I HATE POPE FRANCIS

Despite his rockstar status, in many circles, there are those who are very wary of Pope Francis and they let me know it.  It is a completely different group from those who were very wary of Pope Benedict and let me know it; which was a somewhat different group from those who didn’t care for Pope John Paul II.  Was it ever thus?  St. Paul had a run in with St. Peter and sought him out to set his straight.  Then there were those who didn’t care for Jesus much either, even among His most intimate brethren.

Is there cause for concern with Pope Francis?  I will admit that every once in a while he says something that causes my right eyebrow to rise up slightly higher than the left.  Objectively, he has not changed anything of the fabric of the faith.  The most serious accusations thus far (at least it seems to me) is that he thinks a bit too much out loud and may be a cause of scandal particularly for those whose faith is weak (adult children, grandkids, friends.)  

Conversely there are those crowing because they are back on some sort of “winning side.”  With Pope Francis they see the hope of some flagging dreams for the Church spark and catch on once again.  

Every pope brings his with him his human strengths and weaknesses.  They are men after all.  Pope Francis seems to think out loud.  A lot.  John Paul II - excuse me - St. John Paul (the great?) - was not a great administrator.  But if you really want scandal, especially of the moral kind, it is easy enough to find in the history of the line of popes in the Catholic Church.

But the faith has never been compromised.  Sometimes God uses his popes as sons, sometimes as tools.  Even the most morally corrupt pope was what the Church needed at the time - saving the Church from bankruptcy, making it possible for some of our most beloved art to exist - but never did God allow the Church to fall away from truth in any official manner and I dare say he won’t under this pope either.

There are two reasons for this:  The first is that there are just far too many safeguards in place.  A pope may say, “I have decided that polygamous marriages are a good idea,” but that does not mean that the Church will allow it.  (Have you witnessed one change to faith and morals in the past century during a time that mainstream Protestantism went through wholesale overhauls of 2,000 years of beleif?)  The second is that the Holy Spirit is ultimately in charge.  He always has been in charge and He always will be in charge.  Men and women may do unintelligent and unholy things, but the Church, the spotless Bride of Christ the Bridegroom, will never be so sullied.

So if you don’t like, agree with or are nervous about a particular pope, pray for him and for the Church.  I guarantee you he is making mistakes and needs prayers.  It’s difficult enough trying to manage a parish, I can’t imagine trying to manage 1.3 billion Catholics of different languages, customs, practices, cultures, etc., some of whom are cheering you, others booing, some passionate, some disconnected.  

Then give thanks that you are not the pope.

DID YOU KNOW THAT 48% OF ALL STATISTICS ARE MADE UP ON THE SPOT? (I JUST MADE THAT UP.)

Today is not so much a rant, but an observation.

 

It’s difficult to get good news out about the Church even when the news is good.  Just for example, can you imagine trying to organize and lead 1.2 billion people from every country, socioeconomic level, age, government, education level, etc, etc, etc, and making them all happy?

 

Aint going to happen.

 

I wanted to organize an outing for dinner with my sister and my cousin yesterday and the three of us couldn’t agree on a place to eat.

 

So, an accurate and documented article came out in the Plain Dealer on Wednesday, March 6^th entitled, “U.S. Catholics Mixed on Benedict, Poll Says” written by Dalia Sussman of the (wait for it) New York Times.  The poll stated that most Catholics were positive about the Church in the United States, 54% giving it a good to excellent rating, and 77% said that things were either improving or remaining the same.  Three quarters thought the next pope would be in touch with today’s Catholics.  (Which ones?  The ones in the desert?  The ones in countries in which the faith is suppressed?  The ones in the jungle?  Oh, I know, you mean the ones that drive minivans and shop at the mall and have three computers and five televisions at home. – Sarcasm there.  Sorry.  I digress.)

 

Wow.

 

Wow.

 

Wow.

 

(I’ll say it again.)

 

Wow.

 

Most presidents would KILL for numbers like this!  And they are only concerned with one country for votes!  Reurters reports that our president has a 43% approval rating according to this article.  Bet he would like to exchange his numbers for those above.  Considering that the Church and our pope have to fashion a faith that speaks to the African, the European, the Asian, the American, etc. etc. etc., and not just cater to the West, and then to have numbers like this IMHO is nothing short of the miraculous.

