Fr Lombardi Defends Holy Father Church From The Clueless UN

Fr Lombardi condescends to rebut the UN Report on the Rights of the Child.  Apparently the adults of the UN don't have the brains to understand the machinations of the Holy See well enough to do such a thing.

I'm almost impressed.  Someone was working overtime in the Vatican--Greg Burke's Office perhaps--to read all the commenting on the UN Report and make up a talking points list for the Vatican's rapidly aging official spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi.  He issued his communique with it's list of rebuttals this morning in Rome.  More than a few of those talking points were intended to reestablish the proper order of things vis a vis Roman Catholicism and a puny UN Committee that is basically insignificant.

Here's the proper understanding of the place of this committee in the greater global sphere of influence:

"The recommendations made ​​by the Committee are often quite sparse and of relative weight. It is not by chance, that there is rarely heard a worldwide echo of the recommendations in the international press, even in the case of countries where problems of human rights and [problems regarding] children are known to be grave.

Once Fr Lombardi has made the point this is an obscure committee, he then tells us the Vatican gave 'ample' written evidence to the committee and submitted to a whole day of questioning, (well two Fathers did) essentially implying the Vatican was doing this obscure UN Committee a favor.  And then after all of this the Committee releases it's report, which apparently was supposed to pat the Vatican on the back for being the most important global force in children's rights because Lombardi then writes this:

What is there to observe in this regard? 

First, the Holy See 's adherence to the Convention was motivated by a historical commitment of the universal Church and the Holy See for the sake of the children. Anyone who does not realize what this [commitment] represents for the sake of the children in the world today, is simply unfamiliar with this dimension of reality. The Holy See, therefore, as the Holy See’s Secretary of State, Archbishop Pietro Parolin has said, continues its efforts to implement the Convention and to maintain an open, constructive and engaged dialogue with the organs contained therein. [The Holy See] will take its further positions and will give account of them, and so on, without trying to escape from a genuine dialogue, from the established procedures, with openness to justified criticism – but the Holy See will do so with courage and determination , without timidity.

 

It is precisely that historical commitment that the UN was questioning by bringing up specifics such as the Magdalene Laundries, abuse in boarding schools and orphanages, baby selling schemes in Ireland and Spain, referring to and ostracizing children of single mothers as 'bastards', doing absolutely nothing about it's stated doctrine concerning discrimination against gays, expecting very young girls to carry pregnancies to term, official teachings based in notions of 'complimentary' which do no more than set in new double speak the dignity of girls and women as subordinate to their reproductive capabilities,  refusing to teach or even consider condoms or other birth control for adolescents in developing countries---not even for HIV/AIDS prevention, and then of course, the issue that strikes at the heart of Holy Father Church's spiritual soul, the global clerical sexual abuse scandal.

 

The Holy See can 'dialogue' with courage and determination and without timidity of that I have no doubt.  The real question is will it dialogue with transparency, without obstinancy and obfuscation, and with a desire to learn something from how the rest of the world views the actions of the Roman Catholic Church.  Based on HISTORY, I doubt it.

 

Lombardi's very first point of contention is that the Committee doesn't get the unique structure of the Holy See.  Of course, of course:

 

"In particular, the [Observations’] lack of understanding of the specific nature of the Holy See seem serious. It is true that the Holy See is a reality different from other countries, and that this makes it less easy to understand the Holy See’s role and responsibilities . [These particularities], however, have been explained in detail many times in the Holy See’s twenty years and more of adherence to the Convention, and [specifically addressed] in recent written responses. [Are we dealing with] an inability to understand, or an unwillingness to understand? In either case, one is entitled to amazement.

  

Perhaps the poor Vatican is just dealing with a bunch of stupid women and hack third world academics, huh Father?  But unlike Lombardi, the committee most certainly spelled out how they saw the specific nature of the Holy See.  That's something Lombardi doesn't deign to do here, but then I suspect the idea of Lombardi's rant is not to correct misconceptions, but to belittle and demean the committee.  After all it would be hard for him to admit the scope of the Holy See's responsibilities morphs depending on what court room or official investigation they are dragged into.

