The Old Order Passes: Francis I continued

Cardinal Brogoglio in prayer with a

Jewish community in Buenos Aires

At dinner this evening a friend of mine, an Augustinian friar, confessed that when he heard Pope Francis tell us why he chose the name, that he, the normally machismo-driven Augustinian, was in tears hearing Pope Francis say that after his election Cardinal Hummes’ words i poveri, i poveri, ricorda i poveri (the poor, the poor, remember the poor) kept echoing in his thoughts motivating him to take the never-before-used papal name of Francis.  The new Pope went on to say that he wants to see a “poor Church for the poor.”  This is a tall order and its implications can be drastic.  It must be remembered that Jorge  Brogoglio not only is a Jesuit with strong ties to his order—an order known for its social programmes—but that he was appointed provincial (or regional superior) of the Jesuits in Argentina by Father Pedro Arrupe, the General Superior of the Order who so radically changed the course of direction for the Society of Jesus in the Vatican II years.  Unlike some orders, the Jesuits do not elect their provincial superiors—they are appointed by the General Superior in Rome.  Conservatives attribute the radicalism of the Society to Arrupe’s tenure because of his determination to put the resources of the Society at the service of the poor. Will Pope Francis put the resources of the Church at the service of the poor—only time will tell. 
So far the new Pope has captured the imagination not only of the world’s Catholics but of large numbers of the worlds’ peoples.  The Dalai Lama congratulated him on his election and commended the Pope for choosing the name Francis.  The symbolism of this name is not being lost. 
Conservatives, or at least the more rabid among them, on the other hand, are in a panic over the vision being set by the new papacy.  There are all sorts of reservations being expressed about the new pope and his vision for the Church.  Perhaps it is Marielena Montesino de Stuart, a conservative Catholic columnist who writes for the blog Renew America who best demonstrates the panic.  Here is a link to her posting.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/marielena/130316

Ms. Montesino de Stuart’s complaints can be summed up in the list of arguments traditionally used by the integrists to denounce the Second Vatican Council.  She deplores Pope Francis’ history of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, his favoring liturgical development rather than returning to the pre-conciliar rites, and particularly his involvement in social justice.  She accuses him of being unnecessarily crude in his language, weak on condemning same-sex marriage, and not committed to the protection of life for the unborn. She thinks he is a phony and his simplicity of life is an Public Relations act.  Her blog links to a video showing a very vibrant Mass for the Argentine youth presided over by the then Cardinal Brogoglio and she is horrified how such liturgies corrupt the faith of the young. 

What is it that Ms. Montesino de Stuart and others on her bandwagon really upset about? 
Cardinal Avery Dulles, another Jesuit, wrote that the first thousand years of the Church, the papacy stood for witness; the second thousand, power; the third thousand will be service.  In other words we are just at the point where the fundamental ground on which we stand as a Church is shifting from power to service.  The Church’s tectonic plates have slowly been shifting since the collapse of the ancien regime and beginning with such figures as John Henry Newman and Leo XIII the Church has begun to adjust itself to a new model.  It has been a long and slow shift but it began to pick up some speed of sliding into the third millennium with the Second Vatican Council, the reforms of Paul VI, and the social encyclicals of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II.  Nevertheless, like in typical earthquakes, the ground slides both forward and backward.  There was some backsliding during the last two papacies giving hope to the triumphalist party (represented in the American Church by such figures as Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Law, Archbishop Cordileone, Bishop Olmstead, Bishop Dewane, Bishop Slattery et al) that the scales were tipping back in favor of the power model.  The election and style of the new pope marks a significant—very significant—shift now towards the service model.  We will see if Pope Francis lives up to his past and to the expectations it has created (he won’t be taking the 287 over to St Mary Major’s even if he wants to) but it is frightening,  nonetheless, to those who want to restore the magnificence of previous eras.   Nothing, however, will give more credibility to the Church than a pope for the poor except, perhaps, that his example be embraced by the clergy beneath him and the people they serve.  So Ms Montesino de Stuart, we expect you and others who miss the world of monarchy and privilege to keep up your whining while the rest of us get on with a revived enthusiasm for the Gospel.   

