Punditry

One of the narratives I keep hearing repeated regarding Pope Francis’ papacy is the reform of the Curia. This keeps getting repeated like this is the highest priority and of the upmost importance.

Now of course I realize the Curia needs reform. We all are in need of reform daily and this can be said of any bureaucracy. The Curia has no dispensation from original sin and is filled with all forms of human stupidity. The Curia has generated many unforced errors especially in regard to communication with the media and lacking simple due diligence in research (sometimes even a simple Google search could have saved heartburn).

So surely the Curia needs reform and possibly even an outsider to the Curia might be able to further advance such reform. I am not sure if that statement is true or not in this case, but an outsider can be more immune to “This is the way we have always done it.”

Regardless, what if the Curia was perfectly reformed and actually became a well functioning bureaucracy (if that is not a contradiction in term)? What would it really give us? Sure it would be nice to prevent unnecessary headlines and actually have a more unitive message among the Secretary of State and various congregations and tribunals.

Still when I look at the problems the Catholic Church faces, the Roman Curia is not at the top of the list of what needs to be addressed. The problems of secularism and the fact that many believers act in their daily lives as if God did not exist is of much more concern. There has never been a perfect time in Church history when all the believers actually acted as if their faith was true. Maybe it was always a mistake to divide territories and to describe some as mission territories. Evangelization never ends with the conversion. This is the point Catholic soteriology makes in that salvation is a process. Conversion that is not continuous is no conversion at all.

This emphasis can come under the heading of the New Evangelization which can be simply described by:

“It is an old story that, while we may need somebody like Dominic to convert the heathen to Christianity, we are in even greater need of somebody like Francis, to convert the Christians to Christianity.” –G.K. Chesterton “The Dumb Ox”

Maybe one of the reasons for so much focus on the Pope and the Curia is that in many ways we have become dependent on structures. Instead of going out and evangelizing ourselves we hope for a higher organization to fix those problems for us. Just as in politics increased Federalization to solve problems is akin to this attitude. If only we had such and such dicastery with such and such prefect in charge of it everything would be better. We want a charismatic Pope to evangelize for us, so we don’t have to do it ourselves.

Now as a great believer in both/and I don’t mean to throw things into opposition. It is not a case of either the Pope doing something or ourselves. It is also not the case of whether we evangelize or instead reform some aspects of the Curia. Really I am quite thankful for the great catechists and evangelizers I have been lucky to have as popes during my lifetime (even when I didn’t appreciate it). I am just ranting at the idea of an idealized Curia and the transferring of what are also our personal responsibilities to others. Most of all I have to rant at myself for falling into this same trap.

Media coverage of the Catholic Church can drive can drive faithful Catholics batty. Conclave coverage from the media kicks up the typical stupidity up a notch to 11 (using the Spinal Tap measurement scale.)

Yet really why should their coverage annoy us so? The media, for the most part, is highly secular and filled with people with little connection to any faith. Should we really expect them to have other than an highly secular understanding of the Church? For them the Church is just another human institution and so suggesting what direction the Church should go in and what doctrines should be up for grabs is totally consistent from their viewpoint. Of course their advice is to make the Church more like them and what they believe.

That the Catholic Church was founded by Christ has no impact since the secular messiah is government. As far as they think about Jesus it is certainly not as the Messiah and the Son of God, at most a kind of nice social worker who got divinized by his later followers. This type of understanding of Jesus and his Church of course leads to exactly the type of ignorant coverage we get.

You might wonder at the arrogance of them saying what is best for the Catholic Church, but from their viewpoint it is not really arrogance. For example I might make suggestions for the Democratic Party even though I am no longer one of their members or one who believes in their prudential applications of politics. It would not make me arrogant to do so since this is a human institution and thus one anybody could make suggestions for. The fact that my suggestions would be strikingly different than the current leadership of the Democratic Party would not necessarily make them wrong. The media and others just see the Church in this light.

