YOU ALWAYS SAY MORE THAN YOU INTEND TO REVEAL

There is a saying that goes, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”  When a person is not careful about their speech they can end up revealing much more than they intend.  It is part of the “why” behind the Gospel injunction to always be truthful and speak that which is Good, True and Beautiful.

Take today’s Gospel for example.  Jesus drives out a mute demon and his detractors say, “It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons.”  In their carelessness in denouncing Jesus, they inadvertently bring Him some credence.  Notice that they didn’t say, “Nothing happened.”  Clearly something happened and they needed a way to discount it and so ascribed the miraculous thing they witnessed as being evil.

So first they inadvertently give great testimony to something that they themselves witnessed.  Then they reveal something about themselves in turn.  Jesus explains the weak logic of their argument and then says, “Those who are not with me are against me.”  Who is He?  God.  If one are not with God, with whom else can one be?  There is a lot of things being revealed here though an attempted deception.

Something similar happened in the local newspaper recently.  In a letter to the editor this week entitled, “Stop the Hatred,” the author rallied against what she saw as growing division in the United States.  She wrote, “If you are an anti-Semite, racist or whatever else, bigotry is an equal opportunity killer.”  What is interesting here is that she takes a group of people (who by and large are clearly in the wrong from a Christian point of view) and separates them from the rest of the “good people” (My words, not hers) and then sort of sets up this “we good people” pointing that the “bad people” and berating them.  “What these bigots don’t realize . . .”  (To whom is she speaking?  People who who are not bigots?  Wouldn’t they already know this?)  While I agree with her premise that if we allow hatred of any group, we may, one day, find ourselves on the wrong end of the stick, her method for getting there is not to engage those whom she may desire to convert to a more loving stance, but to put them in a group and denounce them and inadvertently becomes, at least somewhat, what she hates.

In another interesting article in the Beacon Journal this past Saturday entitled, “Planned Parenthood funding cut.”  The subtitle was, “Federal Appeals Court upholds laws ending flow of state dollars to abortion providers.”  The title and much of the writing is an enormous reversal of language normally used in the public media.  There was no mention of “abortion foes” (as opposed “Pro-Life Advocates” that those who promote life would prefer to be called) or the masking of abortion by the writer as “women’s health care” and in describing an abortion procedure the baby is referred to as a fetus not a mass of cells.   

Is this, too, starting to reveal a change in popular culture?  Only time will tell.  It was only one article.  But it was published and makes one wonder what truths it may be revealing.

HAVE YOU HEARD THE NEWS?

I wish that the Church was as tight knit and conspiratorial as movie makers and those in the media at times make it appear.  I don’t even know what is happening at the next parish over let alone in Cleveland.  I love having priest friends over and asking them, “What’s going on up north of 303?  I haven’t heard any rumors lately.”

We occasionally get an Email from “downtown” informing us of important events.  There is a thing called the “Diocesan Memorandum” that anybody who wants can sign up for.  We have district meetings at which some information is disseminated with varying degrees of success.  When something really big happens we might be Emailed a letter to be read at all Masses (and hopefully the pastor complies.)  But really, your typical priest is going to find out about goings on in the Church the same way you do . . . when he reads it in the paper or internet.

It may be true that newspapers are slowly becoming the buggy whips of the news industry but I miss our diocesan newspaper (which had the coolest name EVER: The Catholic Universe Bulletin.  If anything was going on and news needed to get out, there was the paper.  “The Bishop says right here on page four . . .”  Certainly not everybody read it, but enough did to get a message out.  (And really, our paper was not well used in a manner that made it overly relevant but that is another story.)

Every now and then we have a magazine that comes out now that is more catechetical in nature.  And that is great for catechetics.  We also have a (completely non-navigable)  diocesan website that, if you want to see what is on the Bishops mind, you can waste an afternoon trying to find his words.  (They are working on it thank goodness.)  But we don’t really have anything that is pro-active.  (I hate that phrase.)  Just because we issue a statement does not mean that anyone will print it or your average Catholic will bother to go online to try to search out the diocesan reaction to any particular story out there.

