Of Synods and Shepherds

Well, the two-year Synod on the Family closed yesterday with somewhat mixed results that should give us a hint that Pope Francis, his agenda more or less thwarted by the conservative block of bishops in the Synod, will take matters into his own hands.  I think it also gives a hint that all things being equal—and they never really are—Francis may not step down from the papacy as early as he has previously hinted. 

The final Synod document isn’t bad, it just isn’t good.  To get what he needed to justify taking the Church in some new directions, the document had to be more ambiguous than Francis and the liberal block would have liked.  For example, there could be no explicit mention of giving Holy Communion to those who had been divorced and remarried without a Church annulment.  Even with the vague ambiguities of the final document, some of the more controversial passages barely received the required two-thirds majority needed.  The two-thirds rule, while necessary for a measure of consensus, is a huge part of the problem.  A simple majority of bishops would probably have gone further along with the Holy Father’s desire to create a more open and welcoming Church. 

Francis could let the document stand as it is or he can use it as a basis for a document—perhaps an encyclical—he will write and give the more concrete norms on how the Synod statements should be interpreted.  Francis is probably going to go that route.  He also will probably delegate to the various Episcopal Conferences the task of providing the concrete guidelines for better pastoral care of those Catholics in irregular unions.  In such a case I would not expect the American bishops to be as open to changing pastoral practice as might be the Canadian or German Bishops, or even the English bishops.  The American hierarchy is still infested with John Paul and Benedict appointees who are strong on canon law but short on theology and pastoral experience.  And this is why I think Francis may hold on to the See of Peter for a few more years than the next two or three of which he has spoken.   He has made inroads in changing the College of Cardinal Electors but he still needs at least two more “classes” of his appointees to secure a succession that will continue his direction.  Even more important, he needs to fill key Sees with bishops who understand and are onboard with his agenda.  There are many archbishops and bishops who will, given normal lifespans, outlast Francis.  They days are ticking down for Myers of Newark who recently drew his line in the stand that there will be no change in policy as long as his caboose is parked on his marble throne in the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart, but Myers goes off to the Jacuzzi in his retirement home next summer and his successor is someone who at least cultivates the appearances of being in the Francis style.  Lori of Baltimore has ten more years as does Aquila of Denver and Gomez of Los Angeles.  Chaput of Philadelphia, on the other hand, has only four more years to go—Francis might be able to change that See if he holds on just a little longer than he had been thinking about.  Cordileone—a problematic prelate by any account—has sixteen more years before mandatory retirement.  Francis could move him to a desk job in Rome where he could be neutralized and he certainly would not be missed by the City on the Bay, but he will almost certainly be at Francis’ funeral and, along with his mentor Cardinal Raymond Burke, do a happy dance on Francis’ grave.  I suspect that Francis will have a “come to Jesus” talk with Dolan and DiNardo after the behavior at the Synod—behavior which frankly surprised me.  Most of the more obstinate bishops—Morlino, Slattery, Paprocki, Sheridan, Lennon, Olmstead, Dewane, O’Connell etc.—are non-entities beyond their respective Sees—or even within them—but collectively can do great damage as a sort of Episcopal Tea Party within the Conference.   Restructuring the American hierarchy in the Francis model would be an immense task and hard to do in even a ten-year period. 

I would like to look at two paragraphs from the homily at the Mass with which Pope Francis closed the Synod:

There are, however, some temptations for those who follow Jesus. Today’s Gospel shows at least two of them. None of the disciples stopped, as Jesus did. They continued to walk, going on as if nothing were happening. If Bartimaeus was blind, they were deaf: his problem was not their problem. This can be a danger for us: in the face of constant problems, it is better to move on, instead of letting ourselves be bothered. In this way, just like the disciples, we are with Jesus but we do not think like him. We are in his group, but our hearts are not open. We lose wonder, gratitude and enthusiasm, and risk becoming habitually unmoved by grace. We are able to speak about him and work for him, but we live far from his heart, which is reaching out to those who are wounded. This is the temptation: a “spirituality of illusion”: we can walk through the deserts of humanity without seeing what is really there; instead, we see what we want to see. We are capable of developing views of the world, but we do not accept what the Lord places before our eyes. A faith that does not know how to root itself in the life of people remains arid and, rather than oases, creates other deserts.