 

The Old Order Passes, Francis I continued

Cardinal Brogoglio washing the

feet of young men and women

on Holy Thursday

Well the Pope is around for 48 hours and the honeymoon is over. The Left is insistent that his behavior during the Argentine “Dirty War” (from 1976-83) be investigated, especially the allegations that he hung two fellow Jesuits out to dry.  Fathers Francisco Jalics and Orlando Yorio had been kidnapped and tortured by the Argentine military in 1976 because of their work among the poor in the slums of Bajo Flores.  A week prior to their disappearance Brogoglio, as their religious superior, ordered them to leave the district.  The priests refused and Brogoglio suspended their priestly duties.  They were kidnapped, held in a military prison where they were tortured, and found released but drugged and naked five months later.  Brogoglio claimed that the order for them to leave Bajo Flores was to remove them from danger and they refused.  Jalics and Yorio later claimed that suspending them from priestly ministry removed the protection of the Church and gave the military junta the impetus to arrest them.  Jalics and Brogoglio since reconciled.  Yorio died in 2000.
The New York Times alleged today that Brogoglio was elected because he was not as threatening to the Curia as Italian Front Runner, Angelo Scola, Archbishop of Milan.  In other words, the choice of Brogoglio was a choice against the much needed reform of the Roman Curia.  This charge is probably not totally fair but as an outsider Brogoglio will not be as wise to the wily ways of the Curia party and have more difficulty in dislodging the powerful control blocs in which several curial Cardinals have entrenched themselves.  Only time will tell.
Well, the discomfort of the left is exceeded by discomfort on the right.  Francis I has made it clear the Benedict’s liturgical “Reform of the Reform” is over.  As Archbishop of Buenos Aires Brogoglio had actively—and successfully—worked to thwart Benedict’s edict Summorum Pontificum granting priests the “right” to celebrate the unreformed Roman Liturgy of the 1962 Missal.  There allegedly was not a single “Tridentine Rite” Liturgy offered on a regular basis in the Buneos Aires Archdiocese.  Conservatives noticed immediately his refusal to wear the velvet mozetta and lace rochet prepared for his first appearance and were very upset that when he offered Mass for the Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel following his election, he had a temporary altar facing the congregation set in place.  Pope Benedict, an advocate of the priest celebrating with his back to the people, had used the traditional altar in the chapel that faces Michelangelo’s great fresco of the Last Judgment.  Moreover, pictures are now surfacing of then Cardinal Brogoglio washing the feet of women during the traditional Holy Thursday rite despite Vatican instructions that only men were to be seated among those representing the apostles. 
Jesuits are notorious for their sloppy liturgy (despite their staffing some of the finest liturgical centers in the United States such as Holy Trinity Church, Georgetown).  “A successful Jesuit Liturgy—no one was hospitalized” and “as confused as a Jesuit in Holy Week” are frequent snide remarks by the Catholic effete.  Not unmerited.  I think that Pope Francis is going to show us that there are more essential things to our mission than keeping women from the altar or wearing court dress.  As to the complaints of the left, we regret that Jesus isn’t available to serve in this office personally, but we must settle on a mortal with some mistakes in his past.  Personally I think we need as a Church to move on beyond the whines of the modern day Cathari.  Phariseeism and hypocrisy is not the sole province of the religious right—liberals too forget that we are not about moral perfection but about the forgiveness of sins.          

