Double Speak Or Deception?

 

One of the two doves released last Sunday by two children during the Pope's Angelus talk is attacked by a crow.  The other dove was attacked by a sea gull.  Both doves survived, which is probably the real message.

Pope Francis seems to be taking the Barque of Peter on a rightward tack.  Vatican Insider has two articles which have given me reason to seriously question whether Francis is a true reformer, or just a very good performer.

The first excerpt is about a sermon Francis' gave at his daily Mass on Thursday.  He is reflecting on one of the daily readings involving King David, but it's in the middle of his sermon that Francis seems to be contradicting a number of previous Francis statements:

".....Francis then quoted Pope Paul VI: “This is why the great Paul VI said that it is an absurd dichotomy to love Christ without the Church, to listen to Christ but not the Church, to be with Christ at the margins of the Church. It's not possible. It is an absurd dichotomy. We receive the Gospel message in the Church and we carry out our holiness in the Church, our path in the Church. The other is a fantasy, or, as he said, an absurd dichotomy." (This is an apparent direct contradiction of his statement in Evangelii Guadium that the Church must seek out it's mission on the margins, to get out of the safe center, and learn from the periphery.)

 The "sensus ecclesiae" is "precisely to feel, think, want, within the Church.” There are "three pillars of this belonging, this feeling with the Church.”

“The first is “humility”: “A person who is not humble, can not hear the Church, they can only hear what they like. We see this humility in David, ' Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my home?' That realization that the story of salvation did not begin with me and will not end with me when I die. No, it's a whole history of salvation: I come, the Lord will take you, will help go onwards and then calls you and the story continues. The history of the Church began before us and will continue after us. Humility: we are a small part of a great people that walks the path of the Lord.” (David was far from humble.  See today's readings.)

“The second pillar is fidelity that is linked to obedience. Fidelity to the Church, fidelity to its teaching; fidelity to the Creed; fidelity to the doctrine, safeguarding this doctrine. Humility and fidelity. Even Paul VI reminded us that we receive the message of the Gospel as a gift and we need to transmit it as a gift, but not as a something of ours: it is a gift that we received. And be faithful in this transmission. Because we have received and we have to gift a Gospel that is not ours, that is Jesus', and we must not - he would say - become masters of the Gospel, masters of the doctrine we have received, to use it as we please.”(Again, this contradicts past statements in which Francis spoke about a hierarchy of importance in Church teaching.  Here he conflates the Gospels with Church doctrine and Church doctrine with the Creed. Is this where he is really at, that there is no hierarchical difference and that to question doctrine is to lack humility and fidelity?)


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

Finally here's an extract from a statement Francis gave to the trustees of the University of Notre Dame.  It could have been written by Cardinal Raymond Burke:


“In my Exhortation on the Joy of the Gospel, I stressed the missionary dimension of Christian discipleship, which needs to be evident in the lives of individuals and in the workings of each of the Church’s institutions,” the Pope said, addressing the delegation in Italian. “This commitment to “missionary discipleship” ought to be reflected in a special way in Catholic universities (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 132-134), which by their very nature are committed to demonstrating the harmony of faith and reason and the relevance of the Christian message for a full and authentically human life. Essential in this regard is the uncompromising witness of Catholic universities to the Church’s moral teaching, and the defence of her freedom, precisely in and through her institutions, to uphold that teaching as authoritatively proclaimed by the magisterium of her pastors. It is my hope that the University of Notre Dame will continue to offer unambiguous testimony to this aspect of its foundational Catholic identity, especially in the face of efforts, from whatever quarter, to dilute that indispensable witness. And this is important: its identity, as it was intended from the beginning. To defend it, to preserve it and to advance it!”


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

I freely admit I  no longer have any idea what Pope Francis really thinks about much of anything. I think he might actually believe his statements about unfettered capitalism and global economic inequality and maybe, just maybe, his statements concerning ecumenism, especially with regards to the Orthodox.  As far as financial reform, I have way too many questions about the people he has chosen to further the reform and links between specific individuals and the multitude of high end consulting firms he has brought in to further his reforms.  Plus, I don't know that the curia can really be reformed as long as it is based in Italy.  A real reform in this area would be to keep the ceremonial Church based in Rome and the operations/diplomatic end somewhere else far from Rome----like New Zealand.  That would be meaningful reform, especially if the New Zealand end was composed totally of laity.  I know this last is a fantasy of mine and that there is no way in hell such a reform will happen under this pope because I also read this article on Vatican Insider
Here's a paragraph to give the flavor of the linked article:

"Anointing brings bishops and priests closer to the Lord and gives them the joy and strength “to carry [their] people forward, to help [their] people, to live in the service of [their] people,” the Pope said. “Anointing gives the joy of feeling oneself “chosen by the Lord, watched by the Lord, with that love with which the Lord looks upon all of us.” Thus, “When we think of bishops and priests, we must think of them in this way: [as] anointed ones.”

For all his advice to the laity to take on humility, there's a certain lack of same in the above paragraph when it comes to the ordained priesthood.  I can't say that I think of priests and bishops as 'annointed ones' any longer.  I tend to think of them as self selected homophobic misogynists whose maturity level is too often suspect, whose spiritual maturity level is also questionable, and whose authority is constantly propped up by each other and ignored by those they supposedly serve and lead.   Sorry, that's the just the way it is for me.

I had some pretty high hopes for Francis when he first came on the scene, but in the back of my head was a little voice saying: "The original Francis rejected the priesthood and this Francis sits at it's pinnacle.  This is not irony. This is deception."  Hence the photo for this piece.  

Mike Huckabee: No GOP War On Women........LMAO

I get that the GOP has a 'woman problem' and are really trying hard to respin the Democrats 'war on women' meme which was quite successful in 2012.  But now I'm beginning to see that rather than having a 'woman problem' the GOP has a 'dumb male' problem.....except that for some of the faux politician type 'dumb males' like Mike Huckabee, pretending to be a dumb male and directly appealing to the idiocies of other dumb males enhances the donations to one's personal PAC. It's kind of amazing how many GOP faux politicians are making a good living off personal PAC's.  Not so dumb after all.

Huckabee Doubles Down On Women Can't Control Libidos Comment

Talking Points Memo - Livewire - 1/24/2014
Not only is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) not apologizing for saying Democrats think women can't control their reproductive system without the help of the government, he's fundraising off those comments.

