Will the Francis Revolution Last?

A reader wrote in in regard to the previous posting:

Do you have an idea of what percent of the cardinals and bishops support Francis?

Not everyone 

gets the style.

The simple answer is “No,” but this calls for a response that is far more complicated than can appear in a reply posting.  This is a classic example of trying to read the data and write the history as it is unfolding.  As for those who support or don’t support the direction Pope Francis is moving in, it is somewhat easier to get a read on the Cardinals than on the bishops as the Cardinals are fewer in number and far less able to conceal their opinions but even in the case of the Cardinals, there is a “silent majority” that is very difficult to second guess to what extent they support Pope Francis’ agenda for reform. 

Let’s look first as what a Conclave might look should Francis’ papacy come to an end in the next six months. (God Forbid, I might add.)  There are 120 Cardinals eligible to vote in the next conclave.  As of the most recent consistory with its newest class of Cardinals we have 30 potential electors who were appointed by Pope John Paul II.  We have 59 electors appointed by Pope Benedict XVI.  And we have 31 electors who were appointed by Pope Francis.  We can surmise that the Cardinals, to some extent, reflect the thought of the Pope who appointed them.  But again we have to be careful.  One of Francis’ strongest critics regarding his desire to find a “pastoral solution” to the problem of the divorced and remarried receiving the sacraments is Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith.  But Müller is a Francis appointee.  Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, on the other hand, is perhaps Francis’ most trusted right-hand man and is a John Paul appointee. 

What the numbers, arranged by the Pope who appointed the Cardinals, show is just how fast the complexion of the College can change.  With only two “classes” of his nominees, Francis already has appointed more members of the College than John Paul.  Probably with two more classes, three at the most, his nominees will have a simple majority in the College.  This will presumably make a return to the pre-Francis days far more difficult. 

But all is not smooth sailing.  Last year before the Synod, five Cardinals wrote a book, Remaining In The Truth of Christ, in order to stall Francis’ agenda.   This year eleven Cardinals teamed to write: Eleven Cardinals Speak on Marriage and the Family: Essays From A Pastoral Viewpoint.  One of the authors of the second book, Cardinal Basileos Cleemis of India, is only 56 years old.  He will be voting in conclaves for 24 more years.  Another, Cardinal William Jacobus Eijk, has 18 more years.  This means that they will probably play a role not only in choosing Francis’s successor, but his successor’s successor—and perhaps even a third and fourth successor.  Cleemis is a Benedict appointee as is Eijk. 

There is no doubt that whatever opinions you hold the next Conclave is going to be a “Battle for the Soul of the Church.”  The most articulate of Francis’ supporters, Walter Kasper, is too old to vote or even to be in the Conclave.  The Francis faction will probably be led by Cardinals Maradiaga, Marx, Tagle and Schönborn.  The anti Francis, or perhaps better the “reverse direction” party will be led by Raymond Burke (who can participate in conclaves until 2028), aided by Malcolm Ranjith of Sri Lanka.  There are a number of Cardinals, including Müller, who are opposed to Francis’ agenda on finding ways to allow people in irregular unions a deeper participation in the Church’s sacramental life, but who are on board with the wider Francis’ agenda.  While the “reverse direction” faction may have only a few spokespersons within the Sacred College, I suspect that there is enough of a “silent majority” to have an impact on the election and the direction of the Church.  While I doubt there will be an attempt to go back to the Church Triumphant model of the last papacy, I think there are enough doctrinal hard-liners in the Sacred College to want very clear guidelines on the limits of pastoral outreach to the LGBT community and to the divorced and remarried.  I think there will be stronger support for tighter liturgical discipline or at least for those who want the optional use of the pre-conciliar rites.   Francis has thrown a few bones to the liturgical conservatives but he is clearly not interested in any return to the pre-Conciliar rites.  Nor do I think is he interested in advancing further reforms in the Liturgy despite his own pastoral style.  I suspect his successor will be a man who in naming bishops divides the power a bit more evenly than Francis has.  On the other hand, each Pope of recent years has “stacked” the College to some extent with men who think like himself. 

