too big for me.” “He also added that he was driving his escorts and security staff crazy because he likes getting close to people, but that now they are getting used to it,” Fr. Chichinzola said. (I suspect this means they have accepted the fact Francis is willing to entertain personal risk in order to be accessible to the faithful. There is no changing his mind.)

“He is a man who is not afraid of taking risks and will continue along his path. He told me that one of his security guards brought him a letter written by one of his children and he replied to it.”

The Pope’s words confirm the reasons that led to him deciding not to live in the papal apartment: Francis likes meeting people even at lunch and dinner time. He doesn’t like isolating himself.

*******************************************

I think the change in papal styles, and what those changes imply, is going to take some getting used to for all Catholics. In some respects Francis reminds me a lot of myself. To say I live a simple life style is an understatement and I do eat a lot my meals in a communal setting with some interesting and simple dinner companions. Yet on the other hand, I could also understand Pope Benedict's more solitary academic life style because that reflects part of me as well. On my days off I am very solitary and spend hours researching and writing. What my two lifestyles have taught me though, is that really effective evangelization is easier accomplished out and about, mingling with people and 'being' in a full and honest way my belief structures. I don't necessarily live all my academic interests, but they do influence my conversation and 'being'.

Most of us don't actually get to fashion an ideal world for ourselves that let's us live our comfort level. Most of humanity has to adapt to external circumstances and try to make those circumstances comfortable. Francis has gone out of his way to provide some comfort for people in really trying circumstances. He has made the comfort of the Church of the Poor as available to as many people as he could. Living as he does has most certainly helped the authenticity of his effort. It would be hard to substitute spiritual wealth for material wealth if he himself was living in the lap of luxury. "Easy for him to say" would be the truthful if cynical view of that kind of faith expression. It really does help to live the talk, maybe especially if it is by personal choice, not forced circumstances. I am well aware that I have had the freedom to choose to live simpler. I have not always lived simply. I am also well aware that part of that choice was directly predicated by a desire to remove a lot of stress, and not necessarily because I wanted to live a life more closely aligned with the Gospels. I can also report that having done so, it is easier to live a life more closely aligned to the Gospels. The Way not only makes spiritual sense, it's provides for less stress and that's always a good and healthy thing.

Pope Benedict also lived a pretty simple life, but not in the same way as Francis. Benedict's idea of a simple life meant paring down the interests he pursued. I have no doubt he could have lived in a monastic cell and been quite happy--as long as he had access to a really good library, really good music, and a close cadre of fellow academics. I could lose everything I own except my computer and internet access because they give access to an incredible library, good music, baseball and hockey coverage, and the ability to communicate with lots of other people and opinions. Give me a computer and an Internet card and I could live in a cave--as long as it had running water and enclosed plumbing. Unfortunately for Pope Benedict, his cave was pretty opulent. It's very opulence necessitated other people tasked with maintaining it's opulence. It made it too easy to define 'simple' people in a quite different way from Francis. History will never record Pope Benedict as a 'populist' pope, and I firmly believe Benedict would personally be appalled if his papacy were ever to be described as such. His was a papacy for the refined, not the shanties.

EPBenedict would have never announced a major visit to his native country without going through the proper diplomatic channels. He may have told his brother beforehand but his brother would have stayed silent. It's just not done. Pope Franics however, had no problem with announcing his upcoming visit to Argentina in the most natural way for him, via a phone call to a long time friend. That's the way it's done when friends and family matter more than protocol, and that may be the singular message of this papacy. Friends and family matter more than protocol. Life is meant to be lived simply but does not mean those living it simply are simple. Jesus may have lived simply, but I don't think anyone who has studied the Gospels would call Him simple. Or to put it differently, the Barque of Peter is no longer the Titanic. It's to be a barque with deck chairs and life preservers for everyone.

Jesus and Gender and Men and Women Behaving In A Good Way

2013-04-07T17:33:00.000-06:00

Not exactly the image usually associated with Divine Mercy Sunday. It's just my favorite icon of feminine service and protection.

For a very long time now I have believed that the so called 'pelvic' issues are not primarily about biology or abuse of procreative sexuality. They are about maintaining rigid definitions of gender behavior and identity, and this is so because maintaining these gender definitions maintain patriarchy and the status quo of the social structure derived from patriarchy. At a fundamental level this gendering is core to much of Catholic theology.

I had one spiritual teacher who ruminated on both his Native and Catholic upbringing and he came to the conclusion that core to Jesus' teachings were to bring men to an understanding of their full potential as humans, to get them to transcend their ideas of what it meant to be male. Concurrently, the same was true of women, which is why Jesus treated his male and female disciples pretty much the same. Each was capable of learning what He taught, and each needed different parables to bring home that point because each gender definition had their unique deficiencies. He said in his own Native tradition ceremonies had been developed to do pretty much the same thing. That was why the Sundance was at first strictly a male ceremony about offering blood to Mother Earth to facillitate creative generation. Women did not have to do such a thing because they did it through child birth and menses as part of their inherent nature. Women were also more directly connected to the spiritual which is why male medicine men rarely took on female apprentices. Male training was more physically taxing because it took more to breakdown male barriers to communication with the unseen spirit world. Why, sometimes men had to be taken to the threshold of death before they let go of their barriers. He laughed and said it was a real case of having to almost 'die to live' type of situation. Women weren't that pigheaded and if they paid attention to their intuition they would discover they didn't need rigid training or apprenticing because the spirit world would provide it. For him being a woman would have been a much easier path to spiritual things because he himself was one of those men who had to almost die before he found that life.

I offer that last as a context for how I understand some of what Francis said in his Angelus talk on women and their witness to the Resurrection. I offer an extract of that talk from NCR coverage:

...."The women are driven by love and know how to accept this proclamation with faith: they believe, and immediately transmit it, they do not keep it for themselves… In the professions of faith of the New Testament, only men are remembered as witnesses of the Resurrection, the Apostles, but not the women. This is because, according to the Jewish Law of the time, women and children were not considered reliable, credible witnesses.”

“In the Gospels, however, - Bergoglio continued - women have a primary, fundamental role. Here we can see an argument in favour of the historicity of the Resurrection: if it were a invented, in the context of that time it would not have been linked to the testimony of women. Instead, the evangelists simply narrate what happened: the women were the first witnesses. This tells us that God does not choose according to human criteria: the first witnesses of the birth of Jesus are the shepherds, simple and humble people, the first witnesses of the Resurrection are women. This is beautiful.” (Francis would have been more accurate if he had said "God does not choose according to 'male' criteria."