"I am apparently the worst conservative ever or at least the most annoying one according to the left wingers in Washington today," Huckabee wrote in his regular MikeHuckabee.com email to supporters Thursday night. "My remarks to the RNC today were immediately jumped on and blown sky high by hand-wringing, card carrying liberals from coast to coast, some of them in the media."  (Not just liberals Mike.  A lot of women weren't too happy with you.)

The email came hours after the former Arkansas governor, during a speech at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting, said Democrats "insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government." (Mike, you just insulted the intelligence and moral integrity of all women by insisting we are blindly led around by liberals and cannot control our sex drive.  Personally, I would say it is conservative men who are blindly led around by histrionics of white male conservative mouth pieces and whose inability to control their own libido must be blamed on women.  Just sayin')

In the email Huckabee also asks for donations to his political action committee so his critics can look at the committee's fundraising and "say see we told you so."
"Guess what liberals? If you can't stand to look at yourself in the mirror, then get ready for more of this talk, because conservatives are going to continue to fight back against your destructive policies towards women and families," Huckabee continued in the email. (Maybe Mike spends too much time looking at himself in the mirror.

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

I don't know about anyone else, but I for one just can't wait for more GOP talking points which purport to save us from the destructive policies of the Dems towards women and families.  Especially when the GOP defense is all about demeaning the intellectual and moral integrity of women.  I guess I just don't have the intellectual capacity to see how this male 'rational logic' works. Maybe it's a certain type of male, one who is neither rational or logical, for this to make sense.  I'm sure Mike will continue to enlighten me.

Jesus In The Huddle: Wait A Minute, Would Jesus Even Play Football?

Lots of stuff I could be writing about, important kinds of stuff too (here, and here, and here) but I find myself having to write about the new University of Connecticut football coach, Ernst T Jones, who was hired to work with running backs, and foster player development which most definitely includes their spiritual development.  Spiritual development is a worthy pursuit, except that public institutions usually have dedicated staff for this task......but maybe football players need some special ed in this area.  It certainly couldn't hurt given the number of crime stories college football generates, (not too mention the big bucks)  even at Notre Dame, which was Coach Jones last employer for this duel role.

However, it was this quote of Coach Jones that brought up my speculation about Jesus playing football: 

And how does that “spiritual” part go? ”Just because you come to the University of Connecticut doesn’t mean you won’t have the opportunity to pursue your faith,” Jones said. “No, you’re going to be able to come here and love the God that you love. So we provide opportunities for them to grow spiritually in our community. So I’ll get out and meet some people in the community so when this young man, for example, says, ‘I’m a Seventh Day Adventist or I’m a Catholic or I’m a Baptist or I’m a Jehovah’s Witness,’ well, OK, here you go.”
While Jones’ list does not exactly box the compass of religion in 21st-century America, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to acquaint arriving Huskies with the spiritual options available to them in greater Storrs, CT. But then there’s this:

“And we’re going to do things in our building, fellowship, non-denominational type things, players, coaches. We’re going to make sure they understand that Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle, that that’s something that is important. If you want to be successful and you want to win, get championships then you better understand that this didn’t happen because of you. This happened because of our Lord and Savior. That’s going to be something said by Bob Diaco. That’s something that’s going to be said by Ernest Jones. That’s who we are.”

Uh-oh. It may be that no one objected to having Jesus at the center of the huddle at Notre Dame or Alcorn State, the historically African-American university in southwestern Mississippi. But here in Connecticut we’re a bit sensitive to constitutional niceties like not hiring state employees to teach state university students that Jesus is on the team.
- See more at: http://marksilk.religionnews.com/2014/01/14/uconn-footballs-come-jesus-moment/#sthash.MflAynaZ.dpuf

 “And we’re going to do things in our building, fellowship, non-denominational type things, players, coaches. We’re going to make sure they understand that Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle, that that’s something that is important. If you want to be successful and you want to win, get championships, then you better understand that this didn’t happen because of you. This happened because of our Lord and Savior."

Other folks have dealt with the implications of Coach Jones' statement for a secular institution like U Conn, so I won't rehash any of that, other than to observe that 'non denominational' generally precludes such a statement being immediately followed by "Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle'.  Perhaps this is just one more example of the rules of engagement not having to be followed by committed Christians because their faith in Jesus gives them the right to not follow the rules of engagement.  Ahemm.  Amen.

I do however, still want to speculate about Jesus playing football.  After all He did more or less call the signals for 12 fellow teammates. (Yes, I know football involves only allows 11.)  It's hard to imagine Jesus playing any other position than quarterback.  The Hail Mary pass would take on mystical significance.  I can even imagine a wide receiver named 'John' hauling in such passes with a certain regularity.  I can also imagine new penalties.  "Offensive penalty on number 1.  Unnecessary interference with reality. Automatic turn over.  First down defense."  I imagine even Coach Jones would have apoplexy over that penalty...Jesus in your huddle or not, parity must be maintained. Tweaking reality would quickly find itself not allowed.  Having Jesus in your huddle could bring other problems.  I imagine trainers would be taping more than ankles in order to maintain the proper decorum in the huddle.  Or, in the interests of winning being everything, Jesus might be 'coached' to put up with His Father's name being taken in vein by teammates.  In the end, I can see where having Jesus in your huddle might cause more problems than provide wins.

John Elway, the head honcho of the Denver Broncos, was faced with a sort of similar kind of thing with Tim Tebow.  He chose to let Jesus' most blessed of quarterbacks go, and went with Peyton Manning.  Apparently this didn't upset Jesus too much because John and Peyton are off to the Superbowl and Tim is no longer in football.  Perhaps there is a message here for Coach Jones concerning what Jesus really thinks of football.

Personally, I don't think there is anything more toxic to the cohesion of a football team than fostering groups on denominational lines.  It's one thing at schools like Notre Dame or BYU when incoming freshman know they are going to get a certain amount of spiritual coercion, but it's a whole different game in secular schools or professional leagues where Jesus is not expected to be in the huddle or to be given the sole credit for a team or it's players efforts and successes.  This conveniently leaves the players themselves to take the fall for all the failures.  I guess it's a nice way to let coaches completely off the hook.  Success or failure, it's never about them.  It's about Jesus bestowing graces,  or that damn sinner of a linebacker missing a tackle, or that wimp of a kicker missing a field goal.

In the end, I really can't imagine Jesus being in any huddle at all.  I can imagine Jesus on a golf course, carrying a one iron and being able to hit it.  Golf is in the Kingdom.  Football is probably not--well, maybe flag football.   Fer sure soccer and baseball and basketball and of course, chess.  However, I would not want to play Jesus in chess unless He could only use pawns.
 

