"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.

I Progress Beyond A Sacrosanct Christmas Tradition--And Survive It

My infamous Christmas Coffee Mug which got a lot of use yesterday.

I hope everyone had a safe and fulfilling Christmas.  I know I did, at least the safe and 'filling' part.  I actually had to work Christmas and part of that work was cooking Christmas dinner for ten.  This then will be partly a cooking column and partly a column about Christmas with Pope Francis' 'sheep', but first a little background.  I manage an eight bed facillity for severely disabled mentally ill adults.  In theory it's supposed to be a transitional facility in that clients stabilize and then move out back on their own.  In practice we've begun to accept clients for whom the State Hospital or crisis facilities can't find any other placement.  Which means we have a very diverse group of people representing African Americans, Native Americans, young adults, an 82 year old, three Developmentally Disabled mentally ill, two who are brain injured and two who might actually transition to independent living.  What most of them have in common is that they have little or no family connections.  Holidays can be really trying for clients and staff.  Only one of the eight actually spent any time over the holidays with family.  So staff walk a fine line between creating a holiday atmosphere and not triggering a lot of depression about not being an actual family with actual Holiday traditions.

I get to work at 7:30 in the morning and am met at the door by a sweet heart of woman who greets me with a hug and forces me to get to the Christmas tree and watch her open her gifts. One of which came from my daughter who knew this woman as a neighbor before JW was overcome by the vicissitudes of living life in an adult world not designed for a Black American orphan with a less than average IQ.  She's laughing her heart out because I'm drinking coffee from my Christmas mug.  It's completely black and reads "Bah Humbug".  "You, so funny", she says and gives me another hug and a hug for my daughter and then takes her loot to her room from whence it will never be found.

Most of the rest trickle in for meds and breakfast and exchange some gifts at their leisure.  One of them got the movie Fast and Furious 6 which we had to watch right then.  Lots of talk about death on Christmas and lots of comments from me about how Vin Diesel really can't hit the broadside of a barn with a shotgun.  By the time the movie is over I decide it's time to get going on the turkey.

First off I discover we have no stuffing mix which will force me to make stuffing from scratch.  I assign one client to toast an entire industrial size loaf of bread and another to saute the celery and onions until they are clear.  "How much margarine should I use?", he asks.  I give him very explicit directions, "A whole bunch".  He puts in the correct amount of margarine, pours a cup of coffee and wanders to his room completely forgetting he's supposed to be sauteing the onions and celery 'until clear'.  In the meantime I am trying to thaw out some sausage patties to add to the dressing and finally just cut them up frozen, add them to the vegetables, and saute the whole thing until vegetables are clear and sausage thawed.  I wound up seasoning  with garlic salt and Italian seasoning because I discover we had no other traditional spices. Spices like sage. The Italian seasoning did have some sage. I used a whole bunch.  Thank God my other helper had stayed on task and the bread was toasted to a fine crispness.  We got the dressing done and the turkey stuffed.  By now there are at least six clients in the kitchen including our 82 year old and all loitering in my work space.

One of them had watched a cooking show in which the TV chef stated the key to cooking a turkey is to bake it with breast down. I am appalled at this suggestion.  How totally untraditional.  Secretly I'm thinking about why that might actually work and while I'm voicing my concerns about destroying generations of turkey cooking tradition have decided I will let them think they have a say in this meal and suddenly flip the turkey over on it's breast.  Our 82 year old gasps. "NO NO NO NO, that's not how you cook a turkey!!!!" I have a flashback to my own mother, she too would have been appalled.  My co staff is skeptical. "You do know", he says, "that the breast will be cross hatched from the drip rack and be ugly." "You do know", I respond, "that no one is going to notice that after the turkey is sliced."  "Good point. I sure hope this works."

"It did on TV", says the client who brought this up in the first place. To which another client responds, "and on TV Vin Deisel can't hit the broadside of a barn with a shotgun."  Everyone cracks up, except the 82 year old who stomps off to her room with many mutterings about how I'm insisting on ruining Christmas dinner.  She is so sure about this she returns to the kitchen three hours later and makes herself a huge breakfast of eggs and bacon.

About the time that grandma is cooking herself a breakfast for a lumber jack, we pull the turkey to do a little basting.  Except there aren't enough drippings with which to baste.  "Why isn't there any drippings?" gasps my co staff.  "I TOLD YOU YOU WOULD RUIN DINNER" snaps grandma.  I ignore her.  "Maybe because they are all in the breast meat and they will magically appear when we flip the turkey and brown the ugly cross hatched breast side for the last forty minutes." I tell him, but in truth I did not anticipate this phenomenon. 

