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.

FIRDAY POTPOURRI: MOM SAYS YOU HAVE TO LIKE ME NO MATTER WHAT

We no longer have a legitimate pope and I look forward to that day when a true pope sits on the throne of Peter.

 

(Bet you never thought you’d read that here.)

 

That is not my sentiment however, but one that I come across now and then.  (As Christians we really are all over the board aren’t we?)  If fidelity were an egg thrown against a wall, I hope most of us would be on the bull’s eye, but there would be goo all over the target.

 

Interesting historical note:  If we have not had a true pope for a while, we never will.  Only a pope can choose the manner in which he is elected and he is elected by those he appointed as cardinals for only popes appoint cardinals.  If there is no pope, no illegitimate pope can elect cardinals and therefore there are no cardinals and no authority available to elect anybody.  Therefore, either the current pope is the pope, or the whole Catholic experiment is a failure and the gates of hell have prevailed.

 

Thus do we enter into paragraph 20 of Lumen Gentium.  The mission that Jesus gave to His disciple is a mission forever because it deals with truth and truth is absolute.  (It is either true all of the time or it is not true at all.  It can’t be true on Monday but not on Tuesday.  Neither can it be true in the 11^th century but not in the 22^nd.)  This is why the apostles handed on their office to successors: to ensure that the mission continues.  There were many people who helped spread the Good News, but there were some “proven men” who take over governing at their death.  These are known as bishops and as we mention earlier their succession should be able to be followed from a current bishop all the way back to an Apostle and ultimately to Jesus Christ Himself.  Thusly, not only is the office of Peter handed down through the ages as a see in which the Church finds unity and leadership, so the local Church is given a bishop handed down through the ages as a source and symbol of our unity and who is given to us for leadership.

 

Here is an interesting thing:  The office of bishop is given to us by Divine institution to take the place of the Apostles to shepherd the Church, as such, “whoever listens to them listens to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and Him who sent Christ.”  Dems pretty strong words.  Does that mean that a bishop can be a jerk and says, “Ha! Ha!  You have to like me anyway!”

 

Well, we are not supposed to hate anybody.  But we are not talking about a personality contest.  This concerns itself with the passing on of truth.  If you hate the bishop because he tells you truth, then you hate the One from Whom truth comes for He is the source of all truth.  (Please remember the earlier part of the document which states we are responsible for that which we know to be true.)  Which, if you think about it, makes sense though it probably could be stated less archaically for mondern ears and therefore less open to misunderstanding and ridicule.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: BLUE PRINTS OF A CHURCH

In yesterday’s post, a Lutheran stated that she believed in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.  She was not referring to the Catholic Church per say.  The fact is that we use the same words but we often mean very different things.  This is along the same lines of speaking with someone from the UK (or just about anywhere else in the world outside of the US) about football and wondering what game exactly are we talking about.

 

When we as Catholics talk about the unity of the Church we mean that we are one in belief, worship, and leadership.  That is why being “under the pope” is so important to us.  If a church or congregation does not recognize the authority of the pope (or the bishop for that matter), they cannot be considered within the unity of the Church.  So also goes the idea of apostolic.  Most people mean (including Catholics) that the faith handed on the apostles is the same faith that we pass on today.  (This being an interesting thing to challenge.)  But additionally, the Catholic Church believes in apostolic succession.  This means that Jesus laid hands on His apostles (who we recognize as the first bishops) and that they laid hands on others who became bishops and priests, who laid on hands and made bishops and priests, all the way up to the present day.  This means that your bishop (or priest) should be able to trace his line (kind of like a family tree) back through bishops all the way to Jesus Himself.  And so we turn to chapter III of Lumen Gentium. 

 

(17/18)  Like the human body, the body of Christ on earth, the Church, has a certain structure to it in order that it might function well.  We make no bones about it, the Church is hierarchical.  Jesus, as its chief shepherd, picked a group of His disciple whom he made what we now call bishops.  Those bishops, needing assistance in local Churches, chose men to be priests and deacons.  Among those “bishops,” Jesus chose one, Peter, to be the first among equals to govern and unite the whole body under the guidance of the Holy Spirit this Church that He founded.

 

This inner group of apostles with this chosen leader is a permanent body to guide the Church into unity until the end of the world.  They were fully commissioned at Pentecost to bring His Word to the ends of the world.  This is what the chief architect and cornerstone, Jesus, built for us before He ascended into heaven that He might continue to bless, instruct, and comfort us and allow us to participate in the mission.

 

The wings of a bird are a burden to them when they are not flying.  But with wings, they soar to the heavens to the envy of all living creatures.  Having a hierarchy came seem like that from time to time.  On a case by case basis, it may seem occasionally appear like a terrible burden, but in the greater pictures it has allowed us to soar. 

 

I am reminded of a quote posted here before by Thomas Babington Maccaulay, an Anglican historian writing in the 1800’s who said of the Church and in particular the papacy: “The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable.

 

“The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the papacy remains. The Papacy remains not in decay, not a mere antique, but full if life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila . . .

 

“Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of the all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished in Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca.

 

“And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveler from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.”

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: I LIKE WEDNESDAYS SO I DECREE TODAY IS WEDNESDAY

(Continuing Lumen Gentium)

 

There is a lot of brouhaha in certain circles about the Church’s teaching concerning the infallibility of the pope.  It usually stems from a grave misunderstanding of this teaching as though if the pope should wake up today (Friday) and declare it to be Tuesday, we would have to accept it as fact.  Nay, nay.  (Neigh, neigh)

 

That being said he is not the only one endowed with this incredible gift.  As a matter of fact the pope’s ability to be infallible is partly based on your ability to believe infallibly.  Here’s how it works:

 

12.  The Body of Christ (of which you are in vital part) is anointed by Christ at the time of baptism.  One of the offices into which you were anointed is that of prophet.  In this, the body as a whole “cannot err in matters of belief.”  From bishop to the newest initiated person, the Church (as a whole) is also infallible when it comes to matters of faith and morals.