And how does that “spiritual” part go? ”Just because you come to the University of Connecticut doesn’t mean you won’t have the opportunity to pursue your faith,” Jones said. “No, you’re going to be able to come here and love the God that you love. So we provide opportunities for them to grow spiritually in our community. So I’ll get out and meet some people in the community so when this young man, for example, says, ‘I’m a Seventh Day Adventist or I’m a Catholic or I’m a Baptist or I’m a Jehovah’s Witness,’ well, OK, here you go.”
While Jones’ list does not exactly box the compass of religion in 21st-century America, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to acquaint arriving Huskies with the spiritual options available to them in greater Storrs, CT. But then there’s this:

“And we’re going to do things in our building, fellowship, non-denominational type things, players, coaches. We’re going to make sure they understand that Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle, that that’s something that is important. If you want to be successful and you want to win, get championships then you better understand that this didn’t happen because of you. This happened because of our Lord and Savior. That’s going to be something said by Bob Diaco. That’s something that’s going to be said by Ernest Jones. That’s who we are.”

Uh-oh. It may be that no one objected to having Jesus at the center of the huddle at Notre Dame or Alcorn State, the historically African-American university in southwestern Mississippi. But here in Connecticut we’re a bit sensitive to constitutional niceties like not hiring state employees to teach state university students that Jesus is on the team.
- See more at: http://marksilk.religionnews.com/2014/01/14/uconn-footballs-come-jesus-moment/#sthash.MflAynaZ.dpuf

And how does that “spiritual” part go? ”Just because you come to the University of Connecticut doesn’t mean you won’t have the opportunity to pursue your faith,” Jones said. “No, you’re going to be able to come here and love the God that you love. So we provide opportunities for them to grow spiritually in our community. So I’ll get out and meet some people in the community so when this young man, for example, says, ‘I’m a Seventh Day Adventist or I’m a Catholic or I’m a Baptist or I’m a Jehovah’s Witness,’ well, OK, here you go.”
While Jones’ list does not exactly box the compass of religion in 21st-century America, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to acquaint arriving Huskies with the spiritual options available to them in greater Storrs, CT. But then there’s this:

“And we’re going to do things in our building, fellowship, non-denominational type things, players, coaches. We’re going to make sure they understand that Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle, that that’s something that is important. If you want to be successful and you want to win, get championships then you better understand that this didn’t happen because of you. This happened because of our Lord and Savior. That’s going to be something said by Bob Diaco. That’s something that’s going to be said by Ernest Jones. That’s who we are.”

Uh-oh. It may be that no one objected to having Jesus at the center of the huddle at Notre Dame or Alcorn State, the historically African-American university in southwestern Mississippi. But here in Connecticut we’re a bit sensitive to constitutional niceties like not hiring state employees to teach state university students that Jesus is on the team.
- See more at: http://marksilk.religionnews.com/2014/01/14/uconn-footballs-come-jesus-moment/#sthash.MflAynaZ.dpuf

And how does that “spiritual” part go? ”Just because you come to the University of Connecticut doesn’t mean you won’t have the opportunity to pursue your faith,” Jones said. “No, you’re going to be able to come here and love the God that you love. So we provide opportunities for them to grow spiritually in our community. So I’ll get out and meet some people in the community so when this young man, for example, says, ‘I’m a Seventh Day Adventist or I’m a Catholic or I’m a Baptist or I’m a Jehovah’s Witness,’ well, OK, here you go.”
While Jones’ list does not exactly box the compass of religion in 21st-century America, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to acquaint arriving Huskies with the spiritual options available to them in greater Storrs, CT. But then there’s this:

“And we’re going to do things in our building, fellowship, non-denominational type things, players, coaches. We’re going to make sure they understand that Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle, that that’s something that is important. If you want to be successful and you want to win, get championships then you better understand that this didn’t happen because of you. This happened because of our Lord and Savior. That’s going to be something said by Bob Diaco. That’s something that’s going to be said by Ernest Jones. That’s who we are.”

Uh-oh. It may be that no one objected to having Jesus at the center of the huddle at Notre Dame or Alcorn State, the historically African-American university in southwestern Mississippi. But here in Connecticut we’re a bit sensitive to constitutional niceties like not hiring state employees to teach state university students that Jesus is on the team.
- See more at: http://marksilk.religionnews.com/2014/01/14/uconn-footballs-come-jesus-moment/#sthash.MflAynaZ.dpuf

Life And Death Collide In Our Legal System

I've been following the two cases in the national news that deal with brain death but for differing reasons.  The California case involving of the family of Jahi McGrath illustrates one set of issues and the Texas case involving the husband and family of Marlise Munoz involves another set of issues.  In both cases the situations and decisions are heartbreaking and the heart break compounded because of legal fights over state laws.

In the McGrath case, the family decided not to accept the medical decision of brain death for their daughter and finally obtained court permission to have their daughter's body discharged to their care so they could obtain continued mechanical life support for Jahi in another medical facility.  For this to happen they had to first get a death certificate from the county and present this to the coroner's office who then gave them a permission slip to retrieve Jahi from Children's Hospital Oakland.  This is not that unusual in California because State Law makes provisions for families who have religious reasons to take charge of their deceased relatives.  The McGrath's religious reason was to give God more time to miraculously heal their daughter. As any Christian believer knows, there is New Testament precedent for this kind of miraculous healing.  Given the released information in this case, it's a given that miracle was not happening at Children's Hospital Oakland.  This is a truly tragic case, but the legal issues are pretty clear cut and as brutal as the legal solution was for the family, at least their wishes were met.  The Texas case is a different story.

In this situation Marlise Munoz collapsed at Thanksgiving from a brain hemorrhage while 14 weeks pregnant and was pronounced brain dead.  The death certificate has been issued.  Her husband and family want her taken off life support but a Texas law regarding pregnant women is being interpreted by the hospital, Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, as mandating they keep Marlise on life support until her fetus reaches viability.  Texas's Advanced Directive Law states this:  "A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient."  The family maintains that Marlise is no longer a patient because she is legally dead.  The hospital maintains they must maintain life support unless the courts decide otherwise.  PSH plans to maintain life support until the fetus is viable and can be taken by Caesarean section.  This will happen sometime in February unless the legal process sustains the family's position.

