The Last Living American Bishop Who Was At VII---And My Personal Hero

Current Helena Bishop George Leo Thomas has a private moment with Archbishop Hunthausen during the dedication of the Hunthausen Center of Peace and Justice at Carroll College.

Controversial former Seattle archbishop celebrates 50-year anniversary as bishop

By Jerry Filteau - National Catholic Reporter - 8/30/2012

Fifty years ago, Raymond Hunthausen, a popular Montana priest who was barely 41 and widely known to all his friends and colleagues as "Dutch," was ordained sixth bishop of Helena, Mont.
Less than six weeks later, Oct. 11, 1962, he went to Rome as the youngest U.S. bishop at the opening of the Second Vatican Council.
Now retired, Archbishop Raymond Gerhardt Hunthausen of Seattle, 91, is the only living U.S. bishop who participated as a bishop in all four sessions of Vatican II.

To Catholics who lived through the early 1980s and the growing opposition of the U.S. bishops to nuclear deterrence as a policy with no end in sight, Hunthausen was one of the most prominent, forthright and vigorous opponents of that nuclear policy.
He was the only bishop in the country who intentionally withheld half his income tax in 1982 to protest the U.S. stockpiling of nuclear weapons and the then-growing U.S. reliance on the Trident-submarine-based mobile nuclear missile program, which included a Trident submarine port in Puget Sound, in his own backyard in the Seattle Archdiocese, where he became archbishop in 1975.
"Trident is the Auschwitz of Puget Sound," he said in 1981. The IRS garnished his wages to recover its lost 1982 income. (In my mind I can not separate Archbishop Romero from what happened to Dutch.  Both of these men were victims of Ronald Reagan's alliance with JPII.)

Anti-nuclear talks and activities by Hunthausen and fellow Bishop Leroy Matthiesen of Amarillo, Texas (where a Pantex plant produced many of the nation's nuclear weapons), were among key catalysts in the process leading to the bishops' 1983 peace pastoral, which condemned nuclear deterrence as a permanent state of international relations, saying it could be morally justified only as a temporary policy on the path to global nuclear disarmament. (This is a time period in which the USCCB was an organization to be proud of.  They were the 'nuns on the bus'.

Hunthausen led in many other post-Vatican-II changes in the church, making Seattle one of the most progressive dioceses in the nation.
His stands on nuclear deterrence and other issues also led to a sharp conservative Catholic backlash, however, that led to a Vatican investigation in 1983. (While there is truth in the conservative witch hunt, some of those conservatives also stood to make big bucks building Trident nuclear submarines.)

In that year, Cardinal James A. Hickey of Washington, the Vatican's chief investigator, concluded that the Seattle archbishop had exercised weak doctrinal leadership in a number of areas.
These included archdiocesan accommodation to a homosexual Catholic organization that did not clearly accept Catholic teaching on the immorality of all homosexual activity, admission to the sacraments for some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who had not obtained church annulments of their first marriage, and admission of children to First Communion prior to first reception of the sacrament of penance (then a burning issue in church discipline around the world and still today a question of appropriate pastoral practice, though later clearly settled in church law).

Hunthausen's anti-nuclear stand was not his first or only salvo against then-standard views in the U.S. church or general field of public opinion.
In October 1980, he openly questioned the church's denial of priestly ordination to women, asking in a pastoral letter whether the church is drawing women "to the fullest possible degree" into "all forms of [church] service, especially in the uniquely ecclesial areas of word and sacrament."

In September 1983, he let Dignity, an unofficial Catholic organization of homosexuals, use St. James Cathedral in Seattle for a liturgical service.
It has never been clear what precipitated the Vatican's 1983 investigation of Hunthausen's leadership of the Seattle Archdiocese, apart from the fact that his views and activities provoked numerous complaints on many fronts from conservative Catholics in the archdiocese.

Whatever the case, in late 1983, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), asked Archbishop (later Cardinal) James A. Hickey of Washington to make an official Vatican visitation.
Hickey concluded, according to the subsequent Vatican report, that apart from exaggerated conservative Catholic criticisms of Hunthausen, there were "a number of other basic doctrinal problems" in the archdiocese. (This report, written by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, represents serious double dealing.  'Oh, those conservatives, they were exaggerating and yet we found these 'other' errors.' All these 'errors' were going on in Europe at the same time, but not a problem.  It was just a problem for the man who objected strongly to the Trident nuclear base in his particular archdiocese and ticked off President Reagan.)

Those problems -- widespread in U.S. Catholic dioceses in those years -- included not only Catholic teaching on issues of homosexuality and other questions of sexual morality, but also on sacramental issues such as use of general absolution and admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion and whether women should be eligible to be ordained as priests.
Questions on a number of those issues, then still arguably subject to open discussion in the church, were ruled out of the question in later Vatican declarations.

After Hickey's visitation, in 1985, the doctrinal congregation found Hunthausen's pastoral leadership wanting and appointed a Pittsburgh priest with long experience in Rome, Fr. Donald Wuerl, as his auxiliary bishop with special powers over liturgy and several other areas of jurisdiction. (A step which more or less bombed as Wuerl lasted 17 months.  Wuerl came in with one agenda and one understanding of his mission, while Dutch was given to believe something very different. In this case both were victims of Vatican double dealing and double messaging.)

Wuerl, now cardinal archbishop of Washington, told NCR on Wednesday that he and Hunthausen have maintained a long friendship despite conflicts they faced in the 1980s over the Vatican decision and said he had just talked with the retired archbishop shortly before.
Since his retirement in 1991, Hunthausen has lived in Helena, where he grew up.
"His spirits are great," even though "he has a hard time walking," Wuerl said.
"I've always had a high regard" for the former Seattle prelate "as a person of great integrity," he said.
Hunthausen, he added, always "took very seriously the support that bishops owe one another" and has always been part of a quiet team of prayer and mutual support within the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

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

Readers of this blog know I think the world of Archbishop Hunthausen.  My opinion is not based on a lot of personal contact with him, I can only remember two occasions, but I did have contact with a number of priests who truly loved his pastoral attitude towards them.  I will also be the first to admit his handling of abusive priests more or less fell in line with all other Catholic bishops.  The sexual abuse crisis is an achor that drowns almost all of them irrespective of progressive or conservative labels.  Until the Church is willing to face up to this fact of it's hierarchical exclusivity, and seminary formation, we will get no where.

Having said that, the Hunthausen conflict with the Vatican was essentially between two personalities, Archbishop Hunthausen and by proxy for JPII, Cardinal Ratzinger.  This same conflict is getting deeper and deeper and louder and louder with in the Church.  The following is an excerpt from a thesis on the conflict between Hunthausen and Ratzinger.  It is taken from the doctoral thesis of Peter Shilling of the University of Utrecht. It was written in 2003 and available online for readers to take in his analysis of this entire conflict.  It's well worth reading for a number of reasons.  It's like a free Kindle book with lots of insight into how Roman Catholicism actually works on the 'big boy' level.  More than that it's about how one vision of Church conflicts astronomically with another vision of Church.  Oh yea, and how that played out between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Hunthausen---as well as the right wing political conservatism of JPII/Ronald Reagan and the social justice American Catholic Church. 

Here's the excerpt:  Keep in mind this is playing out even more and more and more.