This brings us from the Cardinals down to the bishops.  Francis is clearly appointing men who comprehend his agenda of a more simple Church.  The Chicago appointment (Archbishop Cupich) is particularly telling.  It will be even more telling the next time red hats get passed around to see among the Americans who gets one and who doesn’t.  Many of the American bishops have expressed—usually off the record except for Bishop Tobin of Providence—a dismay at the change in style and tone set by Francis.  The American hierarchy are particularly conservative, however.  On the other hand, American Cardinal-Archbishops Dolan, O’Malley, Wuerl, DiNardo are pretty much following Francis’ lead.  O’Malley is particularly interesting as he is one of Francis’ most trusted advisor—and rightly so, a man of exceptional talent—yet he pretty much stands above the fray whereas Dolan is an Irish street-fighter and gets down and gets dirty.  Wuerl too doesn’t mind skating out onto thin ice in following Francis’ lead.  We need to see more new bishops to get a good read on Francis and what he is doing with the American hierarchy.  I will be surprised to see Lori of Baltimore get his coveted red hat in this papacy but Chaput—despite his rigid conservativism—might as a reward for the upcoming World Meeting of Families.  It will be interesting and, if he doesn’t get the hat, very telling.  There are some key dioceses that need to be filled and it will also tell us a lot whom Francis chooses.  I am particularly interested in Arlington Virginia whose bishop turns 75 this month and whose diocese has long proved to be somewhat unmanageable with obdurate clergy who live in a time warp, convinced that it is 1955. 

I have painted this with a pretty broad brush—there is a lot one could write or say on it and a lot of subtlety I have glided over.  Let’s say in summary that Francis is building a College of Cardinals that wear his colors; but it takes longer to get that same impact on the world’s bishops.  Let’s hope the man has the time to do it.  

Pope Francis, Pope John Paul II, the Krazies, and the Synod

Cardinal Donald Wuerl

As mentioned in my most recent posting, the mid-term relatio has caused quite a stir, especially among the neo-trads who can’t see how the Church could ever move away from their pre-conceived ideas about marriage and family life.  On the Synod floor, several prelates such as the resolute Cardinal Burke, the somewhat less steadfast Cardinal Pell,  the less known South African Cardinal Napier, and Archbishop Stanislaw Gądecki who heads the Polish Bishops’ Conference have raised serious challenges to the relatio.  On the other hand, the American Cardinal Wuerl, German Cardinal Reinhardt Marx, Austrian Cardinal Christoph Shönoborn, and Italian Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri have lined up solidly behind Cardinal Kasper and Archbishop Forte in pushing for the agenda advanced in the relatio.  Meanwhile, out in Saint Peter’s Square and in the world beyond—especially in the blogosphere—each side is claiming the tide is turning in their favor.  Who knows?  In a certain way, the relatio is bound to be the high-water mark of the Synod—or at least of this Synod which is only phase I of a two-Synod process.  The final document of this Synod is bound to reflect to some degree the objections of the Burke/Pell faction to the proposed relatio.  The extent to which the conservative reaction will alter the final product is yet to be seen. 
And, as I pointed out several entries back, it gives Pope Francis and his frontmen, Cardinal Kasper and others, a year to answer the objections of the conservative wing as well as to shuffle the deck to a certain degree.  I say “to a certain degree” because the Holy Father does not get to appoint the heads of the various bishops’ conferences who come as delegates, though he may appoint others of his choice to be voting members of the Synod and he appoints the officers of the Synod as well.  And too, in the end the Synod is advisory to the Holy Father and not deliberative.  The final recommendations of the 2015 Synod will probably mark out how far Francis will go in pushing for change in the Church, but it won’t deter him from going to those limits.  It will be very interesting to watch the Holy Father’s homilies and especially his Sunday Angelus messages to see how he tries over the course of the year to shape the direction.  Of course, he has already lost the confidence of the Katholic Krazies who will watch every move and yell bloody murder whenever they hear him say something that tries to push his progressive agenda.  It is just so much fun to see the buskin on the other foot.  But let’s go back to the proposed relatio and in particular to continue on the current subject of argument, paragraphs 50-52 on “welcoming homosexual Catholics.”  Paragraph 52 reads:

Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to [...] children who live with same-sex couples and stresses that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.         

