Konspiracy Theories and The Things We Waste Time About

Well, the Krazies are all atwitter with their undies in a bunch (aren’t they always) over a “secret” colloquium held at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome this past week to discuss various topics that will be addressed in the upcoming October Synod II on the Family.   The blog Rorate Caeli, the Krazies version of L’Osservatore Romano, was just spitting nails (or s*itting bricks) about this “Vatican II style Rhineland coup.” I must admit that I am a bit baffled that Cardinals Burke, Bradmüller, Müller, Caffarra, and others can collaborate on a book to push their agenda, but other members of the hierarchy can’t sit down with a group of theologians and prepare their arguments for sound debate.   A university colloquium is far less influential on public opinion—and on the Synod Delegates—than a published book, especially one that has received such publicity as Remaining in the Truth of Christ.  Frankly I think it is a great idea for the Synod delegates on either side of the issues to do some serious theological research and reflection so as to be prepared for good discussion and wise discernment at the October meeting. 

The Conference at the Gregorian University was not an attempt to rally bishops to the banner of an Eucharistic olly-olly-in-free for everyone from the LGBT community to multiply married Hollywood film-stars and members of the Kennedy Family.  The Presidents of the German, Swiss, and French Conferences of Bishops were there but with only six other bishops.  There were seventeen theologians representing a variety of disciplines from Scripture to moral theology to canon law.  There was an auditor of the Sacred Roman Rota (the Roman “Court of Appeals” that deals with, among other things, marriage cases).  The President of the Sant’Egidio Community, a prestigious lay association tightly connected to the Vatican was also there.  All in all, no more than five of six participants are likely to be members of the upcoming Synod, but it did provide a good forum in which the theologians could advise the bishops what options for the future lay open to them for a more inclusive approach to Eucharistic participation by people who now feel “shut out” of the Church’s life.  A handful of journalists from Catholic media outlets were also invited to be present which is typical for such academic colloquia at the Gregorian or other Pontifical Universities. 

Why are the krazies so frightened of a change in Church discipline? Do they really think that Christ has deserted his Church and that it is fallen on them to guard the Deposit of Faith in his absence?  Actually, I think the agenda is far different and has little direct reference to the upcoming Synod or to the issues of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried or people in same-sex marriages.  I think this has a lot to do with a fundamental shift in ecclesiology.

I have written about this before.  Avery Dulles in his book The Catholicity of the Church, makes the—I believe prophetic—claim that the in the first millennium the papacy was concerned with spreading the faith; in the second with power, and in the third will be with service.  This means that we are at a cusp where the institutional model of the Church will be giving way to another emphasis—the Church as Servant. In an earlier book, Dulles speaks of five models of the Church: Institution, Communio, Sacrament, Servant, and Kerygma.  We do see the power waning and a serious shift away from the Institutional model.  While there are those prelates like Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Cordileone who still like to parade around in glad rags that would make Marie Antoinette embarrassed, there has been an attempt to de-princify (or princessify) the Church.  I am not sure that I like the current CEO model any more than I liked the Renaissance Prince model of the olden years, but it does send a message.  Similarly, the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council have restructured  the Mass to emphasize its communal nature rather than the priestly emphasis of the old Liturgy.  Religious women have dropped the pseudo-medieval garb of the last two centuries as well as found new ways to live together without the faux-monasticism of convent life.  All this drives the Krazies even krazier because it undermines the institutional model to which they are clinging. 

While I think that that the model of the next millennium will emphasize the servant nature of the Church, I think it will also, by necessity, revive the kerygmatic emphasis.  It is increasingly clear that European and North American societies are a challenge for a “New Evangelization.”  And I think this is the neuralgic point for the krazies.  A “New Evangelization” needs a different face on the Church as Evangelizer than the Institution.  Today’s world is distrustful of Institutions.  The International Football Association (FIFA) is plagued by scandal.  Dennis Hastert, the “born-again evangelical” Republican  former speaker of the House whose smarmy holier-than-just-about-everyone-else attitude led him to be so self-righteous in regards to President Bill Clinton, is now accused of paying hush money to a man whom Hastert sexually abused when Hastert taught high school in Illinois.  Speaking of sex-abuse: it is no longer just a Catholic problem, or even Dennis Hastert’s issue: Boy Scouts of America, Little League, public and private high schools across the country.  And of course there is the sexual harassment issues that plague the military, correction institutions, private industry, professional sports.  And we have domestic violence just about everywhere you look.  And just to bring matters back home: once Pope Francis cleaned up the Vatican Bank, profits multiplied 20 times over.  20 times over!!!  Where was that money going before???  How will Gamarelli’s stay in business now that the graft has been exposed?  Who can afford to buy a cappa magna out of his own pocket?  Hopefully the Knights of Malta will pick up the tab for you know who. 