There are 30 states that now have laws mandating life support for pregnant women in vegetative states or coma.  The Munoz case is different because this is not about a vegetative state as she has been declared legally dead.  This is a case of State law being interpreted to mandate a corpse be kept on life support for the sake of a fetus.  The potential life of the fetus over rides both the mother's and the immediate family's right to determine a medical course of action.  Like 29 other states, Texas has determined that it's best interests lie in supporting the right to life of the fetus.  Unfortunately, only the State of Pennsylvania has agreed that they will take on the financial burden of supporting the fetus in these cases.  The other 29 are not so supportive.  Imagine that.

When I first read the story of Marlise Munoz I had this instant recall of the Axlotl tanks from Frank Herbert's Dune series.  I was appalled to be honest, that under the guise of fetal rights, Texas Law had created Herbert's scenario, but according to the LA Times, this is not the first time deceased women have been kept on mechanical life support to continue a pregnancy.  The outcomes of these efforts are not particularly good given the percentage of miscarriages.  The article offers no information on the mental and physical status of the children who were successfully born and lived past one year, nor is their any information concerning how the decision was made to keep these pregnancies going.  

While both of these cases have their disturbing elements, it is the Munoz situation which really angers me.  I don't care how one chooses to defend the Texas State Law, what this case illustrates for me is that women are legal slaves to their uterine processes even beyond their death. That is just wrong.

Emphasizing Personal 'Hobby Horses' Does Differentiate One Pope From Another

Suggested use for cappa magna when certain cardinals mount their pet hobby horse.

So I had this question.  I wondered why Pope Francis is generating such angst among the right with Evangelii Gaudium, especially over his economic observations, while Pope Benedict, who said virtually the same things in Caritas En Veritate was more or less ignored.  Why is Francis the darling of the left when he is absolutely on the same page as Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II in virtually all things Catholic? Is it just that he's emphasizing different teachings or is it that Francis is being marketed way differently in order to get the same messages out with a friendlier face.

Back when Caritas en Veritate was published I made it a point on this blog to give Benedict many kudos for his economic and social justice sections.  Benedict did not pull his punches.  These were powerful take downs of unfettered Western Capitalism. I was sure the right was going to go off the deep end on these sections but about all that happened was George Weigel's red pen/gold pen column in First Things.  There was no outburst from Rush Limbaugh and only fulsome praise from William Donohue. There were some nice reviews from some progressives but nothing like Francis got for EG.  I was thinking that maybe I was reading a very different translation of Benedict's encyclical or something.  With the reaction to Francis's words I'm seriously thinking this very different reaction is about PR Machines.  Francis has Greg Burke and Benedict had some junior monsignor with a cheap cell phone camera.

But there might also be a bit more to it than just PR.  The following is an excerpt from a piece by Patrick J Deneen for the American Conservative.  He has some interesting observations about this very situation between two popes, same words, vastly different reactions.  In the process he makes an extremely valuable point.  Pope Francis sees the excesses of capitalism as another example of the excesses of individualism which lead directly to the sexual excesses which occupied so much of Benedict's and JPII's papacies. When writers try to separate these concerns as unique from the others, the totality of Catholic moral reasoning is shredded---it's the whole 'seamless garment argument' of Cardinal Bernardin.


....These commentators all but come and out say: we embrace Catholic teaching when it concerns itself with “faith and morals”—when it denounces abortion, opposes gay marriage, and urges personal charity. This is the Catholicism that has been acceptable in polite conversation. This is a stripped-down Catholicism that doesn’t challenge fundamental articles of economic faith.


And it turns out that this version of Catholicism is a useful tool. It is precisely this portion of Catholicism that is acceptable to those who control the right narrative because it doesn’t truly endanger what’s most important to those who steer the Republic: maintaining an economic system premised upon limitless extraction, fostering of endless desires, and creating a widening gap between winners and losers that is papered over by mantras about favoring equality of opportunity. A massive funding apparatus supports conservative Catholic causes supporting a host of causes—so long as they focus exclusively on issues touching on human sexuality, whether abortion, gay  marriage, or religious liberty (which, to be frank, is intimately bound up in its current form with concerns about abortion). It turns out that these funds are a good investment: “faith and morals” allow us to assume the moral high ground and preoccupy the social conservatives while we laugh all the way to the bank bailout.....

.....In the past several months, when discussing Pope Francis, the left press has at every opportunity advanced a “narrative of rupture,” claiming that Francis essentially is repudiating nearly everything that Popes JPII and Benedict XVI stood for. The left press and commentariat has celebrated Francis as the anti-Benedict following his  impromptu airplane interview (“who am I to judge?”) and lengthy interview with the Jesuit magazine America. However, in these more recent reactions to Francis by the right press and commentariat, we witness extensive agreement by many Catholics regarding the “narrative of rupture,” wishing for the good old days of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

But there has been no rupture—neither the one wished for by the left nor feared by the right. Pope Francis has been entirely consistent with those previous two Popes who are today alternatively hated or loved, for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI spoke with equal force and power against the depredations of capitalism. (JPII in the encyclical Centesimus Annus and Benedict XVI in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate.)  But these encyclicals—more authoritative than an Apostolic Exhortation—did not provoke the same reaction as Francis’s critiques of capitalism. This is because the dominant narrative about John Paul II and Benedict XVI had them pegged them as, well, Republicans. For the left, they were old conservatives who obsessed with sexual matters; for the right, solid traditionalists who cared about Catholicism’s core moral teachings. Both largely ignored their social and economic teachings, so focused were they on their emphasis on “faith and morals.” All overlooked that, for Catholics, economics is a branch of moral philosophy.

I think Patrick Deneen has some good points and the rest of his article is certainly worth reading.  Where I disagree with Deneen is in emphasis, because a what a leader or teacher chooses to emphasize does condition their followers and students over all perceptions about the man doing the teaching or leading.  The real difference between Pope Francis and his two predecessors is all about emphasis--in both words and actions.  For whatever the reasons, Pope Francis is not emphasizing personal sexual morality to anywhere near the same extent as his predecessors, and in comparison to Benedict, this includes clerical sexual abuse.  When it comes to sex and sexual morality, Pope Francis is, although he says 'non judgmental', more indifferent than anything else.  He is way more motivated by economic and social injustice.  Poverty and immigration issues are very real to him. They are as real to him as 'sexual complimentarity' and fixed gender roles were to JPII, and gay sexual morality was to Pope Benedict. Each of these popes had their hobby horses, as do we all.  The difference is most of us don't have a global audience in which we can ride our personal hobby horses, challenging whole populations, or making very specific ones very miserable.
I personally am excited about Pope Franicis' particular hobby horse because I'm all on board with a 'church for the poor' and examining the center from the margins.  And yet, I am very leery of Francis' indifference to certain aspects of his predecessors hobby horses.  A great deal of global social injustice is rooted in fixed gender roles and the treatment of women.  Francis is going to have a very difficult time maintaining credibility if he does nothing about changing the unequal relationship between men and women in Catholicism itself.  Francis is also not going to be able to ignore the multiple questions the GLBTIQ populations raise about traditional Catholic sexual morality.  While I seriously doubt I will ever hear Francis equate gay marriage with the ultimate threat to civilization, I also don't expect to hear...well, much of anything actually, unless the Synod on the Family winds up being more than just another attempt to change the PR surrounding Catholic teaching.  