Maybe this is a clever tactic: better to let things fade away rather than putting fuel on the fire by making statements to which others might react.  If the Bishop had a mechanism by which he could control all of the bulletins in the diocese to issue a state such as, “You heard about recent events concerning Cardinal Whosit in Rome, I would like to assure you that . . . and here’s some things we can do . . . “  who knows what delicious trouble that could get us in.  I could imagine the Bishop printing something in the bulletins and a pastor countering him in a merry war.  Hmmm.  Maybe it is better to keep our heads low.

In the meantime I’ll continue to invite my priest friends from Cleveland down to play cards on Wednesday nights and pump them for all the Church news from up north I can get.  Maybe the Medieval ways really are the best.

DO NOT LET COMPUTERS THINK LIKE HUMANS

An editorial in today's paper made the suggestion that there be a Hypoctratic oath for computers - well - for computer programers I suppose.  In light of the Volkswagen automobile computer scandal ,ethicists are wondering what kind of boundaries should be placed on those who tell computers how to "think."

In a nutshell, the computers onboard VWs were program to lie to humans to tell them that the cars were not polluting the air that humans were breathing thereby allowing humans to slowly continue poisoning themselves unawares.  Once the computer was thus programmed it required no further human input to continue the lying.

It was suggested that a code of ethics be developed for programmers much the same as we have for doctors.  Rule #1 - do no harm to humans, etc . . .

Of course, on the other hand, we want computers to think as humanly as possible.  It seems we are at cross purposes here.  Suppose your car could think like a human and it was mulling over the ethics of lying to the government about whether your car was putting the earth and putting humanity at risk.  Doctors face these questions all the time. 

"Do no harm."  Hypcratic oath #1.

But what if a human being comes to you and wants you to put another human being to death because that human being threatens a good life for her?  Her rights, her body, her other desires take precedent and medical professionals can easily rationalize what they are doing and believe they are still fulfilling their Hypocratic oath.  In California and Utah, doctors can feel they are still in line with their oath by granting the wish to die by their patients.  Allegedly Planned Parenthood can sell viable body parts from what they otherwise deem non-viable human beings with the idea that they are making the world a better place and proclaim that they have broken no laws and therefore are still moral and have not broken their promise to do no harm.

So my car.  Do I want it to think like a human being?

"I know I should not be polluting like this BUT think of my poor owner.  He can barely afford me let alone get a new car.  And if this becomes part of a recall, think of all the poor workers and stockholders that will lose their shirts - not to mention call dealers, advertisers, and truck drivers.  What is a little more poison in the atmosphere compared to all the good that could be accomplished if I just keep my printouts to myself?"

Do we really want computers to think like us?

WHAT WE NEED HERE IS SOME PROFESSIONAL CATHOLICS

Every now and then I pray that news agencies will hire somebody who knows the Catholic faith well before attempting to write a report on it.*  The simplest misunderstanding of a word can lead to grave mis-reporting.

Let's take just one example:  Who does the Catholic Church refer to when she says, "Church."

This is extremely important when considering sentences such as, "Will Pope Francis change Church teaching?"  The very phrasing of the sentence shows a Protestant mindset not consistent with the Catholic Church.  As we have seen, whether it be a storefront Church or a mainstream Protestant Church, tectonic shifts in what is considered core beliefs can change often by having a vote.  The Church, having come to a new understanding of what God intends, can take a vote and change what the Church believes.

When the Catholic Church says "Church," she does not mean Pope Francis.  She does not mean those "old men in Rome."  She does not mean all of the clergy and religious throughout the world.  She does not only mean every single Catholic alive in the world.  For the Catholic, the Church refers to every member of the Catholic Church who has ever lived.  St. Peter's mother-in-law is still a member of the Church.  A milkmaid in the middle ages is still a member of the Church.  My deceased Mother is still a member of the Church and still has a vote.  G. K. Chesterton called this the Democracy of the Dead.  What they held as true to the faith must be held by us and by those who come after us or the true faith has not only been unknown, it is unknowable.

It is categorically wrong to think that Pope Francis is going to change Church teaching.  Church discipline?  Maybe.  The WAY the faith is taught?  Sure.  But that he could change a doctrine?  It is impossible.  You might as well ask if he is going to change the laws of the universe.  The laws of the universe are not his to change nor is he capable.