No, we have to let the Institution of the Church morph into something less powerful and certainly not the public face of the Church.  We’ve got to get those nuns on the bus back out there while they can still walk.  We need that 85 year old Sister Megan Rice who poured blood on the wall of a nuclear weapons plant to get out there in front.  C’mon Dan Berrigan—you’ve still got work to do.  Father Warren Hall—ok, so the Bishop doesn’t want you at Seton Hall for you asking why we can’t all get along (LGBT themed agenda, but a good question none the less) but hey, the students believe in you.  We need you up front, man, you got "street cred."  And you Missionaries of Charity, yeah you’re pretty traditional but that isn’t the issue: you get down and dirty with the poor.  You’re solid gold with this evangelization thing, ladies, and we need you.  You see, our task isn’t to preserve the Church—let God take care of the Church—our task is to bring the Good News of the Kingdom of God.  The Kingdom/Gospel is our end; Church is only the means.  Let’s not worry about the Synod and who can and who can’t go to communion.  That is simply Rome fiddles while the world burns.  We are just wasting our time trimming the Christmas Tree when we get caught in these endless arguments.  People who are in the state of grace know that they are in the state of grace; those who know that they have some remedial work to do before coming to communion know that they have some remedial work to do.  We need to call one another to be honest—brutally honest—about the state of our souls but not to waste time making judgments about others. God has more important work for us to do.   

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.   

 

Roots of the Reformation XII: Clericalism—The Paving Stones of the Road to Reformation

Cardinal Dulles suggested that the Servant Model of Church
is the model for the next millenium.  Here a Franciscan friar
speaks with one of the homeless people near St. Francis
Church in New York City. St. Francis Friary was the home of
Father Mychal  Judge, OFM, the NYFD chaplain, the first
registered death of the 9/11 tragedy

 Clericalism leads to-and in turn falls victim to—one of the great Catholic heresies which is to confuse the Church with its Lord.  This is complicated by the Catholic tendency to limit, at least in practical understanding, the Church to its Institutional manifestation.  When Catholics say “The Church…” they tend to mean the hierarchical institution which externally governs the Church, but the Church itself is a far more complex, indeed mysterious, phenomenon.  When I say mysterious, I don’t mean puzzling but rather sacred, indeed numinous, reality.  The late Avery Dulles in his 1974 book  Models of the Church spoke of five key models by which the Church can be understood.  The first on he mentioned—and which he thought was grossly overused—is the institutional model.   This is the model in which am emphasis is place on hierarchy, magisterium, canon law, juridical authority, etc.  Oh, and clericalism!  How could I forget.  And it is this institutional model that most people mean when they talk about “the Church.”

Cardinal Dulles wrote that the Church is not only, or even fundamentally, an institution but it also has a sacramental character.  That is to say that the Church is a visible representation of the Invisible (to the human eye) Master who himself is the fundamental sacrament of God.  In other words, Jesus, the Church’s Lord, is himself the visible representation of the Invisible God and the Church, as the visible representation (re-presentation) of Christ, is a sign and means of God’s Grace in the world.  Moreover, the Church is also kerygmatic—that is to say the Church has a Divinely ordered mission to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the ongoing message of its Founder and Lord.  Dulles also calls the Church a communio—a covenantal bonding of the faithful into the One Body of Christ.  The Church is truly the physical Body of the Risen Christ—as truly (though obviously in a different mode) as is the Eucharist the physical Body of the Risen Christ.  Indeed the Catholic Tradition as found in Saint Augustine witnesses to the intrinsic unity between the Eucharistic Body and the Ecclesial Body of the Lord.  As Christ is one, the Eucharistic Body and the Ecclesial Body are one and the same, and it can be said that in certain respects each derives its authenticity as the Body of the Lord from the other.  Finally, the Church—and according to Dulles this may be the key model of Church for the next millennium—is Servant. 

  

Cardinal Burke, center, one of the prelates who represent 
the Institutional Model of Church.  Cardinal Burke has not
lately been seen speaking with the homeless outside
Gamarelli's--the Rome tailor shop specializing in retro
prelatial garb. 