 

But then it is couched in the article stated above.  “Only” 50% that thought things were good.  “A mere” 4% thought things were excellent.  “But only 3 in 10” of the three quarters who thought positively about the new pope had a “great deal of confidence in that.”

 

Talk about a killjoy.

 

Then there was this totally disconnected little ditty that I absolutely loved.  “’He just seemed kind of bland,’ Dorothy Lascuola, 66, a frequent churchgoer from Butler Pa., said of Pope Benedict XVI in a follow-up interview.”  Perhaps we should elect Justin Bieber for the next pontiff.

 

Thank goodness we know what Dorothy thought.  But Fr. Pfeiffer was just saying yesterday what a masterful mind our papal emeritus has and was commenting on some of his masterful and quite exciting writing.  Of course nothing of this kind was reported so I thought I would make up for it here.

 

*sigh*

 

That did get kind of ranty after all didn’t.  Perhaps I get too much fun out of it.

 

TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE: HAPPY RETIREMENT GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT & RANT/COUNTER RANT - GOOD THING YOU ARE NO LONGER IN SCHOOL

Today at 2:00PM we will no longer say, “Benedict our pope . . .” at the Mass.  I tried practicing that part of the Mass today skipping that part and blew it right away.  (One would think it would be so, so easy.)  I said, “together with Richard our pope . . .” who is our bishop.  Glad I made the goof now instead of at the weekend Masses.

 

I told the 400-some-odd children at the Mass today that this is a historic moment.  They were attending the last Mass at this parish in which Benedict’s name would be mentioned as pope (unless the next pope takes the same name of course) and that after such time, the Church will be without a pope until the next one is elected.  It has been so long since a pope retired (around 6 centuries) that nobody even remembers what to do.  This will be a remarkable thing for the history books for some time if not forever and we were alive to see it.

 

Of course the pope cannot just retire – at least not in the United States.  I spent much of yesterday driving around in the car and listening to various NPR stations.  Half of the reports I heard of Benedict’s retirement were absolutely salacious.  At some points stunning in their viciousness and outright misleading statements (from stations that claim to present the unvarnished truth for educated people by educated people) to other stories that were quite good in which the person interviewed would equally tell of Benedict’s great achievements, acknowledge that at which he was not particularly talented, and refusing to give in to the interviewer’s obvious desire for unsubstantiated dirt.

 

In any event, one interviewer stated that the media had an obligation to speculate on motivations of the pope when information is not available.  Funny how it invariably has to be negative.  The most obvious motivation – he wants to retire – is never one of them. 

 

In a way it is kind of a back handed compliment.  They are paying attention even if it is, in many cases, in a negative fashion.  Is there leader besides the president of the United States that gets this much attention in the U.S.?  (Possibly English royalty on a really good day.)

 

Today was meant to be a fond fair well post for the pope.  I am afraid I got sidetracked by paying too much attention to the news.  Actually, today there was a lot of decent and balanced coverage.  Thank you Pope (for a few more hours.)  I hope your first day after your prayers you have a good glass of wine, play the piano, and take a nice long nap.

 

IN OTHER NEWS:

 

I couldn’t let this one go though.  Yesterday in the Beacon Journal, they found it timely and necessary to run an op ed piece about priestly celibacy from the New York Times by Frank Bruni.  The crux of the article is that the next pope should rethink the whole priestly celibacy thing.  Fine.  After all it is only a discipline, not a dogmatic teaching essential to the priesthood.   I think it would be a mistake to get rid of it (I know, shock) but the Church would not end if that teaching changed.

 

However, the reasoning that he used is not tenable and uses poor science and reasoning to draw his conclusions.  Take the following points:

 

“The church’s (sic) leaders preach a purity that its own clerics can’t maintain.”

 

This is partly true.  It is a bit sensational to make it sound as though every single priest in the world fails at this, but it is very true that there are dramatic failures – and even many of them.  So by his reasoning, we should stop teaching about charity (love the Lord your God with all your heart, your neighbor as yourself, and your enemies) because if we can’t live it, it must be done away with.

 

He also maintains that it keeps too many men out of the priesthood who would fill dwindling ranks.  “It renders the priesthood less attractive, contributing to the shortage of priests.”  It is similar to the possibility of getting shot by going to war.  First, we want men who are willing to sacrifice to serve.  Second, if this would really be a solution, then mainstream non-Catholic Churches that have married, male ministers/priests should have PLENTY of men willing to serve.  Such is not the case.