Someone might point out to you something about the infallibility of the pope - another thing that is gravely misunderstood.  One of the very definitions of an infallible statement is that it does not contradict 2,000 years of Catholic teaching.  If it does so, it is not an infallible statement by definition.

Will Pope Francis change Church teaching?  That is the wrong question to ask.

* But not all the time because I would have a difficult time finding fodder for the blog.

JUST HOW EXCITED SHOULD WE BE?

NPR had a story on yesterday.  Later this year, Pope Francis is going to declare a year of mercy.  During that year, a priest may absolve penitents for the sin of abortion.  "But it is a limited time offer," NPR reminds us.  At the end of the year, things revert to they way they were.

Now, it is true that abortion is a reserved sin that may only be forgiven by the bishop.  This is because it is seen as an attack on the most vulnerable among us.  It is doing away with a life that can be hidden, legally protected, and forgotten.  And it is being reported as an extraordinary moment in the life of the Church, not to signal a change in Church teaching or to say this sin is any less severe, but to show mercy to those who need it.

The problem is, most Catholics will not notice a difference before the Year of Mercy, during the Year of Mercy, or after the Year of Mercy.  That is because as a practice, bishops have already given that authority (which is within their authority) to their priests.  It is a long standing practice already.  What does make this extraordinary is that the practice is coming all the way from the pope (for there are some bishops in the world that still adhere to this.)  Also, remember, John Paul II gave the same permission in 1983.  So although pastorally this is phenomenal, most people won't notice any real changes here.

The bigger news in my estimation (one that will show a change before, during, and after) is the recognition for a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X to hear confessions at all.  During this Year of Mercy the faithful may approach priest of SSPX, and go to a valid confession.

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

That is news,

But it is not the Year of Mercy yet.  Go to you local priest until December and then you have a year, if you should so desire, to go to an SSPX priest.

SHOCKED MAYBE, BUT REALLY? ARE YOU SURPRISED?

Yesterday, my day away (somewhat,) a priest friend and I went out for brunch.  Though one of my favorite places for breakfast food, they practiced the uncivilized trend of having T.V.s playing in every corner of the restaurant.  So we were into our cup of coffee when Fr. B says, "Do you see what they are reporting on T.V.?"  It was the shocking story of the man who shot the reporter, camera man, and the interviewee on live television.  

"Can you imagine your world being so small," I opined, "that the only way this disturbance in your life can be dealt with is by killing somebody?"  

Fr. B replies, "How much you wanna bet it is a love triangle and that we find out he later ends his own life?"

Well . . . he was close.

Talk about jaded.

But really, are you surprised?  We are constantly working on becoming what some people consider a freer society, but it is leading us down some deadly paths.

1. You have a right to happiness in this world.

2. There are those who deserve life and those who don't.

3. There is no God who needs to be part of civic life therefore there are no absolutes.

4. Truth is subjective.

5. Man is the highest authority.  (At least the one with the most power.)

So, with these as your premise, where do you find meaning in your life; in what you do, accomplish, and are "good for."  That brings you happiness (or escape) is that which is labeled, "the good."  If these are the goods, anything that works against them is evil.  And if you don't have a well developed sense of God, Divine justice, hope both in this life and the after life, that you have dignity and meaning through simply through your being, which comes from this God, that there is such a thing as redemptive suffering, that every aspect of your life and the lives of those around you are a part of these paradigms, then for an increasing number of us, personal justice based on my idea of truth imposed by my will becomes a more realistic option.  

If we keep telling people McDonalds is a real food option, can we be surprised when people base their lives on a McDonalds diet even to the point where they get sick?  And if we keep teaching people that they are their own moral authority, can we be surprised that they take the advice seriously?

CATHOLIC DOGS GO TO HEAVEN

Though dubious, when NPR reported that Pope Francis had said that dogs will go to heaven and thinking of my dog Sebastian, I texted Fr. Pfeiffer who has always maintained that dogs do not have immortal souls that, “HA!  IN YOUR FACE!  POPE SAYS DOGS GO TO HEAVEN!” though inside I was wondering, “How on earth can he say that?”