The chief difference between the argumentation advanced by Rome and by Hunthausen may
well have been the discrepant ecclesiological visions at hand. What Rome saw as
Hunthausen’s main weakness, his flexible and tolerant leadership style (his lack of
“firmness”), was in Hunthausen’s view a necessary and valuable component of Church
leadership. Hunthausen presented himself as treating Church members as adults, making room
for participation and tolerating the unavoidable failures that accompany participation as an
acceptable cost. Hunthausen also showed a higher comfort level with intraecclesial diversity.
The Vatican position (expressed most concisely by Ratzinger), however, saw in this approach
of toleration a threat to the full realization of the Church’s own ideals. Toleration might make
Hunthausen popular in his own archdiocese, but it could also interfere with those same
people’s ability to face up to the difficult challenges that God has placed before them. In
simple terms, Hunthausen’s ecclesiology of forgiveness and charity clashed with the Roman
emphasis on the demands of the cross. Both are central and fully orthodox perspectives within
Christian theology: they are theologically inseparable but not always easily reconciled.

Is This Some Sort Of Karma For Archbishop Cordileone?

Archbishop Cordileone in better times.  Moral of the story is don't think as an Archbishop you are immune from today's police enforcement, because you aren't.  Welcome to the real world. I have to give a heads up to wild hair for this post.  Seems this particular arrest was kept under wraps for 48 hours.  In one of my previous periods in which I took weird jobs so my daughter could go to work with me, I was a bail agent in Salt Lake City.  I found I spent a great deal of effort getting things done quickly so that high profile people had a chance to come up with their apologies or excuses--or not.  I have to give Archbishop Cordileone some credit here, he chose to address this issue head on.  Wow, I guess he is no longer qualified to take the high moral road when he takes over in San Francisco. Who says there is no cosmic justice?  Not I.  Not that stupid. San Francisco archbishop DUI charge: The Rev. Salvatore Cordileone arrested in San Diego By Angela Woodall - Oakland Tribune -Posted:   08/27/2012 05:27:14 PM PDT Updated:   08/27/2012 07:11:39 PM PDT The Roman Catholic archbishop-elect of San Francisco, controversial for his vigorous support of California's same-sex marriage ban, was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence and ordered to appear in court, San Diego authorities said Monday. The Rev. Salvatore Cordileone was taken into custody after being stopped early Saturday at a checkpoint near the San Diego State campus, said Detective Gary Hassen, a police spokesman. Cordileone was booked into San Diego County jail two hours after being stopped and was released Saturday on a $2,500 bond, sheriff's records show. He was ordered to appear in court Oct. 9. Cordileone, 56, is the current bishop of the Oakland Diocese, which issued an apologetic statement Monday afternoon. "While visiting in San Diego this past weekend, I had dinner at the home of some friends along with a priest friend visiting from outside the country and my mother, who lives near San Diego State University," the statement read. "While driving my mother home, I passed through a DUI checkpoint the police had set up near the SDSU campus before I reached her home, and was found to be over the California legal blood alcohol level. "I apologize for my error in judgment and feel shame for the disgrace I have brought upon the Church and myself. I will repay my debt to society and I ask forgiveness from my family and my friends and co-workers at the Diocese of Oakland and the Archdiocese of San Francisco. I pray that God, in His inscrutable wisdom, will bring some good out of this."  (Perhaps God in His inscrutable wisdom is giving you an opportunity to meditate on humility.  That's not such a bad thing given your past and where you are headed.) The San Diego City Attorney's Office, which prosecutes misdemeanor DUI offenses, said it had not received a report on the arrest. Cordileone is a San Diego native and was ordained at the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego. Police did not provide information about whether he had previously been arrested. In late July, Pope Benedict XVI selected Cordileone to become archbishop of San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties. Cordileone is not scheduled to be installed as archbishop of San Francisco until Oct. 4. Catholic bishops are answerable only to the pope and a criminal charge would not automatically prompt a delay in Cordileone's installation, according to canon law experts. Cordileone's appointment to San Francisco archbishop provoked outcry from gay rights advocates because he is a noted proponent of Proposition 8, the 2008 law passed by California voters to outlaw same-sex marriage. Cordileone was already known as a theologically conservative bishop faithful to the Catholic orthodoxy when he was installed as Oakland's bishop in May 2009, becoming the first Spanish-speaking bishop in the Oakland Diocese's history. He was a staunch advocate for immigrant rights and opposes the death penalty. He was also part of the San Diego Diocese when it filed for bankruptcy protection in 2007 after being slammed with claims by 150 alleged victims of sexual abuse and multiple civil trials. Cordileone denied allegations by creditors at the time that the diocese tried to protect its finances by hiding and downplaying the value of assets before bankruptcy proceedings began. And he has refused to provide a list of priests involved in sexual abuse requested by Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, according to David Clohessy, director of the organization known as SNAP. Cordileone also called on Catholics to vote for an initiative on the November ballot that requires parental consent for minors seeking an abortion. Because it's a high-profile case, Cordileone's paperwork may take longer to process if authorities are going out of their way to avoid mistakes, Bay Area DUI defense attorney Bruce Kapsack said. Breath tests return immediate results. Urine and blood samples can take much longer to process, Kapsack said. Kapsack said his clients have included priests, rabbis, imams and Buddhist monks. "They don't get more of a break," Kapsack said. "Actually, the higher profile the individual the stricter the situation becomes."

The Pre Born: Carrying The Heavy Cross Of Hypocrisy For Religious Conservatives

Hmmmm,  pretty much says it all.

This morning Michael Sean Winters posted another of his prescriptions for the Democratic party in which, again, he prescribes the absolutist abortion perspective as the way the Dems will garner Hispanic support and secure the future of the Democratic Party.  Interestingly enough, he gives the opposite prescription on the gay marriage question.  In that case he advises the USCCB to drop it's opposition because it's a lost cause.  MSW seems befuddled as to what a true Catholic is supposed to support politically because last I checked it didn't matter if some moral issue was a politically lost cause, it was about the unchanging moral teaching of the Church.  The abortion issue, at least as far as overturning Roe V Wade, has been a lost cause for thirty or forty years.  Unfortunately it's been such a beneficent issue for Republicans, it's still very valuable as the perfect wedge issue.  They can keep bringing it up and never have to do anything meaningful about it.  They can also use it to cover over a multitude of other divisive issues.  Or to put it differently they can use fetal life to carry the cross for their working in opposition to any social justice issues for the already born.

Bill Lyndsy has a masterful post on this penchant of centrists like Michael Sean Winters and what they really accomplish in this country and in the Church.  The following are his ending paragraphs:

....The we-vs.-them politics of Catholic values and identity that have become normative for many American Catholics, including "liberals" like Michael Sean Winters, and which the Catholic bishops have actively nurtured for years now, foreshortens the understanding of human solidarity as something that transcends racial, social, and economic boundaries.  It does so by making a "talisman" of the unborn human being--even of the just-fertilized zygote, about whose human status there has long been a diversity of understandings even in the Catholic tradition itself--and drawing a line in the sand: if this life is not respected, no life can be respected. (Absolutely on target.)

A far more compelling ethic in defense of the worth of the unborn would work to build a much stronger sense of human solidarity than this, one not rooted in a divisive we-vs.-them politics of religious and ethnic identity.  It would demand a much more heightened awareness of--to take one case among many--the maleficent effects of racism in American culture.  And a much stronger intent to combat that racism.

Until the "we" of a Catholic pro-life ethic includes everyone, pro-life politics and the ethic on which they are based will not be persuasive to many thoughtful people for whom the notion of human solidarity is far broader than us-believers-and-the-fetus.  Nor should it be persuasive.  Without a consistent respect for human life across the board--and this includes respect for the lives of women, gay and lesbian persons, racial minorities, the poor--Catholics and other right-wing Christians who have chosen to make a we-vs.-them talisman out of the fetus will continue to fail to convince many people of good will that they are actually and credibly pro-life. (I don't see how the purveyors of the 'fetal talisman' position can extend respect for the lives of women, when the life of their talisman is given the absolute option over the life of it's mother...a situation which men never face and doesn't effect their intrinsic human value.)