 

Bruni also alleges that all sexual misdeeds in the Church can be attributed to the unnatural state of a sexless existence.  I am glad he cleared this up for us!  Now all we have to do is let all priests get married and have sex and there will be no more cheating on spouses, no child abuse, no divorce, no remarriage . . . wait . . . then . . .  why doesn’t that sound true?  Maybe we should stop preaching about marriage and fidelity too.  (Touch of sarcasm there.)

 

Now what might be true is that some men go into the priesthood to get away from sexual desires that they (and society) consider impure.  Bruni may be right about this.  On the other hand, even if priests are allowed to be married it would revert to the ancient customs where by celibacy is optional, not done away with.  There would still be a celibate tradition in the Church and these men of whom Bruni is afraid would still be there.  Further, a marriage would have to take place before ordination, the man would be barred from the episcopate, and he would not be able to remarry.

 

The rest of the article is full of antidotal evidence, conjectures, and “people have told me,” type writing that if it were turned in as a paper for a high school class, it would receive an “F” for failure to make an informed opinion that could be backed up with actual evidence.  The lesson to take away here is to remember to think critically when an “expert” is being presented to you.

WHY LAITY VOTE FOR POPE

We are adults.  We know how we want to be treated.  We know by what person we wish to be "ruled."  And so it is very “in” at the moment to say that lay people should have more of role in the election of a new pope.  (Hey!  What about us priests and bishops?!)  It is a very enticing idea, but nobody is suggesting exactly how that should or even could be done.  It’s easy to say somebody should do something positive and then give not the slimmest suggesting on how even if (debatably) it is a good idea.

 

So say we want everyone to have a vote.  I think those who most push for this idea would be the least pleased with the outcome.  There are over I billion Catholics in the world and the vast majority of them are now south of the equator where sticking with traditional veins of Catholicism are much more in practice. 

 

And it is one thing to say that we in the West should get a vote, but if we do, then those living in the Sahara desert who are Catholic should get a vote too.  And exactly how would it be carried out?  Who would collect the votes in the Antarctic, China, Zimbabwe, or from persecuted Christians in Catholic-hostile countries?  How long do we wait to collect them all?  How do we make sure that they are well informed in order to make a good decision?

 

And who would be qualified to vote?  Can the C & E Catholics have a vote?  How about those with strong opinions but don’t go to Sunday Mass – do they get a vote?  How do we identify a voting Catholic?  Must they have a letter from a pastor?  (THERE’S a ton more paperwork)  How do make sure that there is one Catholic – one vote?

 

What if there is a split in the vote; the west clearly behind one candidate and the third world (in greater numbers) overwhelmingly for their candidate?  Is this not rife for division in the Church?

 

But in reality we have already voted – not directly, but we have made our desires manifest.  The reason there is so much talk about a pope coming from the third world country is (for whatever reason) they evangelize and keep adding to their numbers.  Sons are encouraged to enter the priesthood causing the powerbase of the Church to shift.  They will be providing more of the cardinals that will pick the future popes.

 

Meantime the west (generally) is less involved, our attendance at Mass is plummeting, we are more and more in conflict with 2000 years of consistent Church teaching, and we actively dissuade our young men from becoming priests.  And we want a vote. 

 

We have already cast it.

HOW TO ELECT A POPE

I received a phone call yesterday from a local psator who is also a classmate.  “Are you going to get gold and yellow bunting for the new pope to put on the outside of your church?”  I’d completely forgotten about this tradition.  When John Paul II was elected pope I was in junior high school.  I remember I was at St. Ambrose when he died and we were instructed, in those parishes that were willing and able, to hang black bunting up.  It was a windy day and I got a ladder out to hang some from our roof.  A mighty gust blew the ladder down and I was suck up there until a friendly jogger happened by.

 

Anyway, I remember that I purchased a little pamphlet entitled “When a Pope Dies” by Christopher Bellitto Ph.D. those many years ago.  And by small I mean tiny.  I’d carried it from assignment to assignment (just in case) and always threw it somewhere behind books on the bookshelf.  Well, last night I remembered that I even had the book and started pulling shelves of books out looking for it and . . . IT WAS FOUND.  I can’t believe it!  Such things are usually lost until one week after they were needed.