 

Well, as it turned out he said nothing of the kind.  There was a retraction in the New York Times the next day.  The “alleged” quote is now being attributed to Pope Paul VI who apparently said it to a young boy who he found crying in St. Peter Square.  “Paradise is open to all God’s creatures,” is the supposed quote though there is no hard and fast proof of it.  And, as one Catholic reporter for CNN wrote, “It’s called being pastoral.”  He was not trying to teach a crying boy doctrine but was trying to comfort him.  And this comment could be taken well within Catholic doctrine anyhoo . . . Scripture says there will be a new creation at the end times and what exactly that means we don’t know.

 

 

It’s like this:  When someone is very sad about the death of their pet and they ask me if they are going to see the animal in heaven I say (and this is where Fr. Pfeiffer and I butt heads) God guarantees you absolute happiness in heaven and IF you your absolute happiness depends on your pet being there, he will be there.”  Now that “IF” is a mighty powerful word and gets me out of a lot of theological trouble.  “I guarantee to make you pope IF another arm suddenly grows out of the top of my head at 2 o’clock today.”

 

ALL THIS GOES TO SAY don’t believe everything you read about the pope or the Church in popular media.  Don’t fly off the handle or start complaining to everyone in ear shot about the latest stupid thing someone in the Church did especially since the chances are it is exaggerated, mis-focused, or, as in this case, not true.  (Remember a couple of Easters ago they found the coffin of Jesus?)  This is just the latest in a long string of false or misleading reports AND IT IS GOING TO GET WORSE AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE POPE’S VISIT AND AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE 5OOTH ANNIVERSARY OF PROTESTANTISM IN 1017.  I beg you to exercise great prudence, patience, and fact checking when you hear something that sounds plausible, but just a bit off.

CAN YOU BELIEVE ThE POPE DID THAT?

It amazes me when people are SURE FIRE about something about which they have no real means to know if it is true or not.  It amazes me even more when somebody points out to ME that I am adamant about something about which I have no real means to know if it is true or not.  We act on our prejudices and assumptions often unawares.

 

For example, a Grand Jury decided recently in a controversial police shooting that the officer was acting correctly.  A huge swath of people including much of my news sources have jumped on the band wagon condemning the police officer, police departments, and the justice system none of whom were there, attended the trial, or knew the people involved.  So sure, where there is smoke there is fire, but how can they be so sure in direct condemnation?

 

Today people have absolute ideas about the pope, what he said, what he meant, what he did, what his intentions are, and these are largely gleaned from blurbs from newspaper articles that are more interested in stirring up brouhaha than giving a fair, balanced, and full reports.  It doesn’t help the matter that our diocesan newspaper does little to counterman this.

 

Recently, Catholics in Akron were given two deeper glimpses into what is going on with our pope.  The first was Fr. Haydu, International Director of the Friends of the Vatican Museums, who said the reason many practicing Catholics are bristling at some of the things that come from the lips of our pontiff (assuming that it is being reported correctly) are missing out on the idea that they are not his audience.  We are the 99 sheep that he is allowing priests, bishops, and cardinals to tend and he is going after the 1 lost sheep.  That is his target audience.  And we can be like the prodigal son’s brother upset with the dad not giving him the fatted calf. 

 

The second opportunity was Mr. John Allen, senior correspondent to the Vatican for CNN.  He cautioned us about the media’s focus on a rift between the pope and the American bishops.  This will be exaggerated as we prepare to greet him in Philadelphia next year.  While there are certainly some bishops that do not agree with Pope Francis, there have been contingencies of bishops that did not like Benedict or John Paul II or any pope in history.  Today it is being highlighted and being made to seem larger or more important than it is.

 

Another caution he offered was buying into the “Benedict bad, Francis good” mentality.  Many of the things Pope Francis is (rightly) getting great credit for was also done by Benedict (though nobody knows of it) or are initiatives begun by Benedict and being implemented by Francis.

 

These are just two examples (and not very flushed out owing to the limited space of a post in this blog) but they point to something about which we need to remember: Don’t believe everything you hear.  Just because it is in writing does not mean that it is true.  If something sounds overly controversial to you, we have means to look into it more deeply.  John Allen’s articles are always considered excellently done.  You may find it HERE.  Or you may check out the Vatican websites themselves as well as other reputable Catholic sites.

 

We can be much more in the know.