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

As Bill points out, the abortion issue is now the favorite way of separating a self sanctified 'we' from the secular godless 'other'.  I'm not quite sure how this happened, but I suspect it's just been the result of forty years of escalating rhetoric and certain political operatives fueling this debate for the greater glory of the Republican spin machine  Kathy Hughes has written a comment to Bill's post which outlines the endgame of this strategy:

Excellent thoughts. My concern is that the religious right will see all of us who don't agree with their political or religious agenda as less than human. David Neiwert has documented the rise of what he calls "eliminationism" in political discussion in the last few years, and he wrote a book titled "Eliminationism." Neiwert calls eliminationism the wish that people who disagree with the political right be physically eliminated, and he points to examples from Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. 

American Catholicism is also not without it's own voices of eliminationism.  Fr C. John McCluskey comes to mind as Frank Cocozzelli has covered in this piece on Open Tabernacle.  McCluskey has a stable full of Republican party Catholic converts and undoubtedly has been influential in keeping the abortion issue as useful as possible in what appears to be his fantastical pursuit of a Catholic theocracy brought to us all by by a  culture war turned civil war.  That's a lot of agenda to hang on the tiny shoulders of the pre born.

And speaking of Catholic Republicans and extreme positions on abortion, VP designate Ryan has gone so far as to justify his absolutist position to a rape exception by the notion that rape is just another form of conception. He makes no distinction then for Akin's quaint notions of 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate rape'. Conception is conception.  Easy for him to say, but then it's always easy for men to say whatever they want about abortion, pregnancy, and contraception.  It doesn't effect them in quite at all the same way it does women.  Now, that gay marriage thingy, that's a different story.  Ain't it MSW?

It's About White Male Privilege, Not President Obama's Birth Certificate

White privilege is so insidious it's easy to miss when it's in operation.

Governor Romney has made a couple of remarks which seem boneheaded on the surface, but may in fact be messages for particular Republican constituencies.  There was this quote where he endorses off shore tax havens and tax loops for big business: “They know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses,”. Romney would certainly know all about that, which is probably why we will never see his tax returns.  

And given that we will never see his tax returns, I personally was stunned that while campaigning in Michigan he had the audacity to say this:   “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place where both of us were born and raised.”  Romney says he was trying to be funny by alluding to the 'birther' insanity.  I don't think it's at all funny, especially given he endorses big business stashing profits off shore and won't release his own taxes. Or maybe it's just that Romney realized he screwed up by blithely endorsing off shore tax havens and now is using the birther issue as a distraction.  I swear to God the Republican party can't seem to get it's act together, but then the party itself is attempting to forge an unwieldy and motley group of supporters.  Birthers/Tea Party on one end,  Wall Street on the other, and I guess Donald Trump to tie the two together. And that doesn't include the Todd Akins Evangelical mysoginists.  The one thing that really ties all these men together is 'white male privilege'.

Anthea Butler has written a letter to Governer Romney over on Religion Dispatches.  She gives voice to just how entitled Romney is, and makes the point he should think twice about this aura of privilege.  The following excerpt is the last two paragraphs of her letter: 

....What’s more, your own family history points to a painful past. Your grandfather escaped to Mexico to be able to practice his belief in polygamy (you and President Obama both have polygamy in your family history). Mormons have been persecuted for a long time, though your money and your father’s position protected you from associating with that persecuted past. It is part of you, no matter how much you cling to your privilege. Would it be too difficult for you to exercise some discretion, noting your own past, and realize that many African Americans are sick and damn tired of white people questioning the President of the United States about his birth certificate?  (And lots of white people are damn sick and tired of white people questioning the President of the United States birth certificate.)

I hope you realize that because President Obama won in 2008, he had made it easier for you to run for President in 2012. Both the Republican Party and the religious right shunned you in 2008. Many Christian power brokers are holding their noses to vote for you because they hate President Obama more. Many wonder if you even are a Christian. So please, before you use racism and dog whistles against the president, consider your church’s past of persecution, and bigotry. Choose the right, if you can. (Mitt does seem to have a very very short memory about his shunning in 2008.)

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

I have come to the conclusion the white male privilege is so much a part of the Republican party that men like Romney and Akins can't even see it.  This is really evident when they engage in 'mansplainin' and are completely unaware they are 'mansplainin'.  Their world of white male privilege is so much a part of who they are they just seem to breathe it in and expel it like the unnoticed air that sustains their biological life.  The idea that other people might be offended by this never seems to cross their minds, except to dismiss those people as not living in the 'real' world.

Cardinal Dolan seems to be another such privileged white male.  Actually most of the USCCB falls in that category, as does most of the Vatican bureaucracy  They too seem oblivious to the fact they teach what it means to be Catholic strictly from the isolation of their own white male privilege with a good dose of clerical privilege to boot.  They can not teach from any sense of the 'real' world unless those they teach agree that the clerical world view is the way God wants the real world viewed. Except Jesus taught the real world is the world of the marginal and the poor and that's the world His followers should serve.  What we now have is His supposed followers redefining Jesus' mission and actually telling the poor and marginal their status in life is good for them.  Apparently it's so good for us, that Cardinals like Dolan and Bishops like Morlino are quite happy to help other privileged white males create more opportunities for giving more of us a shot at being poor and marginalized. Praise Jesus.

So I'm preparing myself for a whole lot more 'mansplainin' as the Republicans begin to gather in Tampa.  I will view some of the convention if only to try and figure out how much fantasy I will be expected to swallow about how 'the real world' needs another dose of white male privilege in order to fix all the problems privileged white males have given the world.  I think there's a definition of insanity in there somewhere.

Is Cardinal Dolan The Reincarnation of Cardinal Wolsey?

Hmmm, There does seem to be a certain similarity between Cardinals Wolsey and Dolan.

I have followed the story about Cardinal Dolan giving the benediction at the GOP convention with a certain amount of disbelief....followed by a great deal of anger and frustration.  In my case the frustration stems from cognitive dissonance, and this Dolan/GOP thing gave me a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Such a state always produces a certain amount of outside the box thinking because outside the box thinking is the only way I can solve cognitive dissonance.  Hence I have come to the conclusion Cardinal Dolan is the current incarnation of Tudor England's, Cardinal Wolsey.

There are some striking similarities.  Cardinal Wolsey was the son of a butcher.  Cardinal Dolan is the brother of a butcher.  My New Age friends who believe in reincarnation always stress the family connections and their similarities.  This particular similarity is kind of unique.  I can't imagine many cardinals in today's church have a family connection with a butcher.  Other similarities are equally interesting.  Wolsey was given the title "Legate a latere", a title that made him an exalted and permanent representative of the Pope, and superseded the authority of the Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury.  Essentially, as head of the USCCB, Dolan's authority supersedes any other bishop in the US, and of course, he somehow got that title by circumventing the USCCB's usual protocols. In both cases a form of national clerical rank was achieved that surpassed the usual channel of occupying the oldest historical See.  I also find it fascinating that Wolsey was Cardinal Archbishop of York, and Dolan is Cardinal Archbishop of New York.

My New Age friends also say that once you have found the similarities you must look for the total opposites, because those opposites outline the karmic issues a person has reincarnated to work on.

In doing that I found Wolsey served as Henry VIII's Chancellor at a time of economic turmoil in England and that his grasp of the changing economics was poor.  What I found pertinent to my hypothetical musing was that Wolsey pursued a more social justice perspective when it came to taxes.  He saw how iniquitous and inefficient the tax system was, so he instituted a fairer income tax  which placed the bulk of financing Henry's lifestyle and his multiple wars on the wealthier. In this respect Wolsey seems further advanced than Cardinal Dolan.  But then Wolsey was a butcher's son, not just a butcher's brother, and probably had a more personal grasp of how the tax system favored the wealthy at the expense of the poor and the trade classes.