Several of the Krazy bloggers have gone after Cardinal Shönborn for his defense of the love that exists between partners in same-sex relationships, questioning how this love could be “holy” when it is so gravely sinful.  The Cardinal had related that he has friends who live in a registered same-sex partnership in Vienna where he, Shönbron, is Archbishop.  As one of the partners became ill, the Cardinal said the other “has not left is side,” Shöbron went on to say “It was wonderful, human, and Christian, as the one took care of the other.”  Why is the Cardinal so surprised about the depth of commitment and why are the bloggers questioning how this love can be considered to be holy.  All love between or among people is holy.  There may—or may not—be a legitimate question about the sanctity of a sexual relationship between two people but the love between the partners can be just as holy—or, in some cases even more holy—than the love between two people in a sacramental marriage.  Ideally, of course, the most perfect human love would be between two people joined in Christ in the Sacrament of Matrimony, but as objectively holy as this love should be, in the reality of the mystery of sin and grace there is no reason that the marital love in a particular sacramental marriage might not be surpassed in sanctity  by other human bonds, including that of two men or two women whose sexual relationship falls outside the Christian ideal but whose love is nevertheless real and extraordinary in its self-gift. 

Ironically the shift in understanding of human love that we are seeing at the Synod can be attributed to the emphasis on personalism which characterized the writing of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II.  In Philosophy and Theology we are never to lose sight of the uniqueness of the individual person as a manifestation of the Creator’s goodness, an object of the Creator’s love, and a collaborator in the Creator’s design.   As a consequence the individual must always be accorded human respect and given the opportunity for self-realization in the context of the larger society.  He or she can never be subordinated to the good of that larger society, though Christian faith makes the willing self-surrender of the individual for the common good an act of virtue (and in the extreme of heroic virtue) in imitation of Christ’s free self-surrender both in the kenosis of the Incarnation and in the Sacrifice of the Cross.  Indeed, for the Christian, because we are called to conform ourselves to Christ, it is precisely in this self-gift that we find ourselves most perfectly “realized.”   To the extent that we not merely love but love in such a way as ourselves to incarnate that Love which is the Divine Nature in whose image and likeness we have been created, we truly self-realize.  But pardon me, other than saying that such self-emptying love is not limited to marriage, nor is it always found in marriage (even Sacramental marriage), let me admit that I am crossing the line here from history into philosophy and so let me retreat to a historical perspective. 
For centuries people in the Church, including some at the uppermost levels of the hierarchy have—and at times purportedly in the Church’s name have—overlooked the intrinsic value of each human person and sanctioned biases and bigotries that have ignored the value and dignity of the human person.  I could go through the usual list of atrocities that the Church’s detractors drag out—the base slaughters that accompanied the fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders in 1099, The Albigensian Crusades, the persecution of Muslims and Jews in the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella, the long and ugly history of anti-Semitism in Catholic Europe, the sanctioning of slavery, the linking of colonialism and evangelization, the persecution of the Huguenots,  the betrayal of the Jesuit missions to the Guarani—the list goes on and on but despite the polemics the facts are there.  We, as a Church, have too often been on the wrong side of racial and religious bigotry.  We have too often totally ignored the fact that each and every human person has an intrinsic and inalienable right not only to life, not only to basic human dignity, but live in such a way as to realize the potential God has created in him or her and to make the contribution to the human family for which God has created him or her.  This is not contingent on one’s sexual orientation anymore than it is dependent on one’s race or religious beliefs. 
I have lived a considerable portion of my life below the Mason Dixon Line.  I have seen the Catholic Churches in Maryland and Virginia and Louisiana and other places and I have seen their balconies where non-white Catholics were relegated to sit at Mass.  I have heard the stories from men and women who remember that they had to come to Holy Communion after the “white folk,” that they could not be altar-boys because they were “colored,” that they were told that they could not join a particular religious order because of their race.  This has only changed in living memory.  I know priests who told me that they were, as young priests, forbidden by law to marry couples of mixed race.  They never questioned those laws.  When the Civil Rights movement began to work for change in American society, many of these priests were told by their bishops that they were not to speak out in favor of racial equality.   I know of bishops who insisted, when they visited an African-American parish for confirmation, that the altar servers who handled their miter and crosier wear gloves.  The Personalist philosophy of Pope John Paul runs contrary to this sort of bigotry but there is still plenty of bigotry in the Church today.  We may not see it when it is directed to the LGBT community but then we didn’t see it either when it was directed to non-whites. 
This Synod threatens to pull the rug out of those who justify their bigotry on “moral” grounds.  The Synod is not changing any moral doctrine.  It points out very bluntly that there are moral quandaries associated with same-sex relationships.  It makes it very clear that same-sex unions, while they may achieve an equality before the civil law with “traditional marriage,” cannot be reconciled with our Christian faith as presented in the Catholic Tradition.   But the relatio does seem to be calling us to treat all God’s children with that inalienable respect to which they are entitled as human persons.  It does seem to be admonishing us not to discriminate against people—or against the children entrusted to them—in name of “Christian morality.”  It can hardly do less and be faithful to Christ and to his Gospel. 

