AB Sartain Continue To Stonewall The LCWR About Just What It Is The Vatican Is Upset About

 

Franciscan Sister Ilia Delio gave a superb speech with a lot of food for thought at the annual LCWR convention.  Not so much AB Sartain

The LCWR had their annual meeting this week in Orlando, Florida.  I turns out it might have been the best place to hold their meeting as it was attended by the Vatican appointed overseer Archbishop Sartain of Seattle and he did his best to come across as friendly as any Disney character.  Unfortunately, sources cited by the National Catholic Reporter indicate his responses to some very pertinent questions were more like Mickey Mouse.  It seems no matter how often LCWR leadership ask him for details about their alleged doctrinal indiscretions he has no specifics.  The following is an extract from an article by NCR's Joshua McElwee which hi lites some of the responses of LCWR members to Sartain's talk.

 

 

.....Before Sartain’s talk Thursday, LCWR leaders hosted an earlier three-hour closed-door meeting with their members. According to several sisters, that meeting was the first opportunity of this year’s assembly for LCWR members to ask the organization’s three presidents how discussions with Sartain over the mandate have been going since April 2012.

 

Meetings between Sartain and LCWR leaders in the 18 months since publishing of the mandate have taken place outside public scrutiny, and neither Sartain nor the sisters have publicly detailed the number or content of their meetings.

 

According to knowledgable sources, LCWR members were told Thursday that their leadership had met with Sartain four times over the past year: Once following last year’s LCWR assembly in St. Louis, once in November in Baltimore during the annual U.S. bishops’ meeting, once in May during the group’s annual visit to Rome, and once more this summer.

 

Each time, the LCWR leaders told their members Thursday, Sartain did not detail the Vatican’s specific concerns with LCWR. 

 

In their first meeting last August, Sartain also reportedly said he had not been sufficiently educated on the renewal of religious life that followed the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Those renewal efforts, which lasted for decades, are widely viewed by women religious as momentous achievements.

 

In their closed session with members Thursday, the LCWR board also shared a report of its May meeting in Rome with members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Several sisters said they were told that the LCWR’s response to the doctrinal assessment had contained “deficiencies,” but these were not spelled out. 

 

When meeting in the closed-door session with Sartain Thursday, several sisters reportedly asked the archbishop to spell out the alleged deficiencies, but he did not do so.

 

I'm seriously at a loss as to how the LCWR can respond to allegations which are not spelled out.  What are they supposed to do...punt?  The fact this has been going on for 18 months is pretty insulting.  I almost feel sorry for 'brother' Sartain.  He too is being used, but at least in his case, this idiot song and dance might result in further advancement.  For the LCWR it has to be engendering further anger and confusion.  How do they follow the 'magisterium' with any kind of integrity when said magisterium refuses to act like adults or treat the LCWR as adults.  This is the kind of thing defective parents pull on kids because the kids are totally dependent on them and they can get away with it.  Members of the LCWR are not dependent on the CDF or a certain subset of American cardinals and I don't honestly don't know why the LCWR keeps putting up with this kind of treatment.  It's way past time for the CDF to get specific, but I think this CDF won't get specific because in reality this entire fiasco was a case of Cardinal Levada abusing his office for the sake of certain other American Cardinals---the ones who are in the back pocket of the Republican party.  That very party that lost on Obamacare because of the LCWR influenced Catholic Health Care Association.  Which would mean this whole thing is not about doctrine, it's about politics.  Which would mean that Sartain is stuck with a bogus investigation that can't possibly have any kind of face saving exit strategy.  So he gives advice like this:

 

"Sartain told the sisters their role “is to be thinking with the church and fidelity to the magisterium of the church."

 

And answers direct questions like this:

 

"According to one member, common themes in the questions asked of Sartain by LCWR members Thursday included:

• Frustration of the sisters’ congregations on the slowness of receiving information regarding how Sartain’s role at LCWR would continue;

• A feeling that the reputation of U.S. sisters had been unfairly tarnished;

• Sharp disagreement with allegations by Vatican officials that LCWR does not adequately communicate with bishops in Rome.

 

To the last point, Sartain reportedly said that Vatican officials “going forward hope to have better communication with LCWR.” (An interesting statement since the Vatican has been the one who consistently refused to meet with LCWR leadership in Rome.)

 

And then he gave this suggestion:

Instead of choosing only one speaker to address its members, Sartain suggested they select respondents as well, including at least one who would put in a positive light the official teachings of the church. (As if members of the LCWR don't know Catholic teachings.)

 

We may never get an official statement from either AB Sartain or the LCWR since both sides agreed to maintain silence on what transpired during Sartain's talk and the subsequent question and answer session.  The LCWR has stated they are thinking of releasing a statement at the end of the weekend, but I doubt it will say a whole lot.  Both sides seem willing to keep up this shadow boxing that gets no where. It may be that both sides are waiting for Pope Francis to make a decision on who will lead the CDF, and it could be it's current head, AB Mueller, is not precisely enthusiastic about pursuing this investigation if he's not going to have his job in a few months.  But whatever the case, one hopes this refusal to deal with the alleged issues does not keep up for the next three and a half years because no one will save face in that case.  Rather both sides will look less than adult.  

 

I can't help but wonder what Cardinal Braz de Aviz thinks of this whole charade given he has publicly stated he did not like the fact his dicastery was kept totally out the CDF loop. I can't imagine he's impressed with how this is playing out because the LCWR has loads of influence on religious women in the global church.  I suspect if it was up to him the whole thing would have done and over with a long time ago.  Unfortunately for everyone it's not up to him.

 

 

 

Of Band Aids and Banks.

 

The question for Pope Francis is will there be any surgery or just love, care, and band aids.

After I wrote my last post, I found myself incapable of writing much of anything else.  Part of my problem was utter chaos at my place of employment, a situation I knew would develop and fruitlessly tried to divert.  That took a lot of mental energy, but finally, I think a better path was taken--at least better than the first easy solution which would have been a band aid that only covered the dysfunction while not treating it.  I now wonder if the election of Francis really isn't just another band aid solution.  But first off some other thoughts about another story.

Pope Francis has furthered Pope Benedict's attempts to clean up the IOR, but I fear that too many of Francis' appointments include Opus Dei members or sympathizers.  Anyone who does any serious research into the decades of financial corruption at the Vatican can't help but notice how many Opus Dei or OD sympathizers were at the heart of some of the worst of those events.  I actually broke out laughing when Francis actually cited the Free Masons as one of his 'lobbies' involved at the Vatican when in point of fact the P2 Masonic Lodge involved in the Banco Ambrosio scandal had more than it's share of members who were listed as both OD and as high level Masons. Seems there is nothing like secret societies for engaging in shady business deals and other 'secret' stuff.  The more of these groups one belongs to the merrier it is.  The Catholicism of the 20th century has been rife with creation of lay apostolates with charisms that bring them into contact with rich or powerful people ostensibly for the purpose of evangelization, but too often function more as brokerage firms for people with 'special needs'.

Given this it wasn't particularly shocking to learn that Msgr Nunzio Scarano, he who is currently in an Italian prison for various misuses of the Vatican bank, was a member of yet another small group with connections to the wealthy and allegedly criminal wealthy.  The following is from a CNA account:

...Italian newspaper “Il Mattino” reports that Msgr. Scarano was entrusted with the management of a network of real estate activities for the spiritual family “L'opera del gregge del Bamin Gesù,” or “The works of the flock of the infant Jesus.”