Cardinal Dolan's closing benediction at the GOP convention will be seen and interpreted by the right as Catholic endorsement of the economic and foreign policies of republican neocons.  These would be the very same philosophies used by President Bush who took this country from a debt surplus to the mess we have now, and whose two unfunded wars were instrumental in creating our national debt.  His economic policies of low taxes on our economic nobility and his other unfunded programs like Medicare D are now being used to skewer President Obama who inherited these messes.   Dolan's own lack of economic chops has allowed him to make the statement about Paul Ryan that "I am anxious to see him in action."  in spite of the fact the Ryan budget severely targets the poor for the never ending Republican meme that lower taxes for the wealthy means more reinvestment in the US economy.  The nobility weren't happy to do their share during the reign of Henry VIII---Wolsey made a lot of powerful enemies--as they infinitely preferred to romp along with Henry. It's difficult to imagine the majority of our current 'nobility' doing much different.  Too many of them seem to see the government as the never ending bail out machine.  On taxation and wealth distribution issues Cardinal Dolan could take a real lesson in courage from Cardinal Wolsey.

Eventually Cardinal Wolsey fell from grace because he couldn't solve Henry VIII's marriage and 'pelvic issues'.  Cardinal Dolan seems willing to have the whole American Catholic Church fall from grace over marriage and pelvic issues, and here's another difference between the two men.  Another karmic difference I think. Wolsey fought to loosen Vatican control over Henry's sexual life and although, he did his best to fight doctrine with doctrine, eventually Wolsey lost everything.  Dolan is attempting the exact opposite, to make Vatican doctrine on pelvic issues the law of the land, and unlike Wolsey, Dolan has nothing personal to lose and even more to gain. That has to be karmic.

In the end, all  Cardinal Wolsey accomplished was to delay for a few years the very top down English schism.  If Cardinal Dolan doesn't want the same kind of karmic debt, he better start listening to the liberals in his own Church before he finds himself presiding over a very bottom up American schism.

One last thought.  In the movie A Man For All Seasons, Cardinal Wolsey is depicted dying alone and outcast and about to be arrested for high treason.  He states to Lord Norfolk:  If I had served my God half so well as my King, I would not lay dying in this god forsaken place."  Cardinal Dolan may indeed be trying to serve his God better than his president, but neither Cardinal will have gotten a very core Christian lesson: God is served best in service to the least of the least, not the richest and most powerful.

Rep. Paul Ryan Has Some 'Mansplainin' To Do

I don't know where I've been, but I had never heard the term 'mansplaining' until I read Bill Lyndsy's latest masterful post at Bilgrimage.  I laughed out loud when reading the explanation of the term.  It does really explain the idiocy which puked out of the mouth of  Missouri's Rep Todd Akins.  Only a man who was stuck between over confidence and cluelessness could seriously 'splain' to us about this not so new concept of legitimate rape and how you know it's legitimate rape because the woman can't get pregnant because her body rejects the idea of getting pregnant by an invader.  Betcha didn't know that!  I sure didn't.  Took a man to 'splain' that to me. 

Now here's where it gets interesting.  The Republicans are having all kinds of conniptions about Akins 'mansplainin' this fact of female biology.  It has forced the Romney/Ryan ticket into publicly stating they do not support Akin's views of 'legitimate rape. The statement they issued is as follows: 

“Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement,” the Romney campaign said in statement. “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

How is Mr Ryan going to 'mansplain' away this change in his pro life out look?  He is on record, and actually a cosponsor of the 'personhood' bill introduced by Republicans in January of 2011.  That bill stated   “each human life begins with fertilization,” which would effectively give a conceptus all the rights of a person and outlaw all abortions for any cause.  How does he now explain he is in favor of Romney's position which has always allowed for abortion in cases of incest, rape, and threat to the life of the mother?  Oh but wait a minute, that's Romney's position now, when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts he was a complete pro choice politician.  I forget how Romney 'mansplained' this change of position, but there's been so many of those I guess I can be forgiven for not remembering the exact reasoning for this one.

As one of the Republican Party top 'mansplainers' --errg thinkers-- Ryan has consistently voted against any women's health programs.  His current budget defunds Planned Parenthood and rescinds all monies for family planning grants under Title X.  He was front and center in the religious freedom crusade of the USCCB against the HHS mandate for no copay birth control in the Affordable Care Act.  Given his voting record, he appears to be a bishop's dream come true for a capital C Catholic Politician.

And yet, if one digs a little deeper, one finds Ryan might just be a 'go along to get along' kind of pro life politician.  He has in fact, supported pro gay/pro choice politicians if those politicians follow his budgeting philosophy.  In those cases he has 'agreed to disagree' over abortion and gay marriage.  His main focus is debt, deficits, and entitlement spending--excluding military entitlement spending, of course of course.

Personally, I will be waiting for Ryan to mansplain what appears to be his surface compliance with pro life culture warrior policies.  I want to know if all these Correct Catholic votes of his are as politically pragmatic as most of Romney's flip flops.  That in fact he cast them not because he believed in them, but because he needed the endorsements from groups who track these things. A conspiracy theorist might see these votes as mere means to his greater end, which is serving up the middle and lower classes to his corporate sponsors. Sort of his way of deflecting any need to mansplain' his illegitimate financial rape of most Americans to the very Americans most likely to suffer severely under his budget.  Kind of like having to mansplainin' his Randian social engineering under the guise of Thomas Aquinas.  

In any event, I will be breathlessly waiting for the USCCB to explain to us how to vote now that Ryan is no longer absolutely and totally anti abortion.  I will especially be eager to hear from one Robert C Morlino, Ryan's own official Catholic bishopsplainer.

Two Views Of The Priesthood As Modeled By Msgr Lynn

Sadly, the world of clergical careerism described by Fr. Orsi has resulted in exactly this behavior.  It's not at all funny.

The following two pieces are from an America Magazine article on the Msgr Lynn conviction.  The first is from Fr Michael P. Orsi, a fellow at the Ave Maria School of Law. It is an excerpt from the main article for which the second piece is a direct comment.  The second part was written by Fr Francis J. Flynn a Phd. Psychologist practicing in the Miami area.  It's not very often one comes across two commentaries which clarify what exists with what must change.  

I start the first comment after Fr. Orsi's explanation of his personal knowledge of Msgr Lynn, and end it before Orsi's prescription for changing diocesan organizational structure in order to give more clergy and laity a sort of 'insiders' niche in the decisions of their bishops.  Fr Flynn on the other hand, cuts to the chase.

......Bill is part of a hierarchical church that imposes obedience to the diocesan bishop on Her priests. It encourages priests to be team players. And it forces priests to seek affirmation and support within a diocesan structure. This system   does not encourage challenges. As the old seminary saying goes, “You keep the rules and the rules will keep you.”

From the moment of ordination a priest becomes intimately bound to his bishop   and the presbyterate of his diocese. The bishop has complete control over a priest’s life, materially – for sure, and often times spiritually on account of the decisions he makes in the priest’s regard. Because of this priests look to their bishop as a father figure. They want to believe that his decisions are wise.

A great sign of success for a priest is to be invited to join the Diocesan  Curia, the bishop’s circle of collaborators in the administration of the diocese. The position of Vicar for the Clergy, the post held by Lynn from1990 – 2002, is just such a sinecure. (This is a 'sign of success' directly tied to careerism rather than pastoring the faithful.  It's a point of view which Fr. Orsi either doesn't understand he's advocating, or he thinks is an acceptable and natural aspect of priesthood.)