The Obamazation of Pope Francis V

Saw this on facebook 

A week before Christmas, Pope Francis announced his reorganization of several Vatican dicasteries and did not re-appoint Cardinal Raymond Burke to either the Congregation for Bishops or the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints.  This leaves His Eminence with membership on only one Vatican Congregation, that of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.  He remains, of course, head of the Apostolic Signatura which is a post which is mostly honorary and has little real power.  While on the Congregation for Bishops, however, Burke had immense influence over the appointment of new bishops and thus the leadership of the Church in the United States.  The replacement of Cardinal Burke by Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington DC caused an outcry by wing-nuts of the Catholic right because Cardinals Burke and Wuerl have taken very different stances on the issue of administering Holy Communion to public figures whose political stances do not reinforce the Church’s teaching on abortion, contraception, and same-sex relationships.  While Cardinal Wuerl supports the Church’s traditional teaching he has been very outspoken in maintaining that the Eucharist should not be “used as a weapon” politically.  Cardinal Burke, on the other hand, has advocated a policy of withholding Holy Communion to politicians who do not support Church doctrine.  The wrath of the right came down on Pope Francis in the weeks after dropping Burke from the post where he could advance the cause of prelates who think as he does.  Here are some of the comments that appeared on various Catholic websites and blogs.

What in God's Holy Name are Catholics supposed to think about this pope????? 

This could be the worst news we have heard since the election of Pope Francis. Cardinal Burke is the one giant in the American group of Cardinals, head and shoulders above the others in truly living the Word. His recent interview with Raymond Arroyo could not help but leave one in awe with regard to his grasp of Christ's teaching and the Church's mission today. I shall be on my knees in prayer shortly to ask the Holy Spirit's protection and graces for him. .

Well, as a faithful Catholic who has fought the culture of death and modernity WITHIN the Church I can tell you that this papacy has demoralized and confused me for months. I am glad that you are blessed by it, I truly am. But seeing more and more questionable appointments and confusing documents has worn me down. That is just where I am right now

Francis cannot change Church teaching but he can make them look meaningless.

Well, I'm not up on Catholic politics but it seems that a courageous conservative just got squashed and ignored. And here I was saying that the Church should clean house of the Marxists and whatnot. What happens? The just the opposite! This is not a good sign. The Church needs a fighter against the culture of Death. I heard Rush Limbaugh describe the Pope Francis as a Marxist. I'm scared to research it -- there might be something to it.

Why are we so dead-certain that Francis is pro-life?