“This is the mission of women, of mothers and women, to give witness to their children and grandchildren that Christ is Risen! Mothers go forward with this witness! What matters to God is our heart, if we are open to Him, if we are like trusting children. But this also leads us to reflect on how in the Church and in the journey of faith, women have had and still have a special role in opening doors to the Lord, in following him and communicating his face, because the eyes of faith always need the simple and profound look of love. The Apostles and disciples find it harder to believe in the Risen Christ, not the women however,” Bergoglio said.

Women certainly do have a special role in opening doors to the Lord and to the messengers of the Lord. That role is first and foremost about love and how love is at the core of creation. It is about how service to creation is the proper way in which to relate to the unseen forces of love which guide and under-gird our reality. This kind of service is not the submissive service we normally think of when we hear stories about women's 'work'. It is very active, but in a different way. It's centered in 'being' a fully competent human. That's why I've always found the statues of Mary standing on a globe with her foot on the serpent to be a very powerful statement. When it comes to serving and protecting creation, the feminine principle rules, not because it's passive, but because it's patient and measured. When action is necessary it is targeted, relentless, and final.

Over on the blog A Seat at the Table, there is a current post is about Sr Sandra Schneider's lastest biblical work entitled Women and the Word. This post dovetails nicely with Francis' talk. Sr Schneider also makes an observation very similar to my Native teacher, that Jesus' teachings went directly to the limits of gender definitions:

.....The [other] conclusion which flows from our reflections on the gender of God and the sex of Jesus is that both men and women are called to conversion. Men are challenged by Jesus to reject the cultural definition of masculinity as well as the patriarchal structures and behaviors which flow from it. In Jesus they have the assurance that there is another, and truly redemptive, way to be a man. Women are challenged to develop a renewed sense of themselves as adult children of God made in the divine image, as sisters and friends of Jesus who have put on Christ and who are called and empowered to represent Christ in Church and society....

Pope Francis may not agree completely with Sr Schneider's or my Native teacher, but he is modeling a masculine way of handling great power which is not usual for most men. It is however, the way Jesus taught men would need to handle power in order to stay congruent with the Father's will. I sincerely hope Francis keeps stressing this understanding of male servant leadership and puts the 'pelvic and gender' issues on the very back burner. It would give culture warriors pause and allow others to find a better path for gender expression. One less enslaved to ideas that may be great for maintaining the status quo, but are in fact, very limiting to one's spiritual path.

With Contrasting Styles It's Hard To Avoid Comparisons.

2013-04-06T09:24:00.001-06:00

This would the Trads worst nightmare. Probably not going to happen. Francis might lease it out, but I don't think he'll sell it.

In my time off this last week, I perused a number of retro sites to get a feel for the level of angst on the Traditional side of things. The 'outpouring' of support for Pope Francis' initiatives on Holy Thursday was remarkable for it's intensity--at least in it's opposition, and I was curious if the angst was a one shot deal or if it had deeper roots. As I suspected, it has deeper roots. It seems everything Francis does is perceived as a slap at Benedict. It's not just a decision to do things differently. There is not even very much of an argument of 'love the papal sinner, hate the papal style' thing happening. It's all about defending Benedict's reputation from Francis' innovations. It's almost like they personally are being attacked, and in a way, I suppose they are. The following is an excerpt from this article by Pat Perriello on NCR. Perriello tries to deflect some of the comparison issues between the styles of the two popes, but as the comment from a 'High Church' Catholic which follows the extract demonstrates, Perriello fails in his mission. Personally, I don't know that anyone could succeed at that task. The styles represent two very different views of Catholicism that just invite comparison.

......I find particularly significant Francis’ decision to take up residence outside of the papal palace. Considering that no pope has lived anywhere else in more than a hundred years, this choice is a dramatic one. Yet I think the first reports of this decision may be missing some of the more significant aspects of the move.

What I have heard most frequently in response to this is that it represents a condemnation of how Benedict XVI lived. I think that is unfair. We are talking about two individuals with different styles and different personalities. The fact that we find this step by Francis refreshing and perhaps just what the church needs at this time is not meant to denigrate Benedict for being who he is, anymore than it should denigrate Francis for not adhering to long-standing practices.

I also believe that this move is not just another expression of Francis’ humility and simplicity. It is not just that Francis has chosen to eschew the monarchical trappings of the past as important as that may be.
What augurs a truly new papacy is the freedom that this decision gives Francis to be his own person and avoid being handled by those used to wielding power in Rome. Living apart from the papal palace will provide the new pope with an opportunity to operate independently and develop his own agenda. It will provide him access to a variety of the voices around him. (Living amongst the workers also offers protection with the added benefit of a connection with the real Church the clerical Church is supposed to serve.)

It will make it more difficult for officials in Rome to tell him what he can and cannot do. He should be able to determine for himself who his closest advisors will be and what will be the priorities of his papacy. It represents the first step in letting those around him know who will be in charge.

The evidence is clear that this pope was chosen to make significant changes in Rome and in the church. He is off to a good beginning. The journey ahead will be difficult. His ability to remain independent from the curial structures that have ruled the church for too long will be critical....

And then there was this comment:

"What I have heard most frequently in response to this is that it represents a condemnation of how Benedict XVI lived. I think that is unfair." I don't. When you say things like "we find this step by Francis refreshing," you give the game away: Why does one need refreshment? As compared to whom?
When you say, "[w]e are talking about two individuals with different styles," and then characterize Francis’ style as "humility and simplicity," the implicit comparison is "unlike Benedict, whose style was elaborate pomposity. Surely you see how making that accusation directly is galling; how can you not see how making it by implication is any less so?
When you say that "Francis has chosen to eschew the monarchical trappings of the past," the implicit comparison is "unlike Benedict, who embraced the monarchical trappings of the past." Surely you see how making that accusation directly is galling; how can you not see how making it by implication is any less so?
I believe that there are some people whose praise for Francis is sincere and without guile or agenda. I am fully aware, however, that there are a great many people who couldn't stand Benedict and that vitriol is now pouring out of them in the form of drawing unflattering comparisons between Francis and an ersatz strawman Benedict. It's repulsive.