We flip the turkey and crank up the temp.  I begin to pray very seriously. Grandma finishes her breakfast and stomps back off to her room.

I loudly suggest people quit loitering in my kitchen and go watch Vin Deisel again.  Nobody pays the least bit of attention. That happens a lot and besides it's not my kitchen.  We begin to make deviled eggs and discover we have no relish, only really big full sized dill pickles and an onion.  We add a ton of Miracle Whip, a little mustard and call it good---and they were.  In the meantime three clients decide they want a summer sausage and cheese plate, which we all make and they finish off in five minutes and I wonder if anyone is even going to be hungry enough to eat my potentially butchered Christmas dinner.

Finally the turkey is done and my patience with it.  We pull it out and by the Grace of God, the drippings are right where the should be.  We will have gravy.  I start slicing and the breast meat just flows off like butter, the dark meat too inviting not to try.  So we all did.  It was to die for. Seriously.  It was hands down the best turkey I have ever made, and I have made a lot.  Of course I got no credit for it, the TV chef and the client who watched the show got all the credit.....which I suppose is only fair.  All I did was to agree to break a generations long tradition and evolve as cooker of turkeys.  It's how this whole faith journey sometimes works.  Sometimes the gifts come when one is open enough to listening to even the most seemingly heretical of ideas. Like baking a turkey breast side down.

Bill Donohue Deputizes The Catholic League To Act As A Vigilante Posse On Behalf On AB Neinstedt

And now Bill wants to insure they have no right to privacy and that he has the right to investigate their allegations.

I made a promise to myself that I would refrain from making any more comments on Bill Donohue, president/well paid CEO/self styled mouth piece for Cardinal Dolan/ head of the right wing Catholic League.  However, after his latest press release I gave myself permission to break that promise.  Here is the pertinent part of the press release having to do with the abuse allegation against Minneapolis' embattled Archbishop Neinstedt:

"Archbishop Nienstedt has been the subject of a non-stop crusade orchestrated by ex-Catholics, and Catholics in rebellion against the Church, simply because he stands for everything they are not: he is a loyal son of the Catholic Church.

Now—out of the blue—comes an unidentified male who claims he was touched on his buttocks in 2009 by the archbishop while posing for a group photo. Nienstedt denies the charge, adding that he has never inappropriately touched anyone. Moreover, he has not been told the identity of his accuser.

The Catholic League is asking those who were there to share with us any information they have. Specifically, we are interested in obtaining a tape recording, or set of photos, of any Confirmation ceremony in 2009 where Archbishop Nienstedt was present; presumably, the alleged victim was standing next to the archbishop. Also, we are asking anyone who knows anything about the accuser (someone knows who he is) to come forward."

I wonder if the members of the Catholic League really want to go after an anonymous kid who did not make this allegation on his own initiative.  It was given to the police by a mandated reporter after the mandated reporter was told by the Archdiocese to do so.  I hope this is Bill using 'we' language without consulting the 'we' he represents.  It beggars the imagination that conservative Catholics actually think they have some mandated mission to interfere with an official police investigation in order to 'save' a culture warrior bishop from a 'crusade orchestrated by ex-Catholics, and Catholics in rebellion against the Church....'  In reality it's called bullying a potential abuse victim just because Donohue has the access and the influence and the money to do so.  This is no longer about ranting the party line, this has crossed the ranting line and moved to personal intimidation and abuse.  Bill might be a parody for some of us, but this kind of thing is all too real for the poor kid who may not even have wanted the issue reported.

Or...this is what conspiracy theorists call a false flag operation designed to create the "embattled Archbishop is victim" scenario described in Bill's press release.  In the end the alleged victim will not be found or the police will not have gotten his cooperation and the whole thing will be dropped.  I personally am starting to think this is exactly what this allegation is really all about. For those who remember, Donohue started a vilification campaign against media outlets in Kansas City on behalf of Bishop Finn during the Ratigan investigation.  Given that Ratigan is serving a federal sentence for the manufacture and distribution of child pornography and Finn was convicted of failure to report child abuse, Donohue's victim scenario for Finn was a total failure.  Bill doesn't strike me as the type of personality to accept a second such embarrassing defeat which is why I think this one is set up in such a way that he won't take another such defeat.  After all the mandated reporter only did so after the Archdiocese gave the green light.  I guess only time will tell.

I will not be shocked at all if the allegations prove unprovable---in spite of Bill's national call for evidence. The vigilantes won't find anything because there is nothing for the vigilantes to find.  In any event, no matter how it turns out,  it's another ugly stain on American Catholicism.

A Blast From The Past----The Sins Of The Genders

Eve goes for some pride, while Adam is overcome by lust.