 

When looking at the election of a new pope it is interesting that books tend to assume that the previous pope had expired, not simply given up the papacy for lent.  There are elaborate descriptions on how the cardinals oversee the destruction of his ring and seal and how he is to be buried with them along with them along with copies of his most important works.  (I imaging it was crowded in there with John Paul.)

 

So we are moving in to a new election without celebrating a funeral.  At the end of the month there will a period of interregnum between Benedict’s retirement and the newly elected pope.  Our current method of electing pope is relatively new – only about 1,000 years old.  It came about with the election of Gregory X.  There was such rivalry and fighting about who should be the next pope that the Church went almost three years without one.  Finally the town, tired of the whole thing (and probably tired of feeding and housing these guys) locked the cardinals in a building, ripped off the roof exposing them to the elements, and threatened to feed them only bread and water.  Quickly Gregory X was elected.

 

Since then it has been pretty much the same.  Every day the cardinals are will be driven from their simple accommodations to the Sistine Chapel and locked in with no access to news from the outside world.  They will meet twice a day and each session is can have two votes.  A man must have two thirds of the votes to be elected.  (Interestingly, if the number is such that they cannot be divided into three equal groups, the man must receive two thirds plus one.)

 

At the end of each vote a tally is made and a needle is inserted through the ballot so that it may not be counted again.  If no man is elected, the ballots are burned and black smoke tells the waiting crowd that there is still no pope.  If a two thirds majority is given to one man, he is approached and asked, “Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?”  If he says yes he is asked by what name he wishes to be known.  When he answers, he is then pope.  The ballots are not burned but sealed and put in the Vatican archives and chemicals are added to the fire to let people in the outside world know that it has a pope once again.

 

The man is taken to the sacristy and dresses.  He first receives the cardinals and then is taken to the balcony in St. Peter Basilica and the crowd hears, “Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum.  Habemus papam!”  “I announce to you with great joy.  We have a pope!”  Then parishes throughout the world hang up their gold and white bunting.

 

Interestingly enough, the minimum requirement for becoming pope is that you be a Catholic, baptized male.  We have more requirements than that for becoming the milk lady in the parish school cafeteria. 

 

There is much more to the story.  If you found this the least bit interesting I assure you there is much more to know and plenty of places to find it.

HOW TO DETERMIN IF YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME (IT MIGHT BE HERE)

Dan Brown’s books (and subsequent movies) don’t appeal to me not because of the way they treat the Church, but because they are so implausible.  I’ve heard of people such as police officers not liking some crime show because it rings so false that they cannot watch it without thinking, “Well, that would never happen.”  I, on the other hand, being rather ignorant of the inner workings of the police system can rather enjoy watching the same show.  I suppose the reverse holds true also, they can read a Dan Brown novel and think, “Wow, that is pretty cool,” whilst I role my eyes and think, “How droll.”

 

So now that Pope Benedict has stated that he intends on retiring, news analysts and commentators are clambering about “what the Church needs/should/must do,” and to anybody who understands history, the world-wide scope of the Church, and the general nature of how the Church operates, reads these commentators and has a sorrow in his heart at the lost of precious moments of the short life we are given on this earth in the reading.  A stupefyingly grand ignorance concerning the Church is shining forth.  “Experts” may have been able to fake it much of the time, but the light of this event has made the “I was once an altar boy so I know the Catholic Church” commentators knowledge show through where their knowledge is thin or lacking. 

 

Perhaps there is no clearer indication of this than in the idea that it would good for the Church to get on the band wagon with popular and fashionable movements within the United States culture.  The United States makes up a small portion of the Catholic Church, though, admittedly a wealthy portion.  Europe’s influence is waning, and the new power center (and growth) of the Church is south of the equator.  They are the majority now of Catholics and their issues are not our issues, yet we are the same Church and what we do here we must do there.  So if we satiated some of the West’s desires, for example a female priesthood, we must do it there also.  And much of the southern hemisphere is not even ready to entertain the idea.  Our experts are wonderfully parochial.

 

The amount of people talking about how Pope Benedict is “dragging us back to pre-Vatican II” appears to be by people who have never read the Vatican II documents (or have cherry-picked those documents that they like.)  With a vague notion of a “spirit of Vatican II” there is a feeling of where individuals think they want it to go or to where it should go, but that rarely has anything to do with the actual documents.  Few people site anything when they accuse the pope of such a thing.  It is well they don’t.  They are usually wrong. 