There is a second temptation, that of falling into a “scheduled faith”. We are able to walk with the People of God, but we already have our schedule for the journey, where everything is listed: we know where to go and how long it will take; everyone must respect our rhythm and every problem is a bother. We run the risk of becoming the “many” of the Gospel who lose patience and rebuke Bartimaeus. Just a short time before, they scolded the children (cf. 10:13), and now the blind beggar: whoever bothers us or is not of our stature is excluded. Jesus, on the other hand, wants to include, above all those kept on the fringes who are crying out to him. They, like Bartimaeus, have faith, because awareness of the need for salvation is the best way of encountering Jesus.

I think that Pope Francis was giving a less than subtle criticism of those bishops who are resisting a change in pastoral approach, pointing out that they are deaf to the people whom they are ordained to serve.  They live in an isolation in which the concrete pain and alienation of so many has become invisible to them.  They see the rules and laws and regulations but they do not see with compassion the realities of the lives of ordinary people who are struggling to be faithful to Jesus and his Gospel in a very complex world.  There are none so blind as those who will not see; none so deaf as those who will not hear.  To effectively change the Church and put it back on track with its mission to bring people to Christ, we need new leadership.  Let’s pray that Pope Francis will be able to give us bishops who have that Shepherd’s Heart that is on fire for going and searching out those who are lost rather than gathering as much wool as possible from the docile sheep in the pen.  

Of Rainbow Shamrocks and Protestant Parades

Great parade yesterday up Fifth Avenue and past Saint Patrick’s Cathedral.  Cardinal Dolan was the Grand Marshal.  Previous Grand Marshals include Governor Al Smith, (first Catholic to run for President of the United States)1925; Mayor Jimmy Walker (1932); Mayor Robert Wagner (1954); Governor Hugh Carey (1976); Cardinal John J. O’Connor (1996); Maureen O’Hara (1999); and Cardinal Edward Egan (2002).   There was some controversy because for the first time in parade history a LGBT group, Out@NBCUniversal marched under their own banner.   (It would be naïve—at the least—to think this was the first time gays marched in the parade.)   While openly gay participation in the past has been blocked, Grand Marshal Cardinal Dolan made a point of saying that he thought it a wise decision to make the parade more “inclusive” and that he welcomed everyone.  The Krazies, of course, are furious but then anger is their mother’s milk. 

I only watched the first half hour or so of the parade, but one curious factoid I heard implied it (wasn’t actually said) that this parade has always been a Catholic celebration.  The panel of NBC commentators were remarking on the history of the parade which originally was in lower Manhattan.  (In the eighteenth century today’s midtown site of the parade was nothing more than open fields and “truck gardens” that supplied the city with food.)  One of the commentators, admittedly I don’t remember who, remarked that this was because the Old Saint Patrick’s Cathedral was in Greenwich Village.  Two problems.  The Old Saint Pat’s is not in the Village but on Mulberry Street in what would become Little Italy and is now Chinatown.  But the more egregious mistake is that while the parade dates back to 1762, the Cathedral was built only in 1809-1815.  You see, despite the implication—and the common historical misperception—the parade was not originally a Catholic sponsored event.  To the contrary: those who marched in the first parade of 1762 were all Protestants.  And such would have been the case for the first twenty or more years—it was a Protestant event.  In fact it was at least predominately a Protestant event well into the 19^th century.

The first Saint Patrick’s Day parade in New York was comprised of Irish soldiers in the British Army.  Until 1778 Catholics were prohibited from joining the army (and their commissioning as officers was even later).  In fact, while all other churches and religions, even Judaism, were legally tolerated, it was illegal to be a Catholic in New York until the 1777 State Constitution that marked independence from Great Britain. 