Still much of what they say is also intellectually dishonest even within this viewpoint. For them to go on and on about women’s ordination is rather silly since they don’t believe in the priesthood in the first place. The Church is just a kind of social club for them and so within that framework it makes sense for them to demand equality for just another job position. Theological arguments can be disregarded because there are no theological arguments.

We also should not be surprised for a similar attitude among even those of the Christian faith. The rending of Christendom has worked towards moving Christian beliefs to a smaller and smaller subset. If what was believed in the past can be dropped and the opposite embraced, then why is that also not true for the Catholic Church? They see the consistency of Catholic beliefs not as the protection of the Holy Spirit, but as a historical oddity and pure pigheadedness to not roll with the times. Protestantism has always had these tensions in it to both reject what came before and to at the same time a desire to return to the practice of an imagined early church. Christianity becomes a constantly moving target always redefining itself. The scandal of the fracturing of the Church into thousands of different bodies makes it harder to discern the truth and to believe there is one true Church. The dictatorship of relativsim is not only embraced by the secularists.

So really we should expect such unhelpful advice from these areas. Father forgive them for them do not know what they are talking about. That we get this same type of “advice” from within the Church is annoying and also to be expected. The nature of the Church is lost on the critics and those inside the Church whose vision of the Church can not be differentiated from the secularists.

The fact is during the coming weeks everybody with some agenda is going to have some advice for the Church. This is true even for faithful Catholics. We all have our hobby horses of what we want to have addressed. Some of these ideas might actually intersect with the mission of the Church to go out into the whole world and spread the good news.

In related news Elizabeth Lev writing for Zenit has some great suggestions for reporting that will be ignored.

From The Ten Commandments of Reporting on the Vatican:

1) Thou shalt leave your personal prejudices at the door. I have often seen Al Qaeda treated with more respect than Pope Benedict and the Roman Catholic Church. While you may disagree with the Church’s teaching on any number of things, there is no excuse to let your personal agenda define your coverage. In reporting on other world events, it is unthinkable to insert one’s personal ideas, so why is it acceptable when reporting on the Church? If all you can focus on is birth control, gay marriage and abortion and how the papacy should change its teaching, you should probably just go home. Whether you agree or disagree isn’t really the question. Your job is to understand and to report, to give background and help viewers and readers to get a sense of the bigger picture. Pope Benedict XVI has led the 1.2 billion members of the Catholic Church for 8 years, drawn crowds of millions in gatherings worldwide and brought a message of hope and love to the farthest reaches of the earth. The Pope’s CV is impressive to say the least, and he deserves respect.

Photo credit: Ms. Tina via photopin cc

The Santa Rosa Catholic Diocese is requiring its 200 schoolteachers to sign an agreement affirming that “modern errors” such as contraception, abortion, homosexual marriage and euthanasia are “matters that gravely offend human dignity.”

That means means abiding by the Ten Commandments, going to church every Sunday and heeding God’s words in thought, deed and intentions, according to a private church document that is an “addendum” to language in the current teachers’ contract.

The move is an effort by Bishop Robert Vasa to delineate specifically what it means for a Catholic-school teacher — whether Catholic or not — to be a “model of Catholic living” and to adhere to Catholic teaching.

When Bishop Vasa some years ago became the Bishop of the Diocese of Baker he did the same thing. No doubt there will be some similar results.

From an unidentified teacher who fears repercussions (according to the article):

“Personally, it’s probably something that I can’t sign,” said a teacher at Cardinal Newman High School in Santa Rosa.

Such a loss to Catholic education if this teacher does leave. Well not really. Although I have these funny ideas about actually teaching the fullness of the faith. Still exactly why does this teacher fear repercussions?

• If the teacher objects to the document and refuses to sign it than being anonymous doesn’t matter.
• It only matters to remain anonymous if you plan to lie and agree to it while actually rejecting parts of the oath. The teacher wants to keep their option open and is actually considering lying.