The Old Order Passes: Francis I

So what to make of the new Pope?  Well, no one who has his or her feet planted firmly on planet earth expected a pope who was going to change the Church’s position on abortion, same-sex relations, the ordination of women to the priesthood or probably even contraception.  And Pope Francis won’t.  But while change of substance would be an unrealistic expectation (excepting of course the bread and the wine), a change of style is not only a possibility but a necessity.  Most of us Catholics can live with the dichotomies of doctrine and every day practical decisions but what is squeezing so many of our sisters and brothers out of the Church is the doctrinaire tone in which the magisterium is being shoved down our throats.  As I have written (and said) elsewhere, everyone knows these days what the Catholic Church is against; few can tell you what it is for.  This is a disastrous strategy for public relations—or what we call public relations in “church talk, “the new evangelization.” 
To be fair to all those concerned, this counter-productive tone cannot be attributed to the former Benedict XVI or the late John Paul II.  It is the sin (and I use that term deliberately) of middle management.  Incompetent but mitered boobs like Archbishop Lori or Cardinals Law and Burke or Bishops Olmstead, Martino, Morlino, or Dewane have done and continue to do incomparable damage to the Church with the arrogance and narrow-mindedness with which they attempt to “teach” the faithful the moral code of the Church.  This shrill and pharisaical tone often drifts down to the level of the local parishes where priests who lack a shepherd’s heart (not to mention common sense) bully their parishioners with inane and inappropriate dictums that only alienate good souls rather than bring them to comprehend the teachings of the Church and follow the call of the Gospel. 
Pope Francis is certainly signaling a change of tone.  The name Francis is the first and foremost signal.  An obvious reference to the poverello of Assisi, everyone immediately remembered the admonition of Christ appearing in the San Damiano Crucifix to Saint Francis: Rebuild my Church which is in ruins.   The simple down to earth tone of Francis’ first day as pope is a good sign of a pope who has his feet on the ground.  
Something that has been overlooked by most commentators is the argument that allegedly took place in the “room of tears” as Francis was being vested in the papal habit.  He refused to put on the lacy rochet and fur-trimmed velvet mozetta (short cape) which the pope wears for formal occasions.  Monsignor Marini, the papal master of ceremonies was insistent—the pope does not appear in the simple white simar (cassock) for formal occasions; the Pope was insistent—the velvet and fur is not his style.  The Pope won.  The papal simar—a plain white cassock with an elbow length over-cape—is the normal working habit of the pope.  (A prelate or even a simple priest can wear the same sort of cassock though in black; a prelate’s is edged in the color of his rank, the priest’s is plain black.)  It is the ecclesiastical equivalent of a business suit.  For formal occasions a bishop or higher ecclesiastic wears a cassock in the color of his rank, a rochet (a shorter white camisole, sometimes trimmed in lace according to the taste—or lack thereof—of the wearer), and a mozetta—a short cape in the color and material of his cassock.  Popes traditionally wore a mozetta of red velvet trimmed in ermine in the winter and of scarlet silk in the summer.  Paul VI did away with the velvet and fur variation, Benedict brought it back.  Francis apparently has ditched it again.  This all seems to be a bit of a tempest in the ladies’ department but it is significant that Francis is both eschewing the revived pomp of the late papacy and telling the old guard that their days of control are over.  He will set the tone.  Of course it will only make the boys who like to get dressed up in fur and yards of silk look even more outré but I suspect that Raymond Burke for one is too slow-witted to notice that he has become a low-class relic of a passed époque.     
All this is a good beginning but while we can’t expect a change in substance, we do need to see a substantial change of style.  Francis is sending all the right signals but let us pray that as he begins to speak he assures us he is also a Pope who listens and listens carefully to his flock.  Again, we are not children.  Like the Pope himself we are educated adults.  That does not mean that we don’t have things to learn but it does mean that we need to be educated as adults.  There needs to be conversation.  There has to be a freedom of discussion without topics being “off limits” of discussion.  The methodologies and presuppositions of the material being taught must to be open to critique.  As a former professor and as a man with a scientific (chemistry) background, it can be hoped that Pope Francis understands this and will not be patronizing.  But then Benedict and John Paul (and Paul VI and John XXIII) were not patronizing men.  The problem is middle management.  Let us hope that Francis will begin choosing intelligent and educated pastors for the flock—bishops like Sean O’Malley and Timothy Dolan and Rowan Williams (whoops, wrong Church) and Gerald Kicanas, and Howard Hubbard and William Curlin and John Ricard, and Robert Morneau, and Mort Smith, and Bernard McLaughlin.  Just give us good shepherds with listening and attentive hearts and we will be fine.  Solomon asked for a lebh shomea (a listening heart); it worked for him and it will work for Francis I. 

