The Pope and Economic Development

There has been much made of Pope Francis' recent remarks made about economics.  In this video Fr. James Kubicki, the national director of the Apostleship of Prayer - whose mission is to promote the pope's monthly prayer intentions - does a good job showing the continuity of the current Holy Father's teaching with those of his predecessors. 

I do think that the Pope did himself a disservice by getting too specific when critiquing particular economic theories in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. On the one hand I'm not sure that the unregulated "trickle-down" form of capitalism he criticizes really exists today outside of Hong Kong, if even there.  There is a problem of inequality and unethical business practices on a world wide scale, but honest people can disagree on how we got to where we are, and whether government interventions helped, hurt or even was a factor in causing our current crisis.  The other problem is that the controversy distracted from the larger message of the exhortation which challenges the Church to pursue Her mission to evangelize the nations with zeal.  Pope Francis is calling us not to simply stay stuck in a maintenance mode of operation that is content to keep the institution running without really understanding what the institution is meant to serve.  His words on economics are a small, though important, part of the exhortation that need to be read in the wider context of a varied, far reaching document.

In the end Pope Francis is saying nothing that can't be found in the Church's social teaching.  The Church in the past has condemned socialism, and the current Pope himself has said the Marxism is "dead wrong."  But the market economy is the prevalent form in the world today, and needs to be critiqued in the light of the Gospel.  Again, I use the word "market" without the modifier "free" because I don't believe that laissez faire, which is often condemned by progressives, has existed, in the U.S. anyway, since at least the days of Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting crusade in the early 1900's.  Does this mean we are living in a perfect world?  No, and it is important to let the Pope's words stir our hearts and a spark debate that can hopefully lead to real conversion in the society and culture at large.

St. John and Cardinal Dolan from AOP

Sts. Stephen and Paul from AOP

Adestes Fideles Andrea Bocelli

Perry Como Sings O Holy Night

Darlene Love Sings Christmas (Baby Please Come Home) on Letterman

With out a doubt one of my favorite secular Christmas songs, sung by nthe incomparable Darlene Love.

Fr. Barron Comments on the Nativity of Luke's Gospel

A Late Advent Reflection

Last week we observed the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe here at St. John Bosco Parish with pilgrimages, rosaries, the traditional Mañanitas, and of course the celebration of the Eucharist in the morning and evening.  It is a beautiful feast, and one with great meaning for me because of the three years I spent in Mexico, which included two pilgrimages to the shrine at Tepeyak.  When I looked at the calendar on my wall this past Monday, after a full weekend of activities that followed quickly on the heals of the feast, I was stunned to see that Christmas is only the middle of next week.  It feels like we just started Advent and we've already lit three candles on the wreath.  This "post-Guadalupe hangover," as I call it, highlights the fact that Advent tends to get crowded out amidst so many other activities that fall this time of year. Ours is an extreme example of this reality that Advent is the Forgotten Time.

At our parish it's Our Lady of Guadalupe that overshadows the liturgical time of Advent, but in other places, and in the culture in general, the four odd weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas are seen as a time for office parties, gift shopping and making merry.  Because several religious and civil observances occur between the fourth Thursday of November and New Year's Day (we could say the Epiphany on January 6 if we want to be formal about it), the custom of calling this time the Holiday Season has long been in vogue.  I wont even get into all the Christmas decorations that go up early, or the incessant Christmas music on the radio that I have already grown tired of.  In a real way not only the meaning of Advent has been lost, but the meaning of Christmas has been distorted as well.  I'm not going to start complaining about the commercialization of Christmas; we know about that already.  I'm only pointing out that Advent and it's true meaning has been lost and needs to be recovered if it we are going to get back to a better appreciation of what Christmas itself means. 

The first thing to remember is that Advent should be seen as a penitential season.  It doesn't have the rules and regulations of Lent, but the mood is one of waiting and preparation.  But we aren't talking about putting up trees or hitting the shopping malls.  We are preparing for an encounter with Christ, and it is our souls that need to be cleaned, adorned and made ready for the arrival of the King.  In this spirit the readings at Mass focus us on the need for repentance, and the great figure of John the Baptist looms large in this equation.  The Second Sunday of Advent we heard of his preaching on the banks of the Jordan, warning the scribes and Pharisees who had gathered that a time of tribulation was at hand and the moment for turning away from sin had arrived.  It was John's call to repentance that prepared the way for the coming of the Lord and the arrival of the Kingdom he was to preach.