As for clerical sexual abuse, Francis seems content to let this be the hobby horse of others.  Men like Boston's Cardinal O'Malley and Malta's Bishop Scicluna will be given the lead in this area.  I fully expect to see both these names on the commission Francis has created to proffer advice on certain aspects of the crisis.  Unfortunately, none of those aspects include the foundation of the priesthood itself and how that might have contributed to both the abuse and it's cover up.  I suspect when it comes to the priesthood Francis is hardly indifferent and that means there will be no change.  That one decision will undercut the long term prospects for any real lasting reform in the Church and for me, that is a hobby horse that won't rock.

 

How To Win An Argument: Unleash the Straw Man

I feel compelled to take on NCR's Michael Sean Winters over his post yesterday.  This post was written to critique an article written for Religion Dispatches by theologian Mary Hunt.  I have thought for some time it was the lack of editing regarding MSW's daily opinion pieces which was partially fueling the anti gay and anti women animus of commenting on NCR articles.  MSW's attacks on female writers are much stronger in terms of personal put downs than his 'contra' articles on Robert George or other high profile conservative male writers.  MSW seems to reserve his most venomous side not for right wing males, but for liberal leaning women such as Maureen Dowd of the New York Times or Mary Hunt of Religion Dispatches.  It's an interesting phenomenon to say the least.  I have edited out paragraphs that made little sense in the interests of protecting his reputation as an intellectual in elite centrist Catholic circles.

Contra Mary Hunt

 Michael Sean Winters -  National Catholic Reporter - 1/15/2014
Mary Hunt's latest article at Religion Dispatches displays both Francis Derangement Syndrome (FDS) and If Only Pope Francis Knew What I Know Syndrome (IOPFKWIKS). It is one more piece of evidence of a trend I predicted shortly after Pope Francis’ election, an increasing divide between the Catholic Left that is thrilled with the pope’s emphasis on the Church’s social doctrine and the Catholic Left that, like its conservative counterparts, reduces Catholicism to a laundry list of neuralgic, mostly sex-related, issues....
 (Mary Hunt's article was more concerned with 'gender' related issues, not sexual.)


.....Humility is a virtue. It should extend to the entirety of a person’s life and, in the Holy Father’s case, it clearly does. That is why he resonates with so many people who had previously not paid any mind to the Church or the papacy. I loved Pope Benedict, but there was a remoteness to him. Francis is accessible. He more easily touches people’s hearts. They see a humble, loving pastor and respond. But, this is what worries Hunt. She writes, “All of the enthusiasm about Francis’ style does not change the fact that the institutional Roman Catholic Church is a rigid hierarchy led by a pope—the warm feelings in response to Francis shore up that model of church by making the papacy itself look good. To my mind, this is a serious danger.”
(Mary Hunt is right on with this observation.  It is a serious danger for the future of the Church to have a figurehead pope whose ability to generate warm feelings masks the intention of doing nothing of substance to reform the Church itself.)
 
One shudders to think what kind of leaderless Church she imagines. Certainly, one does not need much in the way of cultural insight to recognize that a more democratic model of Church governance would hardly be the panacea Hunt fancies: Fundamentalist churches elect their pastors after all. But, most disturbing is Hunt’s complete lack of awareness that the liberal temperament is never so dangerous as when it speaks breezily about overturning institutions. Ms. Hunt cannot want the Church as it exists to succeed because this would only strengthen the hierarchy she deplores is, as a matter of logic, no different from the Pentagon’s willingness to destroy a village in Vietnam in order to save it. Her worldview, so lacking in humility, is chilling. One easily imagines her knitting at the foot of the guillotine....  (Wow, I'm quite sure MSW has not bothered to read Mary Hunt's work. There is absolutely no excuse for the final sentence in this paragraph. It is the type of rhetoric that fuels sicko comments--and the Church reform Mary Hunt envisions is not at all like bombing a village to save it.)

......Hunt writes, “Of course there is a difference between a person and a role. But in this case, I daresay most people outside of Argentina would never have heard of a certain Jorge Mario Bergoglio if he had not been elected pope. It is the person in the role that matters.” This is true, but not in the sense that she fancies it. The man has, by reason of his office, been given the task of sanctifying and governing the universal Church. But, what is most attractive about the man in the role is that there is not a glimmer of disconnect between the man and his office, still less between the man and his words. There is no hint of inauthenticity in Pope Francis. He cannot be reduced to an agenda, not even his own, indeed, I think it misunderstands this papacy to conceive the Holy Father as having an agenda of his own. He has said, repeatedly, that his reform efforts are in response to what the College of Cardinals said they wanted. And, just as obviously, he believes he is carrying out the divine mission entrusted to him, the most important aspect of which is fidelity to the Gospel.  (MSW does not delineate the supposed agenda of Mary Hunt,  but instead argues against an agenda he has assigned her by telling us all his take on the Pope's agenda---which he also assigned to the Pope. No wonder MSW is always right.)

We are Catholics, not fundamentalists. We believe the Lord Jesus entrusted His Church to people, most especially the apostles. He did not draft a constitution for the Church. He did not write His own version of “What Then Must Be Done?” The Master was certainly aware of the shortcomings of His apostles. But, He promised to send His Spirit upon the Church. The Church is itself seized by the Incarnation, the inexplicable admixture of the divine and the human. Those who want the Church to be perfect lack faith, which is why Pope Francis constantly tells us not to worry so much about making mistakes. We will all of us rely on the mercy of God at the end of our days. Besides, Ms. Hunt does not want the Church to be perfect. She wants the Church to be an extension of her ideology. She wants a pope who would fit in neatly with the prejudices of early 21^st century, affluent, educated, liberal Americans. How sad for poor Pope Francis that he can’t be enlightened by the literati. (Forget that Jesus never started a Church, much less the Roman Catholic version, MSW again resorts to assigning an agenda to Mary Hunt that he can then reduce to ashes with sarcasm.  Apparently MSW doesn't put himself in the 'affleunt, educated, liberal American' literati school of progressive Catholicism. How totally humble of him.)