When the pope is being embraced by a secular humanist mainstream media, that pope may want to reconsider what he's doing and what he's saying.

the “smoke of satan" has invaded the Church........especially in the Vatican

He's  (Thomas Peters)  authored a piece that conveys a few things to me.

1. Urban legends about what inspires faithful Catholics to speak the truth - even when our Holy Father is the recipient of the message - live on.

2. There is still a death grip on clericalism.

The Holy Father informed us of his trajectory through his apostolic exhortation, followed by the actions of replacing Cardinal Burke with Cardinal Wuerl to advise him on what priests in the United States have the spiritual substance and attributes to be a bishop.

Now, numerous faithful Catholics who in charity had been giving Pope Francis' imprudent statements the benefit of the doubt, have publicly calibrated what Cdl. Wuerl's appointment will mean on the ground relative to the catechesis of tools for salvation.

Because it doesn't paint a pretty picture, evangelists who take their role seriously need and want to be most cautious about how to proceed in the public square.

Some of the comments and reactions to my post earlier this week on Pope Francis’s decision not to renew Cardinal Burke’s membership on the Congregation for Bishops revealed a disturbing trend to me, namely, the extent to which many Catholics have adopted an apprehensive attitude about the current pontiff.

First of all, I think we're beyond the apprehension stage. We were apprehensive during the eight months of commentary undermining and insulting the 2000 years of the Deposit of Faith and those who love and evangelize It.

Though Pope Francis has issued numerous clarifications, he then went ahead and contradicted said clarifications with an apostolic exhortation which ratified the trajectory of his original statements.

Pope Francis selected a spineless bishop who operates a chancery that persecutes faithful priests and teaches Church laws can or should be ignored and disobeyed at our own will.

Whether he intended to or he didn't, Pope Francis has repeatedly conveyed that the laws and teachings of the Church are small-minded rules of sourpusses and under his watch the the road to salvation will be the abandonment of teaching right judgment and distinctions between sin and virtue for the new church of social service and being giddy.

 Each one of us who have suffered the ill effects of this counterfeit church knows what this means for the abilities of priests to teach the substance in the Catechism, and teach obedience to the Catechism and Church law in our schools, parishes and in our own homes. And, we know what it means for the salvation of the masses of uncatechized.

 We are acutely aware that many of Christ's elect who have suffered through this undisciplined and counterfeit church have lost touch with that immutable oath.

We have painfully watched the Pope undermine our teachings and sacred traditions which offer the highest unblemished gifts, surrender and respect to Christ and have prayerfully and thoughtfully navigated these waters so as not to scandalize those suffering from despair.

 The more I read about Pope Francis, the more I am convinced that the soul of this papacy is up for grabs.

I am also firmly convicted that it is a duty of our Baptism to inform our loving and beloved Holy Father that we will not subject ourselves or our children to the false church within for a nanosecond longer. Most of us have fled and already found refuge and he is making those refuges fodder for the apostates who have control of power within our Chanceries because of weak bishops like Cardinal Wuerl.

Then again, in a document of this length one would also expect to find a good deal of what has made this Pope so beloved by the worldwide mass media: radical-sounding bombshells about how wrong the Church is and how much Francis must do to make it right, in all humility. That too is there—in spades...

Francis’s “dream Church” involves nothing less than a deconstruction of the papacy in favor of a synodal model governed—God help us!—by the national bishops’ conferences:

These are interesting comments because they show that for the right wing, as for the left, the Pope is no longer the ultimate arbiter of the Catholic Faith.  No Catholic would have dared uttered this level of criticism—or dissent—in the days of Pius XII.  But the world has changed and no authority is above questioning.  That is a positive thing.  Just because the Pope is infallible doesn’t mean that he can’t be wrong.  What is dangerous about it is that it shows for the right wing, as for the left, the individual holds the “right” to determine what is authentic to our Catholic faith.  The true faith is what I believe and this attitude undermines the very nature of the Church, or at least the Catholic Church, where orthodoxy is determined by the harmonious alignment of magisterial teaching, theological scholarship, and the consensus fidelium.  Pope Francis eats in the cafeteria at the Casa Santa Marta—a good protection for his safety.  Hard to tamper with the food when you don’t know what pork chop he will pick.  But it seems that these days all Catholics dine in the cafeteria and the day of a menu fixe is on the ash heap of maniples and mantellones.  To bad, I always wanted to be a prelate di mantellone.  