 

Now, someone might point out the allowing of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.  Allowing something to happen and forcing the Church back in time are two different things.  In fact, instead of restricting different expressions of the Mass (which seems to be the “spirit” of Vatican II thing unless one is speaking of polka or rock Masses – we must all worship the same way) he has broadened it to include more people.  Another example would be the Anglican Rite.  (The word is diversity.)  The E.F. Mass is not a threat as some think it is.  Of the hundreds of Masses that will be celebrated this weekend in this diocese, 3 will be the E. F. Mass.  Why can we not celebrate this?

 

Am I getting off topic?

 

Anyway, be careful what you read.  When “news” commentators start talking about possible major swings in the leadership of the Church, when they start talking about what they Church needs to do, when they start talking about what they would like to see happen, if you value the time you have here on earth, stop listening and do something creative with your time – unless you are enjoying hearing what people are saying.

 

In the meantime, can I recommend this person’s writing on the matter?  He won’t say anything unless it is known and won’t speculate on anything that is not a true possibility.

MONDAY DIARY: RATHER WOWWED

Well . . .

 

I’ll admit this is NOT what I thought I’d be posting today.  I’m rather stunned.

 

I walked into the sacristy today and greeting our deacon who said, “Good morning.  Did you hear the pope is retiring?”

 

No.  I hadn’t.

 

I was told it was all over the news so upon return to the rectory I grabbed a cup of coffee and sat down with our newspapers.  Not so much as a hint that anything was going on.

 

A phone call came in from a radio station wanting a comment.  I had no idea what to say.  (What do you say?)  Finally I got to my computer and read up on the whole thing (with as much information as is available.)  READ THE POPE’S OWN WORDS HERE.

 

Now, it is not so much that someone is retiring from the office that kind of made me step back for a moment, but that a pope has resigned (for the first time in centuries.)  When I was in the seminary there was discussion as to whether a pope could resign.  (Are you pope for life?  Or is it merely an office?  What if, after you retire, you change your mind?  Well, if it is merely an office, too bad for you.  If you are pope for life who voluntarily steps down, can you step back up?  Does it annul the office of the other pope?  Do we have two popes?  Even if we don’t, each thinking that he is the one who will save the Church from utter destruction, each takes those loyal to him and causes a schism?  THAT’s why we waist valuable time in the seminary thinking about such things.)

 

From the time that I was in junior high school (public school – the Catholic kids were allowed out of class to watch the election – can’t see that happening today) I’d only known Pope John Paul.  It was rather difficult, in my priesthood, to become accustomed to saying, “and Benedict our pope” at the Mass.

 

Now that I have thought about it a little bit, good for the pope to put the good of the Church ahead of holding an office.  But one of the things that I appreciated about John Paul was that even in his infirmities, he held on to the office.  It was a great message: we find all humans valuable even if they are not up to doing what they once could.”  But I understand that I don’t know what goes on behind papal palace walls or how physically and mentally difficult it must be to have attained his age and wake up each morning knowing that you are the pope.  That could be a strain beyond comprehension. 

 

So here is a note to arm-chair historians and teachers:  This is an historic moment.  Popes don’t retire every day.  It happens so rarely that there was question as to whether he could do it at one point.  So pay attention.  This is one for the history books and you get to live it.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: SURPRISE!

One of the topics Pope Benedict has asked us to discuss during this Year of Faith is the Second Vatican Council.  So for a little while on Friday Potpourri I thought that we might hit some points of the council that might be of interest.

 

Here are just some interesting tidbits:  This was only the 21^st such council to be held in the 2,000+ years of the Catholic Church.  That works out to be about 1 per century.  If averages hold out we should not be seeing another one in the lifetime of anybody reading this.

 

The name of a council comes from the place in which it was held.  This one was the second council held at the Vatican and hence the common name “The Second Vatican Council.”  The first Vatican Council was held in 1869/70 under Pope Pius IX.  It was cut short by the Franco-Prussian War and was never reconvened to finish.  As a matter of fact there was talk at some point that the First Vatican Council (only called the Vatican Council at the time) should be reconvened rather than starting a whole new council but you can figure out what happened.

 

Councils are generally called in reaction to something rather specific – perhaps to battle a heresy for example.  But there is some question as to why this council took place. 