I will stipulate that the Holy Father, like all the baptized, must come to grips with the role of women in the Church. We are all of us, to a degree, trapped in history and our Catholic history is mostly, certainly not exclusively, a male-driven narrative. Of course, the way the Church liberates Herself from history is by fidelity to Christ. Tradition is one of the surest antidotes to the grim slavery of being a child of one’s own age. Such a thought, I fear, is lost on Ms. Hunt. Who needs the Council of Nicaea when you have the latest issue of The Nation? (Referring to "Holy Mother' Church or referring to the Church as 'herself' does not qualify as coming to grips with the role of women in the Church.  Mary Hunt is imminently aware of how the TRADITION has mistreated women as a core part of it's 2000 year TRADITION.  Such a thought, I fear, is lost on Mr Winters.)
 
If you think I am being unduly harsh, I call your attention to this sentence: “All of the efforts at church reform—whether the ordination of women, married clergy, acceptance of divorced and/or LGBTIQ persons as full members of the community, and many others—are based on the assumption of widespread lay participation in an increasingly democratic church.” Certainly the reforms of Trent were not based on this assumption, nor the reforms of Vatican II. The issues she lists are not really like on another in their theological significance: Our Orthodox brothers and sisters, whose Churches are as apostolic as our Roman Church, permit married clergy and also bless a second union of those struck by the tragedy of divorce. And, what to make of the acronym? I confess, I had to look up what the “I” stood for – it stands for “Intersexual.” At what point do we get to stop adding letters to the acronym? I asked my housemate, who is gay (“G”), about this new acronym and he replied, “Oh, it’s just ridiculous.” It is a specific kind of ridiculous, the kind found among academics whose penchant for intellectual fads is as laughable as it is sad. In her defense of sexual libertinism, Hunt shows herself to be an intellectual libertine. That is not a compliment. (This entire paragraph smacks of misogynistic gay ("G") elitism.  God forbid real Gay elites be lumped in with those embarrassing ridiculous 'intersexuals'.  It's bad enough having to deal with the (L's)
 
Those who genuinely care about the role of women in the Church, or about developing the Church’s admittedly inadequate theological reflections on homosexuality, should understand that Hunt damages their cause, she does not advance it. Reading her writings about the Catholic Church, I entertain the thought that an alien from outer space could, within a few minutes, develop greater appreciation for the Catholic intellectual tradition than Hunt will permit herself. (It is far more likely a sentient alien race would be appalled at how a Church which purports to speak for God could treat it's feminine creative principle with such utter disdain. They might agree with Pope Francis that an exclusively male dominated church is by definition, 'sterile'.)

Pope Francis Chooses Cardinals For A Global Church

No change in red beanie for AB Chaput---and that's true for all US archbishops.

 I don't have time to comment on this story right now, but thought I would post it anyway.  Pope Francis is definitely committed to the idea of a global church and a leadership which will reflect that fact.  I can remember being very upset with the last two consistories of EPBenedict precisely because his selections were loaded with curial, Italian, and first world candidates.  It made me seriously wonder if he really understood that Roman Catholicism was no longer the sole province of Europe.

I can think of a number of US Archbishops who may not be as enthusiastic about these choices as I am, but so goes life in the fast lane.  Sometimes one misses a curve and winds up in the ditch to no where.

Pope chooses new cardinals from Africa, Asia, Latin America

Joshua J. McElwee  - National Catholic Reporter - Jan. 12, 2014Pope Francis on Sunday announced who he has chosen as the new cardinals of the Catholic church, picking 19 prelates for the honor who mainly hail from the Global South, including places like Haiti, Burkina Faso, and the Philippines.
Francis made the announcement, long expected in recent weeks, during his weekly Angelus address in St. Peter's Square.
Cardinals, sometimes known as the "princes of the church" and for their wearing of red vestments, are usually senior Catholic prelates who serve either as archbishops in the world's largest dioceses' or in the Vatican's central bureaucracy. Their principal role is to gather in secret conclave following the death or resignation of a pope to elect his successor.
Many had wondered what impact Francis would have on choosing who is to be cardinal and from where in the world they come. On Sunday, it seems he answered that speculation by firmly saying the new crop would be predominantly from areas around the world not always reflected in the elite church group known formally as the College of Cardinals.
Of the 19 new prelates Francis will formally induct into the college on February 22, only four come from the Vatican's central bureaucracy, which typically sees a large number of cardinals. Likewise, there is only one Italian in the group. Normally, Italians dominate the numbers of cardinals in the college.

Instead, ten of Francis' choices come from places outside Europe, including some of which have never had a cardinal. Among the choices: Jean-Pierre Kutwa, Archbishop of Abidjan, Ivory Coast; Andrew Yeom Soo jung, Archbishop of Seoul, Korea; Philippe Ouédraogo, Archbishop of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; Chibly Langlois, Bishop of Les Cayes, Haiti; Orlando Quevedo, Archbishop of Cotabato, Philippines.
In announcing the list Sunday, Francis said the cardinals, "coming from 12 countries from every part of the world, represent the deep ecclesial relationship between the Church of Rome and the other Churches throughout the world."
The four members of the Vatican bureaucracy, known as the Roman curia, chosen for the honor are Archbishop Pietro Parolin, the Vatican's new Secretary of State; Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, the secretary of the Synod of Bishops; Archbishop Gerhard Muller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and Archbishop Beniamino Stella,​ the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy.
Outside the curia, the only choice for a cardinal from Europe under the age of 80, the age at which cardinals are no longer allowed to vote for the next pope, was Britain's Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster. The only North American was Québec's Archbishop Gérald Lacroix.
Pope Francis also chose three archbishops over the age of 80 to receive the honor, saying they were "distinguished for their service to the Holy See and to the Church."
Among those three is Archbishop Loris Capovilla, who served as the personal secretary of the late Pope John XXIII. Long an icon of American Catholics, John XXIII is the pope who called the 1962-65 global meeting of the world's bishops known as the Second Vatican Council, which led to significant church reforms like the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular language instead of Latin.
In a statement Sunday, the Holy See press office said Francis' choice of cardinals from Haiti and Burkina Faso "shows concern for people struck by poverty."
The press office said Francis had also stuck by a rule that only 120 cardinals be under the age of 80. As 13 such seats were already vacant and three others were to be vacant by the end of May, the pope's choice of 16 cardinal electors raises the number to 120 exactly.
The full list of the names of the new cardinals:

• Pietro Parolin, Titular Archbishop of Acquapendente, Secretary of State
• Lorenzo Baldisseri, Titular Archbishop of Diocleziana, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops
• Gerhard Ludwig Muller, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Regensburg, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
• Beniamino Stella, Titular Archbishop of Midila, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy
• Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster (Great Britain)
• Leopoldo José Brenes Solórzano, Archbishop of Managua (Nicaragua)
• Gérald Cyprien Lacroix, Archbishop of Québec (Canada)
• Jean-Pierre Kutwa, Archbishop of Abidjan (Ivory Coast)
• Orani João Tempesta, O.Cist., Archbishop of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
• Gualtiero Bassetti, Archbishop of Perugia-Città della Pieve (Italy)
• Mario Aurelio Poli, Archbishop of Buenos Aires (Argentina)
• Andrew Yeom Soo jung, Archbishop of Seoul (Korea)
• Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, S.D.B., Archbishop of Santiago del Cile (Chile)
• Philippe Nakellentuba Ouédraogo, Archbishop of Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)
• Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I., Archbishop of Cotabato (Philippines)
• Chibly Langlois, Bishop of Les Cayes (Haïti)
• Loris Francesco Capovilla, Titular Archbishop of Mesembria, Former Personal Secretary of Blessed Pope John XXIII
• Fernando Sebastián Aguilar, C.M.F., Archbishop emeritus of Pamplona
• Kelvin Edward Felix, Archbishop emeritus of Castries

"Nothing Has Changed"

 

Cardinal DePaolis engineers reform of the Legion of Christ

I happen to believe the reform of the Legion of Christ is a critical signpost for meaningful reform for the entire Church because the Legion is a distilled microcosm of everything that's wrong with the macro institutional Church.  The results from the next six weeks, while the Legion's General Congress is in session, may turn out to be a very critical period for the legacy of Pope Francis as any kind of reformer.  If the Legion reform is nothing more than the smoke and mirrors it seems to be at this point, then Francis' reform image will take a big hit.  If Catholics can't get meaningful reform of one relatively small religious congregation that just happens to embody all the worst institutional abuses the Catholic Church has to offer, then what hope is there for the Church itself?  Not very much.

A second thought I've had is described in a post Bill Lyndsey wrote this morning on Bilgrimage.  In it Bill makes a pertinent observation about the oft repeated inability of this pope to foster changes in Church teaching:

"Because my field of study as a Catholic doctoral theology student was the history of Christian thought, I'm aware of how ill-grounded are almost all claims that historically conditioned teachings and practices are set in stone. The teachings and practices of the Catholic church have always changed. They have changed much over the course of Catholic history.

And they'll continue to change, no matter how much those who have everything invested in announcing that it's impossible to change church teaching try to reassure us that they're fixed for all eternity."

Unfortunately for any chance of doctrinal reform, Pope Francis has this to say this very morning during his now recommenced daily Masses at Casa Sanctae Marthae as reported on the Vatican Radio website:

  “Faith,” Said Pope Francis, “means confessing God – the God who revealed Himself to us, from the time of our fathers down to the present: the God of history. This we recite each day in the Creed – but it is one thing to recite the Creed heartily, and another [merely] to parrot it, no? I believe, I believe in God, I believe in Jesus Christ, I believe – but do I believe what I am saying? Is this a true confession of faith or is it something I says somehow by rote, because it is [the thing to say]? Do I believe only halfway? Confess the Faith! All of it, not part of it! Safeguard this faith, as it came to us, by way of tradition: the whole Faith! And how may I know that I confess the Faith well? There is a sign: he, who confesses the faith well – the whole Faith – has the capacity to worship God.”

Sigghhh. To be honest I'm not sure what to make of these statements.  It's hard to tell when the translation uses the word Faith,  if Francis is referencing just the Nicene Creed or the entirety of the catechism. In any event, it's a stretch of epic proportions to state one must confess the whole Faith in order to have the capacity to worship God.  I've met lots of people capable of worshiping God without much more than a thimble full of ability to confess the whole Faith.  I think Jesus referred to this as having the faith of a mustard seed, and those seeds are almost microscopic.  Maybe Jesus' use of the word faith is different from Francis' or maybe the English translation of Francis' homily is poor, but I don't get the sense Francis would necessarily nod his head in agreement with Bill Lynsey's observation that Christian thought develops, and has developed, and will continue to develop, and isn't stagnant at all.  Or if Francis did agree with Bill, it's a safe bet some Vatican spokesperson would tell us no matter what Francis said, he didn't mean it in the way the press wrote it. Nothing has changed.

 

"Nothing has changed."  That I'm afraid will wind up being the some total of the reform of the Legion.  It almost has to happen that way, because as I wrote earlier, the Legion is a microcosm of everything that's wrong with the macro institution. 

A Hectic Week For The National Catholic Reporter

A suggestion for a new Disqus rating system.

This has been one heck of a week for the National Catholic Reporter.  First they shut down their commenting section, then they announce John Allen is leaving for the Boston Globe, and finally, Fr John Dear announces he is leaving the Jesuits after 32 years.  I would have loved to have commented on all three of those stories, plus Sr Joan Chittister's column, but alas that was not an option.  So I'll have to comment on the first three of these stories on my own blog.  That's novel.

As to the first story, I happened to be on the NCR threads as one particular troll made his appearance.  After his first couple of comments it was painfully obvious he was never going to stop and that he knew NCR did not monitor comments on the weekend.  It wasn't a matter of anyone really feeding this troll.  It was a matter of being totally unable to stop the trolling.  I finally emailed Pam Cohen, as did quite a number of other regular commenters.  I suggested they might consider taking down commenting on the weekends, but have to say, I wasn't really surprised they opted to suspend all commenting.  In the past half year or so, the trolling had gotten to the point it was destroying the community that NCR had built up over the years.  I wasn't too terribly surprised the increase in trolling activity was simultaneous with the rise of Pope Francis.  After Francis' first month I anticipated NCR would be a prime target for upset conservatives and so it was.

This is not to say that all the new voices from the right were trolls.  I really appreciated the efforts of some traditional and conservative commenters with whom I had some very good dialogue.  Unfortunately these voices were totally overwhelmed by those who were not at NCR for any kind of dialogue.  Even though I miss the conversation and the articles seem incomplete without commenting, I applaud NCR for biting the bullet and suspending the commenting.  I sincerely hope they find a better way to insure an open space for all views while insuring it's also a safe space for all who read the articles and comments.