“The Flock,” as it is known, was a sort of spiritual family formed in Salerno by a group of priests aged 40-50 who gathered around a visionary known by his first name, Caterina.

Msgr. Scarano is known to have been a member of The Flock, which was officially an association of prayer yet acted primarily as a private limited company managing a series of economic activities....


What ever the Flock was, it's most likely it's resident visionary had visions of investments of all sorts dancing in his head rather than visions of the baby Jesu.  Ahemmm.

In short, it bothers me that Pope Francis continues to stock his commissions with fervent OD members when I think he would be much better off stocking his commissions with agnostic secularists whose sole concern is ethical bank management.  They would be much more trustworthy in separating what is Caesar's from what is God's.  Mixing the two has never done the Vatican much good----except for the fact lay Apostolates like OD and the Neo Cats are very good at upholding the necessity of the ordained priesthood, which brings me back to thoughts of bandaids.

Finally, I would like to hi light the current post at Iglesia Descalza.  Rebel Girl has a translation of an article by José María Castillo that is a reflection on the origin of the priesthood and it's future in Catholicism.  I find myself agreeing with Castillo that the future does not look encouraging for the our current priestly caste:

.....Of course, the end of the clergy can't be improvised. The change will probably happen not because of decisions coming from Rome but because life and the turn history takes will lead us to that -- to a Church composed of communities of believers, aware of their responsibility, united with their bishops (led by the Bishop of Rome), respecting the diverse peoples, nations, and cultures. And concerned above all with making the memory of Jesus visible and obvious. There are already many communities all over the world where, due to the lack of clergy, lay people are the ones who celebrate the Eucharist all by themselves. Because there are many Christians who are persuaded that the celebration of the Eucharist isn't a privilege of the priests but a right of the community. The process is underway. And I believe nobody will stop it....

I wish Pope Francis would read those last three sentences.  There's a piece of me that thinks he really is sort of a band aid elected to the Papacy to both cover over the deficiencies in the cultic priesthood and to continue it's current manifestation. If so Pope Francis will prove to be way too little way too late.  The process away from the cultic celibate priesthood is well underway and not even a charismatic pope like Francis is going to stop it.

Pope Franics Is Not All That Evolved On Issues Of Sex And Gender

 

Thought I'd put up a bit of a plug for a truly deep woman theologian.  It's sort of a post card to Pope Francis from the margins of Catholic theology.

There certainly has been a lot of gigabytes used up on Pope Francis' impromptu interview on his way back to Rome.  Not surprisingly the comments concerning Msgr Ricca and the 'gay lobby' have so far generated the most commentary.  Personally I think that will change as more people take in some of the other statements Francis made, such as his comments on women's place in the Church. I think it was because I red flagged on these comments that I did not view Francis' statements on gays as particularly noteworthy.  To me all he seemed to be saying was that celibate gay priests should not be marginalized just because they are gay or have made mistakes (sins not crimes).  This may signal less pressure on gay priests to leave and a more open stance towards gay seminarians per se, but not a whole lot more than that.  I certainly did not see where these comments will have much effect at all on GLBT laity one way or the other.  I don't see where they can precisely because Pope Francis seems blind to the Church's rejection of any notion of a positive contribution for the feminine. To this point his stated idea of the contribution of the feminine is wrapped up in Marian theology and childbearing and housekeeping and he has so far admitted to being influenced only by his mother and some 'grandmothers'.  The fact he stated we need to work on a deeper theology of women was mind blowing to me.  Women have been doing feminine theology for well over half a century--the very half century he's been a priest.  Which makes me wonder just who he envisions doing this 'deeper theology of women', and I'm afraid he means male clerics--preferably Jesuit.

None of what I've just written contradicts the fact I still see Pope Francis as very close to if not at Stage 6 spirituality.  Even the most spiritually advanced folks I have met have had their blind spots and cultural filters.  It's the nature of the human game. I can see Francis making real change in Church governance and reprioritizing the instituional mission while never even conceiving of changing the teachings on sex and gender.  Given all that, I found this article in SpiegelOnLine with conservative gay theologian David Berger most in line with my own response. Berger was a prominent lay theologian at Rome's Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas who came out of the closet in 2010 in frustration over the hypocrisy of Rome's gay clergy.  I've re posted this interview in full:

Gay Comments: Pope Francis Not as Liberal as He Seems

Annette Langer - SpiegelOnLine - 7/31/13

Pope Francis has sparked enthusiasm with his call for greater tolerance toward gays. But it's too soon to celebrate, says theologian David Berger. The pope's warning not to engage in gay propaganda puts him on par with homophobes like Russian President Vladimir Putin, he contends.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: On the flight from Brazil to Europe, Pope Francis was unexpectedly candid. "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" he said, causing many commentators to rejoice. Was this really such a big sensation?

Berger: It is incredibly naïve to liken it to a dam bursting. What are gays or lesbians to think when someone tells them: I don't want you to be discriminated against, but you are not allowed to live out your "tendency" anyway? According to doctrine, the homosexual act is still a sin. Here lies the central problem and the reason I feel further marginalized as a Catholic.

  SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nevertheless, Francis has explicitly opposed the exclusion of gays. Has he been urged by his advisors to do this or is a genuine concern of his?

Berger: I don't believe that it was a PR move. But he also didn't say anything revolutionary. The notion that gays shouldn't be discriminated against is already in the catechism. But when Francis says in the same breath that gays should please not advertise their sexual orientation, he puts himself in a category with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who supports laws against "homosexual propaganda." 
(No Pope Francis is not another homophobic Putin. This may be a perfect example of the conservative bent to see things a little too black and white.)
 
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So this wasn't a call for greater openness of the Church?

Berger: I would like to see more openness. But there would have to be fundamental doctrinal revisions for that -- and I don't see that happening. Take Francis' categoric rejection of the ordination of women. "This door is closed," he said. This shows that when it comes to liberality, the pope is committed to the old gender roles. That's why I don't think he will be able to stop the ranks of priests from shrinking dramatically. (Yes, this Pope is definitely committed to the older gender roles.  Not surprising since it is precisely the older gender roles which prop up all the theology about the hierarchy in the Church he leads.)

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is there really a so-called gay lobby in the Vatican?

Berger: There are loose networks that maintain connections in order to have sex without being discovered. But there is no organized group that advocates gay rights and wants to change the Church's doctrine. During my time in Rome, I rather experienced the opposite. Most gay priests are very pious, well-behaved people --organizing an uprising couldn't be further from their minds.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Defensive personalities who can be blackmailed because of their sexual orientation?

Berger: Sure, it's always about power. It is common knowledge in the Catholic Church that supervisors put pressure on gay priests in order to exploit them for their own interests. (And that some less scrupulous people will use the threat of exposure as gay to intimidate all priests--gay or straight.  This must have been especially effective in the Benedict papacy.)

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Since Bergoglio became pope, Italian gay activists say their relationship with the Church has already improved.

Berger: Francis's remarks may well bring about improvement in the predominantly Catholic countries. But in Germany we are having this discussion on a different level. As a gay man in Italy, you are satisfied just to get the crumbs that fall from the table of the lord. There, gentle discrimination is already a step forward. It's completely different in Berlin or in Cologne: We have no need to eat the crumbs. Either we sit at the table or we will not take part in the dinner. (I think this is very true and that Pope Francis is going to be somewhat blind sided by this difference.  And not just over the gay issue, but also over the divorced/remarried issue.)