While we are not bound to rules at this time of year, fasting, praying alms giving and making a good confession are ways that we prepare ourselves well for this encounter with the Lord.  Yes, we mean making a worthy communion on Christmas day, but it also calls us to ponder our own mortality, and the reality that one day we will meet Jesus face to face.  One day he will knock on the doors of our soul.  Will our house be clean and in order?  Or will we still be attached to the same sins and vices, indifferent to the needs of the poor around us?  We light the candles of the Advent wreath to remind us of the journey we are on, not just to December 25th, but to eternity, and we better be ready.

The second point, connected to the first, is that Advent is an eschatological time.  The weeks leading up to the beginning of Advent and the first weeks of the liturgical time offer us readings that have to do with the end of the world.  Whether we interpret this to mean the end of an era, or the end the world as we know it, or the return of Christ in his glory when time will cease, the Church tries to focus us on the reality that nothing in this world is permanent.  Jesus will return, the elements will be destroyed by fire, as St. Peter puts it, the dead will rise and a new heaven and new earth will be established.

In the past few decades talk of the end times has been shunned by some in Catholic circles.  Talk of heaven and eternal reward is sometimes portrayed as an opiate, in the Marxist sense, used to keep people from concentrating on issues of peace and justice.  The new emphasis since the Council on social justice, reiterated by Pope Francis (though stressed by all the popes since Vatican II), is a positive development.  But in our exuberance and zeal we should be careful not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.  Christ wants to see faith on the earth when he returns, meaning that we are living the Beatitudes to the fullest.  John the Baptist called Herod out for sexual immorality, but he also told people that repentance meant sharing what ever excess they may have with the poor and being satisfied with their wages (we can assume he meant a wage that is just).  He also told those in authority not to abuse their power for personal gain.  It is tempting to focus on these passages, as well as others concerning matters of justice and equity, making the Gospel a political manifesto unconcerned with piety and personal holiness.  

But our Lord also said that we should pray constantly.  He may not have talk much about sexual morality in an explicit way, but he did name a list of sexual sins and vices among a list of transgressions that stem from a disordered interior life.  Our Lord is interested in the whole person; his interior life as well as in his community and civic responsibilities, because the two things are linked together. All these aspects of our life must be seen in the context of eternity; wealth, power, property, sexual apatite, prestige and pleasures of all sorts will pass away.  Unless our hearts are set on the things of heaven we will come to think that created things are all we have to live for, and our time on earth will be spent in a misguided search for fulfilment that will never come.

We have already entered into the second part of Advent; the Great Days that focus us more on the mystery of the incarnation and the events leading up to Jesus' birth.  I will have more to say on this later.

But for now I leave off by saying that for Advent to be seen as more than a parenthesis between Thanksgiving and Christmas we need to get back to it's deeper meaning.  We should be concerned with the hear and now, but this preoccupation will only result in positive and long lasting action if we have the entire picture in perspective.  Advent with its call to repentance and reminder of the transience of the world does that for us.

John The Baptist from AOP

Mary's Soul from AOP

I'm posting this video is a little late for St. Ambrose's feast last Saturday, but the reflection is perfect for today's Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.

Our Immaculate Mother from AOP

Retro Review Part II: "Fargo"

Last time I wrote about my spotty theater going record, and that I'm slowly catching up, by the miracle of DVD rental and streaming video, on important movies that I've missed over the years.  I've already talked about Do The Right Thing, and this time out move on to the Coen Brothers' 1996 effort Fargo.

I have always had an uneasy relationship with the Brothers Coen, in the sense that they are undeniably talented, original film makers; among the most original out there today.  But at the same time they can present a rather gloomy view of human nature. Nihilistic is usually the word used to describe their work.  Their Academy Award winner No Country for Old Men is an extreme example of this.  But every so often they do allow some light to poke through, like in A Serious Man, which I reviewed here a few months ago.  The light I speak of is a sense they give of liking their characters, even if they are flawed or a little off kilter (or maybe because of this reason).  Fargo is a movie that blends these two aspects of the Coen's personality together; light and dark, in a most cleaver way.  When I've spoken to people about this movie over the years it's usually the dark nihilism that strikes them, and the sometimes humorus, matter of fact way it's presented.  But after finally seeing it after all these years I saw something else besides.  Though values lessons are not something the Coens are known for, Fargo contains one, even if you have to be paying attention to see it.

William H. Macy plays the hapless Jerry Lundegaard.  He works for his rich father-in-law Wade (Harve Presnell) who employs him as a salesman at his Minneapolis car dealership but has no confidence in him, not letting Jerry move any higher in the corporate structure.  Jerry is over extended financially and is blocked out by Wade from an investment plan he had thought up himself and that he was hoping would bring a big windfall.  Even before this disappointment he was plotting to have his wife (Kristin Rudrüd) kidnapped by some small time crooks (Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare), who he would share the ransom with.  Needless to say everything goes terribly wrong. Murders ensue, and rural South Dakota police chief Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand, in her Oscar winning role), is left to pick up the trail.