****************************************

I'm not sure this whole comparison thing is repulsive so much as it is unavoidable. No question the results are threatening to one segment of the Catholic population. With this particular commenter, those unavoidable results make him nauseous. He might want to examine why this is so because straw man arguments don't normally engender nausea. What his comment really states is that symbolically demonstrating the Gospel call to conversion by prioritizing the poor, living humbly, and practicing simplicity engenders the nausea inherent in severe cognitive dissonance. This transition will indeed be hard for those whose orientation is to the splendor and ostentation of the High Church. That Church worships the King of Kings who lives up there and out there and somewhere other than Earth. It does not walk side by side with the Prophet of the Poor who lives with us, in us, and for us. It's really difficult to practically meld those two views into a coherent whole because that kind of melding can't come from the logic of the intellect, it has to come from inclusive love of the heart.

Pope Francis has taken the papacy and conformed it as much as he can to Jesus' advice to the rich young man. In essence Jesus' advice was to reorient that young follower's relationship with material goods: dump them, and escape their prison and come follow Me. The rich young man preferred to stick with his prison. For all of EPBVXI's dense writings on how following Jesus is all about freedom, he himself was trapped in a prison of his own making which hemmed him in and negated any freedom of movement. As his papacy progressed, that prison became more obvious. For all the talk of Evangelization in his sermons and papal initiatives it became apparent that his prison of external symbols was leading to intellectual dead ends that left him bereft of convincing argumentation for his view of Church. At times he resorted to the condemnation and silencing of those who advocated a Church predicated on the preferential option for the poor or the innate dignity of all humanity. He fell back on his external authority, not his internal authenticity or the brilliance of his intellectual argumentation. The High Church that he symbolized was exposed as a conductor for hypocrisy, clericalism and corruption. In the end he freed himself from this prison by using Peter's keys to unchain himself from the papacy.

At this point I think Benedict might be the last person in the world who cares about how his enactment of the papacy compares with that of Francis. Benedict can't be oblivious to the fact that the simple approach of Francis' has stirred the waters of Catholicism and stirred them very deeply. This could never have been accomplished by Benedict's personal preference for the 'High Church'. Authenticity comes from the cohesion of personal truth and living that truth with integrity. Deep stirring isn't accomplished by swirling the waters at the top, it comes from an authenticity that roils water at the depths of the human heart. Pope Benedict was good at engaging the head, Pope Francis is aiming much deeper. It's that deeper targeting that is bringing on the cognitive dissonance for High Church Catholics. Francis is hitting his target.

A Jesuit Gets Jesuitical About The Jesuit Pope

2013-03-30T13:14:00.001-06:00

Pope Francis prostrate before the altar in St Peter's Basilica during Good Friday services. I would hope the red satin pillow with gold trim and tassels would pass Traditionalist inspection.

I have to admit to being somewhat bemused by the reaction of Traditionalists to Pope Francis washing the feet of two teenage girls on Thursday. I guess I didn't know it, but this somehow proves the sky really is falling. And then Jesuit Fr Federico Lombardi explains in his own inimical way that the sky is only falling in one small part of Rome. The following excerpt is taken from an article on Vatican Insider.

......Speaking to Associated Press, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi explained that “in a "grand solemn celebration" of the rite, it would make sense to only involve men because during the Last Supper, Christ washed the feet of the 12 apostles, all of whom were male. But in the case of Casal del Marmo “the rite was for a small, unique community made up also of women. It was a specific situation in which excluding the girls would have been inopportune in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to all in a group that certainly didn't include refined experts in liturgical rules."

That's quite the explanation. Especially in view of the fact the original foot washing was also done for a 'small, unique community made up also of women." I wonder why Fr Lombardi can see that leaving out women was 'inopportune in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love' in this particular case of Pope Francis and Casal de Marmo, but think it perfectly fine to assume they were excluded in the first case conducted by Jesus Himself, and then extend that assumption to justify the exclusion of women 'in a grand solemn celebration' of the rite. Trouble with Jesuitical explanations is they only work if one accepts the underlying assumptions as holding truth. In any event, I doubt his Jesuitical explanation is going to sooth the troubled souls of traditional Catholics.

Over on his blog Bilgrimage, Bill Lyndsey has a couple of really fine posts on this brouha. I found a comment by Prickliest Pear to hold perhaps a key to the angst of the Trads. Here's the pertinent part of his comment:

So why do the traditionalists get it so wrong?
Their thinking begins and ends with the priesthood, not with the foot-washing ritual. Their vision of the cultic priesthood as an exclusive channel through which they receive the grace of God has to be kept in mind. It is what they believe the Church is most centrally about. If they read scripture in connection with this ritual, it is to find support for their particular understanding of the priesthood.
They believe that the stories of the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospels show where Jesus instituted the Catholic priesthood--this is reading a LOT into the text that isn't there, but when you're desperate enough to see something, sometimes you'll see it.
But what about John? The Gospel of John lacks that all-important institution-of-the-priesthood scene. The scene with the foot-washing is in it's place, and so, their thinking goes, it must be connected to the priesthood, too. It doesn't say that anywhere in the text, but they're not interested in the original meaning of the ritual, they're interested in how they can interpret it to support for their understanding of the priesthood.
And of course this requires them to misinterpret it, because that wasn't what it was about at all. (As an aside, Trads don't seem to be too interested in the fact the Gospel of John doesn't support a priesthood at all.)

I like Prickliest Pear's comment because it crystallized a thought I had running in my head I just couldn't grab onto but knew I neither liked nor agreed with whatever this thought implied. And that thought is that so much of what Pope Benedict did symbolically seemed to say "The All Male Celibate Priesthood is Catholicism". Everything Catholic revolves around this version of the priesthood and if Catholics don't like it they can leave. If there aren't enough of these special cultic priests it's the fault of faithless Catholics who should just leave so that the purest believers in this Catholic priesthood can pray up more priests without all the static from the faithless. Catholicism is about the priesthood not Jesus, but just in case some people might think Catholicism really is about Jesus, we were told the priesthood really functioned 'in persona Christi'. Our cultic priests actually became a version of Jesus Christ when it was sacramentally necessary. Of course in order for that to happen without recourse to the actual holiness of any priest or the way he actually lived the Way, the words and rubrics of any ritual had to be done just right and without any creative deviation. Should such things occur, as Pope Francis has been engaging in, why all things Catholic are called into serious question---meaning Francis is profaning the all important rubrics and words and nullifying the clerical magic which is Catholicism.

No, the real 'magic' is not in the words or rubrics. It's in the Resurrection, an event that transcends the sorrows and trials of material reality, brings an efficacious Spiritual reality into matter, makes new all things, and justifies any faith we have in any version of Catholicism.