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Francis says that any form of lobbying is harmful, making reference to the Freemasons and other political forces in the Vatican. Where does the pope stand theologically?

Berger: While John Paul II and Benedict XVI could be gauged, that's not possible with Francis. His theology is rather a kind of folk Catholicism of Latin American origin. Much of what is currently fascinating believers is really the Catholic version of the rites of popular evangelical sects. For example, when he asks people at his discretion to bless him before he does it himself, he is acting out a blessing rite of the Pentecostals. (Exactly, and this is one reason I think Pope Francis will elevate the Catholic Charismatic movement to new heights--it's the Catholic version of Pentecostal and Evangelical protestantism.)

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You get the feeling that the new pope expresses himself without much precision and sometimes contradictorily, which leads to misunderstandings.

Berger: Yes, that's right. Benedict XVI spoke as he would have written. Almost everything he said was well thought out in every detail. Francis's statements often contradict each other. So he first said that atheists are devils, only to say shortly later that they are just as good as Christians. Then it was up to his spokesman to correct the statements and put them into perspective accordingly. From an intellectual perspective, the election of Francis is a fiasco for the Catholic Church. But the general public is presumably already won over by his charisma. (That's probably a little strong, but then Berger seems to be another of those conservative gay men who think Pope Benedict's theology was the cat's meow.)

  SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about the celibacy rules under Francis?

Berger: There is currently a lot of movement on this, which is also supported by conservative forces. But from a pedagogical standpoint, nothing will really change. The prohibition of sex remains the most important factor of the Church's power. (That's certainly true in it's need to control the faith of individuals. It's proven ineffective in the Church's attempt to control the politics of any 21st century democracy.)

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


Pope Francis' trip to Brazil has to be judged a success for his nascent papacy.  It was sort of a no brainer.  It might have been a bit different if WYD had been held in say Austria or Ireland.  It seemed that as the week progressed Francis unveiled more and more of his thinking and his blue print for the Church.  For me, his most important speech was the one he gave to the organizing committee of CELAM.  It was his longest and most detailed speech.  He did not deviate very much from it's text.  I kept this speech in mind as I read through the transcript of his news conference on the plane back to Rome.  Maybe that's why I didn't find his gay comments to be particularly liberating.

Where as Francis has a well developed spirituality when it comes to the mission of the Christian individual and how the Church should support that mission, that outreach to the poor and marginalized he repeatedly delineates, he has a very traditional and not so developed view of personal morality and internal Church organization.  In these latter two cases he is not going to change any traditional view of sexuality or gender definition.  To do so is to remove the actual foundational rock of the institutional clerical church.  That foundational rock is not Peter, it's the fact Peter was male. If one were to really look at someone other than Jesus as the foundational rock of the Church, logic would dictate it was Mary.  In the case of the incarnated Jesus, the hen came before the egg.  Unfortunately, while Pope Francis can state that Mary is more important to the Church than any of the Apostles, that importance will never be ascribed to women in the same way the maleness of Jesus and the Apostles has been weaved into our theology of the priesthood and the over all primacy of men in the general scheme of things.  This maleness is so overwhelming it has even allowed an all male power structure to clothe it's institutional face as female...like a boat or something.   Every time some priest or pope uses the term "Holy Mother' Church I want to scream:  "No, No, No, it's neither Holy nor feminine!  It's corrupt and utterly masculine!"  

Unfortunately, Pope Francis has spent his entire adult life in this exclusively male culture.  He's lived and breathed it, and climbed it's rocky slopes until he's reached it's pinnacle. I doubt he's really had much time to seriously question it's underlying patriarchal assumptions.  Until that happens there can be no 'deep theology of women' coming from Rome or anywhere else in the official Catholic world.  The LCWR has seen the truth of the that fact.  So have specific female theologians like Margaret Farley and Elizabeth Johnson.  

There's a part of me that hopes Pope Francis is experiencing a little cognitive dissonance over the Church's official positions on women and gays as he takes in the views from the top of the pinnacle.  I would hope he looks down the slope he climbed and discerns that he crawled over lots of marginalized folks to get to the top.  I would hope that might be part of why he can forgive a gay priest his youthful indiscretions and now say 'who am I to judge'---at least not judge gay priests who are genuinely seeking God.  They are after all, his brother priests.  

As for women, well according to Francis, JPII had the final say on that. Brotherly solidarity, or papal solidarity in this case, still trumps cognitive dissonance, but that dissonance is there in his speeches.  He keeps calling for more feminine input, ever for a deeper theology of women, and he's placed women on his commissions. Eventually he may see that these kinds of band aids will not cover the wound patriarchy has inflicted on the Church's soul, nor solve his cognitive dissonance problem.  In the meantime the right wing can breathe easy on the fronts of Catholic sexual morality and gender hierarchy.  Straight male thinking still rules.

Once Again Pope Francis Talks And Walks Like St Francis

 

In this photo Pope Francis demonstrates the proper body language for dialogue, that of the interested listener.

Pope Francis spoke to Brazillian cultural leaders and dropped a few more hints about who he is and what his vision is about.  Archbishop Chaput in particular will probable not derive much hope from Francis' words.  The following is from Vatican Radio:

Pope Francis: My advice is always “dialogue, dialogue, dialogue

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis met with leading members of Brazilian society on Saturday and stressed the importance of constructive dialogue, saying this was essential at the present moment. “Between selfish indifference and violent protest," he said, "there is always another possible option, that of dialogue.” The Pope also called for more inclusive and humanistic economic and political process, eliminating “forms of elitism” and eradicating poverty. (Did he really use the dreaded 'humanistic' word?)

In his address to the political, diplomatic, cultural, religious, academic and business leaders of Brazil the Pope paid tribute to the country’s distinct cultural tradition, looked at their joint responsibility for building the future, and stressed the need for constructive dialogue in facing the present moment. He told the leaders that the future demands of us a humanistic vision of the economy and a politics capable of ensuring greater and more effective participation on the part of all. This, he continued, is the road that we are called to travel.

The Pope went on to say that anyone exercising a role of leadership needs to keep hope alive even in the face of disappointments, and be generous even without apparent results. He said leaders make decisions in the present but should always have an eye to the future, reflecting on the consequences of our decisions. (This is a key insight into Francis' plans for reform. What ever he decides will take into consideration the future of his reforms beyond his own papacy. They will not be stop gap measures and a big part of it will be putting in place process/systems to avoid these same issues going forward.)

Pope Francis concluded his address by pointing to something which he considers essential for facing the present moment: constructive dialogue. A country grows when constructive dialogue occurs between its many rich cultural components. The Pope revealed that when leaders in various fields ask him for advice, his response is always the same: "Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue!" This, he said, is the only way for individuals, families and societies to grow. He said fraternal relations between people and cooperation in building a more just society are not some vague utopia but the fruit of a concerted effort on the part of all, in service of the common good. (Pope Francis is not about stagnation and preserving the past. He is calling for growth, evolution, and maturation, and he's right, a more just society is not a vague utopia when people are motivated to seek a better way.)

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

The more I listen to and read the words and actions of Pope Francis, the more I am convinced he is operating from a spirituality that James Fowler calls a Stage 6 spiritual view. I think Francis is going to take the whole Church down this path whether anyone else really gets it or not. The following is Fowler's description of a stage 6 person. It's from an undated interview:
Stage Six: Universalizing Faith

Some few persons we find move into Stage Six, which we call universalizing faith. In a sense I think we can describe this stage as one in which persons begin radically to live as though what Christians and Jews call the
"kingdom of God" were already a fact. I don't want to confine it to Christian and Jewish images of the kingdom. It's more than that. I'm saying these people experience a shift from the self as the center of experience. Now their center becomes a participation in God or ultimate reality. There's a reversal of figure and ground. They're at home with what I call a commonwealth of being.