In this elite environment there are few priests who are willing to oppose the bishop’s wishes for fear of falling out of favor.

Being a team player is important for any organization. It is a vital  part of the clerical lifestyle. Camaraderie is strongly impressed upon priests. We often refer to our fellow priests as our brothers. The fact is that we do have a real dependency on each other since we do not have an immediate family of our own.   Priests rely on each other for acceptance, for sharing the work load and even living arrangements. If a priest deems any of these to be inadequate or unjust he may be, rightly or wrongly, labeled a malcontent or a problem. This perception can follow him throughout his priesthood.

Very often a priest, may have some very serious concerns, yet simply “Go Along to Get Along.”

Because a priest’s circle is often limited to fellow priests his vision may also be limited. Therefore, if there is a problem, in certain cases, the advice he receives from them does not always come from fresh or unbiased eyes. Defense mechanisms can also easily set in; denial, rationalization and silence for self preservation.   As one wizened old priest said about speaking up or speaking out, “Who needs the aggravation?”

Monsignor Lynn is not innocent. He failed in his duty of care to children.   His punishment is harsh, and I pray that it will be reduced.   It serves, however, as a necessary message to bishops throughout the country that the system needs fixing...... (Fr Orsi's fixes do not include any changes inherent to the priesthood he describes, which means they are not fixes.  They are cosmetic.)

Now onto Fr Flynn's take:

Yes, Father Orsi. For more than 40 years you have been acquainted with “Inmate” or “Convict Lynn” – for that he what he is called now. (I know; I worked for eleven years in a maximum security prison.) But, truly, you do not know him. Or you are blindly self-deceiving when you say that he is “a good man and a good priest… a good soldier.” He lacked the personal integrity, the courage of Faith and Hope, that a true Christian, a genuinely “good priest” would exercise in refusing to be “a good soldier.” Rather, whether from blatant cowardice or because he had already sold his soul – and the souls of priests’ victims – he settled for “a sinecure.” History is replete with examples of individuals who lacked the personal fortitude, the courage, the integrity, indeed the spiritual and personal strength, necessary to say NO to those in authority. He is now a convict, condemned by a jury of his lay/civilian peers to a prison sentence he richly deserves. (It has always seemed to me that the abuse crisis got so out of hand precisely because the clerical system doe not believe laity are peers or that civil society has a right or is competent to address criminal clergy.  The theology behind the system was designed to convince laity of the same 'truth.)

Unfortunately, you have missed the point. A cowardly and self-serving man, who was afraid to lose the benefits of rectory and health insurance, of cooks and housekeepers who do his bidding, deluded himself – and, perhaps, others – into believing that he was serving the institution to which he had sold his manhood and his soul. Unless he had completely given in to his delusions, he knew in the depth of his soul that he was guilty of the crucifixion of the Christ who dwells within the souls of victims and the families of the victims of “predator priests.” Father Orsi, Convict/Prisoner/Inmate Lynn is where his choices have brought him. His punishment is not “harsh.” If, as I have, you have spent not a few but hundreds and hundreds of hours talking with and counseling adult male survivors of childhood sexual abuse, you would know that Convict Lynn’s punishment is not “harsh.” Three years, even six years of incarceration – with “three hots and a cot” – is miniscule when compared to the uncountable decades of pain lived by the victims of those whom Convict Lynn unleashed upon them. Do not pray that his punishment “will be reduced.” If you pray for Inmate Lynn, if his bishop and his fellow priests pray for him at all (and, I can tell you that “out of sight is out of mind” for inmates), pray that at the end of his sentence he emerge from his deserved incarceration as a man of new found integrity, who will no longer remain silent about the injustices of those to whom he has sworn undeserved loyalty.

Father Orsi, your “attempt to help people understand why he acted as he did” does little more than illustrate the deplorable pathologies to which the priesthood has devolved. Your “suggestion” does little to excise the cancer that is the clericalism that you described and seemingly justified. If you truly wish to encourage a new and healthy priesthood cut out the malignancy completely. Begin by encouraging the American Church to require that all candidates for the priesthood enter formation/religious life only after having established themselves in professional careers and lives through which they can sustain themselves – without having to surrender “complete control” “materially – for sure, and often times spiritually.” Sure, this will mean that more mature men will enter the ministry, but, hopefully, they will be men who will not sell their souls for a sinecure. Pay priests honest salaries equivalent to that of the average salaries of teachers in their diocesan Catholic high schools. Provide them with the same health insurance as a Catholic grade school teacher. Abolish the enforced mechanism of slavery that is rectory living – at every level of clerical life from diaconate to episcopacy. Let priests and bishops learn to cook their own meals, wash their own clothes, struggle to pay their own rents and car expenses. In short, make the Priesthood of Service a vocation rather than a source of entitlements. And, yes, this will mean an ever decreasing number of priests to serve an ever increasing number of parishioners. As a result, if the hierarchy truly prizes the Eucharist as it says it does, it will be forced to honestly reconsider the very nature of our priestly vocations. Here is my promise to you. I will periodically pray for Convict Lynn. I will pray that he emerges incarceration as a truly independent, free, honest and courageous man. If he does so, he will have earned the right to speak the truth and “to oppose the bishop’s wishes” without “fear of falling out of favor.” Rev. Francis J. Flynn, Psy.D., Miami, Florida

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

At the end of his comment Fr Flynn makes the same point I have been making on this blog for over four years.  If the Eucharist is the summit of Catholic existence, then it's beyond time our leadership put some money where their mouth is because one thing the abuse crisis has served to underscore is that the Sacrament of Ordination trumps the Sacrament of Holy Communion.  Ordination is the pinnacle of Catholic expression, not the Eucharist.  It is the priesthood which will be protected at all costs, not the Eucharist.
Until that changes, nothing else in Catholicism can be reformed.  

How Much Does The Butler Matter? No More Than Lay Catholics Insist

Paolo Gabriele is entitled to answers to his concerns about corruption in the Vatican.  All lay Catholics are, even us who aren't on Forbes list of powerful people.

The following excerpt is from the Guardian UK and author Catherine Pepenstir hasn't lost sight of the real issue in the Vati Leaks story.  Catholics have a right to some answers no matter how powerful Pope Benedict might be in the global scheme of things.

Whatever the butler's role, the Vatican has questions to answer

What Catholics need to see now is an investigation into the truth of allegations in documents allegedly leaked by Paolo Gabriele

.....The Vatileaks scandal has been a deeply embarrassing saga for the most senior echelons of the Catholic church, and it is surprising that it has attracted so little attention in Britain. The plight of 46-year-old Gabriele himself, for instance, has shocked Catholic observers. After his arrest he was incarcerated for 50 days, initially in solitary confinement in a cell deep inside the Vatican; then under house arrest in his apartment within the Vatican City State. Despite the Catholic church still using Latin as an official language, it didn't appear to understand habeas corpus. Yet human rights experts barely reacted to what was happening: when my publication, the Tablet, contacted Amnesty International about the butler's situation, it had nothing to say. (Nothing is surprising when it comes to the Vatican.  All one needs do is read Betty Clermont's work on Open Tabernacle.  The Vatican is a rogue state where even Amnesty International has to mind it's p's and q's in order to effect meaningful change in other areas.)

Only the LSE's Prof Conor Gearty, writing in the Tablet, pointed out the scandal of it, particularly given how vocal Rome usually is about human rights. But Vatileaks is a much more disturbing episode than just the treatment of one individual. First a television programme, then leaks in the press and eventually a book by the investigative journalist Gianluigi Nuuzi exposed thwarted efforts to deal with corruption within the Vatican City State, which the Catholic church runs.