 

Lombardi then goes on to list most of the other talking points used by Austen Ivereigh et al,  and ends with a big fat Holy Father whine fest"

 

The way in which the objections [contained in the Concluding Observations] were presented, as well as the insistence on diverse particular cases, seem to suggest that a much greater attention was given to certain NGOs, the prejudices of which against the Catholic Church and the Holy See are well known, rather than to the positions of the Holy See itself, which were also available in a detailed dialogue with the Committee.  (OOH how novel, the always useful anti-Catholic card. Except, those NGO's like SNAP and it's victim/survivors have a right not to see the Catholic Church as Holy Mother and to question it's commitment to Christian principles. They are not anti Catholic, they are anti Catholic hierarchy, and they are not alone.)

A lack of desire to recognize all the Holy See and the Church have done in recent years, [especially as regards] recognizing errors, renewing the regulations, and developing educational and preventive measures, is in fact typical of such organizations. Few, other organizations or institutions, if any, have done as much. This, however, is definitely not what one understands by reading the document in question. (Now we have the 'no one has done more than us' card.  Except, Lombardi is leaving out a ton of somewhat recent history and the very important fact, the Holy See would have done absolutely nothing if it hadn't been forced to by secular institutions.  It has never led.  It was always dragged kicking and screaming.)

Finally, and this is perhaps the most serious observation: the Committee’s comments in several directions seem to go beyond its powers and to interfere in the very moral and doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church, giving indications involving moral evaluations of contraception, or abortion, or education in families, or the vision of human sexuality, in light of [the Committee’s] own ideological vision of sexuality itself. For this reason, in the official communique released Wednesday morning there was talk of “an attempt to interfere in the teaching of the Catholic Church on the dignity of the human person and in the exercise of religious freedom.”  (The committee asked that the Church consider the real life consequences of certain teachings regarding gender and sex and live up to it's stated belief in the dignity of the gay person. That's it.  That this is being spun as the UN trying to interfere with Church teaching is at best projection,  at worst deception.  There are real life consequences from the absolutism of certain teachings.)

Finally, one cannot but observe that the tone, development, and the publicity given by the Committee in its document are absolutely anomalous when compared to its normal progress in relations with other States that are party to the Convention. (That's only because the Holy See is such a special and unique State.)

In sum: if the Holy See was certainly the subject of an initiative and a media attention in our view unfairly harmful, one needs to recognize that, in turn, the Committee has itself attracted much serious and well-founded criticism. Without desiring to place [responsibility for] what has transpired “[on] the United Nations”, it must be said that the UN carries the brunt of the negative consequences in public opinion, for the actions of a Committee that calls itself [by the UN name].  (Oh, my god. puhlease.  This paragraph is totally embarrassing, or it should be,  but I forget I'm dealing the Holy Father Church.  So of course the UN has more mud splattered on it that does the Vatican--at least in the minds of the boys at the Vatican.)

 

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

 

There is so much more I could write about this, but it would degenerate into a complete line of snark.  No question the boys are circling the wagons.  I just find it really instructive that Jesus didn't whine at all about being whipped and Crucified, but the boys in the Vatican who have earned their whipping and Crucifixion can't stop whining, can't stop making themselves victims, can't begin to own up to the fact there are serious serious issues within the priesthood and with some Catholic teachings.  It's incomprehensible to me they expect adults to follow their spiritual leadership.  Finally,  I don't understand how it's possible to respect the rights of children when your knee reaction to criticism from adults is to demean and belittle them as if they were children.  Just sayin'. 

Seriously Flawed Spinning Regarding The UN Report To The Holy See On The Rights Of The Child

Kirsten Sandberg, Chairmen of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child talks with Maria Herczog and Benyam Mezmur during the press conference releasing the draft of the UN response to the Holy See.  Finally the men in the Vatican have to answer to some women.  

I just finished reading the UN's Report to the Holy See on The Rights Of The Child.  I read the full report from the perspective of defending the rights of children in all situations, not just clerical abuse.  I came away with a much different take than commenters like Austen Ivereigh, Mark Silk, or Micheal Sean Winters.  I did not approach my reading of the report as if it I had to instantly defend Holy Father Church from another secular attack.  In actuality, I was most edified to see that the report did in fact, deal with rampant gender discrimination in which girl's lives are not so valued as boys lives---at least not beyond the fact girls grow up to become mother's of boys.  I have found it really really fascinating that the men of the Catholic world of commentary have somehow missed all the paragraphs in the report that deal with this issue in favor of taking a few other paragraphs out of context.  On the other hand, it didn't surprise me because I was reveling in the fact that the men of Vatican were answering to the women of the UN and pretty much figured Holy Father's men would be out in full force.