Happy Easter to all my readers. May this Easter bring joy to all of you because Easter truly is the Good News.

AB Oscar Romero: An Omen Of Change For Reform In Catholicism?

2013-03-25T09:36:00.000-06:00

AB Romero is the third from the left. This is the gallery of 20th Century martyrs on the facade of Westminster Abbey. Mother Elizabeth of Russia is on the far left, followed by Martin Luther King, Romero, and Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

The following is an article about Archbishop Romero written by Fr. John Dear for the NCR on March 16, 2010. I reprint it virtually in total because I know Fr. John would not be upset. I've met him and there is no doubt in my mind that he's the real deal himself ---and the issue is to spread the word, not own it.

I think Pope Francis understands that Catholicism does not own the word with the right to sell it like some trademarked product. He will spread it, even the really hard parts about the preferential option for the poor. This is why I have some hope that AB Oscar Romero will take his place in the pantheon of Catholic saints, as he has already been honored by the Anglicans.

"I have often been threatened with death," Archbishop Oscar Romero told a Guatemalan reporter two weeks before his assassination, 30 years ago on March 24, 1980. "If they kill me, I shall arise in the Salvadoran people. If the threats come to be fulfilled, from this moment I offer my blood to God for the redemption and resurrection of El Salvador. Let my blood be a seed of freedom and the sign that hope will soon be reality."
Oscar Romero gave his life in the hope that peace and justice would one day become a reality. He lives on now in all those who carry on the nonviolent struggle for justice and peace. A beautiful new photo book and biography, Oscar Romero and the Communion of Saints, by Scott Wright, shows us what a holy life he lived, and just how much he gave.

Romero spent his years up until 1977 as a typical quiet, pious, conservative cleric. Indeed, as bishop, he sided with the greedy landlords, important power brokers, and violent death squads. When he became archbishop, the Jesuits at the Univeristy of Central America in San Salvador were crushed. They immediately wrote him off -- all but one, Rutilio Grande, who reached out to Romero in the weeks after his installation and urged him to learn from the poor and speak on their behalf.

Grande himself was a giant for social justice. He organized the rural poor in Aguilares, and paid for it with his life on March 12, 1977. Standing over Grande's dead body that night, Romero was transformed into one of the world's great champions for the poor and oppressed. From then on, he stood with the poor, and denounced every act of violence, injustice and war. He became a fiery prophet of justice and peace, "the voice of the voiceless," and in Jon Sobrino's words, "a new Jeremiah." For me, Romero was a stunning sign of God's active presence in the world, a living symbol of the struggle for justice and what the church could be.

The day after Grande's death, Romero preached a sermon that stunned El Salvador. With the force of Martin Luther King, Jr., Romero defended Grande, demanded social and economic justice for the poor, and called everyone to take up Grande's prophetic work. To protest the government's participation in the murders, Romero closed the parish school for three days and cancelled all Masses in the country the following week, except for one special Mass in the cathedral.

That act alone would have put Romero in the annals of history. Imagine if every Mass in the United States but one had been canceled in protest after the death of Dr. King! Over a hundred thousand people attended the cathedral Mass that Sunday and heard Romero's bold call for justice, disarmament and peace. Grande's life and death bore good fruit in the heart and soul of Romero. Suddenly, the nation had a towering figure in its midst.

Within months, priests, catechists and church workers were regularly targeted and assassinated, so Romero spoke out even more forcefully. He even criticized the president, which no Salvadoran bishop had ever done before, and few in the hemisphere ever did. As the U.S.-backed government death squads attacked villages and churches and massacred campesinos, Romero's truth-telling became a veritable subversive campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience.

Soon Romero was greeted with applause everywhere he went. Thousands wrote to him regularly, telling their stories, thanking him for his prophetic voice and sharing their new found courage. His Sunday homilies were broadcast nationwide on live radio. The country came to a standstill as he spoke. Everyone listened, even the death squads.

As Romero's stature grew and his leadership for justice and peace deepened, his simple faith and pious devotion remained steady, and gave him a foundation from which he could take on the forces of death. To protest the government's silence in the face of recent massacres, he refused to attend the inauguration of the new Salvadoran president. The church, he announced, is "not to be measured by the government's support but rather by its own authenticity, its evangelical spirit of prayer, trust, sincerity and justice, its opposition to abuses." While he embodied the prophetic role of the church, he also modeled that spirit of prayer, trust and sincerity in his everyday life.

As the arrests, torture, disappearances and murders continued, Romero made two radical decisions that were unprecedented. First, on Easter Monday 1978, he opened the seminary in downtown San Salvador to welcome any and all displaced victims of violence. Hundreds of homeless, hungry and brutalized people moved into the seminary, transforming the quiet religious retreat into a crowded, noisy shelter, make-shift hospital, and playground. (Pope Francis, as the Jesuit provincial of Argentina also opened his seminary for the displaced of Argentina's 'dirty war'.)

Next, he halted construction on the new cathedral in San Salvador. When the war is over, the hungry are fed, and the children are educated, then we can resume building our cathedral, he said. Both historic moves stunned the other bishops, cast judgment on the Salvadoran government, and lifted the peoples' spirits.

Meanwhile, Romero's preaching reached biblical heights. "Like a voice crying in the desert," he said, "we must continually say No to violence and Yes to peace." His August 1978 pastoral letter outlined the evils of "institutional violence" and repression, and advocated "the power of nonviolence that today has conspicuous students and followers." He wrote: "The counsel of the Gospel to turn the other cheek to an unjust aggressor, far from being passive or cowardly, shows great moral force that leaves the aggressor morally overcome and humiliated. The Christian always prefers peace to war."

Romero lived in a sparse, three-room hermitage on the grounds of a hospital run by a community of nuns. During his busy days, he traveled the country, met with hundreds of poor Salvadorans, presided at Mass, and met with local community leaders. He assisted everyone he could. Later, he said that one of his primary duties as archbishop had become not just challenging the U.S.-backed government and its death squads, but claiming the dead bodies of their victims, including priests, nuns and catechists.

On one of my visits, a Salvadoran told me how Romero would drive out to city garbage dumps to look among the trash for the discarded, tortured victims of the death squads on behalf of grieving relatives. "These days I walk the roads gathering up dead friends, listening to widows and orphans, and trying to spread hope," he said.