The 1737 Boston Saint Patrick’s Day Parade, generally considered the first in the colonies—and thus the oldest American Parade to honor Ireland’s national saint, was also comprised of Irish Protestants who had immigrated to Massachusetts.  Irish nationalism in the 18^th century—and the Saint Patrick Day Parades were celebrations of Irish Identity and Nationalism within the British Empire—was not a Catholic phenomenon but a Protestant one.  The Catholics had been so beaten down by the Penal Laws, and especially so in Ireland after the 1688 victory of William of Orange over the Catholic James II, in the British Empire that they were a political non-entity.  The principal advocates of Irish Nationalism from William Molyneaux to Jonathan Swift to Henry Grattan to Samuel Nielson to Wolfe Tone to Robert Emmet were all Protestants as would later be Charles Stewart Parnell, and literary figures W.B Yeats, Lady Gregory, and Seán O’Casey.  And the artist and indomitable Irish revolutionary, Baroness Markievicz, who advised her female admirers to: “Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank and buy a revolver,” was Protestant until she was in her 50’s when she was received into the Catholic Church. 

 Two of the first four Presidents of Ireland, Douglas Hyde and Erskine Childers were Protestants.  By no means has Irish Nationalism been a exclusively—or even predominately—Catholic phenomenon.

In those pre-Revolutionary (and Protestant) days in America, Saint Patrick’s Day was marked by the Irish in the larger colonial cities such as New York by dinners in the more elegant taverns such as Bolton and Sigel’s, now known as Fraunces Tavern.  For a day such as St. Patrick’s Day they would feast on oysters, lobster, turtle soup, cod, duck, goose, venison, and smoked hams.  Meats would be eaten roasted, or potted, or cooked in pasties—pies and hot-pockets.  Winter vegetables would include turnip, parsnips, carrots, squashes and winter cabbage.   Apples and pears conserved from the previous autumn would be pricey but available and a wide variety of summer fruits would have been put up into jams that might be served as is or used as fillings for pies.  Hard cider was the most common drink, but ales and beers would be common enough as well as rum imported from Jamaica and home-distilled whiskies.  Alcoholic beverages were drunk with no thought of moderation, especially for celebrations like today’s feast.  Desserts would include a variety of pies, sweetmeats (candied fruits), nuts, and boiled puddings such as whitepot, figgy pudding, or plum duff.  There were also such puddings as flummery, syllabub, and blancmange.  Celebrants would sit down to dinner midafternoon and the feast would last into the night or as long as the alcohol held out. 

It was only in the 1820’s that Catholic Irish began to migrate to New York in significant numbers and the floodgates opened with the Great Famine after 1846.  The second half of the nineteenth century and the first three decades of the twentieth were the high-water mark of Catholic Irish immigration.  The “established Irish,” Protestant and Catholic, did not particularly welcome the immigrants who were of much lower social and educational status.  The Catholics were embarrassed by their immigrant co-religionists and the Protestants disowned them completely thinking them to be superstitious savages. But the immigrants were quick to organize themselves in an effort to better themselves by mutual help.  Among their first acts was to organize a separate Saint Patrick’s Day Parade which they had done by 1858.  Immigrant Irish participation in the Northern cause of the American Civil War not only united the Irish among themselves but gave them a certain political clout in New York and other Northern cities.  By the end of the Civil War the New York Parade was firmly under the control of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an immigrant association formed to fight the prejudices against (Irish) immigrants that had been strong in the decade immediately before the Civil War. From that time on the New York Saint Patrick’s Day Parade has been firmly in the hands of Irish Catholics, yet it has always been a civic parade and not a religious procession.  Never in its history has it been a religious procession and while there was an active policy of excluding groups identified with the LGBT movement these forty years and more since the gay liberation movement has appeared, the exclusion of LGBT marchers or groups certainly can’t be argued on religious grounds.  