 

But suppose today we found a way to unite Catholics around the world to change a certain belief, say on same sex marriage.  Would that mean then that the teaching may change because of the infallibility of the body?  No, not when the entire body is taken into account in what G. K. Chesterton gave the moniker, “The Democracy of the Dead.”  All those who have gone before us, from Apostles, to early Church Fathers, to the saints, from the lowliest to loftiest of believers in every age have a say in what we believe.  Unlike most (all?) of the Protestant Churches which may take a vote today and change a long standing teaching, we have a history, a body, a great army of believers in heaving who have a vote and with whom we must reconcile.

 

Part of the ability of a pope speaking infallibly (which is an extremely rare thing indeed) is that whatever the teaching is he is proclaiming is accepted by the Church – both the Church of the ages (meaning it is in line with what is already held – it does not contradict) as well as the sensus fidei or sense of the people today.  Hence the pope did not just decide one day the dogmatic teaching on the Immaculate Conception – it went through much research, study, and prayer – the Catholic world was consulted, and then it was proclaimed and the sense of the faithful tested. 

 

That is part of the problem with getting the Catholic Church to change her teaching on what constitutes marriage.  Another Church can take a vote so that at least their branch in the United States has decided God doesn’t mind the change.  If the pope were to announce infallibly tomorrow that the teaching was changed, breaking with the Democracy of the Dead as well as the majority of Catholics in the world today – he could proclaim it all he wants, it would not be infallible.

 

To carry on His work God anoints all of us and gives us all a role in the sanctification of the world.  It is not just the work of the ordained through the sacraments, we all have a role and all of the roles are needed no matter if you happen to think it is lofty or lowly.  Either way they are all essential to God’s plan making all of them lofty.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES

 

Good morning Jorge (AKA Francis),

 

You have to be pope today.  One day you are riding the subway to work and the next you are standing on the papal balcony before thousands of people wearing the papal white.  I cannot even imagine what it must be like.  You have my prayers.

 

*

 

So today starts a new chapter in the life of the Church.  Soon we will have to get used to a new face replacing Benedict’s hanging in the hallway.  At Mass there will be the remembering to say the name Francis when we pray for the pope.  There is a new voice to which we will become accustomed to listening when he gives talks and a new style of writing when a document is presented.

 

*

 

On a lighter note, immediately after the announcement that we had a new pope, we received an Email memo from our diocese instructing us to have a noon Mass on Friday (tomorrow) for the new pope.  So I, being a good soldier, advertised it, sent out Emails and one calls, lined up ministers and picked reading.

 

Then we got a second memo.  An updated memo.  It said, “Mistake.  We didn’t mean have your own Mass, but come join along with your people the Bishop at the cathedral.”  But as the song goes, “Well it’s too late baby, yea, it’s too late . . .”

 

So, if you are looking for a way to celebrate . . . you could either go to the Cathedral and join the bishop or, if it is more convenient, stop by St. Sebastian for noon Mass tomorrow for Pope Francis.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN

“There’s always a king somewhere.”

Or so says Michner in his book, “The Source.”

I tend to agree with him.  No matter how democratic a democratic nation or organization might be, there is a person or small group of persons with undue influence on how things go.  There is a de facto person in charge.  Even if it is simply by natural selection there is that person that people will naturally turn toward as leader even if that leader is charged with making sure the democratic nature is upheld. 

I would also augment Michner’s statement to say, “There is always a pope.”  We could extend it further and say, “there is always a Tradition.”  And it seems the more a church fights against popes and tradition, the more they entrench the very ideas they wish to deny.

Take, for example, a typical non-denominational church where the very thought of having a leader acting as a universal vicar for Christ is taught as an abhorrent notion.  Where does that very notion come from?  The pastor of the church – perhaps in consultation with some form of elders.  Sounds very much like a pope in consultation with his cardinals.  There is an established hierarchy (even if there is a strong effort to deny and hide the fact) but the belief system is not left to chance.  There is a clear message with an authoritative leader.

“Ahhh,” a dissenter from this thought might say, “but that pastor or that church board is not speaking on its own but, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is only speaking the unadulterated truth of the Gospel and not adding anything to it.”  (Sola Scriptura as it is known.)  This is actually a very good retort and one that could be taken seriously if those who subscribed to such a belief did not splinter into thousands and thousands of churches on just about every point in the Bible. 

Take this example:  Baptism.  Some say that it is necessary for salvation, others do not.  Some say that it transforms who we are, others see it as a rite of passage.  Some see it as permanent, some do not.  Some see at as an assurance of heaven, some do not.  Some understand the Trinitarian formula much as the Catholic Church does, some are far from it.  If Scripture is so very clear so that all one has to do is read it and it will give you the exact instructions on what to do to be admitted into heaven, how on earth could there be so many interpretations of what it says?

And how do people of any given denomination (or so called non-denominations) know what interpretation to follow.  There is only one answer:  It is their Tradition – the very unbiblical interpretation of what they are reading and pass on from one believer to the next.  It may be voted on by a conference, a congregation, held in a writing of a founder, interpreted by a pastor, history book, or decided upon by grandma at the dining room table and passed on to her family but in any event it is a Tradition on how to interpret the Scripture being read.  (Even which version of Scripture to read is a Tradition.  The accumulation of the Bible itself is a result of Tradition.)

Every church you pass on the way to Mass has some form of pope and exercises some form of Tradition.  It is just much more transparent at your Catholic parish.