In particular, Romero took time every day to speak with dozens of people threatened by government death squads. People lined up at his office to ask for help and protection, to complain about harassment and death threats, and to find some support and guidance in their time of grief and struggle. Romero received and listened to everyone. His compassionate ear fueled his prophetic voice.

By late 1979 and early 1980, his Sunday sermons issued his strongest calls yet for conversion to justice and an end to the massacres. "To those who bear in their hands or in their conscience, the burden of bloodshed, of outrages, of the victimized, innocent or guilty, but still victimized in their human dignity, I say: Be converted. You cannot find God on the path of torture. God is found on the way of justice, conversion and truth."

When President Jimmy Carter announced in February 1980 that he was going to increase U.S. military aid to El Salvador by millions of dollars a day, Romero was shocked. He wrote a long public letter to Carter, asking the United States to cancel all military aid. Carter ignored Romero's plea, and sent the aid. (Between 1980 and 1992, the U.S. spent $6 billion to kill 75,000 poor Salvadorans.)

In the weeks afterwards, the killings increased. So did the death threats against Romero. He made a private retreat, prepared for his death, discovered an even deeper peace, and mounted the pulpit. During his March 23, 1980, Sunday sermon, Romero let loose and issued one of the greatest appeals for peace and disarmament in church history:

"I would like to make an appeal in a special way to the men of the army, to the police, to those in the barracks. Brothers, you are part of our own people. You kill your own campesino brothers and sisters. And before an order to kill that a man may give, the law of God must prevail that says: Thou shalt not kill! No soldier is obliged to obey an order against the law of God. No one has to fulfill an immoral law. It is time to recover your consciences and to obey your consciences rather than the orders of sin. The church, defender of the rights of God, of the law of God, of human dignity, the dignity of the person, cannot remain silent before such abomination. We want the government to take seriously that reforms are worth nothing when they come about stained with so much blood. In the name of God, and in the name of this suffering people whose laments rise to heaven each day more tumultuously, I beg you, I ask you, I order you in the name of God: Stop the repression!"

The next day, March 24, 1980, Romero presided over a small evening Mass in the chapel of the hospital compound where he lived, in honor of a beloved woman who had died a year before. He read from John's Gospel: "Unless the grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains only a grain. But if it dies, it bears much fruit "(12:23-26). Then he preached about the need to give our lives for others as Christ did. Just as he concluded, he was shot in the heart by a man standing in the back of the church. He fell behind the altar and collapsed at the foot of a huge crucifix depicting a bloody and bruised Christ. Romero's vestments, and the floor around him, were covered in blood. He gasped for breath and died in minutes.

I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news -- in my fraternity room at Duke University. I had just turned on the TV to watch the evening news. Only the month before, I had decided to apply to the Jesuits, to try to spend my life following Jesus. The shocking report of the death of this brave archbishop stunned me, inspired me and encouraged me to go through with my decision. Later that night, a peace vigil and prayer service was held on campus. My friend Paul Farmer, living next door to me, marks his conversion from that event. (Farmer would become a doctor and teacher at Harvard University and founder of Partners In Health, an international health and social justice organization.) Both of us were touched and changed by Romero's gift.

Romero's funeral became the largest demonstration in Salvadoran history, some say in the history of Latin America. The government was so afraid of the grieving people that they threw bombs into the crowd and opened fire, killing some 30 people and injuring hundreds more. The Mass of Resurrection was never completed and Romero was hastily buried.

Just recently, I learned from one of his biographies that Pope John Paul II had decided to remove Romero as Archbishop of San Salvador. In fact, he signed the removal order on the morning of March 24. In some ways, I'm grateful that Romero never lived to hear that dreadful news. His martyrdom became a spiritual explosion that continues to transform the church and the world.

Today, we remember Oscar Romero as a saint and a martyr, as a champion of the poor and prophet of justice. He calls us to live in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, to think with them, feel with them, walk with them, listen to them, serve them, stand with them, become one with them, and even die with them. In that preferential solidarity, he summons us to carry on his prophetic pursuit of justice and disarmament......

*********************************************

I have always found it beyond coincidence that Pope John Paul II signed the order removing AB Romero from his position in El Salvador on the very day Romero was assassinated. Even if one assumes JPII did this to protect AB Romero from assassination, one still has to wonder why JPII left Romero hanging, and the Jesuits who were assassinated before Romero, and the thousands of campesinos who died through out Central and South America. For a Pope who was so vocal about the excesses of Communism, he was strangely silent about the excesses of military fascism in Latin America.

Pope Francis lived through these times and experienced first hand what the 'preferential option for the poor' really means and what the consequences can be. He does not have a European understanding of these issues. He is much more like AB Romero than he is the European curial cardinals he is being tasked with reforming. He will not see reforming the curia as an exercise in efficient corporate management. He has plenty of experience with how a curial response operating from a geo political agenda exacerbated life for the poor in Latin America. He will not see clergy and laity as pawns to be sacrificed in these kinds of games. I will continue to pray that he himself does not become a similar sacrifice.

Two Popes With Two Styles That Symbolize Real Differences

2013-03-24T08:38:00.000-06:00

The differences between these two popes go way beyond pectoral crosses and shoe color--no matter how the 'professional' Catholics try to spin these differences as really continuity.

There is an interesting phenomenon coming out right now from the 'Vaticanista's, those Vatican reporters who are acclaimed for their insight into all things papal and Vatican. This morning two of them, John Allen and Andreas Tornielli have very similar posts describing the continuity between the young papacy of Francis and that of his predecessor Benedict. I don't remember that a similar apologetics was mounted about the differences between Benedict and JPII. That could be because the Ratzinger papacy was purposely intended to be an extension of the JPII papacy and there was very little difference in substance and truthfully only surface differences in style between the last years of the JPII papacy and the entirety of the Benedict papacy.

The following is an excerpt from the Andreas Tornielli article at Vatican Insider and these links, here and here, take you to two articles from John Allen at the National Catholic Reporter.

.....The real continuity between Benedict XVI and Francis is seen in the many gestures, hints and points of focus that have emerged in these first days of Francis’ pontificate: The day after Francis’ election, Benedict XVI said that “the Pope makes Christ’s light - not his own - shine wherever he goes. In a meeting with journalists Francis stressed that the “protagonist” is Christ, not the Pope.