One of the things I've been enjoying about the 'feedjit' gizmo on the sidebar is it shows which posts people are clicking on.  Since I've written close to 1300 posts I don't remember 99% of them, so feedjit has been a ticket to a trip down memory lane.  I caught the following link this morning and just had to go read it.  It's worth reposting under the Pope Francis regime since confession is a bigger deal to Francis than it was to Benedict--at least in terms of how often Francis mentions confession and the fact he's making it mandatory all curial staff take a turn at hearing confessions.

One other thing that made for memories with this post, is I wrote it at the same time NCR took down the old NCRcafe which was the whole inspiration for me starting this blog.  It was written on February 18, 2009.  An amazing factoid for me personally, is that by New Years this blog will have had 1 million page views from 125 countries.  That's just mind blowing to me.  I'll probably have to be confessing a little sinful indulgence in pride or something.

Two sexes 'sin in different ways'
From the BBC

 

Women are prouder than men, but men are more lustful, according to a Vatican report which states that the two sexes sin differently.

A Catholic survey found that the most common sin for women was pride, while for men, the urge for food was only surpassed by the urge for sex.

The report was based on a study of confessions carried out by Fr Roberto Busa, a 95-year-old Jesuit scholar.

The Pope's personal theologian backed up the report in the Vatican newspaper.

"Men and women sin in different ways," Msgr Wojciech Giertych, theologian to the papal household, wrote in L'Osservatore Romano.

"When you look at vices from the point of view of the difficulties they create you find that men experiment in a different way from women."

Msgr Giertych said the most difficult sin for men to face was lust, followed by gluttony, sloth, anger, pride, envy and greed.

For women, the most dangerous sins were pride, envy, anger, lust, and sloth, he added.

Catholics are supposed to confess their sins to a priest at least once a year. The priest absolves them in God's name.
HIS AND HERS - THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS

Men --1. Lust; 2. Gluttony; 3. Sloth; 4. Anger; 5. Pride; 6. Envy; 7. Greed
Women --1. Pride; 2. Envy; 3. Anger; 4. Lust; 5. Gluttony; 6. Avarice; 7. Sloth

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell".

Traditionally, the seven deadly sins were considered: pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth.

The Apostolic Penitentiary, one of the Vatican's most secretive departments, which fixes the punishments and indulgences handed down to sinners, last year updated its list of deadly sins to include more modern ones.

The revised list included seven modern sins it said were becoming prevalent during an era of "unstoppable globalisation".

These included: genetic modification, experiments on the person, environmental pollution, taking or selling illegal drugs, social injustice, causing poverty and financial greed.

The report came amid Vatican concerns about the declining rate of confessions.
A recent survey of Catholics found nearly a third no longer considered confession necessary, while one in 10 considered the process an obstacle to their dialogue with God.

Pope Benedict, who reportedly confesses his sins once a week, last year issued his own voice of disquiet on the subject.
"We are losing the notion of sin," he said. "If people do not confess regularly, they risk slowing their spiritual rhythm."

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

This difference between the sexes is kind of fascinating. Is this nature, gender conditioning, or a product of both. The lists are almost reversed with neither side claiming too much greed--probably why the Vatican's new list seems to concentrate on various consequences of greed.

They conjure up images of beer bellied, lusty, male slobs, and shrew jealous Stepford wives. I've often wondered if priests hear in confession the same stuff I've heard in therapy sessions. My experience with men and women is quite a bit different than this. In therapy a lot of men work on esteem issues, communication difficulties, and relationship problems. Women will work on esteem issues, communication difficulties, and relationship problems. It's also true that these difficulties will lead to engaging in lust, gluttony, envy, sloth, and a bogus pride which covers a lot of humiliation and some defense strategies do tend to be favored on the basis of gender.

There were plenty of times in sessions when I wished I could have given absolution because I knew it would make a real difference. Suggesting clients go to confession too frequently fell on deaf ears. Clients wanted a real relationship with a real person rather than a rote form confession to a mostly complete stranger. When your self esteem is in a hole, I guess this makes some sense.

I had a Catholic psychiatrist in grad school who maintained confession is for the stronger in self esteem and counseling is for those without much self esteem. Both could achieve the same ends but the starting points were different. Needless to say he also felt childhood confession was an exercise in abuse. Children didn't have enough of a concept of self to be put through that particular exercise. I can remember sitting in class and having flash backs about my own first confession. It was not one of my better Catholic experiences. I have a sneaking suspicion the lack of confessions from adults has a lot to do with that early formation.

I disagree with Benedict about the usefulness of confession. If he's talking about maintaining a spiritual rhythm that's one thing, but if the issue is maturing in a relationship with God and understanding the motivations behind the sin, that's another issue entirely. Frequent confession does not always lead to legitimate insight. As a priest friend of mine once said, frequent confession too frequently leads to repeating the same confession. I'm sure he's not the only priest who would say that same thing.