Synod on the Family: The Battle Lines Are Forming

So we are going to change our rules on divorce and remarriage.  This seems to be the foregone conclusion of many on both the right and the left about the upcoming Special Synod of Bishops on the Family scheduled for Rome from October 5-19^th and as a rising tide lifts all boats, the rumors about the synod has raised both the hopes of the left and the fears of the right.  Actually, the synod rumors are like the astonishing tides in the Bay of Fundy as the hopes and the fears of each party have rarely before been raised to this height. 

The Isaiah of the Left has been Cardinal Walter Kasper, former President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.  Kasper’s theological insights have long been admired by Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, and Francis asked the German Cardinal to give the keynote address to a meeting of the Cardinals last February.  The meeting was part of the preparation for the upcoming Synod and Kasper, never one to avoid an issue, jumped right in and proposed theological justifications for admitting those who have been divorced and remarried to receiving Holy Communion.  Present Church discipline does not permit the divorced and remarried to receive the sacraments without first obtaining an annulment from the Church of their previous marriage(s).  Kasper did not propose a carte blanche for all divorced and remarried but he did outline certain circumstances in which a pastoral decision might be made in which the Church could accept the couple back into full communion without giving its blessing to the second marriage.  Basically the Cardinal is proposing nothing different from what has long been called the “internal forum” process in which the priest confessor or advisor of a couple who have found it, for one reason or another, impossible to obtain an annulment but whose first marriage(s) were seriously flawed to the point where an annulment should have been granted, assures the couple that they can in good faith return to the sacraments.  An example would be a Catholic whose second marriage is to a Protestant who is unwilling to go through the Catholic annulment process for a previous marriage and there is nothing that the Catholic party can reasonably do to convince their Protestant spouse to regularize the marriage.  Another example might be that of a Catholic who has tried to have his or her marriage annulled but was unsuccessful because a witness, for reasons of spite, lied to the Tribunal hearing the case.  Such internal forum solutions have long been practiced though somewhat unevenly as much depends on the openness of the priest who is the confessor or spiritual advisor.  Priests are extremely reluctant to discuss particular cases—sometimes because it involves material learned in the Sacrament of Reconciliation—and the Cardinal’s proposals would not so much change the rules as bring out into the open a practice which has long lurked in the shadows of the confessional.  Nevertheless, the Cardinal’s proposals have triggered a strong reaction even among his fellow Cardinals.

Partly in reaction to Kasper’s proposals and partly to prepare for the Synod, several prelates—including six Cardinals—contributed to a book, Remaining in the Truth of Christ that argues for the indissolubility of Christian marriage.  Those who see this book—and many do—as a reaction to Kasper’s position have set up a bit of a straw man as it is highly simplistic, even disingenuous, to say that Cardinal Kasper has attacked the indissolubility of marriage.  The Cardinal has only said that we need to bring out into the open the pastoral practice that has long been practiced behind the closed and sealed door of the confessional and that furthermore, we need to follow our own theology on the healing and forgiving power of the Eucharist and give those whose lives have been broken by a failed marriage access to the graces of that healing and forgiving power. 

Well, it would appear to be one Cardinal against six but in fact it is no secret that Cardinal Kasper is only the spokesperson for Pope Francis who cannot himself declare on the subject without prejudicing the Synod.  While he has not spoken on the matter, Pope Francis has sent every signal that he not only approves of the Cardinal’s position but that he actively endorses it.  This, in turn, has triggered a reaction of panic on the part of the Katholic Krazies who see any change in Church discipline as yet a further step away from the beloved mix of myth and tradition that they consider authentic Catholicism.   The krazies have lit up the blogosphere like Bastille Night on the Champs Elysees. 

Among the participants in the synod are Cardinals Muller, Burke, Caffarra, and Pell—all contributors to Remaining in the Truth of Christ.  Pope Francis has appointed liberal Cardinals Kasper and Daneels to the Synod—but Cardinal Caffarra, one of the contributors to the book, is also there as a papal appointee.  Other prelates who are most likely sympathetic to the Kasper position are Cardinals Schönburn of Vienna, Dolan of New York, Marx of Munich, Nichols of Westminster, Koch of the Curia, and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, also of the Roman Curia.  The answer to the question, however, will not lie with either the Kasper group or the Burke group but with the much larger assembly of bishops from around the world and from whom we have yet to hear.  To a certain extent, actually to a great extent, the final decision will be an affirmation of or disaffirmation of the papacy of Pope Francis as everyone is aware of where the Pope wants to go with this and how it fits into the overall theme of his papacy which stresses mercy and reconciliation of those alienated from the Church. 