We experience these people on the one hand as being more lucid and simple than we are, and on the other hand as intensely liberating people, sometimes even subversive in their liberating qualities. I think of Martin Luther King, Jr. in the last years of his life. I think of Thomas Merton. I think of Mother Teresa of Calcutta. I think of Dag Hammerskjold and Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the last years of his imprisonment. These are persons who in a sense have negated the self for the sake of affirming God. And yet in affirming God they became vibrant and powerful selves in our experience. They have a quality of what I call relevant irrelevance. Their "subversiveness" makes our compromises show up as what they are.

This maturity from which Pope Francis operates is going to be a challenge and a threat to those who are not matured to this stage, and few people ever get to this stage.  The vision of Roman Catholicism this view holds is radically different from the view the last two papacies have acted from.  In Francis' life, the foreground and background truly have flipped.  It's why Francis constantly harps on the egoism of clericalism, has dropped all the papal froufrou, calls himself Bishop of Rome, and carries his own luggage. It's not that he's being intentionally subversive, it's that he no longer relates to any of the ego dressing associated with his vocation to priesthood.  It is however, still true, that these acts, representative of his 'being', are truly subversive of much of the clerical culture. 

They have to be threatening, or at least anxiety inducing, to sincere clerics like Archbishop Chaput whose view of ego and church are no where near where Francis is.  This is not to say that Chaput is a lesser human being, but it is to say that Chaput lives from a very different understanding of the vocation of priesthood and part of this difference is likely related to when AB Chaput went into the clerical system. It was with a junior seminary at age 13.  Francis on the other hand went into the system at age 22 after he had college and job experience and did not enter Jesuit formation until he was 25. There is a world of difference between a 13 year old and a 22 year old.  The following is Fowler's description of a Stage 4 spiritual mind:

Stage Four is concerned about boundaries: where I stop and you begin; where the group that I can belong to with conviction and authenticity ends and other groups begin. It's very much concerned about authenticity and a fit between the self I feel myself to be in a group and the ideological commitments that I'm attached to.

Keeping the above in mind, here's how this disconnect plays out as recorded by John Allen in his interview with AB Chaput, or how a dedicated Stage 4 believer can sound like a lost and confused teen ager because he now has a dedicated Stage 6 believer for his ultimate boss:

How do you explain the enthusiasm beyond the usual suspects?
 
I don't know how to interpret it, quite honestly. I think part of it is genuine appreciation for the pope's extraordinary friendliness and transparency. But also, I think they would prefer a church that wouldn't have strict norms and ideas about the moral life and about doctrine, and they somehow interpret the pope's openness and friendliness as being less concerned about those things. I certainly don't think that's true. I think he's a truly Catholic man in every sense of the word, but I think people are hoping that he'll be less concerned about the issues that separate us today.

Do you think there will be a moment of reckoning when the honeymoon wears off?

We'll see what happens. The pope may have a way of managing all of that will be extraordinary, I don't know. I would think that by virtue of his office, he'll be required to make decisions that won't be pleasing to everybody.

This is already true of the right wing of the church. They generally have not been really happy about his election, from what I've been able to read and to understand. He'll have to care for them, too, so it will be interesting to see how all this works out in the long run.

What I'm trying to convey with this post is that so much of the disconnect in the Church is not due to politics or theological views so much as it is a difference in spiritual stages.  The stages that Fowler describes are a universal phenomenon.  This is not just a Christian problem.  It's human problem.  I will be praying my little heart out that Francis can drag the clerical culture and the Church itself further along in it's spiritual evolution, and I will also pray that Archbishop Chaput gets his wish, that Francis is perfectly aware that the vision he sees is a vision that threatens folks who aren't quite where he is at.  Since Francis' ego isn't wrapped up in being right, but in being Christ to the world, I think he's more than equipped to handle the challenge.


Update:  Vatican Radio has just posted Pope Francis' speech to the Brazilian hierarchy.  It's the longest speech of his papacy and is most likely a blue print for the future direction of his papacy.  He doesn't pull many punches in his assessment of the current Church, but again, conservatives are not going to like what he says, even when he starts out saying what they want to hear.  Take this passage for instance in which he both acknowledges the importance of the family and then recognizes how important it is that the church not keep losing women but promote their active role in the ecclesial community:

In mission, also on a continental level, it is very important to reaffirm the family, which remains the essential cell of society and the Church; young people, who are the face of the Church’s future; women, who play a fundamental role in passing on the faith. Let us not reduce the involvement of women in the Church, but instead promote their active role in the ecclesial community. By losing women, the Church risks becoming sterile.

And then as Fowler describes above, about Stage 6 people, Francis himself calls for the use of more lucid and simple language:
Another lesson which the Church must constantly recall is that she cannot leave simplicity behind; otherwise she forgets how to speak the language of Mystery. Not only does she herself remain outside the door of the mystery, but she proves incapable of approaching those who look to the Church for something which they themselves cannot provide, namely, God himself. At times we lose people because they don’t understand what we are saying, because we have forgotten the language of simplicity and import an intellectualism foreign to our people. Without the grammar of simplicity, the Church loses the very conditions which make it possible “to fish” for God in the deep waters of his Mystery.

Fowler himself goes into some detail about the importance of simple allegorical language as the language of mystery as it is this kind of spiritual language which is the foundation laid very early in our neural development as it applies to our religious or spiritual training.  It's really difficult to remove that kind of imagery from ones mind even as one matures.  The associations are too strong.  However, it is possible to integrate these associations into a far more mature spirituality by transcending the childhood definitions of the imagery.  Anyway, the Pope's speech is well worth reading.

Pope Francis Wants Catholic Youth To Make A Mess And Occupy Their Dioceses--And Listen To Their Elders

Maybe this really was an omen.

Pope Francis has continued with his spontaneous comments to his written speeches.  He came up with quite the comment in speaking with Argentinian Youth last night, and this one has been making the internet rounds.  Francis is most certainly not your average pope. I really wonder if the Cardinals had a reset button if they wouldn't use it.

The following is from the Yahoo article I read early the morning, but this link also includes more recent coverage:


....The surprise, though, came during his encounter with Argentine pilgrims, scheduled at the last minute in yet another sign of how this spontaneous pope is shaking up the Vatican's staid and often stuffy protocol.
He told the thousands of youngsters, with an estimated 30,000 Argentines registered, to get out into the streets and spread their faith and make a "mess," saying a church that doesn't go out and preach simply becomes a civic or humanitarian group.

"I want to tell you something. What is it that I expect as a consequence of World Youth Day? I want a mess. We knew that in Rio there would be great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses!" he said, speaking off the cuff in his native Spanish. "I want to see the church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools or structures. Because these need to get out!"

 Apparently realizing the radicalness of his message, he apologized in advance to the bishops at home....(It might be fun to see some dioceses have to deal with messes of a different,  not self made sort.  I might suddenly become very youthful and idealistic.)

And then in his prepared remarks later in the evening he had this to say:

Addressing Varginha's residents, Francis acknowledged that young people in particular have a sensitivity toward injustice.
"You are often disappointed by facts that speak of corruption on the part of people who put their own interests before the common good," Francis told the crowd. "To you and all, I repeat: Never yield to discouragement, do not lose trust, do not allow your hope to be extinguished."