ITS ALL GOOD

I can’t think of a thing to write about today.

 

That is to say, I can’t think of ONE thing to write about.  There is just so much.  There is an incredible amount of GOOD happening within the Church but that isn’t nearly as fun as talking about the bad.  And even though the bad is miniscule compared to the good, sometimes it seems overwhelming whether it is attacks from without or seemingly rotten undermining from within, intentional or unintentional.

 

If too much time was spent on the negative, one could despair.  The problems could seem so overwhelming that we could feel powerless and just give up.  But history teaches us important lessons against this mentality.

 

Religious orders have died and religious life sprung back and flowered.  The Church has been viciously suppressed by governments and has been the government and back again.  At one point, 70% of the Church was in heresy and then the heresy passed.  We’ve survived “the bad popes” and have, especially recently, been blessed with saints.  Clergy and lay have lost contact and been best friends and back again.  Religious institutions have been rigorously Catholic, lost their way, come back, and lost their way again.  Catholics have been put on pedestals and hung on crosses.  Which all goes to say, no matter how good or bad it may seem to you, God’s Church prevails across the great arc of its journey through time giving further proof that the Church does not exists because we are so clever, but that it is the one true Church inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

That is not to say we sit back then and let happen what will.  We are not fatalists.  But all things work to the glory of God and we can be used as sons or as tools as the Church moves forward through time and in the end.  And though being Christian in any given situation may be a trial for some, in the end we would rather be sons and daughters.

SPEAK UP I CAN'T HEAR YOU

Why isn’t the Church/pope/bishop speaking out on “X?”  Why do they seem so obsessed with sex when there is so much going on???

 

Funny how that seems isn’t it?  The fact is that the Church/pope/bishop IS speaking out on many of the hot button issues that are near and dear to your heart.  The problem is: How do they get the message to YOU? 

 

Firstly, the media has to be willing to print/report/post what was said.  You can send out a million press releases and hold ten thousand press conferences, but if someone doesn’t think it will sell or, and let’s be honest, if they are opposed to the Church, it will not make its way to your senses. 

 

That is the supposed purpose of the diocesan newspaper.  It is to be the voice of the bishop and the diocese.  Sadly that is not always the case.  Further, print is just going the way of the buggy whip.  It was announced this past week that the Diocese of Cleveland’s newspaper the Catholic Universe Bulletin (coolest name ever) is going out of print.

 

For years I have been hoping to find someone to write an article for the parish bulletin (I may have finally found somebody) who would scour the internet, Vatican, diocesan, NCCB, etc . . . and give the briefest of summaries on what is going on and being said in the Church and giving links so people CAN read and catch up.

 

The other problem is that the Church seems so obsessed with SEX.  But it comes back to how a story is reported.  It is fun (but sad) to read an article in the paper about something the pope said concerning the mating habits of humans which makes the headlines and absorbs 90% of the article only to find out that it was a passing comment within a much broader and far more important talk.

 

How do we get our voice back?  I know our diocese is looking for alternatives and not only online.  My hope is that not only will the form of the news reach each person but that the content will be worthwhile.  We don’t need any more fluff.  In the meantime we must be pro-active.  Do not take the T.V. or the local newspaper or internet story as the complete Gospel on Church reporting.  If something catches you, look it up on line.  Be careful of which sources you choose.  Scour the Vatican, USCCB, and diocesan websites.  Find original materials.  It’s work, but for now, if you want it, you have to look for it.

IT COULDN'T LAST FOREVER

The honeymoon is over.

 

The paper today reports that not everybody is happy with the new pontiff.  Actually I’m rather surprised it took so long.  Most of the brouhaha stems from the pontiff saying that if a priest is gay but repents of a lifestyle not in keeping with the priesthood, then who is he to judge. 

 

Those on the right and left are not happy.  The right is not happy because he seems too wishy-washy.  The left is not happy because he does not seem wishy-washy enough.  Which places our pontiff right smack dab in the middle, or in his own terms, he is a son of the Church and believes as the Church does.

 

There is erroneous thought out there that he can change Church teaching.  He can’t and any Catholic worth his salt knows that.  Allowing a man to become a priest who happens to have SSA is not matter of theology per se, but matter of policy.  If I were hiring a business manager, I might want someone who has at least worked in the non-profit world because that would be a lot smaller learning curve for the new employee, but that too is a matter of policy, not the official teaching of the Church.