Sin, hell, and confession are areas in which left and right do not meet. The right sees things in terms of sinful acts to be confessed and the left tends to see things in attitudes which need to be adjusted. What we need is a theology of sin which relates the acts to the underlying more global attitudes. I doubt we'll see that under this Pope. In the meantime I'm off to work on pride or whatever it was I used to confess before I tuned up my attitudes.

Enough Of The Rhetoric. Where's The Change I Can Believe In?

 I haven't written anything in a while and it's not because there wasn't anything to write about.  There was a lot to write about.  I spent part of the time reading Pope Francis' Evangelii Gaudium and certainly did have more than a few thoughts about this lengthy piece.  I just didn't feel like writing them.  Call it malaise or maybe even indifference, but my bigger question was why a pope that was generating such enthusiasm in others had induced malaise and indifference in me---and has been for months. I finally came to the conclusion that Francis is not prepared to really act to make definitive changes in the Church culture.  He is in point of fact, reinforcing some of the worst aspects of Church culture by using a lot of 'up is down' rhetoric, about some insidious Church teaching, but more on that later.

The following is an excerpt of an article by Boston Globe's Kevin Cullen.  It's about Rhode Island's Bishop Tom Tobin.  Tobin, like Springfield's Paprocki is a culture warrior of impeccable credentials.  Unfortunately he is a man for whom Pope Francis is not only not an inspiration, Francis is apparently such a light weight leader he can't  even get Tobin to even consider toning down the rhetoric. For what ever reason, Bishop Tom Tobin continues his career as one of America's prominent GOP Bishops no matter that Francis is on record as being dead set against this kind of preaching.  I think the reason Tobin feels free to ignore Francis is answered at the end of this excerpt.  There is more money in extending forgiveness and mercy to the rich than there is in extending mercy and forgiveness to the poor: 

The infallible Tom Tobin

 Kevin Cullen - Boston Globe - 12/13/13
.....While the pope has been busy selling his soul to all us heathens, Tobin used Nelson Mandela’s death as an opportunity to denounce Mandela’s “shameful promotion of abortion” in South Africa.

I was hoping Tobin would throw in Mandela’s “shameful promotion of condoms” for good measure. You know, the condoms that helped shrink the spread of AIDS in South Africa. Tobin is, in keeping with church teaching, opposed to contraception, even if there is incontrovertible evidence that condoms save lives, even if there’s incontrovertible evidence those condoms reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in abortions. (To this point, Pope Francis holds to the same teachings, no matter the real cost to real lives in the developing world.)

It’s that kind of Dark Ages reasoning that allows bishops like Tobin to believe that in cases of a life-threatening pregnancy, women should die rather than have an abortion. (Pope Francis follows the same reasoning.)

A few years ago, Tobin proclaimed that Patrick Kennedy, then a Rhode Island congressman, should be denied Communion because Kennedy supported abortion rights. The reactionaries in the pews cheered, and Tobin was so busy congratulating himself for standing up for the sanctity of life that he never got around to denying Communion to all those pols who support the death penalty and unnecessary wars fought by other people’s kids.

At the same time Tobin was casting Kennedy out of his church, he was turning over the op-ed page of his diocesan newspaper to Bishop John McCormack, one of the worst enablers of child abuse. At the same time Tobin was denying a sacrament to a politician whose political views he doesn’t share, he was denying diocesan records to men and women who were raped as children by priests. (Pope Francis also has denied access to Archdiocesan records and just last week denied the UN access to Vatican records.)

Tobin’s obsession with judging people narrowly, almost exclusively on whom they fall in love with and whether they support abortion rights, is exactly what the pope has been trying to get away from. The pope hasn’t and won’t change Catholic teaching on these matters, even the risible claim that gay people are “disordered.” He merely wants bishops to stop obsessing about abortion and homosexuality and divorce and contraception because so many who do come across like a bunch of mean-spirited, self-righteous jerks. The pope knows his church is a lot bigger than a couple of hot-button issues, that compassion goes a lot farther than condemnation. (Merely wanting bishops to stop obsessing about these issues means nothing if there is no change in teaching.  Francis can not use his pastoral approach to hide from the implications of the actual teachings.)

To be fair, Bishop Tobin is a merciful guy. Just the other day, he wrote a letter asking a judge to go easy on one of his church’s biggest benefactors, a guy named Joe Caramadre.
Prosecutors want Caramadre sent to prison for 10 years after he was convicted in a $46 million investment fraud that preyed on the terminally ill. So what if Joe Caramadre was using unsuspecting dying people to make a buck? It’s not like he’s gay or in favor of abortion.
Did I mention Caramadre used to advertise his services in the diocesan newspaper?......