It was a clear reference to the violent protests that paralyzed parts of the country in recent weeks as Brazilians furious over rampant corruption and inefficiency within the country's political class took to the streets.

Francis blasted what he said was a "culture of selfishness and individualism" that permeates society today, demanding that those with money and power share their wealth and resources to fight hunger and poverty.  (No question at all the money is an energy source for society.  This is not a time to conserve that energy but to spread it around.)
"It is certainly necessary to give bread to the hungry — this is an act of justice. But there is also a deeper hunger, the hunger for a happiness that only God can satisfy," he said.

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

I hope that Pope Francis' work from last night will have a long term effect on his campaign to purge the Church of corruption and redirect it's energy to the poor.  I found his call for making messes in dioceses quite brilliant.  Corruption in Roman Catholicism is not just a matter of the games being played in the Vatican City States.  That kind of corruption has not just trickled, but cascaded down into virtually every diocese in the Church.  This is one of the big messages of the abuse crisis.  This is one of the results of the JPII/Benedict purge of thinking bishops and consistent appointments of yes men. Cleaning out the corruption in the head will do little for the body if the rest of the parts are full of the same corruption.

I have to put together one other statement of Pope Francis' with his call for making messes,  and that was his remarks about listening to and considering the needs of elder generations. Today he again called on youth to honor their elders. It's almost as if he is marshaling his younger troops to fight in the same campaign his older troops are getting somewhat weary of fighting. He's saying those older people are not cranks and maybe you should listen to your elders.  Well, why not, he's an elder himself and he's fully engaged in changing the direction of this Church.  If he can motivate these idealistic youth in the same way Vatican II ignited another generation of youth, his campaign won't be easily stamped out by a pope who follows him.  He will have lit a spark that can't be stamped out.

I would think the fact he mentioned clericalism specifically should give more impetus to Cardinal Dolan's self examination and send a serious message to younger JPII priests.  It ain't about you and your clerical perks and careers.  Not anymore. Not under this Pope.  As for AB Chaput, I don't think calling for youth to mess up dioceses will make his day either, since he happens have found himself with one of the most messed up dioceses in the US.  He can blame that one on ingratiating himself with the Burke/Rigalli faction and his own overweening careerism. Call it karma.

For all my enthusiasm, I do have one serious concern, one fly in my ointment.  Francis is appointing too many OD and OD connected laity to his commissions.  I wish I knew what that was about because it's troubling.  Maybe he thinks OD loyalty will easily transfer to him, which may be true on an individual basis but I wonder about the organization.  Maybe he's just keeping his potential enemies close.

One last observation. I also found it very fascinating that just as the battle between his maintaining his access to his people and legitimate security concerns was heating up and coming to a head, the rains came and came and came.  Nothing like a lot of rain to damper security concerns and let Francis stay Francis.  I can't help but think of the two lightning bolts that struck the Vatican when Benedict retired.  Perhaps it actually was an omen because it happened not only on the day that Benedict announced his resignation,  February 11th, but that date was also the date on which Pius XI signed the Lateran treaty with Mussolini that resulted in the Vatican City States and provided the patrimony for the Vatican Bank.  Interesting times we live in.

Apparently Nobody Expected Pope Francis To Actually Be Francis

Pope Francis means better days ahead for Latin American liberation theologians like Leonardo Boff.  What a change that is for this man.

I have to laugh a bit.  Yesterday I read that Archbishop Chaput is concerned that Pope Francis remember right wing Catholics who are not all that enamored with Pope Francis' view of the Church.  Today I read via Vatican Insider that Liberation theologian Leonardo Boff is more than happy with Pope Francis and his view of the Church. Maybe Chaput has a point about the right wing sensing the tide is turned if Lenoardo Boff is this enthusiastic.  Very few theologians labored on as well as Boff did under the onslaught directed at liberation theologians conducted by the JPII/Benedict church.  Not only have the monarchical externals of the Papacy been mothballed, but so has the autocratic papacy.  The poor are first and the careerists are beginning to see they might suddenly be last.  My how things have changed.

The following is the entire Vatican Insider by Andrea Tornielli, and here is the link to the NCR interview by John Allen with Archbishop Chaput.

Bergoglio sets about rebuilding the Church, just as St. Francis did

 Andrea Tornielli - Vatican Insider - 7/24/2013
“Three weeks before Bergoglio’s election, I tweeted: Francis is going to be the next Pope because as St. Francis did, the Church needs someone who can restore its lost credibility…” Leonardo Boff no longer wears a habit after his clash with Rome over his theological beliefs. He left the Franciscan order and is now married but his beard, which is whiter than ever, looks exactly the same as when he was still a friar. The Liberation Theologian whom Joseph Ratzinger never managed to tame, talks to Italian newspaper La Stampa about the visit to Brazil of the first Latin American Pope in the history of the Catholic Church.


Were you surprised by the welcome Francis received from the crowds in Rio de Janeiro?
“No, this enthusiasm stems from Francis’ simplicity, from the fact that he came without a huge security apparatus, that he wanted to drive through the city in a simple car and with the windows always down, that he let people approach and touch him and from the fact that he stopped to give children kisses. You can see he is a pastor, a bishop amongst his people. He is not a king.”

Francis decided to kick off his trip to Rio with a visit to the Shrine of Aparecida. Why?
“Because this is where Latin American bishops met in 2007 and published a document which refocuses on the poor and confirms that certain methods of evangelisation are out of date and need to be changed. The Church needs pastors who smell more like sheep than of the flowers on the altar.

Francis has shown his deep devotion to the Virgin Mary and the importance he attributes to popular piety. These are not really aspects that are close to liberals’ hearts…
“Oh but they are. They are closely linked to Liberation Theology. In Argentina this developed especially as a people’s theology, developed by the Jesuit Juan Carlos Scannone, who taught Bergoglio. The Pope is close to this theological thinking. It is not to do with popular pietistic devotion but with a devotion that preserves people’s identity and strives for social justice.”

The Pope speaks often about the poor and at the hospital in Rio he stressed that being close to the poor means touching “the body of Jesus.” What does this mean?
“The poor are Christ’s real representatives. In a way, it is the poor person who is the real “Pope” and Christ continues to be crucified among the Earth’s condemned. Christ is crucified on the crucifixes of history.”

What changes will Pope Francis bring to the Church?
“I think a lot is going to change. Francis is not just reforming the Curia, he is reforming the papacy. His insistence on being the Bishop of Rome and his decision to live in St. Martha’s House instead of the Apostolic Palace means opening up to the world. The Pope has explained that he prefers a Church that has been in accidents but continues to go out onto the road, than an asphyctic Church which stops at the door of the temple. Now the Church has become a beacon of hope not a besieged fort that is constantly at war with modernity or customs that control and regulate faith instead of facilitating it.”

Some criticise Francis for desacralising the pontificate…
“No, he is not desacralising it. He is presenting it in its true evangelical dimension. He is the Successor of Peter and Peter was a simple fisherman. We need to eliminate the “popolatry” that has prevailed in recent decades. Cardinals are not princes of the Church but servants of the people of God. Bishops need to take part in people’s lives. And the Pope does not feel like a king. He even said to the President of Brazil: “I come here as the Bishop of Rome,” that is, as someone who leads the Church in the name of charity not Canon law.”