Why They Are Afraid of Pope Francis 16

Cardinal Burke: old school not in tune with Pope

Francis and his Church of the Poor

Well, we haven’t finished the Dissolution of the Monasteries and I am a bit frustrated.  I thought I could do it in two posts and have done three and we still have at least two to go.     But I need to go back to Pope Francis for a while.   I do notice that the hits to the website jump whenever we talk about him, but more to the point he has done a few things lately that are worth comment.  And at least one of them has a lot of the neo-trads running scared again.  He replaced Cardinal Burke on the Congregation of Bishops with Cardinal Wuerl and this is a pretty clear sign that Burke’s sun is setting.  We should not be surprised.  Burke is the old-fashioned prelate who likes the princely style that Francis has been renouncing.  His Eminence is particularly attached to the pre-Conciliar rites and a very close padrone of the Institute of Jesus Christ Sovereign Priest a peculiar institute of self-appointed quasi-prelates who work to revive the monarchial style of Catholicism prevalent before the Second Vatican Council.  Cardinal Burke was Archbishop of Saint Louis until his heavy handed abuse of power led Pope Benedict to remove him to various desk jobs in Rome.   Now he has lost what is probably the most influential of those desk jobs, his position on the committee that nominates bishops.  He remains as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura which is the Church’s highest court but is not equivalent to our Supreme Court in as that it cannot rule on the constitutionality of Church Law nor can it hear cases unless those cases are appealed from two lower courts that are each considered supreme within their own areas of competence—the Sacred Roman Rota which is the normal court in which cases ranging from appeals against one’s bishop to marriage annulments and the Apostolic Penitentiary which is the court that deals with internal forum issues and excommunications.  Each of these courts are supreme in their jurisdictions and only if there has been a procedural error do cases get referred to Burke’s bench at the Signatura.  In other words, unlike our supreme court, the review is based not on an interpretation of the law, but only if there has been a procedural error that needs to be rectified.  Moreover, there are 26 judges who sit on the Signatura and cases are not heard by an individual judge but dealt with administratively by panels of judges assigned to hear a case.  Thus Burke’s power is highly checked as he does not have the same position of decision making that prefects of the various congregations would have.  His appointment to the Signatura was a clever way of disposing of a man to whom experience proved power cannot be entrusted. 
Power he may lack, but until this recent fall influence has been Cardinal Burke’s in abundance.  His position on the Congregation for Bishops put him in a position to advance or check the careers of up and coming bishops.  He was a key player in the advancement of Archbishop Lori, for example, from being Bishop of Bridgeport to Archbishop of Baltimore—a see that often carries a red hat with it.  Lori and Burke—along with the infamous but influential Cardinal Bernard Law, formerly of Boston—were responsible for the allegations against the American nuns affiliated to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.  Cardinal Burke still sits on a number of other Vatican Congregations and Commissions as do each of the Cardinals, notably those who live in Rome, but none have the influence that the Congregation for Bishops has.  His removal from that Congregation and replacement by Donald Wuerl is a clear sign of the sort of Bishop Pope Francis wants appointed for the American Church.  The notable conflict between Burke and Wuerl was over Burke’s policy of refusing Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who support legislation in conflict with Catholic moral theology whereas Wuerl has set the policy in his diocese that the Eucharist is not a weapon to be used against people—whether politicians or individuals whose lives do not conform strictly to Catholic moral theology. 
Many of the extremists among Catholic conservatives were delighted with Cardinal Burke’s outspoken defense of traditional Catholic values whereas the vast majority of more moderate Catholics agreed with Cardinal Wuerl that the issues need to be addressed at a place other than in the Mass itself.  Cardinal Burke has always interpreted canon 915 that Holy Communion is not to be distributed to those who are excommunicate, to those who are under interdict, or to those who persist in grave public sin to apply to politicians who support or do not oppose “pro-choice” legislation or who support or do not oppose same-sex marriage.   Cardinal Wuerl reminds his priests that such politicians have neither been excommunicated nor placed under interdict and disputes whether their legislative actions consist of “grave public sin.”  Of course as head of the Apostolic Signatura, the chief judicial arm of the Church, one would think that Burke is the better arbiter of the Canon Law, but Pope Francis obviously does not see things the same way.  Reading through various “pro-life” blogs and articles, one sees a growing disillusionment with Pope Francis, and even a sense of alarm.  The pope’s admonition that the Church needs not to be “obsessed” with the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage have provoked outcries from Michael Voris, Judy Brown of the American Life League, and others who see their Catholic credentials being eroded in the policies of this papacy.   Certainly with Cardinal Wuerl on the Congregation for Bishops we can expect more middle of the road prelates than we have seen in the past decade or two (or three). 