Their sensitivity for the protection of creation – which humans are at the top of – and the environment is something the two popes have in common. Then there are their thoughts on careerism and “spiritual worldliness” in the Church: anyone who has listened to one of Ratzinger’s deep homilies on these issues cannot deny there is continuity between his ideas and Francis’. Only those who are not familiar with his writings on the liturgy could be led to think that they gave importance to superficial aspects. In as far as the discontinuity between Ratzinger and Bergoglio is concerned; we need to ask ourselves to what extent Benedict XVI’s collaborators helped him deliver his core message. Just as Paul VI should be rescued from certain “Montinians” who consider themselves to be the only ones authorised to keep his memory alive through their own vision of his papacy, so Benedict XVI should be salvaged from certain “Ratzingerians” who have tried on more than one occasion to teach him how to be Pope.

******************************************

Allen and Tornielli can do their best to make Catholics believe there is no real difference between the papacies in substance, but no amount of spin can do the same for the differences in style. Unfortunately for these Vaticanista, the differences in style point to real differences in substance.

Pope Benedict 'ruled' as a self styled 'benevolent dictator', not dissimilar to how he 'ruled' in his classroom. At times he appeared to give out grades. The LCWR, amongst others, garnered an "F". Priests like Fr Roy Bourgeios were expelled, bishops like Australia's William Morris lost their tenure. Benedict's was an autocratic authoritarian style somewhat different from JPII, but just as authoritarian. For Pope Benedict the truth in Catholicism, as he taught and understood that truth, trumped living the Way as actually taught by Jesus. The long Tradition of Catholicism and it's two thousand year history of interpreting the Way held more authority in Benedict's teachings. This was born out in his Liturgical preferences. Upon his elevation to the papacy Benedict advocated and modeled an ostentatious liturgical style designed to emphasize the Church Triumphant over and above the lowly people of God--and by extension, the power and authority of the clerical priesthood. The fact Jesus has multiple attributions in the Gospels directly against this kind of worship and priestly authority had no bearing what so ever at all on how Pope Benedict enacted liturgy. It was Tradition.

In contrast, JPII had such a force of personality he didn't need the liturgical trappings to make the same point. This attitude of his is born out in Ordinatio Sarcedotalis, whose driving rationale for the permanent exclusion of women from ordination is not derived from the Gospels, but from the sheer authority of the papacy, and his his own papacy in particular. While Pope Benedict never used his own authority as pope for any similar definitive statement, he had no problem citing his predecessor as the authority for maintaining similar stances. JPII provided a lot of footnotes for Benedict's professorial approach. For an academic there is safety and authority in footnotes. Truth and fact are another matter.

Pope Francis is not cut from the same cloth as his two predecessors. He is not an authoritative autocrat or a theologian heading the ultimate theology department. He is not a professor with a billion students, over half of which are flunking out. He is a student himself, and a student of the Way of Jesus as Jesus' way is recorded in the Gospels. This is a radical change in approach from his two predecessors and implies real differences in substance. Francis is a pilgrim pope leading/following a pilgrim church. No matter of spin and apologetics can change this fact.

I do wonder how much of this sudden need to scramble for continuity between the two very disparate papal styles is being orchestrated by the Vatican, or worse yet, how much of it is due to these supposed 'experts' finally getting a clue as to the amount of harm that the last two papacies have done to the Church in the West and Latin America. I kind of suspect it's a combination of both and yet another indication of how 'simple' the powers that be think the laity actually is. The laity is not simple. It's concerns just haven't been heard. Pope Francis offers real hope those concerns will at least be heard.

2013-03-23T09:42:00.001-06:00


Pope Francis sizes up things from the back row. This is a powerful photo and one I never thought I would see, conditioned as I was by decades of seeing something totally different when it came to the Papacy.

David Gibson has a thought provoking analysis posted at Religion News Service and cross posted at the National Catholic Reporter. His essential thesis is that both the far right and far left have reasons to be wary of Pope Francis. I actually think the dead center does as well, but first Gibson's thinking:

ANALYSIS: How long will the pope’s honeymoon last?

David Gibson - Religion News Service - 3/22/2013
(RNS) Since the moment of his election on March 13, Pope Francis has been warmly embraced by his own flock and even the media and the wider public in a way his bookish predecessor, Benedict XVI, was not.
Polls show that anywhere from 73 percent to 88 percent of American Catholics say they are happy with the selection of Francis, as opposed to about 60 percent who were happy with the choice of Benedict — and many of those are extremely pleased with the new pope.

Such an effusive welcome is especially good news for Catholic leaders who spent years fending off criticism of Vatican dysfunction under Benedict and a cloud of scandal and crisis at home. And the hot start for Francis is also crucial in building up a reservoir of good will that will be needed when the new pope refuses to bend on unpopular teachings or commits a gaffe of his own.

Yet even as the former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio basks in this broad approval as Pope Francis, some constituencies in the Catholic Church are cautious or even angry at his election, and their concern has only grown in the early days of his pontificate.

‘Something is profoundly wrong’

Chief among the critics are the liturgical traditionalists who reveled in Benedict’s exaltation of old-fashioned ways, and are now watching in horror as Francis rejects the extravagant vestments and high-church rituals that were in en vogue for the past eight years.

“Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst,” an Argentine Catholic wrote in a post at Rorate Caeli, a blog for aficionados of the old Latin Mass rites. “It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church.”

“Something is profoundly wrong when the winds of change can blow so swiftly through an immutable institution of God’s own making,” agreed Patrick Archbold at Creative Minority Report, another conservative site. (I've noticed this one popping frequently from conservative Catholics. It's part and parcel of the monarchical papacy. Change can happen very quickly when one man holds all authority. Perhaps the conservative wing will spend some time reflecting on why this autocratic form for the papacy was such an issue for progressives.)

Given that traditionalists are some of the most devoted and vocal Catholics in the church, and that they retain both contacts and influence in the upper ranks of the hierarchy, their pessimism could spell trouble for Francis. (On the other hand, Francis has not guaranteed any of these holders of upper ranks their current positions, so they could lose their influence.)

‘A Pope Francis problem’

The same could be said of politically conservative Catholics, especially those from the U.S. who have enjoyed access and approval in Rome for decades, under both Benedict and the late John Paul II.
Their concerns, while expressed in more muted tones, are tied to a number of markers: Francis is a Jesuit, for one thing, and even though he is considered a relatively conservative member of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits are considered notorious by the Catholic right.

Their list of alleged faults is long – they advocate engagement with the world, they have shown a willingness to criticize the hierarchy, and they have embraced a radical commitment to the poor. That last one is a priority for Francis as he sharply critiqued unfettered capitalism and austerity politics, even taking on the name of St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of the poor.