What effect will a Latin American Pope have on Brazil and Latin America?
“I think Francis is ware that those in power need to listen to the poor and to the young people protesting in the streets. The importance he attributes to social justice could help Latin American democracies and encourage greater participation. Brazilian democracy is a low intensity democracy: the Pope invites politicians to be true servants of their people.”

Do you regret leaving your Franciscan habit on the hanger?
“No because I may no longer wear the habit but I am still a Franciscan in spirit: I work to protect creation and to help everyone on this planet feel like brothers and sisters.”

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


John Allen has also posted an interview with Cardinal Dolan who like AB Chaput, is down in Rio to give catechetical lessons to WYD participants. Like Chaput, Dolan comes across like a man who is uncomfortable with where Pope Francis is leading the Church, especially his own level of the Church.  And also like Chaput, Dolan goes on about Francis allowing his handlers to control more of his life, for security purposes only--of course of course.  Dolan makes the same complaint Chaput did, but in different terms.  Chaput was worried about Francis taking care of the right wing, Dolan concerned that the constant comparisons between Francis and Benedict make Benedict, a man he 'loves', look bad.  (No Timmy, you look bad.)  This interview is also worth reading just for Dolan's take on his actions in Milwaukee.  He was just following the law.

There is also a paragraph at the end of the Dolan interview where Tim wonders if he shouldn't down scale his life style, you know, open his own doors, maybe carry his own luggage.  Like a real guy or something.  Leonardo Boff must laugh himself to sleep now.  The sun does eventually rise--even in Catholicism.

Some Old Thoughts Are Still Timely

The following is a reprint of something I wrote 3 years ago.  I was reminded of this in an email I received from a reader who found the sentiments relevant for today's Vatican.  Given some of the recent Vatican stories concerning corruption and lack of accountability, unfortunately,  it may always be timely---and I am still waiting for something to be done about Bishop Robert Finn.


Bad Relational Psychology Leads To Bad Theology

8/14/2010 -  Open Tabernacle
John Allen felt compelled to use his Friday column in the National Catholic Reporter to attempt to justify the Vatican’s action in not accepting the resignations of Irish Auxiliary Bishops Raymond Field and Eamonn Walsh.  I’m glad he did because I trust his reporting is objective in this instance.  It gives Catholics a great opportunity to look at the kind of reasoning under which the Vatican operates when it comes to the episcopal hierarchy–at least the surface reasoning.
 
“First, the Vatican doesn’t want to feed impressions that public opinion and media hostility can bring down a bishop. Rome wants bishops to be willing to say and do unpopular things, on matters ranging from abortion to immigrant rights, and it would obviously be a deterrent if the bishop has to worry that Rome might capitulate to pressure campaigns seeking to run him out of town on a rail. (These resignations had nothing to do with taking unpopular moral stands. This is a diversionary excuse.)

Such blowback, of course, is a special risk in the early 21st century, when the Internet and 24-hour cable news channels have created a whole new industry of outrage generation. (A situation from which you yourself and CNN and NCR have derived a great deal of benefit.)

Second, allowing a bishop to resign, even if it’s entirely merited, can create an avalanche which buries other bishops who don’t share the same level of responsibility. If that happens, a good chunk of a country’s episcopacy could be wiped out — further destabilizing an already volatile situation, not to mention creating pressure to find replacements quickly and perhaps without sufficient thought. (‘What if’ and slippery slope arguments are both based in accepting a notion of the future which is as valid as the reality of the present. The Church’s history in Eastern Europe and China indicate bishops aren’t as critical to the local church as the Vatican would have us believe.  Local Churches can manage without them.)

Third, the Vatican also tends not to remove problem bishops because, in the institutional culture of the church, retirement has traditionally been seen as a reward for a job well done. A retired bishop has all the privileges of rank and few of the burdens, so the tendency is not to let a man walk away until he has cleared his desk. (In more ways than this one, this Vatican decision is all about the institutional culture and has nothing to do with the actual good of the Irish Church.)

The case of former Cardinal Michele Giordano of Naples offers an illustration. Giordano, who finally exited the scene in 2006 after turning 75, twice faced criminal charges for shady accounting, and once was actually convicted and sentenced to house arrest. Both times, rumors abounded that Giordano would be removed, and both times the Vatican instead let him stew in his own juices. Officials later said, on background, that they never had any intention of letting Giordano off the hook. That’s how they held him accountable: Not by firing him, but by forcing him to stay on the job and clean up his own mess. (It is possible for one to ‘clean up’ one’s own mess without retaining episcopal authority.  This mentality sends the message that it doesn’t matter what you do you will still retain your prestige and position.  This is crazy.)

Fourth, and perhaps most fundamentally, the Vatican does not like the idea of a bishop resigning for poor performance because, in their view, it’s bad theology. As they see it, a bishop isn’t a corporate CEO or a football coach, who should be sacked when profits sag or the team goes on a losing streak. The episcopacy isn’t a job but a sacramental bond akin to marriage, with the bishop as the father of the diocesan family. In the early centuries of the church, it was considered almost heretical for a bishop to move from one diocese to another on precisely this basis. (Millions of Catholic women and children through out the global church are aware of this ‘pater familias’ mentality and have suffered enormous repetitive abuse because of it.  This mentality, which overlooks the behavior in favor of some abstract fantasy, is itself BAD THEOLOGY.)


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

The above is another illustration of the kind of thinking that relates to an abstract objectification of a class of people.  In other words, the definition of the class as noun is more important than the actions undertaken by the class as beings, or verbs.  It doesn’t matter who or what a bishop does in his being or actions, the operative relationship is with the description for the noun bishop.  This is very bad theology and even worse psychology.

A person can not have a meaningful relationship with a definition, nor can they act authentically when they substitute a definition of themselves as a noun for their actual being.  This is precisely what the Church actually requires of gay people, that they define themselves by the Church’s definition of homosexuality and then act as if this definition was the true overwhelming reality of themselves as beings.  This gives the Church the freedom to relate to gays as a defined noun.  This definition equates the defined noun (person) with the acts the definition is based on.  It justifies the church relating to gays on the basis of acts they may not have committed just exactly as it permits the hierarchy to relate to bishops as if acts which don’t fit the definition of bishop were never committed.

In the case of gay bishops, the definition of bishop relationally supersedes the definition of homosexual.  Hence Catholicism can logically have a significant number of gay bishops who are free to be sexually active because they know they will not be expected to pay a price for their activity. Unless that is, they are dumb enough to get caught red handed and exposed in the media.  In the case of the priesthood, the definition of priest is not far enough up the noun hierarchy to protect them from the gay definition.  Hence, a gay priest can be celibate but if he admits to being gay he will be treated by definition as sexually active and chucked out of the priesthood–without perks and benefits and the opportunity to clean up his mess.

I believe one of the most important steps a given Catholic can take on an authentic spiritual path is to stop relating to people as catechismically given definitions, and start relating to them as people.  It is then that ideas like accountability and transparency take on real meaning, and an understanding of why Christians are called on to ‘see’ themselves in others and ‘see’ Christ in others becomes operative.  “Seeing” is a verb and implies an active real time relationship.  We may over look this, but Jesus continually stressed the importance of seeing people as they actually are, not as some class defined noun or a reduction to a given behavior.
Jesus refused to ‘see’ or relate to the Temple Priests and Pharisees as self defined authoritative nouns. He didn’t relate to any defined class of people as if they were nouns.  He asked Peter, “Who do you say that ‘I am’”. Peter says “You are the ‘living’ God.”  Neither Jesus nor Peter are relating to Jesus as some kind of defined static category based in past events or future speculation.  Jesus is the undefined ’living’ God in the present moment.  