Bishop Vasa is also the only bishop that ever responded back to me in an email. I rarely write bishops, but I did email my thanks to him for his actions in the Diocese of Baker. Looks like it’s time to send another email of thanks.

source via Scott W

What about you? Do you feel the same way too?

• Are you infinitely thankful to God for having given us such a wonderful, wise and benevolent pope in Benedict XVI.?
• Do you sincerely hope that the Church will be granted a worthy successor: a rock of faith, a leader open to the Holy Spirit, a pope prayerful and holy?
• Do you as an important part of the Body of Christ wish to contribute through the power of your prayers so that the Holy Spirit may guide, protect and enlighten our Cardinals when they determine the next successor of St. Peter?

You now have the opportunity to actively be part of this providential endeavour by having a Cardinal assigned to you, who you will support through your prayer and intercession during the coming weeks before and during the conclave and for three days following the election

This is from the site http://www.adoptacardinal.org

I think this is a rather cool idea, but one aspect of it raises a quibble or two on my part.

Pray for a short moment so the Holy Spirit may choose the right Cardinal for you, and then click the button below.

While this is theologically possible, it seems to me that the odds that the Holy Spirit is going to affect whatever randomization algorithm the site uses is rather small. What in fact we will have is pseudorandom number generator based on a seed state used against an array of Cardinal names.

Although the Apostles had a simpler randomization method when they threw lots and selected Matthias. I guess both methods are based on Matth.

Edinburgh, Scotland, Feb 25, 2013 / 05:55 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Benedict XVI has accepted Cardinal Keith P. O’Brien’s resignation, and the cardinal has announced he will not attend the conclave.

“Approaching the age of seventy-five and at times in indifferent health, I tendered my resignation as Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh to Pope Benedict XVI some months ago. I was happy to know that he accepted my resignation ‘nunc pro tunc’ – (now – but to take effect later) on 13 November 2012,” Cardinal O’Brien said in a Feb. 25 statement.

The Pope decided on Feb. 18 that he would accept his resignation effective Feb. 25.

The cardinal recently became the focus of allegations by three priests and a former clergyman who say they received inappropriate sexual advances from him during the 1980s.

The leader of the Saint Andrews and Edinburgh Archdiocese also announced that he will not be attending the conclave to elect the next Pope.

“I also ask God’s blessing on my brother Cardinals who will soon gather in Rome to elect his successor. I will not join them for this Conclave in person,” he said.

“I do not wish media attention in Rome to be focused on me – but rather on Pope Benedict XVI and on his Successor,” the Scottish cardinal added.

Pope Benedict will appoint an apostolic administrator to oversee the archdiocese until the next Pope chooses his replacement. (source)

Wow that was a compressed chain of events:

• 22 Feb – Cardinal O’Brien said he believes priests should be able to marry if they wish to do so.
• 24 Feb – Three priests and a former priest accuse Cardinal O’Brien of “inappropriate acts.”
• 25 Feb – Pope accepts Cardinal’s resignation earlier than scheduled.

This has been a test of my own charity in regard to connection of these events. Whenever somebody in the Church starts advocating for a change in discipline in regards to priestly celibacy I am usually suspicious of their motives. When charges against him rapidly came out I easily jumped to the “yeah I knew it” instead of being as skeptical against such charges as I usually am.

Regardless his decision to not attend the Conclave certainly deserves some respect. If only Cardinal Roger Mahony had the same concern for the Church.

Recently Cardinal Levada said:

“There are some victims groups for whom enough is never enough, so we have to do our jobs as best we see it,” said Levada, 76, who spoke with reporters from a Menlo Park seminary as he prepared for his trip to the Vatican for the papal conclave.

“He has apologized for errors in judgment that were made,” Levada said. “I believe he should be at the conclave.”