Letters taken from Pope Benedict's desk are filled with complaints made to him by senior clerics about the hopeless bureaucracy of the church, comments that it is out of touch, and the frustrations of those working in the corridors of power. There were also revelations of infighting among Vatican officials, including those involved in the so-called Vatican Bank, otherwise known as the Institute for the Works of Religion. One series of papers revealed that the bank had found loopholes to exonerate it from full compliance with newly adopted international money laundering regulations. A bitter feud was exposed between those who want the Vatican admitted to the OECD's list of financially virtuous states and those who consider that this would compromise its Institute for the Works of Religion. (And all this came out before Etorre Gotti Tedeshi was fired, or the European watchdog Moneyval released it's report in which it said the over sight bodies were in place, but THEY HAD NEVER BEEN USED.)

Also adding spice to the mix has been the role of Opus Dei. Greg Burke, a member of the secretive Catholic organisation, has moved from Fox News's Rome bureau to help the Vatican with PR, and Pope Benedict has appointed Cardinal Julian Herranz, the former right-hand man of Opus Dei's late founder, to run the investigation into the leaks. And then there has been evidence of deep jealousies within the Vatican court, particularly of the pope's closest aide, his trusted secretary Monsignor Georg Ganswein, and his secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. That has caused many people to be sceptical that the butler acted alone, and to suggest that enemies of Ganswein and Bertone, as well as those who believe there is something rotten in the state of the Vatican City, were involved. Nuzzi himself says his source represents a group of people "fed up with crooks and power games". (Cardinal Bertone is Salesian who worked closely with Pope Benedict in the CDF.  Msgr Ganswein was educated in Opus Dei graduate schools. Again I urge readers to ponder the work of Betty Clermont.)

What Catholics need to see now is not only a group of clerics and the Vatican police, or gendarmerie, investigating the butler, but an investigation into the truth of the allegations in the leaked documents. The Catholic church's reputation is on the line, as it was over child abuse and evidence of cover-ups over that scandal.  (Spot on.  I don't care that the Vatican is going to put Gabriele on trial. I want to know how much truth there is in the leaked documents because I suspect there is a great deal of truth.)

The extraordinary work it does across the world with the poor, with migrants, in education and in running hospitals is in danger of being ignored if it remains so reluctant to admit scrutiny of its internal workings. The world, though, will nevertheless turn its focus to the petty intrigues of a medieval court. And that factional wrangling risks undermining the papacy itself. (Wrong!  The Vatican itself does no hand on work what so ever at all in the world with the poor.  It has a despicable track record of involving itself in global entities like the UN and hampering their ability to do work in the global community because the Vatican objects to birth control, condoms, and any sexual education which might mitigate over populating  individual families or educating young teenage women.  It's sexual teachings promote poverty.)

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

Catholics have a right to know how much of the documents leaked by Paolo Gabriele are accurate and truthful.  Just as Catholics have a right to know about the cover ups with clerical abusers and the financial decisions made by dioceses to pay off lawyers to defend the indefensible.

I am not stupid enough to think the Vatican and large Metropolitan Archdioceses in financial centers need the donations of rank and file laity, because they don't.  That's why the Carl Anderson led Knights of Columbus, the Knights of Malta, Opus Dei, the Legionaries, Legatus, and other similar elite Vatican clubs or religious congregations exist.  They pander to rich white men. It's their job to fund the Vatican and the Cardinal Dolan's, Wuerl's and Lori's of the powerful male clerical world.  They do that because the Vatican still has enormous global political power and it is still enormously useful in keeping wealthy rich white men in charge of most of the global wealth.  Which is why I maintain the Vatican is more worried about Melinda Gates, than it is Paolo Gabriele--as dangerous as his leaks are to the Vatican.  Melinda Gates understands the future of the world is about more than wealthy rich white men.  It's also about healthy all women and all their babies.  Do check out Betty Clermont's article because even though Pope Benedict is listed by Forbes as the 7th most powerful man in the world, Bill Gates is #5, and his wife is listed as #6 amongst powerful women.

By the way, you don't make either of these lists unless you represent huge wealth or huge political influence in the West.  As far as Pope Benedict and his predecessors, so much for Jesus' notions of solidarity with the poor or rich men getting through the eye of needles--even if that needle actually refers to a very narrow gate in old Jerusalem. 

When Pro life Argumentation Becomes Invincible Ignorance

There are times a Rubick's cube is easier to solve than convoluted Catholic thinking on things like "Invincible ignorance.

The following is a quote I lifted off the NCR article on President Obama's selection of his national leaders for Catholics for Obama.  To say this article generated some heated comment is an understatement.  This comment caught my attention because in it's defense of the pre born it utterly undercuts some important Catholic teaching on salvation. The operative words are in bold:

RC, how can you possibly argue for a distinction between pro abortion and pro choice? After all, however you want to label it, 50 million babies are now in heaven, praying for the souls of their parents who killed them, plain and simple. Saying that you personally disprove of abortion but are none the less pro choice is ridiculus and is a pretty cowardly position to stand on. Either we are for Christ or against Him. None of this wishy washy mealie mouthed luke warm cowardice!

The trouble with stating definitively that all the aborted are in heaven is it forces Catholics to jump through all kinds of hoops to avoid the obvious, if these souls are in heaven why is abortion such a bad thing for the aborted?  The official response to this conundrum is that we don't know for sure this is true, but we believe in a merciful and just God.  Occasionally the argument for 'invincible ignorance' is cited as one way this conundrum can be solved, but then that argument can get extended to all actually born people who never heard of Christ, which certainly puts baptized Catholics at a distinct disadvantage in the heavenly sweepstakes.  Better not to know Jesus, than to know Him at all is the inescapable conclusion.

I suspect it was precisely to avoid these kinds of mind games that Jesus spoke about the spirit of the Law rather than fanatical adherence to the law.  Anyway, here's an example of what happens when people start asking the obvious questions of true Catholics and pointing out some of these problems.  They get banned from said Catholic website.

Worthy Adversaries Working For The Holy Spirit? Or Incredibly Lucky Nut Jobs

God finally answered Job, but I wonder if two other folks are going to be so blessed.

I've encountered two stories this year which speak to me about the power of committed individuals to take on the mega powers in this world.  They also speak to me of how the Holy Spirit can and does appoint certain individuals to be 'worthy adversaries' whose mission is to point to the corruption, the hubris, and the sense of 'untouchability' with which humans and human institutions delude themselves.  On the surface their stories are somewhat mundane, but when one looks deeper, their stories are in some sense other worldly.

But first a definition.  In my own personal lexicon a worthy adversary is one who while seemingly an opponent or an enemy, actually exists to push one beyond their current self understanding or personal dysfunction.  The classic Biblical story describing this relationship is Job.  In this story Lucifer takes on the role of worthy adversary at God's behest.  Lucifer goes after Job with a great deal of vocational enthusiasm until finally Job stands in righteous fury, having been stripped of any impediment which might stifle his voice, and demands God explain Himself.  Lucifer's machinations have taken Job from a sort of mindless self satisfied follower of Yahweh to a fully engaged human being standing in all his naked dignity, having become God's worthy adversary in the process.  God answers Job in the one and only time God is described as answering to a mere human----somewhat petulantly I might add.  In any event through Job, mankind has turned a corner in his conception of himself.  Job insists the Creator has an obligation to answer to His creation.  God's final answer is Jesus.