To stay in the moment and relate to people as beings rather than nouns is difficult to do and takes a great deal of energy. To do other wise is easier and takes less energy.  The Vatican’s insistence in relating to the entire church on the basis of definitions of law, past history, and a consistent refusal to engage with the present are symptomatic of a tired depleted spiritual energy.  Returning to a fantasy liturgical past and reasserting the preeminence of classes of canonically defined nouns is not going to bring a resurgence to the Church.  It will not restore the ‘living’ God as the center of the Church’s ‘BEING’.  

The only noun that realistically defines a state of ‘being’ is death–the absence of life.  Jesus came to overcome that definition of a state of being.  That’s why He is called the ‘living’ God. It is that dynamic notion of a ‘living’ God that fueled early Christianity.  It’s time to make this Being real and present in modern Christianity before dead is the last true descriptive word for the Church.

Symbolism, Emotional Intelligence Somehow Lead To WYD Indulgences For Following Pope Francis On Twitter

 

This may be the next logical step if one can now gain indulgences by following the Pope on twitter.

For the following excerpt by Andrew Hamilton from Australia's Eureka Street, I need to thank Dennis Coday, editor of NCR's Morning Briefing.  Hamilton has written a really insightful piece of the three kinds of intelligence used by Pope Francis and how that separates him from past popes--and most of our bishops.  The West tends to over credence rational intelligence at the expense of emotional and symbolic intelligence when the fact is the human brain operates in all three realms of 'knowing'.  Pope Francis really seems to get this fact.  The following is more or less the meat of Hamilton's article:

Pope Francis' three types of intelligence
 
Andrew Hamilton - Eureka Street Au - 7/17/2013
.....Giving a lead on controversial issues requires three sorts of intelligence: rational, emotional and symbolic. When policies affect people's lives, Emotional intelligence should come first into play. It is the ability and inclination to see people, not simply as the objects of policy or as problems, but as persons each with their own face and life story. It also supposes the desire to enter their experience. In this respect the Pope was exemplary. He went out to the island to mourn the dead and console the living. And in so doing he stated the priority for others. (Emotional intelligence is that attribute that allows humanity to identify with each other, rather than objectifying or 'othering' those we rationally determine are not of our tribe.)

Rational intelligence guides and offers resources to the movements of the heart. It confers the ability to recognise and to give coherent shape to what matters in a complex situation. The Pope's action rested on the conviction that all human beings are precious, and that their happiness and welfare depend on their connection with one another. Because of that we can make a claim on one another.

For Francis, too, that conviction was grounded in the Christian story of a God who loved the world enough to join humanity, to die as human beings do, and to give life in his rising. This belief shaped the account he gave of the events on Lampedusa. For him the disparity between the societies from which people fled and those to which they came and the hostility to them expressed a lack of solidarity between people. Sinfulness was involved as well as tragedy. The proper response to this globalisation of indifference was penitential.
Leaders need not only to recognise who matters, what matters, and what is to be done, but to communicate this to others honestly and vividly. It requires symbolic intelligence to find the right words, images, silences and gestures that will invite others to reflect and respond generously. Good leadership creates surprising new possibilities that will later seem self-evident. In the Pope's case, the challenge was to choose stories, images and gestures from the resources of Christian tradition and to weave them in a way that resonated powerfully with the people he visited and with the wider audience. (Symbolic intelligence is critical in forming and maturing emotional intelligence.  Jesus was a Master at this and virtually all religious ritual is designed to tap into emotional intelligence.)

Because it works through surprise, symbolic intelligence always breaks moulds. That has been Francis' gift. Papal protocol ensures predictability by insisting on distance, formality, strict adherence to rituals, elaborate dress, controlled access and elaborately planned events. The protocol for political leaders is equally tightly scripted. (One could also say it shuts up the rational language of the left neural hemisphere by using the symbolic language of the right hemisphere.)

The Pope privileged spontaneity over protocols. He responded to a forgotten people by visiting them, casting into the water a bunch of flowers in the papal colours to express solidarity with those who had died, and celebrating Mass at an altar and with a chalice made of wood scavenged from abandoned boats. For Catholics the association of altar and chalice with Christ's blood poured into the wooden cross on which he was nailed and left to die, spoke of the inhumanity which we visit on one another, of the gift the misused are to us, and of the undeniable claim  we make on one another.....(For Catholics the sight of a Pope using such simple signs--a small altar made from an old row boat and a woodern chalice--is not just surprising, it was jarring given the preferences of most popes to underscore their authority through the use of gold in the immensity and ostentatious surroundings of St Peter's.)

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

Pope Francis has proven himself to be one heck of a communicator.  People are taking notice precisely because he uses symbolism in a way which engages emotional intelligence.  He is not just brain candy for the left hemisphere.  I find this difference between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis very striking and most likely indicative of cultural differences between Germanic Catholicism and Latino Catholicism.  I have always been fascinated by German theology and found it intellectually challenging, if very dense, but my heart has been engaged by Hispanic Catholicism in a way that seems more integrated.  I can see this distinction in reading the best of the Liberation theologians whose use of metaphor and symbolism is more prevalent than in Germanic or Anglo theology.  It speaks on a different level and most likely to more people because of that.

I look forward to hearing and reading Pope Francis during this upcoming World Youth Days. I wonder what his message to the youth of the world will be--and I do think it will be to the youth of the world and not necessarily just Catholic youth.   I hope he has a message in there somewhere about respecting and listening to the elders of their personal and cultural world.  Past youth days seem to have en-cultured a form of youthful self worship in which those of us who have gone before are useless, passe, and should just, you know, dig our own graves and gracefully fall permanently asleep.  For all the words that have been written about the divide between left and right in the Church, there is also a widening gap between generations.  The cynic in me thinks this was purposefully cultivated by the Vatican of JPII because the lack of experience and maturity in the young is easier to manipulate by those who choose to affirm themselves and their world view in this manner, but it does a great disservice to youth whose enthusiasm is abused by this targeting.  I sincerely hope I hear some words from Pope Francis about this particular issue because it's another area in which the Body of Christ is being dismembered.

There is one other thing about WYD that leaves me cold and disbelieving.  That is the issue of indulgences.  I have never cottoned to the concept that God can be turned into some sort of concession vendor for chits to lessen time in the flames of purgatory, which is itself an invented intellectual construct.  It's the kind of thinking that is utterly off putting to intelligent youth of the post modern world.  They may read Harry Potter, but they see the world more like the Game of Thrones.  I hope Pope Francis can find some words to deal with this disconnect as well, because I just don't see gaining indulgences by following his twitter account as something that's going to hook all those youth of this troubled planet who see little hope in their temporal futures.

The Pope In White Who Governs Like A "Black Pope"

 

Trouble with being a head of a nation state is it's not all kissing babies. Sometimes it's kicking butts.

Sandro Magister has a very astute assessment of Pope Francis on his blog Chiesa Espresso.  I've excerpted two sections from this longer article because I think they say quite a bit of truth about Pope Francis and verified in one case something I thought I just missed.  I didn't remember that Pope Francis had ever said a word about abortion, euthanasia, or gay marriage, and I read his homilies and talks pretty regularly.  Turns out he hasn't, even during the French anti gay marriage protests which got pretty heated.  Magister confirms my thought and gives a very plausible reason for something which can't be an over-site.  The excerpt contains the first two of his five sections and part of a third which makes a really crucial point about how Pope Francis has thus far operated....
 