 

About a year ago we threw a surprise retirement party for my cousin at the rectory.  She thought it was to welcome relatives in from out of town and so helped cook and otherwise throw the party.  When it came time for the toast she was instrumental in gathering people together.  “Come on,” she said corralling people, “It’s time for the toast, everyone in the living room!”  It was in the middle of the toast that we announced, “And what you don’t know, is that this party is for you and your retirement.”  Can you imagine the surprise and the gear shifting going on in her head?  Then you have some idea of what the 17 cardinals who didn’t see this coming when the pope announced the council at St. Paul Outside the Walls in 1959. 

 

There is a common misconception in the world that the Catholic Church is a monolith and that we all move in lock step.  But the announcement of the council was not met with unified support.  It was labeled a rash and impulsive even by some of those who would later become instrumental in the council.  A little better than three quarters of the world’s bishops expressed interest before the council.

 

The council is known as an ecumenical council.  Though representatives from other faiths were invited to attend and observe that is not why it is called ecumenical.  Ecumenical means that it is a worldwide initiative for all under the leadership of the Pope.  It was the largest (and most expensive) council every held with 2,860 bishops directly participating.  Bishops who participate are called the “Council Fathers.”

 

There is a story told by one of my seminary professors (I have no way of knowing if it is factual or not – but if it isn’t true it should be) that there was some debate as to whether the Vatican should buy or rent all the chairs that they would need for this great undertaking.  They gambled and just bought them and as it turned out it was a great savings.  Had they rented them for the four two months sessions it would have put a hefty dent in the Vatican finances.

TOP CATHOLIC STORIES OF 2012: VATILEAKS

Continuing our countdown to the New Year using John Allen’s talk at the Akron First Friday Club concerning the top Catholic stories of 2012 we hit #3 of 4: Vatileaks!  This is the story of how the Pope Benedict’s personal secretary removed documentation from the Vatican and sold it to the press.  This was an early Christmas present for the world that loves a good story.  It was full of all the right details: The mysterious Vatican, high ranking officials in the Church, an insider giving the public sneak peeks at the inner workings (and some inglorious ones at that) of this rather unique city-state, and best of all:  THE BUTLER DID IT.

 

Be that as it may there were some interesting and somewhat controversial results of this incident.  The pope opened up the books of the Vatican bank in order to be more transparent to the world – to try to establish trust again in the Vatican.  What is so controversial about this you might ask?  Think of how vulnerable the Vatican is.  Rome has been sacked more times than bread in a grocery store.  We have fought “with blood” to keep this small patch of land sovereign.  Is the Vatican in any way compromised because it allowed “outsiders” to come in and examine its books?  In any event, this is completely unprecedented.  And, as John Allen made mention, when you are talking about a 2,000+ year organization that has gone through what the Catholic Church has gone through, saying that something of this nature is unprecedented is saying something.

TUESDAY QUOTE OF THE WEEK CCXLV

FINDING TRUTH WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND:  "You say grace before meals.  All right.  But I say grace before the play and the opera, and grace before sketching, painting, swimming, fencing, boxing, walking, playing dancing; and grace before I dip pen in ink."  G. K. Chesterton

QUOTE II:  "The way to love anything is to realise that it might be lost."  David Fagerberg in Gilbert Magazine

IN OTHER NEWS:

This is awesome.  Draw a stickman.  Thanks M. W. for sending it in.  Have fun with this.

This is eight and half minutes but very worth it!  Thanks for sending it in!

There are a couple of messages that a friend of mine, Sr. Brigid (Sister of Life!) sent in for me to post to you.  Here they are:

"For those coming to the March for Life Ralley in Washington D. C. you are all invited to you come visit our You and Me Exhibit that we hosted at WYD in Spain this year. It is a multimedia exhibit which draws you into an encounter with six people who are faced with challenging situations in their lives and the freedom and joy they find in making that choice to sacrifice for love. We will be hosting it at the JPII Shrine (which was the JPII Cultural Center) Friday through Sunday."  More information here.  Sister has recommended that you preregister which you can do on their website here.

She also wrote this great news: "I hear your friend Dawn is getting ready to publish a new book... Mother wrote the forward. I believe the book will be a great source of healing for many. Praise God!"  Here is more information on Dawn Eden's new book.  Long time AA friends know that Dawn was instrumental in the start of this blog which will be five years old this February.  Congratualtions Dawn.  You may see advance praise for this book and order it here.