Many people, especially those who hold positions of pompous power (Cardinals Burke, Pell, Castrillon Hoyos, and others who like parading around the world in cappae magnae) or even those who have powerless pomp (monsignors, the pezzi grossi of the Vatican Bureaucracy, members of the Institute of Christ the Sovereign Priest) are having difficulty letting go of the institutional model and embracing the servant model.  Can’t say I blame them; washing the feet of disciples is dirty work; it’s much more fun to be bundled up in silk and fur, though I don’t think of that as a “guy thing.”  But the Servant Model is the model that can restore credibility to a Church that has squandered its moral leadership in these last three decades.   Ah, but the gift of hope tells us that someday soon (and very soon) the Gospel will prevail once more over Gamarelli’s catalogue. (Gamarelli is the “tailor to the popes” and papal wanna-be’s.  See blog entry of March 28^th 2011 for photo of Gamarelli’s window.)   But this is the problem with clericalism –it derives its energy from the institution of the Church and the power the institution has rather than deriving its authority from the Gospel and the authority the Gospel confers. 

It is frightening how much of the negative energy that “former Catholics” have towards the Church is rooted in clericalism.  I first noticed this about thirty years ago in Ireland where my relatives—all (at the time) Church-going Catholics—spoke venomously of their Parish Priest because of what they perceived to be (and I think correctly) his abuse of power.  The power of an Irish Parish Priest was something to be contended with even thirty years ago—he had veto over the public school teachers and administrators as well as many other decisions that technically pertained to local government.  Over the years the antagonism toward the clergy in general seems only to have increased.  This is not to say that many individual priests are not very popular with their parishioners.  Those priests who mix easily with the people, sit in the pub, go to the cattle shows, and visit the homes of the parishioners without expecting the best china and fancy tea cakes are well liked.  Let a priest put on airs, however, and the most devout Irish Catholics become passive aggressive in ways only the Irish can; while many more avoid confrontation and simply walk away from the Church and decided that  a “long lie” in bed on Sunday morning will do them as well as a sermon. 

The anti-clericialism in the United States manifests itself differently but is growing even faster.  The main reason that we have so few vocations today is due, primarily I believe, to the fact that the priesthood is no longer a respectable profession.  This is not due only to the sex-abuse crisis; in fact I believe there are other even deeper roots of the decline in respect for priests today.  Compared to the parishioners, the priest is no longer better educated—and indeed in suburban or wealthy city parishes, is often less educated than most of the people in the pews.  When he speaks, the priest speaks more of what he learned from books than what he has learned from life—his own and his parishioners.  He often seems hopelessly out of touch, indeed at times from another planet.  Poor preaching, that is to say, irrelevant prattling from the pulpit, is probably the number one reason Mass attendance is falling in the United States.  It is absolutely embarrassing to listen when a priest makes a fool of himself speaking of things about which he knows nothing or when he expects his educated parishioners believe pious stories of saints who fly through the air, hosts that bleed, or decapitated bishops who continue to preach as they carry their head to the cemetery.  Legends and myths have their place, but it is not in the pulpit.  On the other hand when there is sound scriptural preaching that reinforces doctrine and can be related to everyday life, people find a comfort and credibility in their pastors. 

The key to good pastoral personality, like the key to all deep spirituality, is self-knowledge.  By self-knowledge I mean that one, cleric or lay, needs to know oneself not for one’s role or for whatever sacraments one has received but to know oneself in the unfathomable sea of sin and grace.   One has to strip away all pretense, all external trappings, all peripheral roles and deal with one’s own self naked in God’s eyes and naked in one’s own.  One has to see all the warts and wrinkles and cellulite and discern who we might have been had it not been for our sinfulness, who we truly are, and who we might be yet in the sight of God and by his grace.  And there is nothing more foreign to the clerical psyche as the courage it takes to abandon—totally abandon—role and be naked for who one is and nothing more in the sight of God and one’s own sight.  This is why diocesan priests so rarely make good spiritual directors for the spiritual life does not begin until one has so confronted one’s truest self and has been sufficiently humbled to throw oneself on the Divine Mercy, pleading for grace.  Once you have done that you find it very difficult to piously parade around in birettas and surplices that look like they come from Victoria’s Secret.   Once you have stood naked before God and in your own eyes, you need not title, no robe, no ring or fancy hat.  You know who you are and you can be who God wants you to be for others.  How rich a Church we would be if more of our clergy did that and fewer were seduced by rank and privilege.