Indeed, the new pope “would likely be considered too liberal for a prime time speaking slot at the 2016 (Democratic) convention,” Charles Camosy, a theologian at Fordham University in New York, wrote in a Washington Post column titled, “Republicans have a Pope Francis problem.”

St. Francis is also an icon of environmentalism, which the new pope has similarly embraced. That discomfits some conservatives – as does praise for Francis from liberation theologians like Leonardo Boff and Jon Sobrino. Rumors are already afoot that Francis might beatify slain Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was killed by a right-wing death squad for speaking out against injustice.

Not only that, but Francis allowed Vice President Biden and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both Democrats who support abortion rights, to receive Communion at his installation Mass.
Moreover, while Francis is as orthodox as Benedict on the church’s doctrines of sexual ethics, he has shown what is to some a disconcerting willingness to seek pragmatic solutions to difficult issues, such as when he supported civil unions for gay couples in Argentina in an unsuccessful bid to thwart a gay marriage law.

Skepticism on the left

On the other side of the spectrum, however, some left-wing Catholics are leery of Francis, or openly criticize him for what they see as his antagonism to gay rights. They also question his track record on sex abuse by clergy and his disputed role during Argentina’s “Dirty War” in the 1970s, when some say he was not sufficiently vocal in speaking out against the military junta.

“The election of a doctrinally conservative pope, even one with the winning simplicity of his namesake, is especially dangerous in today’s media-saturated world where image too often trumps substance,” the feminist theologian Mary E. Hunt wrote at Religion Dispatches.

“A kinder, gentler pope who puts the weight of the Roman Catholic hierarchical church behind efforts to prevent divorce, abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage – as Mr. Bergoglio did in his country – is … scary,” Hunt said. (It would depend on how he put that weight behind these issues as to how scary he might be. It's one thing to be a Cardinal of one major city, it's another to be the Pope of a global Church. Even Pope Benedict toned down some of his previous bark and bite once he donned the white cassock.)

By contrast, mainstream Catholics, and Catholic Democrats in particular, have welcomed Francis’ election not only because of his appealing common touch but also because his statements on behalf of the poor may hold out a chance for leveling the playing field in the church’s internal culture wars.

The new pope’s words about fighting economic exploitation and “being a poor church, for the poor” are so insistent that they could put the church’s social justice teachings back on par with its doctrines on abortion and sexual ethics, which have been so prominent for so long that some complain they outweigh any other tenets.

Still, even Catholic progressives could wind up disappointed as Francis begins to unveil his appointments and policies, just as traditionalists and conservatives could be cheered or at least reassured that all is not lost.
As the Rev. James Keenan, a Boston College theologian, says, the Jesuits have an unwritten rule that a new superior should spend the first hundred days of his office learning about the community before making any changes. That means the critics need to make their voices heard now, because the clock is ticking.

********************************************

I'm not sure anyone is going to be totally comfortable with Pope Francis when all is said and done. A lot will depend on how seriously one takes the idea of Jesus as having modeled a Way of living His core message. In a real sense Pope Francis will be attempting to model that Way from exactly the kind of position of power and authority Jesus never accepted for Himself, and in fact outright refused. In this sense Pope Francis is in unchartered waters. He's essentially asking WWJD about the kind of power position Jesus never countenanced as compatible with His Way. It's the kind of thing which would take a really strong mystical connection coupled with a really strong belief in that connection and the ability to balance the ego self between two different views of ultimate reality.

Pope Francis has stated real power comes from service. That's an interesting statement on a number of levels. He did not say that real power comes from sacramental ordination or sacramental reception. Just as he did not say real power comes from wealth or position. He said it came from service to others. This statement doesn't preclude the other kinds of power, but it does re prioritize them. It places service to others as the act which both unifies and transcends other kinds of power, including clerical sacramental power. It maybe this prioritization that is going to give the conservatives the most hissy fits, especially our cadre of JPII priests who have been enculturated in a very different view of priestly prioritization.

But for the left, Francis's insistence on seeing the poor in an individual face to face kind of context is also going to be somewhat hard to swallow. Pope Francis is espousing a concept of placing the poor first in a way that doesn't prioritize massive governmental subsistence programs. These large programs sink to a level of service in which all poor people are treated in exactly the same manner, when in reality poor people become poor people in many different ways, and dealing with these many different way is going to take a much more nuanced set of solutions than just throwing money at the problem. It's going to take listening and then creating individual programs which help alleviate the myriad of individual pathways to poverty.

Two of those ways are going to give the middle class Catholic a hard dose of reality while sending the 1% into apoplexy: wealth redistribution and down scaling one's life style. For Francis' curia these two prongs will be modified and mean redistribution of authoritative power and seriously down scaling clerical privilege. Hence, I believe that Francis' consistent modeling of power as service to others, a Christian truth Jesus showed by placing the power of His divinity at the service of the poor, is going to give ample reasons for all Catholics to wonder 'Who is this man and how did he become pope?'

One last thought, Pope Francis is a mystic and has had real mystical experiences, the first of which came as a young man and propelled his vocation to the Jesuits. When one has these kinds of mind expanding experiences, one isn't easily diverted from the message of the visions. These occurrences really do change how you relate to the world, and for that matter, how you understand it's foundational reality. They are also colored and filtered through one's culture and religious training, so prophets come from a given culture with messages for a given culture and because they speak the language of that culture and use the symbols of that culture they are frequently rejected by that culture. But even more than all that, mystical experiences can separate you from other people precisely because of their life changing aspects, or maybe it's not so much that one is separated from, but one taken outside the accepted boundaries of one's initial cultural upbringing. It does not shock me in the least, that Pope Francis has been something of a loner with in the Jesuits and within the hierarchy. My prediction is that Francis will seek out others who have a mystical bent for some of his major appointments. They would be most likely to understand his vision and why he does the things he does. In the meantime, like everyone else, I wait for the hundred days to finish, and apparently so does Pope Francis, and sometimes he does it like me, from the very back pew.

Pope Francis And A New Attitude About Some Neglected Martyrs

2013-03-22T21:45:00.001-06:00

Archbishop Oscar Romero and other martyrs from the various Latin American dirty wars may finally have their day in the sun under Pope Francis. Social justice martyrs are still martyrs.