This was also sent in: "I wanted to share with you that the Franciscan Sisters TOR are now on facebook for all of you who are on there! Please like the page and share it with your friends! The sisters will be using this as a way to share photos, news and updates from the community with those who are on facebook!' This is the address:  http://www.facebook.com/FranciscanSistersTOR

From the Diocese of Cleveland Enewsletter, "YouTube videos created and produced by students at Archbishop Hoban High School in Akron and Lake Catholic High School in Mentor tell the stories of people who are part of newly merged parishes along with stories of church properties which have been sold and are now being reused."  See more here.

Lastly but not least(ly?) here is a list of the Pope's intentions for the year 2012:

The Pope's entire list of prayer intentions for 2013 is as follows:

January
General: That during this “Year of Faith” Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and joyfully bear witness to the gift of faith in Him.
Missionary: That the Christian communities of the Middle East, which frequently suffer discrimination, may receive the strength of fidelity and perseverance of the Holy Spirit.

February
General: That migrant families, in particular mothers, may be sustained and accompanied in their difficulties.
Missionary: That peoples experiencing war and conflicts may be the protagonists in the building of a future of peace.

March
General: That respect for nature will grow, with the awareness that all creation is the work of God entrusted to human responsibility.
Missionary: That bishops, priests and deacons may be tireless proclaimers of the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

April
General: That the prayerful and public celebration of the faith may be a source of life for the faithful.
Missionary: That the particular Churches in mission territories may be a sign and instrument of hope and resurrection.

May
General: That those who administer justice will always act with integrity and upright conscience.
Missionary: That seminarians, especially from mission Churches, may always be pastors according to the heart of Christ, fully devoted to the proclamation of the Gospel.

June
General: That a culture of dialogue, listening and reciprocal respect may prevail among the nations.
Missionary: That in the areas where the influx of secularization is strongest, Christian communities may learn to effectively promote a new evangelization.

July
General: That the World Youth Day taking place in Brazil may encourage all young Christians to become disciples and missionaries of the Gospel.
Missionary: That throughout the Asian continent, doors may be opened to the messengers of the Gospel.

August
General: That parents and teachers may help the new generations to grow up with a upright conscience and a consistent life.
Missionary: That the particular Churches of the African continent, faithful to the Gospel proclamation, may promote the building of peace and justice.

September
General: That the men and women of our time, often immersed in noise, may resdiscover the value of silence and learn to listen to the voice of God and their brothers and sisters.
Missionary: That Christians who suffer persecution in numerous regions of the world may be prophets of the love of Christ by their testimony.

October
General: That those who feel weary from the heaviness of life, and even long for its end, may sense the closeness of God’s love.
Missionary: That the celebration of World Missions Day may make all Christians aware that they are not only recipients but also proclaimers of the Word of God.

November
General: That priests experiencing difficulties may be comforted in their sufferings, sustained in the doubts and confirmed in their fidelity.
Missionary: That the Churches of Latin America may send missionaries to other Churches as a result of the continental mission.

December
General: That children who are victims of abandonment and of every form of violence may find the love and protection they need.
Missionary: That Christians, enlightened by the light of the incarnate Word, may prepare humanity for the coming of the Savior.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: WHAT DOES ONE SAY TO A POPE?

Thank you to everyone who helped clear up the mystery of a cardinal’s name. As Mom always said, “You learn something new every day.”

While we are at it, we might as well look at how one writes to the pope. (You can extrapolate from this how to do so electronically.)

Unlike a cardinal, it is assumed that everyone regardless of rank is introduced TO the pope. As in, “Your Holiness, may I introduce to you Father Matthew Pfeiffer, Father Pfeiffer, this is His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.” This is a good thing to keep in your hip pocket. I know you are thinking to yourself, “Well, interesting – but when am I going to meet a pope or even a cardinal?” You’d be surprised. I was.

If you would like to drop the pope a note such as, “Everyone here thinks you’re doing swell,” you may write directly to him:

His Holiness
Pope Benedict XVI
The Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City
Europe

The opening of the letter should be, “Your Holiness” or “Most Holy Father” and close with, “Respectfully yours,”.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: HOLD ON TO YOUR LITURGICAL HATS!

Univerae Ecclesiae

“To the Universal Church”

This is the title of a rather shocking document to come out of Rome very recently. How it is shocking depends on one’s personal preferences. Some are shocked with joy, some are shell shocked. Most I believe won’t care because it will not affect most people and things will roll along just fine with few noticing anything.