THE INFALLIBLE PARADIGM

One key element of Francis's popularity is his personal credibility. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he lived in a modest two-room apartment. He cooked for himself. He got around by bus and metro. He fled from worldly engagements as from the plague. He never wanted to make a career for himself, but on the contrary patiently stepped aside when his own Society of Jesus, of which he had been provincial superior in Argentina for several years, brusquely deposed and isolated him.

For this reason as well, every time he invokes poverty for the Church and rails against the ambitions of power and greed for wealth present in the ecclesiastical camp, no voice is raised to criticize him. Who could ever justify the oppression of the destitute, and come to the defense of unmerited careers? Who could ever charge Francis with failing to practice what he preaches? On the lips of the current pope, the paradigm of a poor Church is an infallible one. It garners a practically universal consensus, both among the friends and among the most ardent enemies of the Church, those who would like to see it so impoverished as to disappear altogether.

But then there is another key factor of Francis's popularity. His invectives, for example, against the “invisible tyranny” of the international financial centers does not strike a specific and recognizable objective. And therefore none of the true or presumed “strong powers” feel effectively touched and provoked to react. (I agree with Sandro Magister, leaving these statements on a generalized level makes them interesting but pretty much meaningless.)

Even when his reprimands take aim at misdeeds within the Church, these almost always stick to generalities. Once when pope Bergoglio, in one of his conversational morning homilies, raised an explicit doubt over the future of the IOR, the Institute for Works of Religion, the controversial Vatican “bank,” the spokesmen bent over backward to defuse the situation. And when he denounced the fact that a “gay lobby” at the Vatican “is there, it's true,” the damage control emerged all down the line. Even secular public opinion, more lavish today than ever in hurling accusations of homophobia, forgave him for this statement, with an indulgence that certainly would not have been granted to his predecessor. (I think this is true, but part of that truth is his predecessor came across as a self hating hypocrite.  Pope Francis does not have that aura.)

Benedict XVI, in effect, was different. In spite of his meek appearance, he was often very explicit and direct in expressing his judgments and in getting his listeners on the ropes. The earthquake unleashed by his lecture in Regensburg remains the most spectacular effect of this. But there was another important discourse of his that illustrates the case even better. (Or one could say the Regensburg address came before EPBenedict truly understood the world paid more attention to the words of a pope than the obscure and highly targeted letters of the head of the CDF.)

 WORDS AND SILENCES

Pope Francis's way of speaking is certainly one of his most original traits. It is simple, understandable, communicative. It has the appearance of improvisation, but in reality is carefully studied, as much in the invention of formulas - the "soap bubble" that he used in Lampedusa to represent the egoism of the modern Herods - as in the fundamentals of the Christian faith that he loves most to repeat and are crystallized in a consoling “all is grace,” the grace of God who incessantly forgives although all continue to be sinners.

But in addition to the things that he says are those about which he is deliberately silent. It cannot be an accident that after 120 days of pontificate Pope Francis has not yet spoken the words abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage.

Pope Bergoglio succeeded in dodging them even on the day that he dedicated to “Evangelium Vitae," the tremendous encyclical published by John Paul II in 1995 at the culmination of his epic battle in defense of life “from conception to natural death.”

Karol Wojtyla and Benedict XVI after him exerted themselves incessantly and in person to combat the epochal challenge represented by the modern ideology of birth and death, as also by the dissolution of the creatural duality between male and female. Not Bergoglio. It seems well-established by now that he has decided to remain silent on these issues that touch upon the political sphere of the entire West, including Latin America, convinced that such statements are not the responsibility of the pope but of the bishops of each nation. He told the Italians in unmistakable words: “The dialogue with political institutions is your affair.” (It could also be that Pope Francis is astute enough to know that the clock is not going to reverse on these cultural issues and that fighting them is pointless.)

The risk of this division of labor is high for Francis himself, given the hardly flattering judgment that he has repeatedly demonstrated he has on the average quality of the bishops of the world. But it is a risk that he wants to take. This silence of his is another of the factors that explain the benevolence of secular public opinion in his regard. (I don't see it as much of a risk because no matter how incompetent or competent the global bishops might be, these culture war issues are already lost in the first and second worlds, and the bishops have already lost way too much moral credibility to be meaningful. They are talking to themselves and less than 15% of any given Catholic population.)


 THE CURIA

Also in his favor is the visible intention of reforming the Roman curia, and in particular of acting upon that festering boil which is the IOR. (That's a great description.)

He has entrusted the study of a reform of the curia to an international council of cardinals, all of them appointed by him. Who in turn have called upon trusted experts to advise them. Some have seen this as a first step towards a democratization of the Church, with the passage from a monocratic to an oligarchic authority. But as a perfect Jesuit, Bergoglio wants instead to apply to his exercise of the papacy the model proper to the Society of Jesus, in which the decisions are not made collegially, but only by the superior general, in absolute autonomy, after having listened separately to his assistants and to anyone else he may wish. (This does seem to be how Pope Francis is operating, and sometimes he is not getting enough information, which is going to be a problem going forward.)


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

This is pretty accurate assessment of Pope Francis to this point.  One of his decisions with regards to the IOR has already proven to be problematic precisely because he didn't have enough information. This was his appointment of Msgr Battista Ricca as a sort of personal overseer of the IOR. Ricca managed the Vatican properties Pope Francis is currently residing in, and one he used as a Cardinal.  They became friends.  Turns out Msgr Ricca was surreptitiously removed from an appointment at the Nunciature in Uruguay in 2000 after just over a year because of scandalous personal behavior of the sexual variety.  It was then that Pope Francis appointed his five person commission, and he may have made some mistakes here as well.  That remains to be seen. 

I wrote before that I was excited about Pope Francis' words concerning synodality and collegiality, but I didn't lose sight of the fact he was a Jesuit and that the Black Pope does not necessarily practice real collegiality.  No matter how much information Pope Francis seeks for a given situation, he is not going to put it to a vote.  There is not going to be a board of directors. There will be commissions and kitchen cabinets that advise, but no vote will be taken to determine policy.  At least so far.  It may be that this is the form that  Pope Francis will retain for the governance of the Church, that is the management of the Holy See and the curia.  It could also be he has something else in mind for the teaching authority in which real collegiality and synodality will operate and there will be votes taken like there was at Vatican II.  Pope Francis does hold two hats.  One as a monarchical ruler of a nation state and one as the first bishop amongst bishops.  I take hope in that he calls himself the Bishop of Rome in his pastoral duties and won't be upset if he becomes the Holy Terror in his governing duties.


One other week end treat readers might like is this report from the recently concluded Sacra Liturgia Conference in Rome.  This conference for TLM lovers was arranged long before Papa Francesco was on the scene, but that particular change was noted by the attendees.  This report was written Australian David Timbs and is worth reading. Timbs is a regular contributor to v2catholic.com. Here's a teaser:

"During June 25-28, an international conference was held in Rome. Its dedicated theme was the Sacred Liturgy but it was not just an ordinary gathering to discuss Catholic Liturgy in general. In reality, it was all about the present status and possible future of the Latin Mass of the Roman Rite. The conference took on the appearance of a social construct featuring a hybrid of sombre wake and a symposium of denial, all dressed up in the ornate drapery of self-absorbed clericalism and ecclesiastical archaism."