Marge is sort of like a female Columbo; not bumbling like the Peter Falk character comes off as at first, but unassuming.  She seems more like a cheerfully fastidious house wife with a badge, but like Columbo proves to be much sharper, and more tenacious, than she at first appears.

Most people focus on the violence in the movie, which is harsh, and at times comically gruesome, if such a thing is possible, or else the quirky regional accents and eccentricities of the characters draws people's attention.   But there is also a tender story hidden amid the blood and you betcha's.  Marge is seven months pregnant, married to a artist and lives a comfortable middle class existence.  Her husband (John Carrol Lynch) is dutiful, getting out of bed early to make Marge eggs when she gets called in the wee hours to go to the crime scene.  Amid the marital bliss Marge wonders if there isn't something more out there than her comfortable but humdrum domestic life.  When she hears from a man from her past she arranges a rendezvous while she's in Minneapolis following a lead on the case.  It's just an innocent stop off for a drink (don't panic, she has a Diet Coke), but she quickly has misgivings and backs herself out of the situation.  She comes to appreciate the things she already has, and counts her blessings instead of grasping for more.

This stands in contrast to all the other major characters in the story.  Jerry, the kidnappers, and even to a certain extent Wade want more than what they have or have agreed upon as compensation and are constantly conniving, lying, cheating or simply forcing their will to get it.  In their constant grasping they leave a trail of destruction that eventually turns back on them.  As Marge drives one of the culprits away in her police cruiser she is truly shaken by all the carnage left in the wake of this plan gone terribly wrong.  She asks if all this was really worth a little money, and why aren't people happy with what they have.  In a way she is asking this question of herself as well.

The film ends with Marge and her husband on the couch watching TV, arms around each other's shoulders.  He tells her that his painting won a competition by the Postal Service, and will be featured on a thee cent stamp.  He's disappointed by this since it's such a small, unimportant denomination, but Marge reassures him that he should be happy; people always need those small stamps when rates go up and they need to make up the difference.  Again; be satisfied and count the blessings, don't grasp after things that you think will make you happy.  That grasping will only make you more unhappy and possibly hurt others.

There is something very Hindu about this lesson, but Catholic as well.  Greed is one of the capital sins, and while we may explain its effects differently, those effects are the same.  Greed is a disordered love of riches, and can lead people to steal, cheat lie, and even kill to get it.  In less extreme, but still destructive, cases it leads to selfishness and an inability to share what we have with those in need.

Fargo takes place in 1987, which is really irrelevant to the story other than the choice of cars featured.  The story is billed as being true but the Coens admit that this is deceiving.  They took elements from various real cases but the scenario itself, and the characters themselves are completely original.  They felt that this conceit allowed them to get away with things audiences would only accept if they thought it really happened.

Fargo and Do The Right Thing are very different pictures, so trying to compare and contrast them would be forced.  But when a movie is fifteen or twenty years old it's safe to ask how it holds up.  Both do, but arguably Fargo does better.   Do The Right Thing is very much a product of its time, as I wrote before, and makes many references to contemporary events that may not mean anything to new viewers today.  It reminds me a bit of some movies that came out in the late sixties like Medium Cool and Easy Rider that addressed issues relevant during the Vietnam War era.  These films were praised as edgy and ground breaking when they were released, but today seem more like quaint relics from a time capsule.  Fargo, though claiming a period, tells a purer story with universal themes so that when it's happening really doesn't effect how we understand what's going on.  Do The Right Thing for the most part is saved from being a museum piece because issues of racism and economic inequity are still with us.  It helps to know the particular context of the story, but isn't essential.  Plus, Spike Lee is an artist, not simply a pamphleteer, so the movie can be appreciated on aesthetic terms apart from the message, though unlike Fargo the message is impossible to miss.

Fr. Barron Comments on Pope Francis and "The Joy of the Gospel"

I'm reading this challenging document right now, but offer you Fr. Barron's take on it.  The Holy Father has a way of putting into words things many of us on the "inside" have been thinking.  One example is when he writes that we can use perfectly orthodox language in explaining the doctrines of the faith but still leave people scratching their heads (my very loose paraphrase).  It's not that the truth has changed but that we need to learn how people talk and think and put these truths into their language.  We're still not going to persuade everyone, but it won't be for the lack of making an honest effort to meet people on their own turf.  I'll keep on reading, and offer a reflection soon enough, but until then, here's Fr. Barron:

Retro Review: "Do The Right Thing"

For a cinefile I've missed a lot of movies over the years.  This is mainly do to the limitations on my time and the money I'm allowed to use for entertainment.  My years of initial formation were especially spotty, with years passing sometimes between visits to the movies.  To paraphrase Spike Lee, DVD is the movie fan's best friend, allowing us to catch up with things time and money don't allow us to see in "reel time."