 

In the end, what has changed?  Nothing.  Any man who wants to become a priest will have to conform his life morally to the teachings of Christ no matter his orientation.  What is far more interesting is this idea that we have to “like” or “dislike” our pontiff as if he were a Facebook page.  Either way, he is our pontiff.  Do you like your boss?  Do you like your Dad?  Do you like your president?  Like or dislike all you want, unless you want to leave you job, family, or country you can either be miserable or work with what God gave you to make something holy of your life and advance the Kingdom of God.  (Do you really think God cares if you like Christ’s vicar on earth?  But I would imagine he does care if you worked for the advancement of the kingdom or not.)

 

My Dad used to go into an absolute fit when it rained.  “I can’t ride my bike, I can’t work in the garden, I can’t go out and do anything!”  To him I used to say, “Dad, you live in northeast Ohio.  It rains.  You either find a way to enjoy the rain or you are going to be miserable.”  He chose to be miserable.

 

We have a pope.  What do you choose?

LONE VOICES IN THE PAPER

Kevin O’Brien wrote a decent article in the Plain Dealer during Holy Week concerning the state of marriage.  He definitely spoke against the political correct position.  In part he said:

 

“Marriage is the fundamental basis of civilization and the smallest functional molecule of the organism that we call society.  One may reject the idea that God ordained heterosexual marriage as part of his plant for humanity, but one cannot reject the argument that nature ordained it as a matter of practical necessity.  Only heterosexual relationships can perpetuate the species.  There simply is no other way of going about it.”

 

That’s called Natural Law. 

 

He goes on further (and this is where I think he really makes his case) “If we put the law at odds with the order established and replicated though out nature, then how can anyone ever justify drawing a new legal boundary line?”  In other words, if we redefine marriage to be any two people who want to commit themselves to each other for life, why stop there?  What about polygamy?  Why should such people be denied the right to marry?  What about the case of the mother and daughter who want to be recognized as married, not for any indecent purpose, but because they want to team up to raise the daughter’s child and want legal protections and benefits?  Why shouldn’t the men of Saint Andrew’s Abby (who take a vow of stability) be recognized as all married so that they may be protected and receive benefits?  The harm?  Once marriage can mean anything, it ceases to mean anything. 

 

I’ve hear people say that it wouldn’t go any further than same sex marriage.  That the idea of it going any further than that is just silly.  But nobody can say why or what there would be to put such a boundary up to stop it there – a boundary that would now be clearly imaginary.

 

Unfortunately I think he hurts his case by saying people could start marrying across species and with inanimate objects.   Other species and such objects cannot give their consent. 

 

After finishing the article we said, “Man, is he going to get crucified tomorrow” and he was.  But if there is going to be any meeting ground on this issue, it will be with points such as this.  “God ordained it” as much as I may believe it is not going to wash with those who don’t believe that.

HOLY SMOKES

It is almost 9AM on Wednesday (my day away) here in Akron, OH and black smoke is still coming out of the famed chimney at the Vatican telling us that we are still without pope.  To that end here are a couple more thoughts on items that have been circulating in the news recently.

 

This pose should relate better to today’s Catholics.  I would challenge that position.  I think it wiser to say that today’s Catholic should become more in touch with today’s Church.  We look in the mirror and think, “Here is the Church.”  We are surrounded by people just like us, perhaps with similar issues and we think, “The pope should pay more attention to us!  We are the Church!  These are our issues.  If he wants to be effective and (forgive me) relevant he needs take action on these items.

 

But today’s Catholic is more than a suburban, minivan driving, smart phone owning, T.V. watching westerner.  As a matter of fact, we make up a much smaller portion of the Church than one might think. 

 

A popular topic bandied around is women’s ordination.  Many think the Church will fall apart unless the new pope addresses this issue.  It is not as big an issue in the overall Church as one might think.  One time I was privileged to travel to Zimbabwe and talk with Catholics there.  We brought up western issues and were mostly met with blank and puzzled stares.  “Women priests?  You are worried about women priests when we are worried about food, equality, safety, AIDS, freedom, sanitary conditions, oppressive governments . . .”  We were quite laughed at.