The first worth adversary is Paolo Gabrielle, Pope Benedict's butler.  From reading accounts, he was able to accomplish what he did because he was perceived as more or less part of the furniture in the Pope's private quarters:  The following excerpts are taken from the Religious New Service account of his moving to trial for aggravated theft. The first is the description of his work performance by Msgr Georg Ganswein:

Msgr. Georg Ganswein, Pope Benedict's personal secretary, told investigators Gabriele needed to be "continually guided and directed" and "sometimes it was necessary to repeat things more than once."
Nevertheless, after about a year of working together, Msgr. Ganswein, a German, said he began giving Gabriele simple administrative tasks, including drafting responses to letters and notes in Italian when the subject matter was not particularly sensitive.

This next excerpt is from one of the psychiatrists who examined Gabrielle.  I found his description fascinating because in my mind it describes the perfect 'simple' lay Catholic Benedict seems to want to direct the entire Church towards protecting and sustaining because it is this personality type that sustains Benedict's power.

 Dr. Roberto Tatarelli, a professor of psychiatry at Sapienza University of Rome, reported that Gabriele showed no signs of "clinically significant disturbances" that could explain his actions or cast doubt on his ability to understand what he was doing was wrong.
But the doctor wrote that Gabriele had a "simple intelligence" and a "fragile personality with paranoid tendencies, covering up a deep personal insecurity and an unresolved need to enjoy the esteem and affection of others," according to the report by Piero Bonnet, the Vatican's investigating judge.

Benedict's butler was exactly what Benedict wished for in the Catholic laity, and by gosh he might want to rethink just how sheep like these perfect lay sheep really are, because just like Job, they want answers.  In Gabrielle's case he wants the same answers the rest of us do about the corruption and self serving in the Vatican City boys club.  

Job demanded to know what kind of God it was that he served, Gabrielle wanted us to know what kind of Vatican it was that served us:

"From my position, I could observe the double papal function, that as head of the church and head of the state (of Vatican City)," Gabriele told Bonnet. Particularly the way Vatican City was operating could be a "scandal for the faith," he said.
"I was aware that the Holy Father was not informed about some of these things or was misinformed. With the help of others like Nuzzi, I thought things could be seen more clearly," Gabriele said.
He said that "seeing evil and corruption everywhere in the church," he reached "a point of no return" and felt compelled to act.
"I was certain that a shock, even in the media, could be healthy in putting the church back on the right track," Gabriele was quoted as saying.
He said he was fascinated by the world of intelligence, or spying, and believed that in some way, the Holy Spirit played that role in the church, and he was the Holy Spirit's instrument.

Given the number of real intelligence agents that hang around the Vatican, it's not surprising Gabrielle decided he was one of the Holy Spirit's.  Now if only Pope Benedict would see Gabrielle in the same way, maybe he will be motivated to clean up the Vatican.  

The second worth adversary is Sr Megan Rice, the 82 year old sister who broke into Oak Ridge with two others.  I wrote on this story last week, and this week the New York Times did a profile on her.  What's quite interesting is the Department of Energy paid to have her do an oral history of her life and activities as an anti nuclear activist.  The DOE at least recognised she is a truly worthy adversary.  Here's a quote from the Times article that spells out just how worthy they take her to be:

The actions of Sister Rice, a New York native who grew up on a prosperous block in Morningside Heights, and her companions, ages 57 and 63, are a huge embarrassment for President Obama. Since 2010, he has led a campaign to eliminate or lock down nuclear materials as a way to fight atomic terrorism. Now, the three — two of whom, including Sister Rice, are free and are awaiting trial in October — have made nuclear theft seem only a little more challenging than a romp in the Tennessee woods. (Sort of like stealing hundreds of classified documents from the Pope and having a book written off of them is just another day at work.)

In interviews this week, Sister Rice discussed her life — somewhat reluctantly at times — and kept emphasizing what she called “the issue.”

“It’s the criminality of this 70-year industry,” she said. “We spend more on nuclear arms than on the departments of education, health, transportation, disaster relief and a number of other government agencies that I can’t remember.”(Are you getting this message Romney/Ryan, Obama/Biden?

Federal prosecutors, needless to say, take a different view. “This is a matter of national security,” William C. Killian, a United States attorney, told reporters outside a Knoxville courtroom. “It is a significant case.” 

Both of these incidents are significant in that in both cases huge and expensive security systems and trained personnel were circumvented as if they didn't exist.  Now that both the Vatican and Oak Ridge have been thoroughly embarrassed, these two people will have the book thrown at them by the governments they so easily compromised.  I'm not saying they shouldn't, but what I am hoping, is that these incidents are looked at much deeper than just security violations.  Sr Rice and Paolo Gabrielle did what they did because they were motivated to do something about the corruption in Catholicism and the criminality inherent in nuclear armaments.  These two things are the real messages, not the security breaks.  The ease with which security was breached only serve to point to the importance of the message--or perhaps Gabrielle is absolutely right, and the ease with which these events happened actually does points to how important these messages are to the Holy Spirit.

 

Of Marines And The Church Militant And Synchronicity

Personally I prefer the Marine Dress Uniform, but I understand Cardinal Burke needs a little more 'salad dressing'.

John Allen has another interesting post up at the NCR.  This one deals with the gung ho wannabe marine bishops recently appointed to US Archdioceses.  These include Cordileone to San Francisco, Lori to Baltimore, and Aquila to replace the first of these gung ho guys, Chaput in Denver.  It looks like Sensus Fidelium is to be replaced by Semper Fi.

For me though, the really frightening part of Allen's missive came at the end:

.....In terms of church politics, most observers see Cordileone's appointment as a sign of a growing role for American Cardinal Raymond Burke, president of the Apostolic Signatura. Burke, currently the lone American heading a major Vatican office, sits on the Vatican's powerful Congregation for Bishops. (To be honest, and this is not a charitable thought,  every time I hear this man's name I have an instant mental association to 'clown masses'.)

The tendency to credit Burke is augmented by the fact that the papal ambassador to the United States, Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, privately has expressed concern about "politicization" of the American church heading into the 2012 elections, suggesting a preference for a more diplomatic style of leadership. Some observers wonder if Viganò's involvement in the ongoing Vatican leaks scandal, centering on revelations of private correspondence he wrote to the pope charging corruption in Vatican finances, have diminished his influence in the nomination process. (Makes more sense to me that it's the unbelievable level of influence of Carl Anderson that is at work here, not Vigano's lack there of.)
 
Further opportunities to shape the direction of the American church are on the horizon, with three other archdioceses due for a new bishop soon. Indianapolis is presently vacant, while in Portland, Ore., Archbishop John Vlazny is already over 75, and in Hartford, Conn., Archbishop Henry Mansell turns 75 in October.
Even more importantly, Cardinal Francis George in Chicago is already over 75. Although most observers do not expect a successor to be named imminently, it's the next diocese traditionally led by a cardinal likely to see a change at the top.
Yet no matter what happens in those locales, the reins of the U.S. church now seem firmly in the hands of leaders committed to a "no retreat, no surrender" stance.

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

I agree with John that the US Church is in the hands of the 'no retreat, no surrender" crop of men.  This is the major reason I don't think the LCWR notion of discernment and dialogue has a hope in hell of being successful.  Men who are determined to conceptualize everything in terms of war and enemies are not known for their capacity to dialogue.  We are about to see a concerted effort to turn  American Catholicism into an actual sort of Church Militant.  Frank Cocozelli's recent post on Open Tabernacle deals with this exact kind of thinking taken to it's ultimate end from the mind of one Fr. C. John McCluskey, an Opus Dei priest who seems to think the "Work of God' is armed civil war in the US. 

One of the things that Sr Pat Farrel mentioned in her closing speech at the LCWR convention as a sign of the new consciousness was the term synchronicity.  The common synonym for synchronicity is coincidence.  A more accurate conceptualization would be coincidence with in a meaningful space of time.  The usual NEW AGE example of this is the concept of 'parking angel'. Or how we all think it's a nice coincidence that a parking spot in front of Walmart is available right after we were thinking how nice it would be if we didn't have to walk with a cart full of groceries to the back hinterlands of the parking dodging 40' RV's.  We like to think our prayer was answered by a 'parking angel'.  Today I had one of those synchronicities. 