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

Call me a radical, but I don't see why it isn't possible for Pope Francis to send a pointedly worded email or drop a cold call on Cardinal O'Malley and insist the USCCB give some 'fraternal' correction to bishops like Tobin and Paprocki.  It's how leadership changes a culture.  It is virtually impossible to change a culture from the bottom up.  It is virtually impossible to change a culture from the top down if the top isn't willing to exercise their authority in a meaningful way.  Say what you want about Pope Benedict, but he created the culture he wanted in his subordinates.  Just ask William Morris of Toowoomba AU.  One rolled head sent quite the message to every other bishop who might have been entertaining expressing thoughts not acceptable to Benedict.

The thing is, Pope Francis has been dropping hints left and right about what is acceptable to express and what is not.  He has drawn his lines in the proverbial sand and those lines all point to no real change in anything Catholic.  It's as if Francis is using bishops like Tobin to remind us of that while he is free to utter all his pastoral rhetoric, giving the Church a kinder gentler public face.  I don't personally care how wonderful his rhetoric is, if he does not act he will not change the culture he upbraids in many of his writings and talks, and unfortunately too many of his acts indicate the exact opposite of his rhetoric.  And yet, he has the whole world eating out of his hand. 

Even the latest Moneyval report on the IOR, which is not all that flattering, treats the Vatican's failure to implement it's over-site committees with kid gloves.  "No real transparency yet, but we're sure it will come."  Of course the fact it's been over two years,  and nine months of that has been on Francis' watch, doesn't seem to matter. Yes, there has been some change, and yes, there have been accounting firms hired to check for illicit activity, but the permanent structures are still sitting, idling in neutral. In the meantime the indictments of individuals continue and the Italian financial investigations grind on.

When it comes to child abuse the message is exactly the same as it always has been.  No cooperation with outside entities unless forced to in a given secular jurisdiction.  The UN asks for information on the global situation, the Vatican says 'no' and then has Cardinal O'Malley announce an in house committee on child abuse.  Of course there were no pertinent details about this committee.  Just that it would deal with pastoral issues associated with victims and strategies to protect children. Notice how accountability issues were left out?  I can only assume accountability issues will reside where they have always resided, in the hands of the Vatican.  That's change we can believe in. LOL  

And that in a nut shell is where my malaise has come from.  So far Pope Francis has implemented no change in anything meaningful and his rhetoric doesn't cut it for me. I want to see some action that directly points to change I can believe in. Haven't seen it so far and have serious doubts I will any time soon.

More Up is Down, Plus A Truly Perfect Failing Score

I can't help but wonder if it's not our politicians and bishops who employ tin foil to get in touch with whatever reality it is they are in touch.....because it doesn't seem to be the same reality the rest of us live in.

The following excerpts are taken from an article by Paul Rosenberg for Salon.com.  What makes this article well worth reading is it's information about how American voters would actually handle the current 'raise revenues vs budget cuts' crisis. It turns out the the vast majority of Americans, including the Tea Party faction, are much more practical about this issue than their elected demagogues. In fact, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Tea Party folks all wind up considerably to the left of the Democratic party.  Yes, you read that right, even the self described Tea Party faction produced cuts and revenue solutions to the left of the current Democratic party. How much more up is down can one get?

The data described below is based on a series of polls designed by the Program for Public Consultation, an adjunct of the University of Maryland.  They did two studies in 2010 and 2011,  designed to find out what Americans would do in a practical as opposed to ideological sense with the Federal budget deficit.  The following are extracts from the much longer article:

..........The results of the process were extremely detailed, particularly compared to what pollsters normally produce.  But the big picture was strikingly clear. Massive cuts to defense on the spending side, massive tax hikes on the revenue side — both positions well to the left of the Obama administration, as well as Democratic leaders in Congress.  More specifically, on the spending side, the public favored an average net reduction of $135.3 billion for general defense spending ($109.4 billion), intelligence ($13.1 billion) and military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq ($12.8 billion), compared to increases proposed by both President Obama and the GOP-dominated House.  This represented just over 92 percent of net spending cuts.  When you add in cuts to military aid and strategic economic aid to U.S. allies, the total cuts involving what the pollsters described as “spending on American international power” came to 96 percent of the total — $139.4 billion. Yet, the public also supported modest increases in several liberal priority areas: job training, education, energy conservation and renewable energy, and pollution control.  Their average net reduction of all spending — $146 billion — was far more than either the president or the GOP House proposed. (This is mind boggling.  Americans across all the political divides almost exclusively recommend steep cuts in defense programs, not entitlements.  This is the utter opposite of the what one hears in the mainstream media.  More up is down.)