The Old Order Passes

I wrote in a recent entry that there is no reason that the College of Cardinals could not include women.  That provoked a rash of responses telling me just why the Sacred College is limited to men and that only demonstrates that the issue of admitting women to Sacred Orders in the Catholic Church is not a theological matter but is driven by a fear of allowing women access to power.  There may or may not be theological reasons not to ordain women,  Speaking as a historian, I am not convinced of theological reasons.  I think that poor theology is being used to mask blatant misogyny.  I say this because whatever the reasons that may or may not be valid for ordaining women there is absolutely no theological reason why women cannot be created Cardinals and entrusted with major administrative responsibilities in the Church.  The College of Cardinals is totally a matter of man-made (and I am using that in a gender specific way) traditions. 
The modern role of the Cardinals developed in the eleventh century from the principal clergy of the Diocese of Rome.  The Cardinal Priests were the pastors of the principal parish churches in the city.  The Cardinal Deacons were the deacons of the principal diaconal churches of the city.  The diaconal churches were not parishes but were centers where people could come for food and other social services in times of famine or need.  You notice that I keep using the word “principal”—that is actually a good translation for the word cardinal.  Cardinal comes from the Latin “cardo,” the word for “hinge.”  A hinge is a crucial element because doors swing open and shut on the hinge.  There are also Cardinal bishops—they are the titular bishops of the seven ancient dioceses that surrounded the city of Rome—Ostia, Porto Santo Rufino, Sabina-Poggio Mirteto, Velletri-Segni, Frascati, and Palestrina. 
Today cardinals still break down into Cardinal Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  Each Cardinal carries the title of Bishop of a suburbican see, or priest of a particular church, or deacon of a particular diaconal church.  And today, by canon law, a Cardinal must be a priest and unless he has a papal dispensation, must be or become a bishop.  But these are human regulations.  The last cardinal not to be a priest died in 1899.  Teodolfo Mertel was a layman when created Cardinal by Pius IX in 1859 and two months later was ordained deacon so that he could have his titular church. He never advanced to the priesthood. 
There were throughout the history of the Sacred College a number of Cardinals who never received major orders and remained laymen their entire lives.  Since the College of Cardinals is entirely of Church design and not a matter of divine law, there can be no theological reason why it cannot be structured to admit women.  And there are certainly women in the Church who would bring honor to the College.  As honor is somewhat in need of being restored to Church institutions these days that may not be such a bad idea.  There is Lesley-Anne Knight who served as general secretary of Caritas International.  She would be great in the Sacred College.  Mary Ann Glendon is a respected legal scholar who is certainly conservative enough to please the most loyal Vatican enthusiast and yet has demonstrated a noteworthy intellectual ability that would raise the collective IQ of the Sacred College.  While Sisters Simone Campbell or Joan Chittester might be a bit too radical for some (though not for me) and unfortunately Elizabeth Johnson is probably out of the running for the same reasons,  Patricia McDermott, President of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, has demonstrated good leadership and excellent administrative skills that could be put at the service of the larger Church.  Dr. Mary Lyons, president of the University of San Diego would be another great addition.  I wish I knew more about the Church in some other parts of the globe to be familiar with women from Latin America or Africa or Asia who might make this sort of contribution.  (Lesley-Anne Knight is, of course, from Africa, but I do not know any others.)  But I think it is time that cardinal’s robes came in a feminine cut as well as a masculine.  Well, actually, when I look at the brussels lace, I am  not sure they do come in a masculine tailoring.  Let me put it this way, if the guys think they look good in all that red, think how smashing the ladies will be.             
There has been some talk about this conclave turning to an American for Pope.  Given the complexity of world politics and the Church’s need to keep its neutrality highly visible, I would not have thought of the possibility of an American Pope, but reports from Rome are that the talk is genuine.  Three Americans are being looked at—I still think they are longshots—as possible men for the task: Cardinals Sean O’Malley of Boston, Timothy Dolan of New York and Donald Wuerl of Washington.  Their (still remote) likelihood is given in that order. 
Well this is as far as I got before my brother telephoned to tell me that there was white smoke and I went to the television and everything began to unfold.  An Argentine—and a Jesuit!  The first Jesuit pope!  And the name Francis—boy does that say a lot.  Moreover in making his apperanceon the balcony he had refused the Master of Ceremonies’ “invitation” to wear the velvet fur-lined mozetta and he kept his simple silver cross around his neck.  He is sending signals about not only a new sheriff but a new style in the Vatican.  Hmm.  More soon.
p.s. Chris--sorry you lost out on ballot 9 in the lottery.  I would have thought you had the ideal number but what do I know?