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.

ROME (SWEET ROME?)

What do you think of when you hear the word “Church?” There are many different ways you could go. You might call to mind all the people, lay and clergy, who make up the Church. Church might be the almost Plutonian ideal of what we are to be – the unblemished bride of Christ that in its ideal practice is all that we should be here on earth. Some people think of priests and nuns and buildings. Finally there is the idea of Church as institution, particularly Rome.

Well, in fact Church is in some way all of these things and more. It has diverse facets because it has a diverse job. It is to handle spiritual things in a material world. Like an amphibious car it has to handle two worlds. So there are parts that are mysterious and spiritual and parts that are very earthly. Therefore there are those aspects to the Church that are loving, nourishing, and familial, and parts that are institutional and business like. In the first part is where hopefully you find the love of God and neighbor, in the second part you will find a mechanism for assisting the Church to operate in the world to bring that love.

Too many people look for affection from the institutional Church. Institutions do not show love. People do. In this case, God’s people do. Institutions help institutions exist. They are necessary for organizing one billion people. At the heart of our institution is both a man and office: the papacy – the oldest continual governing office in the world.

So, on the one hand, institutional Church has been wildly successful. But on the other, as an aspect of the Church that is worldly, it will disappoint the individual at times but that is mostly because we are entirely impossible to please. If I want black from the Church, my best friend will inevitably want white. (That was meant to be an analogy but even that could be applied to the color of vestments worn at Masses for the dead!)

To that end I get a chuckle when paying attention to the secular news. One the one hand “Rome” is seem as having too much say in the day to day operation of the Church. Rome needs to stay in Rome and let the Americas take care of themselves. Who are we? Children? Do we need “Papa” watching over us? The power of the Church is far to centralized and our bishops are but pawns.

That might be on Monday, then on Tuesday it will be, “Rome must act! It needs to come in and override bishops in their day to day operation of the diocese to (you name the topic) save churches – discipline priests . . .” Then if Rome does not act it “doesn’t care.”

Yet if not the most, the office of the pope is among the most successful governing bodies that ever existed. And though parts of this office of the Vicar of Christ are mystical and holy, there are parts that are institutional and are bound to please some and bring the ire of others. Fr. Benedict Groeschel CFR likened the Church to a great hippopotamus. As gentle and benevolent as it might try to be, by simply being so grand its littlest gesture might squeeze someone terribly and gain their indignation.

So when tempted to blame Rome for something (and it may or may not deserve it) just bear in mind the tremendous and often impossible burden it must endure in running a worldwide Church of people with different sensibilities, customs, and needs, balanced with governments, and primarily the Will of Christ and give her at least that much credit before bristling at the way she has chosen to act.