On the revenue side, the public increased taxes by an average of $292 billion—roughly triple the amount proposed by President Obama. Majorities increased taxes on incomes over $100,000 by 5 percent or more, and by 10 percent or more for incomes over $500,000. Majorities also increased corporate taxes and other excise taxes. Overwhelming majorities also favored raising estate taxes: 77 percent favored reverting at least to the 2009 levels, with estates over $3.5 million taxed at a 45 percent rate. These positions are generally so far left, they don’t even appear on the spectrum of discussion in Washington. (I love the last sentence. Yes when was the last time any of us heard a peep about raising estate taxes or corporate taxes? Maybe the Occupy folks aren't so far out in left field as we are meant to believe.)

The researchers also found broad agreement across party lines. Their first report noted, “Among a total of 31 areas, on average Republicans, Democrats and independents agreed on 22 areas — that is, all three groups agreed on whether to cut, increase or maintain funding. In 9 other areas there was dissensus.”  That’s not to say there weren’t differences. Republicans cut much less from defense — $55.6 billion for core defense (versus $109.4 billion) — and much less overall — $100.7 billion (versus $146 billion) — than Americans as a whole. But even so, the position of Republican respondents overall was still dramatically to the left of the political conservation in Washington. (Those who advocated for the least amount of cuts, were Republicans, not free spending big guv'mint democrats.)

It is striking that no group — Republican, Democrat, or independents — on average acted in ways that fit their respective media stereotypes. It might be assumed that Republicans would cut the most; Democrats would cut the least or even increase spending; and that independents would be in between. But on the contrary:

• Republicans cut spending the least, though still considerably ($100.7 billion, or 7.4%)
• Democrats cut spending more than Republicans ($157.3 billion, or 11.6%)
• Independents cut spending substantially more than either Republicans or Democrats ($195.5 billion or 14.4%).

Thus, everything the media and Washington’s conventional wisdom tells you about the will of the voters is wrong. But don’t forget the Tea Party! They, too, did not respond as expected.  Sure, they were more conservative than Republicans overall, but they still come across as wild-eyed socialists compared to their D.C. representatives:

 Those who described themselves as “very sympathetic” to the Tea Party (14% of the full sample), as would be expected, raised taxes and revenues less than Republicans in general, and less than Democrats and independents. Even so, on average, Tea Party sympathizers found a quite substantial $188.2 billion in additional revenues to reduce the deficit ($105.2 billion in individual income taxes)....


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

I take a great deal of hope from this article.  It says alot about how manufactured the differences are in this country.  When Americans are given practical choices about solving problems they advocate for practical solutions, and not ideological positions.  Those ideological differences might make for good bumper stickers, but when push comes to shove Americans will look at the whole car, not just the bumper stickers.

Of course politics isn't the only place where leadership is so far out of touch with their people.  Catholics need only look at the positions of the USCCB on things like birth control and gay marriage to see a very similar phenomenon.  Perhaps this why Pope Francis want his leaders out amongst the sheep.  In the main our shepherds, on some issues, can't even find the sheep much less lead them---and this brings me to a series of articles over at the British Catholic magazine The Tablet.  They are running a breakdown of  British Catholics and their attitudes towards various cultural and Catholic issues.  The data is taken from a recent survey which asked very similar questions to the one the Vatican is promulgating.  The Tablet's entire series is as mind blowing as the above article on US political attitudes, but one paragraph on authority is especially mind blowing:

"Catholics have also strayed from magisterial teaching when it comes to the issue of authority itself. When asked where they look for guidance in living their life and making decisions, over half of Catholics say their own reason, judgement, intuition or feelings, and another fifth say family or friends. More narrowly religious sources of authority are much less popular, even with churchgoers. The most cited is “tradition and teachings of the Church” (8 per cent), followed by God (7 per cent), the Bible (2 per cent) , the religious group to which a person belongs (2 per cent), and religious leaders, local or national (0 per cent). 

Zero percent of British Catholics polled in this study look for guidance from their religious leadership.  Zero percent.  Is there any more damning a statement about the irrelevancy of leadership to the people they are supposed lead?  When leadership across the spectrum is as out of touch with their people as these two stories illustrate it's time to put the ideological bull horns away and start listening to what the average Joe is really saying, because it isn't at all what the holders of the bull horns are preaching.

Is This An Example Of Unenlightened Catholicism Or Ritually Abusive Political Grandstanding?

This is the cover of Bishop Paprocki's book, released earlier this year.  Paprocki is not just an avid hockey goalie, he has also run 18 marathons and has 8 degrees.  For all that, he is not an exorcist and his rhetoric is flat dangerous.