I was thinking this morning about how the Cordileone's and Lori's of the USCCB and the Carl Andersons' of the K of C, and the Michael Vorris' of the Catholic media world have taken to speaking in military terms, and not just in military terms, but more like the bravado of the mythical Marine.  As if somehow they were in God's Marine corps and were insisting real Catholics best get in shape and be real Marines like them.  And then this morning John Allen posts of this exact same thinking, even right down to quoting a Marine hero.  I took my thinking a little further though, and wondered if these Real Catholic Marines would ever give any credit to the thought the real Marines know they can't function without the Navy, the Air Force, or God forbid, the Army and that more often than not, these troops are now involved in peace keeping activities and humanitarian relief rather than actual war.  So I thought to myself it might be nice if these wannabe's actually followed the real Marines around for awhile because they might learn what their own vocations are actually supposed to entail.  And then when I thought about Cardinal Burke following around real Marines, I almost choked.

It Really All Comes Down To A Difference In Consciousness And Vision

Carl Anderson and his clerical sycophants at the recently completed international K of C conference which ran from August 7-9.  Carl may have had the attention of all the Catholic hierarchy, but the LCWR convention had the attention of all the media, and Carl well knows, that's priceless.

The LCWR finished their deliberations on Friday and released their response concerning the mandate from the CDF.  Two ideas struck me as important, the idea that dialogue with their bishop overseers could result in an understanding that the Church of the future must open up meaningful avenues of participation for religious and laity, but especially women; and that they will insist the dialogue be between equals and will cease dialogue if they sense the path forward includes compromising the integrity of their mission.  I take this to mean there will be no such thing as compromising their integrity to avoid scandal to the Church or embarrassment to the hierarchy, ala Msgr Lynn in Philadelphia.

The following are a couple of excerpts from a piece written by Tom Fox of the National Catholic Reporter.  Fox was a presenter at the conference and was there for it's entirety.  He has presented a first person summary that I found fascinating:


......Coming after several days of deliberations, the LCWR statement is anchored in an unstated belief in process, of forward movement, and a sense that at this time in history women are being asked by nature itself to lead the way. It is also anchored in a belief in a loving God who not only created the universe, but who also remains active in it, as the Second Vatican Council has taught. (I think women are most certainly being asked to step up to the plate and add their input as equals.  The men have come to the end of their time as sole arbitrators of cultural mores and direction.)

The women see this God Spirit walking among us and before us and calling us forth. Sometimes in our hostile and uninviting world, they seem to say, this requires special courage. The women view this as part of an evolutionary process. And while our common journeys, as experience shows, are fraught with peril, (personal and institutional sin are very much part of our story), the women paint a hopeful picture, one in which women and men of good will can work together on behalf of justice to build the Reign of God on earth. 

This vision is a distinctly Catholic sacramental vision growing out of ancient Catholic traditions, more recently contextualized by the writing of the late Jesuit Father Teilhard de Chardin, as well as Passionist Father Thomas Berry and captured in conference talks by the futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard.

It is a vision articulated, in part, in the closing address by then LCWR President Franciscan Sister Pat Farrell to the sisters on the last night of the assembly. She said:
“Many institutions, traditions, and structures seem to be withering. Why? I believe the philosophical underpinnings of the way we’ve organized reality no longer hold. The human family is not served by individualism, patriarchy, a scarcity mentality, or competition. The world is outgrowing the dualistic constructs of superior/inferior, win/lose, good/bad, and domination/submission. Breaking through in their place are equality, communion, collaboration, synchronicity, expansiveness, abundance, wholeness, mutuality, intuitive knowing, and love. This shift, while painful, is good news! It heralds a hopeful future for our Church and our world. As a natural part of evolutionary advance, it in no way negates or undervalues what went before. Nor is there reason to be fearful of the cataclysmic movements of change swirling around us. We only need to recognize the movement, step into the flow, and be carried by it. Indeed, all creation is groaning in one great act of giving birth.”......

..... Our women religious, represented in the LCWR leadership, recognize more than most the dis-spirited nature of our times. Theirs is an alternative vision. It is a vision that proclaims that Christian communities are intrinsically hopeful, that they believe in the goodness of all people, and that these communities must never stop being living examples of the full embrace and acceptance, which Jesus taught.

Specifically, these women appear to have growing confidence that that the pastoral vision of church that grew out of the Second Vatican Council, a vision that moved them obediently to renew their congregational charters decades back, is, indeed, the church of the future, and that after 50 years this church, in part through them, is coming to fruition. It is a church containing the collective yearnings and aspirations of untold millions of lay Catholics throughout the world, laity these religious women among them.

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

I've done a lot of posts on this blog about the LCWR, about the failed leadership of the hierarchy, about the futility of the return to the past embodied in the 'reform of the reform', about the radical masculinism embodied in Catholic leadership, and about the shift in consciousness the world is currently undergoing.  I have written all these words because they describe the 'knowledge' many contemplatives, psychics, and mystics are receiving all across the globe, and all across spiritual systems.  The way humanity is beginning to see itself, the way cultures are organizing themselves, and even the way our technology is evolving, all point to exactly what Sr Pat Farrell describes:  

"The world is outgrowing the dualistic constructs of superior/inferior, win/lose, good/bad, and domination/submission. Breaking through in their place are equality, communion, collaboration, synchronicity, expansiveness, abundance, wholeness, mutuality, intuitive knowing, and love."

The power structures of the old consciousness will not give up easily.  They will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo, to keep themselves in power, to control the present moment in order to preserve the future for their past.  This is one explanation for the polarization with in the Church and with in the politics of the United States.  We hear a great deal from our conservative religious leadership about traditional Catholicism with it's unchanging truth.  We hear a great deal from our conservative politicians about returning the United States to it's divinely ordained founding principles, and both conservative groups have targeted women's reproductive issues and gays as their pivotal issues around which real Catholics and real Americans must rally both flag and cross.   

This is symbolically seen at the K of C international conference which was attended by 12 Cardinals, 70+ bishops, and of course the ubiquitous Catholic republican operative Carl Anderson.  The Kof C convention ran during the exact time frame as the LCWR convention.  The LCWR had one bishop at their opening Mass and only their Vatican watchdog, Bishop Blair, in attendance at the conference.  This discrepancy is really quite sad and quite pathetic.

In the meantime the ground swell of opposition to this old world view of reality is beginning to coalesce as the over ripe 'fruits' of this old energy continue to rot.  The Arab spring and the Occupy movement are just the beginning.  As world food shortages reach new levels this coming winter, the unrest will continue to escalate.  The only answer the old energy will have is the only one they've ever had, military power and armed conquest---domination not dialogue.

In reading the comments on the NCR after numerous articles about the LCWR answer it struck me that some people didn't really get the gist of this message.  The LCWR is letting the CDF know in gentle, if no uncertain terms, that they will only enter any dialogue as equals.  No ring kissing, no bowing, no scraping, no unearned deference just because Sartain and company are men with white collars and purple piping.  Those days are long gone for this group of women.  That in itself is a major statement of their own changing world view as it concerns themselves, but there was also a second message.  They will not compromise their integrity, and that means the world view in which it is based.  These women are not interested in the 'reform of the reform' or returning to the guilt driven ever so transcendent church before Vatican II.  They are committed to the Vatican II vision of the world, because that vision is the future.  The boys may have run from their own vision for Catholicism, but the girls aren't and won't.  That is the final and perhaps core message in the LCWR response.