Meanwhile the Krazies are beside themselves.  I noticed Lifesite News (http://www.lifesitenews.com) is appealing for its readers to send in money so that they can go to Rome and lobby the Synod against any change.  Lifesite News is the internet face of Campaign Life Coalition, sometimes just called Campaign Life, a Canadian division on the conservative side in the culture wars.  While they espouse a pro-Life agenda, a careful examination of their publicity materials shows them to be a movement somewhat of the same nature and goals as the Tea Party in the United States.  In addition to the pro-Life issues of abortion and euthanasia they have taken very active stands against Same Sex Marriage, LGBT rights, sex-education, adoption by same sex couples, gender and orientation inclusivity, ALS research, and the Gay-Straight Alliance.  In addition to being opposed to human cloning and stem-cell research, they take a particularly narrow and unnuanced approach to questions of bio-ethics and consider bullying in schools and among teens and pre-teens to be “a myth,” particularly when it is related to sexual orientation. They also insist that Climate Change is a myth—something that one would think a Canadian might be less quick to deny.  While they are a Canadian organization—and one without any official Church recognition—the Campaign Life Coalition and its website Lifesite News, have spilled across the northern border and joined the American krazies in taking on Catholic Relief Services and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for not buying into their limited understanding of the Church and its mission.  They are currently appealing to their faithful for the funds to sponsor their junket to Rome to lobby the Synod. 

They are only one of several groups who are planning on demonstrating in Saint Peter’s Square against any relaxation of Church discipline in an effort to find pastoral solutions to the complexity of questions rising from contemporary issues of family life.  What will happen if the Synod should address and attempt to remedy the pastoral concerns faced by families today—divorce and remarriage, same-sex adoptions, bullying of children, contraception and family planning, in vitro conception, gay children, transgendered persons, or who knows what else?  And of course families are faced with a host of other issues as well that need to be addressed and which have political and cultural undertones—unemployment, immigration, abandonment, run-aways, health care and more.  There is no way that the Synod can tackle the issue of the Family and not be caught in the culture wars. 

My suspicion is that the end result of the Synod will be a somewhat ambiguous document that can be interpreted a number of ways, allowing a bit of wiggle room for confessors and spiritual directors to help people re-integrate themselves into the full life of the Church but without actually changing the official line.  In this sense it will be a disappointment to many who have what I think are unrealistic hopes for drastic public change.  If there is no change, I think business will go on as usual with progressive clergy helping people find sensitive and pastoral solutions to the dilemmas of modern life that face them and more conservative clergy wringing their hands as they explain that there is nothing they can do.  On the other hand, if there is a significant change of direction in the Church, and anything is possible when the bishops come together, I think we will see a revolving door as a significant number of Catholics who have been alienated from the Church decide that it is “safe to go in the water again,” but an equally significant number of neo-traditionalists go over to the various Latin Mass schismatic groups and the sedevacantists, claiming that Pope Francis and the Synod have abandoned the historic faith.  It is interesting to see how those who used to dine in the Magisterium’s Restaurant are now filling the cafeteria and those formerly relegated to the cafeteria are now enjoying the haute cuisne of Francis’ papacy.  As Saint Luke records the Blessed Mother saying: The mighty shall be cast down and the lowly raised up.  

The Cardinal and the Corpse

Archbishop Fulton Sheen

Several readers pointed out that I recently (September 6^th) reposted the content of an earlier entry (August 25^th) on the History of the Anglican Church during Elizabeth’s reign and her struggle with the Puritan faction.  I am sorry—I had lost track of where I was in the saga and will continue in my next posting to pick up where I had left off.  But today I want to address the latest tempest in our Catholic Pot of Tea—the tale of the Cardinal and the corpse. 