There are days I just want to bang my head on my key board.  Yesterday was one of them.  One of the USCCB culture warriors has raised the ante in the demonization of gay marriage and by extension the GLBT community.  Bishop Thomas Paprocki is going to conduct a prayer of exorcism to drive out the Demon of Gay Marriage from the State of Illinois.  The following is the entire article from yesterday's Chicago Tribune.

Bishop to perform 'exorcism' on day same-sex marriage becomes law

By Manya Brachear Pashman - Chicago Tribune - 11/15/2013
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield said he will offer prayers for “exorcism in reparation for the sin of same-sex marriage” at the same time Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to sign the same-sex marriage bill next week. (Hopefully Governor Quinn's head won't spin 360 and he won't have eaten pea soup for lunch.)

Paprocki said he will offer the prayers intended to cast out evil at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in the state’s capital Wednesday. (How gutless.  The New Apostolic Reformation Spiritual Warriors would go right to the State Capital and not hide behind a cathedral altar.  Paprocki has a long way to go before he gets to Sarah Palin's level of spiritual warrior.)

“It is scandalous that so many Catholic politicians are responsible for enabling the passage of this legislation and even twisting the words of the pope to rationalize their actions despite the clear teaching of the church,” Paprocki said in a statement.

Earlier this month, House Speaker Michael Madigan cited the pope’s renowned “Who am I to judge?” phrase to explain the politician’s support for same-sex marriage on the House floor. Pope Francis’ remark — “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?” — referred to gay men who seek to become priests, not to gay marriage. (I guess the Demon of Gay Marriage hasn't yet heard of the Church's metaphor for ordination as priest marrying the Bride of Christ---or maybe this particular demon is too stupid to compute this too can be considered a 'gay marriage'.)

In fact, during Argentina’s debate over same-sex marriage in 2010, Pope Francis, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, called it a “‘move’ of the father of lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God.”  (This was really a clever 'move' of Pope Francis since he was at the same time advocating for gay civil unions. Must be that 'marriage' word that brings on the evil one.)

“Pope Francis is saying that same-sex ‘marriage’ comes from the devil and should be condemned as such,” Paprocki said.  (Oh, I was right.  It is that 'marriage' word that starts ringing 'Tubular Bells' down below.  'Civil union' just must not have the same ring tone for the demonic realm.)

An exorcism, which often refers to a rite performed on an individual, is applicable in the case of same-sex marriage because the devil can appear “in various forms of opposition to and persecution of the church,” the diocese of Springfield said in statement. (What?!?! The Church is the one who is really under attack?  Oh, no wonder he won't leave his cathedral.  The Church is possessed.  I could have told him that, and so could have a 100,000 clerical abuse victims.)

“All politicians now have the moral obligation to work for the repeal of this sinful and objectionable legislation,” Paprocki said. “We must pray for deliverance from this evil which has penetrated our state and our church.”  (Why did "Dueling Banjos" just go off in my head?  Oh yea, cued by the word 'deliverance' not the inadequacy of the rational Paprocki is using for his exorcism.)

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

I suppose I should apologize for my flippant responses above.  It's just that the ritual of exorcism is a very solemn, rarely used rite that Paprocki is mocking in this political stunt of his to further his demonization of gays.  It is this which is the true evil.  This stunt surely negates Emeritus Pope Benedict's desire to couple faith with reason. Perhaps Pope Benedict should stop dialoging with atheists and start dialoguing with the Church's own bishops who are actively making a joke of the concept of faith informed by reason.  As for Pope Francis, maybe he needs to explain to all of us just where he stands on gays and gay relationships before some more overly zealous priests take Paprocki seriously and go the way of Fr Eutenuer.  

Exorcism, and the pathological states it describes, is no joke and I guarantee Paprocki is abusing the concept because he has never participated in a real exorcism or any ritual of deliverance.  From where I actually stand on this issue, this man is not funny.  He is abusive and dangerous.

Thoughts On The Rich Church For The Few

Bill Maher explains:  "It's a phony $10 dollar bill that Christians sometimes leave on the table in lieu of an actual tip.  It looks like a $10, so you get the benefit of giving poor people hope, and then crushing it, but on the back it says, 'Some things are better than money ... like your eternal salvation that was bought and paid for by Jesus going to the cross.' "

Yesterday I wrote this sentence in regards to the USCCB:  "Pope Francis' notions about a poor church for the poor just isn't going to compete with the reality in the West of the rich church for the few."  After I posted my take on the USCCB, that line kept bugging me.  I fell asleep last night still thinking about how there was probably another post in that thought.  This morning I have been blessed to find an assortment of articles dealing with the same theme.  I have to thank Bill Lyndsey for links to a couple of them.  It's often amusing to me how often Bill and I will get on the same wavelength about a particular issue and be writing about said issue, sometimes not just on the same day, but at the exact same time.  Maybe we were twins in another lifetime or something.