My first really strong disagreement is that many of these commenters, including the Vatican's Archbishop Tomassi,  imply the UN has somehow failed to comprehend how the Church effectively operates and how limited the Pope actually is in terms of responsibility for Church organizations.  If that's true, then why does Section 3 of the Report go into detail as to how the UN Commission saw these very issues:

The Committee is aware of the dual nature of the Holy See’s ratification of the Convention as the Government of the Vatican City State, and also as a sovereign subject of international law having an original, non-derived legal personality independent of any territorial authority or jurisdiction.

While being fully conscious that bishops and major superiors of religious institutes do not act as representatives or delegates of the Roman Pontiff, the Committee nevertheless notes that subordinates in Catholic religious orders are bound by obedience to the Pope in accordance with Canons 331 and 590.  The Committee therefore reminds the Holy See that by ratifying the Convention, it has committed itself to

implementing the Convention not only on the territory of the Vatican City State but also as the supreme power of the Catholic Church through individuals and institutions placed under it's authority. 

The Vatican City States, the bishops, and religious institutes that answer directly to the Pope seems to pretty much define the scope of responsibility this Report attributes to the Pope through the Holy See.  This is not individual diocesan priests or individual nuns or the homeless shelter in the train station in Rome.  This is not to say that there aren't paragraphs which babble beyond this scope, but if one takes into consideration institutions which answer directly to the Pope such as Cor Unum, which oversees Caritas Internationalis and works side by side with the UN, it's a little easier to understand how at times the Report appears to be demanding tasks the Vatican itself would not be capable of doing unless one gets beyond the confines of the Vatican and includes bodies like Caritas Internationalis which might have the ability to do so.

The other objection I have to too much of the male editorializing, is this report does not deal exclusively with clerical sexual abuse, but you would never know that from the commentary.  MSW goes so far as to imply the Report blames the abuse crisis on homosexuality which is either a complete misreading of the report, or an intentional effort to reduce it's credibility in the eyes of people who will never read the report.  What the Report does ask in it's section on discrimination is that the Church work to end discrimination against gay and lesbian children and actively work to decriminalize homosexuality.  It is not asking for a change in Church doctrine, but for the Church to ACT on it's teaching about not discriminating against gays as people, something that is certainly not happening in the African Church and not being remarked on from St Peter's.

The sections that I really appreciated were the ones dealing with women and girls.  I didn't come away with the idea that the Report was seriously asking for changes in Doctrine.  What I did come away with was a notion that the Report was asking the Holy See to deal with the real life, on the ground, consequences of it's teachings.  Consequences such as the 'never under any circumstances abortion' doctrine that condemns very young girls to pregnancies that can kill them. Pregnancies which in almost all circumstances result from rape or incest. As an illustration, the Report brought up the incident in Recife, Brazil where a nine year old was raped by her step father, aborted twins, and her mother, the doctors, and other direct care givers were excommunicated by the Church. The step father was not.  As crazy as it seems, that the Church would not excommunicate the step father, that is the truth of the justice in Canon Law. A man will not be excommunicated for a sexual act capable of creating life, even if that act is rape, even if the resultant pregnancy from the rape kills a nine year old child.  Justice for these acts can only be found in the secular criminal system, not in Catholic doctrine or Canon Law. 


 Unfortunately, it is precisely this same Catholic Doctrine and Canon Law which hamstrings the Church from assisting in creating secular laws which will deal with the real on the ground consequences of Church Doctrine--especially as those doctrines and laws effect the Church itself.  This leads to things like the US bishops fighting tooth and nail against any initiative to extend the Statutes of Limitations in child sexual abuse.  So much for defending the rights of children.

When I finished reading this report I came away with one very strong observation.  It was about time a major secular body called the Church to account for the consequences of it's teachings and actions on powerless children. For all of Pope Francis' soaring eloquence about the importance of children and how precious life is, the Church he leads is both hugely hypocritical and strangely indifferent when it comes to the consequences children endure because of Catholic teachings--especially those little girl children who can never ever become leaders in one of the most gender discriminating institutions on the planet.

Diocese Of Helena Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

The Cathedral of Saint Helena is one of my favorite places in town.  The stained glass is awesome.