Joe Biden, Pope Francis, and the Communion Kerfuffle

Well, now the fuss is that Vice President Biden and Democratic House Minority leader, Pelosi received Holy Communion at the Mass inaugurating the Petrine Ministry of Pope Francis.  Did you honestly think that they wouldn’t?  As for whether they should or not, it isn’t my business to make a judgment call.  I am not sure it is the business of all those who have an opinion on the matter either. 
I was living in Rome during the funeral of Pope John Paul II and the inaugural Mass of Pope Benedict XVI and was working for the BBC and several other networks as a consultant.  As such I had access to a wide variety of sources of information.  Moreover, in the circle of friends and acquaintances with whom I had dinner or went to the beach or spent weekends in the Tuscan countryside were any number of low and medium level Vatican “officials.”  An inveterate gossip, I learned not to give opinions but only to ask questions with a faux innocence that opened the dams of behind-the-scenes information.  I found out, among other things, that the priests giving Holy Communion at the Masses for the funeral of John Paul and the installation of Benedict were instructed not to refuse anyone Holy Communion.  This instruction was especially reinforced for those in the diplomatic section and the sections where special guests were being seated.  This meant that not only were dubious politicians of various nationalities to be given Holy Communion but non-Catholics as well.  In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict gave Holy Communion to Prior Roger Schutz, the Calvinist prior of the Ecumenical Community of Taizé.   Of course precedents had been set when Pope John Paul had given Holy Communion to Tony Blair—at the time not only a pro-choice politician but an Anglican—at a Mass with the Blair family in the Pope’s private chapel.
As prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger had written a letter to the American Bishops supporting the policy that pro-choice politicians should be denied Holy Communion.  Cardinal McCarrick managed to deflect the letter, not releasing it but only summarizing it in remarks to the Bishops at their semi-annual meeting.   McCarrick and Ratzinger were not on friendly terms, at least after that.  McCarrick allegedly led the American Cardinals in the 2005 conclave in an unsuccessful alliance with the Germans to evade a Ratzinger papacy.  Cardinal McCarrick’s resignation, offered on his 75^th birthday, was immediately accepted by Pope Benedict unlike the resignation of most other Cardinals who were invited to stay on for several years.  Was McCarrick’s refusal to implement canon 915 the reason for Benedict’s quick acceptance?  The Holy Father could have removed the Cardinal from his see earlier, of course, but that would have been a too obvious rebuke. Nevertheless, had Benedict wanted canon 915 to be enforced he would not have appointed Donald Wuerl to the Washington See as Wuerl, when Bishop of Pittsburgh, had made it very clear that he was not going to refuse Holy Communion to anyone, even those politicians who supported abortion or euthanasia.  Wuerl’s removing the faculties of Father Marcel Guarnizo, a priest of the Archdiocese of Moscow working in the Washington Archdiocese, for Guarnizo’s having refused an acknowledged Lesbian communion, was a clear sign that in his Archdiocese ministers are not to take it upon themselves to decide who may and may  not receive Holy Communion.  We all know where Wuerl stands on this issue. 
Pope Benedict had not found it in his agenda to remove Cardinal Wuerl or, for that matter, Bishop Loverde of Arlington, from their sees for refusing to implement canon 915.  Bishop Loverde has somewhat flown under the radar on this issue while it is likely that more Democratic politicians live in his diocese than in the Archdiocese of Washington.  Loverde is a very gentle and pastoral man—perhaps too gentle with his priests who are often in rebellion against his authority for his being “too liberal.”  Moreover, priest friends of mine in the Washington chancery have claimed that both Wuerl and Loverde are under instructions from Rome not to make this matter of Holy Communion and politicians an issue.  We will see if that changes in the new papacy, but in the meantime I need to remember that it is not up to me to enforce canon 915 and it probably isn’t up to you either.  When I make judgments about who is receiving Holy Communion worthily, I probably am not doing so myself.