Bill linked to an excellent piece in Alternet by Amanda Marcotte, who has this to say about the link between Christianity piety, and the message of Pope Francis regarding the priority of the poor:  

 Pope Francis may be entirely sincere when he says he wants Catholic clergy to deemphasize the right-wing political pandering in favor of highlighting values that are more in line with liberalism, such as compassion and generosity to the poor, but the odds are slim of this message making inroads with church leaders in the United States. The church needs conservatives who need to believe they’re good and holy people despite their selfish beliefs. Without them, who will show up and tithe? Liberals? Most of them are sleeping in on Sundays, secure that their commitment to social justice makes them good people regardless of how visibly pious they are." (It's very true that liberals give time and money to charities and causes not necessarily affiliated with religion.)

The link between external forms of piety fueling beliefs that rationalize selfishness is strong.  Polling shows over and over again that the most politically and economically conservative voters in the US are also those who claim the most Church attendance and engage in the most forms of external piety.  Anyone who has spent much time on conservative Catholic websites, especially those which feature Marian piety, know that this piety covers a host of interesting views about poor people, gays, immigrants and other marginalized groups in the Church and society. They unabashedly state that giving up on the only moral issues that count--gay marriage, contraception, and abortion, is to turn everything over to socialism and destroy the country and affirm the work of the devil.  There is very little space given what so ever at all to the idea that poverty, unjust war, racism, or economic greed are moral issues.  The only moral issues are other people's sex lives.  The USCCB has underscored this thinking over and over again.  The USCCB seems to have decided their mission is to make the few, the proud, and the economically secure, feel good about what are essentially core beliefs of the Evangelical prosperity Gospel.

Bill Maher made this same point in a piece he did last Friday.  Maher uses the same kind of direct communication that Pope Francis does, albeit a little more spicey than Francis.  Here's Maher's take on this issue about Christianity becoming a sort sanitized cover for refusing to see beyond one's own driveway:

And finally, New Rule: It's OK if you don't want to feed the hungry, or heal the sick, or house the homeless. Just don't say you're doing it for their own good.  Don't say you'd like to help people, but your hands are tied because if you did, it would cause a culture of dependency, or go against the Bible, or worst of all, rob them of their freedom... to be sick and hungry.

Just admit you're selfish, and based on how little your beliefs mirror the actual teachings of Jesus, you might as well claim to worship  Despicable Me .

Now I bring this up, because last week new food stamp cuts went into effect, and Congressman Steve Fincher, a Republican from Dogpatch, justified the cuts by quoting the Bible — "The one who does not work shall not eat."...... 

Of course, Congressman Fincher failed to note that those who cannot find work also do not eat. Oh well, those folks must not have enough faith in God's single handed ability to provide jobs.  Maybe if they took what money they do have and donated it for the latest diocesan capital campaign, God would create a job for them.  But it's funny how external piety works so much better for those who already have jobs.

Maher's main rant was about the latest trend in which 'Christians' use their restaurant tab to evangelize their heathen wait staff.  That's where the photo and quote at the top of this piece came from.  I personally could relate to this whole tipping phenomenon.  Back when I was working for golf courses in Salt Lake we used to cater a lot of tournaments.  The tips from the corporate tournaments went a long way to paying our rent, but the LDS tournaments, especially the tournaments for women, were seriously unbelievable. We might split $10.00 in tips from a full field of 172 golfers--and most of them weren't using clubs from Walmart.  It was disheartening to say the least, but it taught my daughter a lesson about valuing service folks.  This is one reason I have hope that the next generation of leaders will have a better grip on what it means to actually live the Christian ideals.  Those ideals would not be saying a rosary during Eucharistic Adoration and then marching against the contraception mandate in Obamacare and ranting about socialism and big guv'mint.  

One last observation.  The Justice and Peace Council of the Vatican is holding a two day conference on clergy who minister to parliaments or politicians.  Cardinal Turkson gave an outline of the two day conference to participants.  He had this to say as one of his main points concerning the poor church for the poor:

"The preferential option for the poor includes the unborn and social insecurity, migrants and the elderly, the unemployed and the environment. One characteristic of Christians involved in politics is or should be an ability to promote an all-encompassing and coherent principle of humanity."

 Perhaps the USCCB can take note that Cardinal Turkson did not mention gay marriage or contraception, but did mention social insecurity, migrants, the unemployed and the environment.