 

Now we might say the pope needs to pay more attention to first world Catholics and I would agree.  There is a lot of work to be done here.  But whenever one speaks of today’s Catholic, keep in mind the family living in a mud hut with a thatch roof, who goes to Mass on Sunday, has only one change of clothes, and who, when he sees a car, thinks it a novelty is just as much a Catholic and deserving just as much attention.

 

I am shocked to my core that there are politics involved with the election of the pope.  Well, of course there is.  Just like those pushing an agenda for “today’s Catholics,” there are those electing a pontiff who have strong beliefs concerning what type if pope is needed to run “today’s Church.”  Of course they are going to talk about it, lobby for it, ask and bargain for a vote.  I think some people imagine the cardinals sitting quietly in a room until the Holy Spirit descends upon them with the name of the guy for whom they are supposed to vote.

 

God gave us brains and bodies.  We are to use them for His glory and for our benefit.  Names arise, talents debated, factions rise and fall and not all of it altruistic but all accompanied by prayer.  In the end one name arises and one of two things we pray is the case: that this was indeed the man the Holy Spirit wished to be picked from out of all that human activity or that this is a man that God can work with.

 

In the mean time – lobby away.

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.

 

I'VE HEARD IT SAID THAT SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT YOU ARE A PUSHOVER BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHO. OR HOW MANY. OR WHAT THEY SAID

Sorry there was no post yesterday.  Ironically it was because I was away hearing confessions all day at local schools.  It turned out well however!  Welcome visitors from WDTPRS.  It was great to hear from you Father!

 

One of the early lessons that you learn from Mom is, “Only speak for yourself.”  Never say something like, “Everyone hates you.”  First of all it is cruel.  Now there can be an imagined great number of anonymous persons out there.  It is also unhelpful.  It leads to questions such as, “Oh yea?  Like who?  How many?  What exactly are they saying?”  Now you have to back up your claims (or try to back out of the statement) or end up looking foolish and damaging your position. 

 

Well, perhaps not too many learned that lesson from Mom and now some are journalists.  (I know I call journalists to account often here, but it is not out of disrespect for their professions – in fact I value it highly – it’s just that I want who are writing poorly  to do a better job which includes research and homework and conveying the material well.)  Here is an example from just one article printed in the Akron Beacon Journal, Monday, March 4^th, 2003, entitled Catholics Ponder Future Pope by Bradley Brooks of the Associated Press.

 

“ . . . many parishioners said that the next pope should . . .”

 

So “many” said this.  “Many” out of how many?  “Many” out of the ten parishioners with whom you spoke?  “Many” as in a poll of a parish was done and 20 out of 300 said so?  “Many” as in three quarters?  The information becomes almost useless.  Are there other groups with “many” in them holding different opinions that are as large as the “many” that the reporter picked?  Could it be that the other groups with “many” in them could possibly be saying something that the author of the article does not agree with?  Could the “many” in other groups be actually larger?  Why does this “many” get carved out?

 

“Some south African Catholics called for . . .”

 

How many?  10?  10 is some.  So is a million.  I could say that “some” of them probably also think that the Easter Bunny is real or that “some” believe that they have been abducted by aliens.  Now, tell me that by a scientific pole 1 million practicing Catholics in South Africa think “the Catholic Church should” and you might have a story worth reading.

 

Later in the article sighting the same “some” it says, “They also suggest ending the celibacy requirement . . .”  Who does?  Is it Catholics?  Is it clergy?  Is it dissatisfied clergy? 

 

“Many expect the church to pick . . .” 

 

Who is this completely disassociated, mysterious “many”?  Is it the bunch of guys in your office?  Is this a “many” that you picked up watching TV or listening to NPR?  It may be true.  But who are you talking about?  Is this a worldwide poll or something you talked about at the bar last night?  I would have more respect for this article if the author had written, “I expect the church to pick . . .” It would then at least have some reference: a person, a number, someone who can be verified. 

 

There may be a push to get information out about the papal elections since things are happening so quickly and unexpectedly, but that is no excuse for poor reporting.  I’m afraid this article gets an “F”.

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.