I found a very intriguing article on Vatican Insider. There are South Americans who think Pope Francis will Canonize some of the martyrs of the 'dirty wars'. It seems that might include those who were actual supporters of liberation theology. That would be something of a 180 turn from the attitudes of his predecessors, both of whom let Archbishop Romero's cause for Sainthood stagnate for two decades.

Argentinean dictatorship victim could be first figure to be beatified by Pope Francis

Carlos Murias espoused Liberation Theology

Paolo Mastrolilli - Buenos Aires - Vatican Insider - 319/2013 Francis’ first saint will be a martyr of Argentina’s military dictatorship, if the wish he expressed before he became Pope is respected. Carlos de Dios Murias, a young Franciscan friar who was tortured and brutally murdered by a military death squad in the province of La Rioja, in 1976.

“Bergoglio himself signed Murias’ canonisation cause in May 2011. He did so with discretion, so as to prevent other Argentine bishops “who are still opposed to initiatives based on priests’ social commitment” from stopping the canonization.

Carlos Murias was born in Cordoba, Argentina, in 1945. When he finished his studies, Carlos entered the Seminary and shortly afterwards, was ordained priest by Enrique Angelelli, a militant bishop of the northern Argentinean province of La Rioja. Angelelli was famous for the pastoral work he was engaged in, trying to help the campesinos. The situation in this province was an accurate portrait of the instability that had struck the whole country: power was concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy families, with a mass of workers reduced to near slavery. Murias was sent to found a Franciscan community together with the Frenchman, Gabriel Longueville, when the military coup was launched. The priest started receiving warnings and calls to report to the local military base, where soldiers explained to him that “yours is not a church we believe in.” But Murias continued and on 18 July 1976 he was kidnapped along with Longueville. He was shut inside the El Chamical air base and two days later he was found lying in the middle of a field dead, with his eyes gouged out and his hands cut off. (It is yet to be seen how many Catholics will find a very similar approach from Pope Francis 'a church they can believe in.')

During Murias’ funeral mass, Angelelli said: “They struck where they knew it would hurt the most. I ordained Carlos myself and I put him in danger.” Two weeks later, Mgr. Angelelli was on his way to La Rioja, when a Peugeot 404 drove his car off the road. The police recorded the incident as an accident but only now is the magistrate considering the possibility of murder.

Bergoglio’s involvement was the bit about which the least was known. But his role has finally come to light thanks to a statement issued by Fr. Miguel La Civita, a close collaborator of Angelelli’s: “I met him when we were students. A few days after the assassinations took place, he took our Seminarists and hid them in the Jesuit Collegium Maximum he headed. These are not just stories I heard somewhere: I actually experienced these events in person. And let me make one thing clear: I was the archetypal third world priest, as they were called back then: liberation theology. The College used spiritual retreats to help the persecuted: it gave them a place to hide, had false documents made and helped them flee abroad. Bergoglio was adamant the military would never muster up the courage to invade the College.”(This is very reminiscent of Angelo Roncalli's actions during WWII. The man we now know as Pope John XXIII.)

Alicia Oliveira, the famous magistrate who was persecuted by the military and went on to become a human rights activist also confirmed this: “Bergoglio also offered to hide me in the Seminary: I told him I’d rather be arrested by the military than live with priests. He laughed and said I was silly: in hindsight I can see he was right.”

The fact of the matter is that the minute the Diocese of La Rioja started the canonization process, the cardinal signed straight away. “Bergoglio signed and advised discretion: a lot of Argentinean bishops, especially those of a certain age, oppose initiatives based on priests’ social commitment. Thanks to his prudence, the process was able to continue: all testimonies have been gathered and we are not preparing the position. Now Bergoglio is Pope. God’s will performs miracles: it would be so moving if Carlos was the first figure to be beatified by Francis.”

********************************************

There is also considerable speculation that Pope Francis will reenergize the largely dormant case for the Canonization of AB Oscar Romero. Here's a quote from Salvadoran priest Msgr Jesus Delgado from an NCR article on Romero:

Msgr. Jesus Delgado also told reporters that in 2007 he spoke with Bergoglio, who told him that if he were the pope, the beatification and canonization of the slain archbishop would the first thing he would pursue.
In another meeting in 2010, Delgado said Bergoglio recalled what he said about Romero in 2007, but said the problem was that he would never become pope.

Cardinal Bergoglio's pope problem has apparently been solved and I could make a pretty good case the solution to that problem might qualify as AB Romero's first miracle. Unlike Fr Murias, AB Romero was not known for liberation theology per se. Romero came to his social justice credentials later, after he was made Archbishop of San Salvador. In Romero's day, social justice was not synonymous with liberation theology. That came later, when JPII suddenly found liberation theology a threat based in Marxist/communist ideology. Some of us think that sudden need to eliminate liberation theology was helped along by the machinations of the American CIA and National Security strategists employed during the Reagan administration. By the time GW Bush was in the White House and Pope Benedict in the Apostolic Palace, social justice was a notion about as welcome as lice in the official voice of US Catholicism. This was further born out by the attack on the LCWR instigated by right wing American Cardinals. In any event, the Nuns on the Bus now have a Pope who would rather ride on a bus. That's got to be at least one source of commonality.

The other aspect which is interesting in the above article is the statements from Fr Miguel La Civita and Alicia Oliveira that Pope Francis, when he was the Jesuit provincial for Argentina, offered both of them a place to hide and passports and visas out of the country. I find this very believable in that many Catholic prelates and religious were well known to have engaged in the same kind of subversive behaviors during WWII. I think this example gives some real insight into how Pope Francis will engage in reform. It will not be in open confrontation but in more subversive or stealthy kinds of activities. And of course he will also reform things by personal example which can be the most subversive of all acts for a Pope whose curia is used to doing things in quite a different way.

I suspect what Pope Francis really hopes is that the change in approach becomes a true personal conversion and not just a 'please the new pope' strategy. Should his personal humility, pastoral touch, and understanding of power through service produce enough conversions that would result in an entirely different clerical culture whose priorities would be very different than they seem to be now. This process may be the only way the Francis can promote the kind of reform that isn't undercut by his successor because it wouldn't be a matter of surface compliance to the lastest pope in the castle, but a real conversion expressed through committed personal consciences.

I kind of think the longer Pope Francis is on the job it will become more and more evident that for all their vaunted reforming the reform and stacking of the ecclesial deck with yes men, Popes Benedict and JPII did not inculcate conversions, they coerced obedience from men they terrified into silence and assent. It's surely going to be interesting to witness what happens in the future. There may be more than one seeming miracle in that future.