 

 

Wanted: Sound Leadership

Hilda of Whitby,

a match for any

bishop today

I was at a talk several weeks ago by Father John O’Malley SJ, a Georgetown professor who is a historian and who has written extensively about the Second Vatican Council.  Father O’Malley was asked about the role of women in the Church and he pointed out that until recently the Catholic Church has been seen as a champion of the cause of women.  He mentioned—as I always make a point in my classes—that sixty years ago the only women in the United States who were College Presidents or Hospital Administrators were Catholic nuns.  (Even the famous “Seven Sisters” women’s colleges had men presidents!)  Catholic sisters had broken any number of glass ceilings in the professional and academic world.  (Of course, this was an America in which few women worked outside the home.)  One can go further back in history and see the medical work done by Sisters on the battlefields of our Civil War as well as some of the horrible European wars.  Educational opportunities were open to Sisters that were not open to laywomen of any faith.  Catholic women like Mary Ward and her Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Angela Merici with the Ursulines, established schools for women in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when education was not available to women.  And of course in the Middle Ages the great Abbeys of nuns such as Barking, Gandersheim, Helfta, or the Paraclete were centers of learning for women that rivaled the great monastic schools of men.  There were remarkable women intellectuals such as Hildegard of Bingen, Roswitha of Gandersheim, Hilda of Whitby, Gertrude of Helfta, Heloise, Gertrude of Hakeborn.  In addition to these scholars there were the great women mystics of the medieval period—Hadewijch of Antwerp, Beatrice of Nazareth, Angela of Foligno, Catherine of Genoa, Julian of Norwich, Marguerite Porete, Catherine of Siena, Brigitte of Sweden and others who wrote books about their spiritual experiences that shaped the lives and spirituality of countless people. 
These women were not people who let others—even priests and bishops—think for them.  There were souls filled with grace and shaped by the faith of the Church but who had the courage and intellect to make up their own minds and be true to their own inner lights—or rather, to be true to the grace of the Holy Spirit within them.  And why do some people think that women—and men—should let the bishops and the priests think for them today? 
What we need are bishops and priests who themselves are intelligent, well-read, clear thinkers and articulate who can explain the principles of our faith in a intellectually convincing way. We don’t need fools like Bishop Daniel Jenky who use intelligence-free rhetoric or Bishop Thomas Olmstead who speaks without researching his subject.  We don’t need a Francis George who is brilliant but so tightly wrapped in his intellect that he inarticulate.  We don’t need a Donald Wuerl who with a second-class academic degree and no professorial experience thinks he can take on a far superior and more practiced intellect such as Elisabeth Johnson.  Hearing someone like Father O’Malley talk, I know there are people in the Church who know their stuff, see the connections between the historic faith of the Church and contemporary life, and can explain the faith at a level when people can make the connections for themselves and make rational and responsible decisions for themselves.  Is it too much to ask that bishops and Church leaders be selected from among the ranks of such men?  The day of a laity who will follow directions of a hierarchy and clergy are over.  People today need to be convinced and we need leaders in the Church who can make their case and not merely expect to impose their will.