It seems that the cause for beatification of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, the famous media evangelist of the 1950’s and early ‘60’s, has come to a halt because Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, will not allow the remains of the Archbishop to be exhumed from Saint Patrick’s Cathedral where they rest in the crypt of the Archbishops of New York and be sent to the Diocese of Peoria, Sheen’s hometown, which is overseeing the process of having Sheen declared a saint.

Normally—and the operative word is normally, there are exceptions—in the process of beatification and canonization, the remains of the candidate are identified and relics are collected from the remains.  There are exceptions.  Saints like Edith Stein and Maximilian Kolbe who died in the Nazi Concentration Camps were cremated and no remains were available.  Blessed John Henry Newman’s body had totally decomposed leaving not even fragments of bone due to the type of soil with which the grave had been filled.  Various other saints, especially from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had been—as was the custom of the day—buried in lye which left no remains.  Many saints from the Middle Ages or early modern period had had their bones deposited in charnel houses where they could not be distinguished from the hundreds of others whose remains had also been put there.  There is no hard and fast rule about needing to examine the remains or to collect the relics.

The Archdiocese of New York has said that they are not willing to have the remains removed to Peoria because it was the wish of the Archbishop, and it continues to be the wish of his surviving family, that he be buried in New York.  Bishop Sheen, like the late Joan Rivers, was Showbiz personified in death as well as in life.  Peoria, on the other hand, would like to have the remains which they had planned to inter in Peoria Cathedral where Sheen was ordained a priest in 1919.  The Peoria Chamber of Commerce would also like the remains to be placed in the Cathedral as it would not only draw the devout to their lovely but oft-neglected city, but also be a magnet for fans of the preternatural because, believe me, the Bishop’s Ghost would haunt the site until his remains were returned to the Archbishops’ Crypt in New York. 

The late Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, dean of the American Catholic historians, in his gossipy Catholic Bishops: a Memoir, relates how Sheen broke down in sobs the morning he read in the papers that Francis Spellman had been named Archbishop of New York.  It had been Sheen’s ambition that he would one day succeed to that See.  Denied the honor in life, he was consoled by the promise of Cardinal Terrence Cooke that he could be buried in the crypt reserved for the New York Archbishops beneath the altar of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral. 

Cardinal Dolan is being blamed by the Katholic Krazies for sabotaging the cause for Archbishop Sheen’s beatification.  It is just another indication of how evil this prelate is—talking to President Obama, letting homosexuals march in the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade: is there no end to this man’s dastardly conduct?  In fact, the story seems to be a bit more complicated. 

The New York Archdiocese has said that while short of instructions from Rome it would not release the remains of the Archbishop Sheen to Peoria, but that it would not hinder the process of beatification.  When the Roman Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, the dicastery responsible for the process of beatification and canonization, has informed the Archdiocese that the proper time had come to take the step, the remains could be identified in New York and relics collected from them before the body was returned to the crypt in Saint Patrick’s.  This offer did not satisfy Bishop Jenky of Peoria who suspended the process indefinitely.  There were assurances that the suspension had nothing to do with any new disclosures that undermined Bishop’s Sheen’s character or orthodoxy.

I suspect to the contrary.  Unless Bishop Jenky is just so determined to have the remains in Peoria that he will not move forward without possessing them, there is something here that is not quite right.  The examination of the remains could take place in New York.  The Archbishop should certainly be allowed to have his remains rest in the place of his choice.  It sounds like there is some problem that could stop the cause and this squabble over the remains is a diversion to explain what might otherwise be more embarrassing.  Whatever the issue is, however, it does not detract from the incomparable work that the late Fulton Sheen did in brining the faith—and not only the Catholic Faith, but religious faith in general—to millions of people in his day.  If the popular cult for the Archbishop continues to grow, the beatification will happen whether his remains remain in New York or he sent home to the city from which as a seminarian he could not wait to escape.