There was a time in the Church when we did not say what is now called the extraordinary form of the Mass. Then we were allowed to with significant restrictions as long as we had permission of our bishop. Then we were allowed to say it without permission but to be public required differenting regulations among bishops. Now, not only is to be openly permitted, it is also somewhat promoted even to the point of being taught in the seminary. (In this way Saint Sebastian is cutting edge once again.)

In fact, not only the Mass but all the rites of the Church are to be made available in the manner they were celebrated prior to Vatican II at least in some way in each diocese. The only people they are to be refused to are those who do not recognize the validity of the ordinary form (Vatican II Mass) and those who do not recognize the pope as head of the Church. If there is a lack of priests it is suggested that they be brought in until trained priests are in place.

I am not going to go into any further detail. Here is an excellent place to read about the document and here is the document itself. I won’t reinvent the horse. (the horse?)

Of course there are significant obstacles to be overcome. All of the books and materials are not readily available and when they are they are very expensive. There is a lack of qualified people to teach the Mass let alone priests to celebrate it or the other rites. It is easy to say, “bring in a religious order” it is another to find someone to pay for it. Many churches have been renovated to such an extent that it would be difficult to perform some of the rituals properly in them and in more modern churches it would be practically impossible. Like all documents it will be looooooooong in implementation but it does appear to be on the horizon.

I remember asking my pastor growing up (after whom I took my confirmation name and the man who inspired my vocation) what he thought of all the changes in the Church. He said, “When all the money has been made wrecking churches (his words, not mine) all of this will revert and we will spend twice as much fixing them back up when the Church starts really enacting Vatican II.

I thought, though normally rather insightful, that he was a bit blind on this point.

Turns out I was.

AND I THOUGHT THE BIGGEST THING THAT HAPPENED THIS WEEK WAS THAT I FOUND MY KEYS

Have you ever wondered what people thought about momentous events in history through which they lived? I venture to say most people – if they were even aware of them – marked them with a kind of half interested indifference. When the Declaration of Independence was signed do you think that a scullery maid making portage on that particular day in England was aware that anything was going on or thought no more of it than, “well, aint that interesting?” and then turned back to mixing her pot.

Even when Jesus was crucified – the way we tell the story it seems as though the whole world knew what was going on and felt strongly one way or the other. In fact that there were any number of people who saw the commotion thought, “There those people go again,” or sitting out in a field with their sheep were completely unaware.

This year alone there are some momentous events that will be in history books, talked about, and analyzed for years to come and we could easily miss their importance. The Queen of England’s invitation and the pope’s going is an astonishing event. I wonder how many people realize how grand this gesture was? It is a titanic shift in relations between powerful figures and nations of peoples that historically is unprecedented. And it is happening at time when the Anglican world is in crisis – another even that will be the subject of talk and debate for years and years to come.

In Cleveland the shift of population, changing demographics, the fact of fewer priests available, and the closing of Churches will be part of the Diocesan history classes forever. Nothing this noteworthy has happened in a long time if ever. I can see the future professor turning a page in his notes and saying, “Now we come to a particularly dark and difficult chapter in the life of the diocese . . .”

The break off of Historic St. Peter’s will be mentioned although the event is not as unique in this or any diocese as one might think. However the splash this one made will make it at least an interesting footnote for diocesan history classes.

Well within the next two decades the diocese will also see its traditional backbone religious orders all but disappear and perhaps the emergence of something new. That too will be a sad, sad chapter.

Is there also good news? Maybe – I think so, but it is too early to tell yet. Will this time period be seen as the age of renewed catechesis? Will it be seen as the age when, although our numbers may shrink somewhat, those who are still active become more deeply dedicated to the faith as the late Pope John Paul II predicted? Will we continue to see improvements in the number men coming to the priesthood? Will the Theology of the Body start having that great impact in renewal on the Church that was predicted?

So much can happen and we need not be the ones who simply sit on the curb and clap as the parade goes by. Almost all of these last points can be the beginning of something big and noteworthy for the history books but only of individuals decide to engage them – not “Church people”, not the active person in church who sits next to you, not your kids, but you. It is only when individuals decide to be holy, active, and responsible do great things happen. Sometimes it takes a lot of people acting on their own to make a change. We don’t have more men studying for the priesthood because a group decided to join the seminary but that individual men all step forward. And sometimes it only takes one person acting, like a queen inviting an estranged pontiff to tea.