The Diocese of Helena is my home diocese.  It's a small diocese in which someone always knows someone who knows the bishop personally.  I can say I graduated from the same college Bishop Thomas did and I played softball with his sister---which in the normal way around here makes me highly connected. Although she was a very good first basemen, the truth is, while I met others in her family, I never met Bishop George Thomas and don't know him at all. This is in spite of the fact he was a senior when his sister and I were sophomores.  I do however, know the chancellor of the diocese from back in those same college years.  He probably wishes I didn't remember him quite so well.  In any event,  I give this information as a sort of disclosure.  I may not be the most objective reporter on this bankruptcy--but on the other hand, I am also very familiar with the abuses that went on in the Native American boarding schools.  I have met quite a number of those victims while participating in Native ceremonies across the State---and also as clients in therapeutic settings.

This LA Times article gives a pretty good overview of the numbers. The Helena situation is not exactly the typical case of a diocese avoiding transparency or payouts by declaring bankruptcy--like Listecki in Milwaukee.  In the Helena case most of the names came out in the settlement with the Northwest Jesuit Province, and the respective victims attorneys have listed others.  It's also not exactly about reams of diocesan priests being hidden and transferred from one parish to another.  In this particular settlement about 12% or just under 40 of the 362 victims, accused diocesan priests;  a little over 20% accused one or another Ursuline nun, and the rest were victims of the Jesuits who ran the Native mission schools and parishes.

Under Montana law, those victims who were compensated in the 166 million dollar Jesuit settlement, which included about 2/3rds of the plaintiffs in the Helena settlement, will receive money from the Helena settlement if their individual amount exceeds what they received in the Jesuit settlement.This helps explain why the mediated settlement was 15 million rather than a higher sum.  However, the operative word in that last sentence is 'mediated'.  This was not a confrontational process from the beginning.  The National Catholic Reporter ran a story about this mediation process.  It is worth reading.

The hang up in the mediation was not on the part of the Diocese or Bishop Thomas.  It was on the part of the Ursulines who eventually opted out of the mediated settlement, and various insurance companies who kept going to court to lessen their liability.  The Ursuline court case will be one of the very few that have involved religious orders of nuns in the US.  That in itself is interesting in that the Ursulines were far from the only order that ran boarding schools or orphanages.  The Ursulines may have felt that they were better off distancing themselves from the Helena Diocese settlement because they wanted to play the nun sympathy card and would rather take their chances with a jury.  Good luck, I'm sure the media spotlight will be very bright once their case comes to trial this summer.  I also have to admit I am glad they chose to go to trial because for once, Americans may actually get a glimpse of the day to day life in the Native American boarding schools.  For those whites of Anglo or European descent who grew up in fear of ruler wielding nuns, the truth of the Boarding Schools should give them some perspective. Where as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have issued government apologies for the misery their boarding schools inflicted on their Indigenous populations, the US has not uttered a peep.  If the Ursuline trial sheds some light on this very dark corner of US policy, some good may actually come from a truly horrible situation.

The Diocese of Helena is a very small potato in the Church garden.  Demographically Catholics are about 45,000 people in a Diocese covering half the State of Montana. If Montana follows the national trend, only about 1/3 of those 45,000 are practicing Catholics.  Given those numbers and the lack of real capital assets, I am not surprised the Diocese wound up in bankruptcy.  Scuttlebutt says the Diocese was heading towards bankruptcy before the law suits were filed, and that's scuttlebutt I can believe.  One need only drive through Butte, which was the heart of Catholicism in this area, and count the closed parishes. It's a micro picture of the macro Church in the Anglo and European worlds.  It may not be exactly what Pope Francis means by his 'poor church for the poor' concept, but it is a poor and shrinking church.

In closing, I believe Bishop Thomas is genuine about his apologies and his desire to see as much justice as can be done for victims.  I don't know anyone who hasn't been devastated when meeting victims face to face and really hearing what their lives were like in the Mission schools.  The guilt and shame become personal if only because one is a white Christian.  No one deserved the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse these kids went through and I truly believe Bishop Thomas cares.  Another bishop might have fought tooth and nail since most of the plaintiffs listed religious order abusers as opposed to diocesan priests, but the truth is, it was the system and the culture itself that carries the blame and Bishop Thomas is one of the few bishop who acts as if he gets it.

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