Onto story number two:  John Allen leaving for the Boston Globe's start up effort.  I can certainly see why he would make the switch and why the Globe would want to hire him.  I just don't know that adding his reputation and readership will be enough to make any new Catholic print publication a viable entity.  I happen to think John is taking a fairly big risk, but then maybe he has a 'welcome' back clause if the Globe's attempt is unsustainable.  Or maybe it's an OD backed attempt to take over the publication who brought the global church the unwelcome spot light on clerical abuse and it's cover up.  I have a certain amount of curiosity to see what kind of editorial line this new start up takes.

Now about Fr John Dear.  This one hit hard.  I've met John when I was in New Mexico and found him to be the real deal.  He's as committed to global peace as some right wingers are to banning abortion and gay marriage.  Except he's far more in the Pope Francis mode than the Rush Limbaugh mode.  What hit me hard though was not the fact he left the Jesuits.  That hand writing was on the wall when he was yanked out of New Mexico and ordered to Baltimore.  What hit hard was his take on the current Jesuit mission in the US:

".....Over the course of several meetings, I felt Fr. Shea (John's Jesuit Provincial) was urging me to stop my work for justice and peace and leave the society. He said, for example, that nothing I have done over the last 10 years has had anything to do with the Society of Jesus.

He explained to me that the Society of Jesus has renounced Fr. Pedro Arrupe's groundbreaking vision of justice and the documents of the 31st and 32nd General Congregations, which call for a radical commitment to justice. It no longer advocates for justice or works for justice, he told me. The Maryland Province has closed all its projects that serve the poor. From now on, he said, because the number of Jesuits is in sharp decline, U.S. Jesuits will only serve in our 25 universities and 25 high schools. This direction, it seems to me, differs vastly from the order I entered in 1982, with its visionary call to "accompany Jesus as he carries the cross in the struggle for justice." If I stayed, he said, I would have to work in one of the Jesuit high schools.

After I read these two paragraphs the first thought that came to me was the American Jesuits are taking pages from the Legionaires' book. Forget social justice, concentrate on high schools and colleges and blind obedience to one's supervisors.  What a sad direction for a once mighty order.  I can't help but wonder how Pope Francis the Jesuit can reconcile himself with this view of the Jesuit mission.  I'm wondering if it won't be my fate to wonder how Pope Francis can reconcile himself with any number of Catholic issues whose real lived experience out on the margins is so diametrically opposed to what he says and how he personally lives.  In the end, I found myself feeling worse about American Jesuits than I did John's decision to leave them. He's free at last, thank God Almighty he's free at last.
 

Francis On Religious Formation Which Is Really Formation For One And All

The LCWR can take real hope from Pope Francis' chat with their male counterparts

Vatican Radio had a piece about an article in Civilta Catollica, the flagship journal of the Jesuits, in which Fr Anthony Spadaro writes about the meeting between Pope Francis and the Congregations of men religious.  I found the piece very enlightening in terms of describing Pope Francis' thoughts, not just in regards to religious vocations and formation, but also with evangelization and clericalism. Francis urges his religious leaders to always keep the "People of God" in mind for all that they do and teach.  On a personal level, I found it wonderful because religious congregations are not the only places one has to put in place formation programs or keep the people of God in mind.  As a teaser, here's one of my favorite Francis quotes from the article:

"Formation is a work of art, not a police action.  We must form their hearts.  Otherwise we are creating little monsters. And then these little monsters mold the People of God.  This really gives me goosebumps".

One of the reasons I found that line both poignant and funny is because we have the same issues in training residential staff.  I don't know how many times I have stated "we are not in the business of policing behavior, we are in business of forming healthy attitudes".  Of course in my particular line of work, the 'police action' attitudes don't give me hypothetical goosebumps, they give me one real crisis after another.  In our version of formation, the idea of forming hearts, which is where all the good work comes from, always takes a back seat to forming minds pleasing to our liability insurance provider.  We have training after training designed to form that kind of thinking, but very little about the importance of forming hearts, of learning to act first from a sense of compassion rather than a need to control others.  It's easy to give some training in how to de escalate a particular situation.  The real trick is getting staff to understand why their attitudes or knee jerk responses triggered the escalation in the first place.

Here's another line that really struck me:

"We all make mistakes, and we all need to recognize our weaknesses.  A religious who recognizes himself as weak and a sinner does not negate the witness he is called to give, rather he reinforces it and this is good for everyone."

This is another mantra I use all the time in training, especially because we are supposed to be using the Recovery Model as our therapeutic paradigm.  I tell both staff and clients repeatedly that you have to know your own weaknesses and be realistic about them, otherwise you get in the way of your own recovery or your own ability to 'heal' anyone.  If a person 'punches a button' or causes you to react with strong emotion, that's not first and foremost about the other person, that is all about you and your issues.  This is why extending a little mercy and compassion to ourselves is really a critical skill to develop. If we can't do that, we are not predisposed to extend the same to people, who by the very fact they are in our care, shows they probably need a whole lot more mercy and compassion than staff does.  

 

Extending compassion to another is really hard to do just from educating one's thinking because emotions come first.  When your emotions are triggering a strong need to give 'so and so' a swift kick in the behind, training doesn't compensate all that well.  When I can freely admit 'so and so's' drunken state is going to trigger all my anger about my dead alcoholic brother and I have legitimate reasons for that anger, I am much more likely not to make 'so and so' the brunt of all that pent up anger about my dead brother.  Or as I also say a lot, honest self appraisal about one's weaknesses does not lower one's perfection quotient, it raises it in the minds of others.  This is the same point Francis is making when he states admitting one is a sinner does not negate witness, it reinforces it.

And finally, one last favorite Francis quote:

"I am convinced of one thing: The great changes in history were realized when REALITY was seen not from the center but from the periphery."

This idea of change coming from the seeing the reality from the periphery is not just about institutions and cultures, but also about interpersonal relationships.  One of my clients, irritated with me for some reason, put that idea this way:  "I do not live in the center of your personal universe."  That was a wake up call to say the least.  Or as one of my co staff couldn't refrain from saying:  "Whoa, you just dropped your perfection quotient by a good standard deviation."  It was hard not to fire him on the spot, which I didn't (and couldn't) but I restored some of my perfection quotient by actually laughing out loud at being hoisted on my own petard.  Laughter is still the best medicine.