There is always some sensitivity whenever a Cardinal is pressured to not attend a conclave. What Cardinal Levada said about victims groups can certainly be true at times. What this dismisses is that actions have consequences that are not damped just by saying sorry. Extremely serious errors don’t go away by saying you had lapses in your judgment. You can’t just skip the “ashes and sackcloth” phase and go right to demanding that you “accept my apology.” Especially when the Cardinal has reacted like he was a martyr who is humbly enduring bad treatment. I might be totally wrong, but I get the feeling that Cardinal Mahony’s criteria is “not for the good of the Church”, but for the “good of Cardinal Mahony.”

You just might be a heretic if you get intense questioning from Stephen Colbert and then America Magazine writes:

Now it should be obvious to even the most casual Roman Catholic that Mr. Wills’s views are definitely heterodox and probably heretical.

Saying “probably heretical” is a bit of an understatement as the things Gary Wills speaks and writes on are often heretical. As Tom Piatak for Crisis Magazine notes:

By my count, Wills took positions anathematized by 14 different Canons of the Council of Trent in this brief interview

You just might be a heretic when Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter writes Garry Wills Please Go Away.

The longer you listen to Wills the higher the heresy counter rises. As a Catholic when Wills gets done with his caveats there isn’t very much left of the faith. Although there is a consistency to his madness as he started by attacking the pope, and then the Eucharist , the priesthood, and even books in the biblical canon fell with it. Don’t like the history of the Church’s teaching then invent a Great Apostasy to suit your needs. After all this method was good enough for Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses.

Remember the kerfluffel over the late William Buckley for having supposedly written “Mater si, Magistra no”? It was actually a quip of Gary Wills that Buckley had referenced. Nothing has changed in the decades since he had first made that quip  other than the expected result that underlines it .

References: The Strange World of Garry Wills

Aliens in This World often has interesting historical tidbits regarding the Church. Case in point:

From a thing that showed up in the very late Middle Ages, called the “Letter of Lentulus,” which was presented as being a report from a Roman official (with a known historical name) to Tiberius, about the appearance and habits of Jesus. The letter was taken as eyewitness testimony by many, and the letter in some versions described Jesus’ hair and beard as “fair” and his face as “the color of wheat.” (Although other versions described His hair and beard as “the color of a ripe hazelnut”, ie, those things on the Nutella jar that are light brown and not at all fair. They also described His complexion as “reddish,” which had the symbolic meaning of someone optimistic, energetic — and honest enough to be able to blush.) So it wasn’t racism, so much as popular scholarship and Biblical fanfic (aka “pseudoepigrapha”), that led to blonde Jesuses.

The appearance of blonde or white-haired Jesuses in previous Christian art had always represented the Jesus of the Book of Revelation, Apocalyptic Jesus, Whose hair represents Him as ancient and eternal, or transfigured in light, and Who is dressed for His office as the eternal High Priest. Also, scary and impressive. Either way, His Divinity becoming as visible as His Humanity, rather than how He looked in His life normally on earth.

Most Western art follows the tradition of a bearded, dark Jesus because that’s how the Mandylion of Edessa looked. Ditto the Shroud of Turin and the byssus veil thing. Pictures and relics should generally outweigh literary descriptions; but the Lentulus letter was popular in Germany, a fur piece over the mountains from the Shroud and the byssus veil.

Now I know who to blame. I really dislike blonde Jesus’ that seem to be so prevalent. Give me a Jewish looking Jesus any day. Now I don’t mind inculturation where religious images are adapted. If Mary can appear as Our Lady of Guadalupe, who am I to complain. So maybe blonde Jesus’ would not annoy me as much if I was to visit Scandinavia. Next on the list that annoys me about Crucifixes are sanitized Jesus’ that look like they must have carried around a bottle of Purell® before being Crucified. With this style Crucifix no wonder they asked Jesus to come off the cross since obviously he was totally uninjured. I tend more to Spanish realism regarding Crucifixes, but would be fine with ones that at least pointed to the suffering Jesus underwent. At the top of my list for anathemas of this type are blonde risen Christ’s that appear to be prancing around such as one parish I sometimes attend has.

Yet somehow I have managed to own a Crucifix that I really like except for the blonde hair. I have been tempted more than once to take a black marker to the hair.