I recently saw two important movies that came out during my "formative" years that got past me.  These are very different films; one very much a product of a particular time and place dealing with topical issues, the other set in a period, which is irrelevant to the universal observations on human nature it makes.  Both stand up well, though one better than the other.  I'll be taking a look at the Spike Lee Joint first, then look at the Coen Brother's movie Fargo next time.

1989's Do The Right Thing is director Spike Lee's observation on the state of the racial union in the late 1980's.  It follows the goings on during the course of a hot summer day in and around a white owned pizzeria in the predominantly black neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn.  Mookie (Lee) is a young African American working at Sal's Famous Pizza for $250 a week.  He lives with his sister (played by his real life sibling Joie Lee), has a son with his girlfriend (Rose Perez, in her film debut) who he sees once a week, at best.  He's not happy, but at the same time is comfortable with his hand to mouth existence and the relative freedom from responsibility it gives him.  Mookie is angry when a customer named Buggin' Out (Giancarlo Esposito) makes a scene, complaining that the pizzeria's "wall of fame" contains only pictures of Italians, asking why there aren't any "brothers" included in the group.  It's a black neighborhood, they are the ones putting money in Sal's (Danny Aiello) pocket, so they should be represented.  After he gets kicked out Mookie goes out to him on the street asking his friend not to make trouble that could cost him his job.  In many ways Mookie is likable, but is far from a perfect character.  We understand his frustrations but his contentment with the status quo is clearly self defeating. This demand for recognition expressed by Buggin' Out is the recurring theme of the movie, and leads to the final, destructive confrontation at the end of the movie. 

The scope of Lee's artistic and political vision is hard to summarize.  The story is relatively simple, but takes many detours, showing us life on a tensely divided street.  And this is not a "black people are good, white people are devils" movie either.  Sal and one of his sons Vito (Richard Edson) are actually decent folk.  The other, Pino (John Turturro) is the one truly malevolent character in the move, and even he has a moment to express his own frustrations, misdirected as they are, with a certain sense of empathy.  We feel the frustration of the black residents as they see, not just Sal thriving in their neighborhood, but a Korean family, "not a year off the boat," as one person puts it, prospering in a once boarded up store front.  Mean while the residents feel like they have no opportunities, are oppressed by the police, and have no stake in their own community.  In spite of the clear frustrations, these are not sad or downcast people.  There is a joy underlying much of the film which I think is meant to punctuate the humanity and dignity of the characters.  They are not blind to their troubles, but they refuse to be defined by them as well.   And the blacks in the movie are not sainted either.  In the end, police brutality is real, economic oppression and racism are real.  But I think Lee is telling the black community that it needs to look at itself as well, examine it's own values, and take control of it's own destiny if it is truly going to fight the power.  Sporadic protests and riots are not enough if they don't lead to a real commitment to change.  This is embodied by Mookie who has a moment of defiance and rebellion, but at the end of the film is only concerned about getting his regular $250.

I was with the movie for about ninety percent of its running time.  Not that I agreed with everything Lee was proposing, but I thought he was making an honest, edgy, thought provoking work that honest people could debate and walk way from with different impressions.  I think there is even room to debate exactly what it is Lee was trying to say, let alone if he's right or wrong.  But if the film had ended with its famous riot scene, culminating with a picture of two "brothers" finally getting up on the wall, and quotes from both scrolling up the screen it would have been perfect.  Instead we get a coda set the following morning that seems unrealistic and softens the impact of the climactic confrontation.  We are left with Mookie and Sal on the street out side the burnt-out store, and after what had transpired the previous night I believe one of the two would have ended up dead, or at least seriously injured, had they actually met like that the next day. 

I've left out a lot about the supporting cast, with great performances by the likes of Ozzie Davis, Ruby Dee, Samuel L. Jackson and Bill Nunn.  Lee, who was only 32 when he made the movie, shows confidence with the camera, but constructs more of a montage of events rather than presenting a driving narrative.  This was his manifesto, in a way; he had lot to say and wanted to get it all in.  Far be it from me to argue with a man's artistic vision, but I would say the results leave us with the whole being greater than the sum of it's individual, sometimes disjointed, parts.  As a topical film it is dated a bit, and references to the Tawana Brawley case, the police killings of Eleanor Bumpers and Micheal Stewart and the Howard Beach incident will be lost on many younger people today, as will the entire atmosphere of racial tension in New York City at the time that those events highlighted, and serve as a key point of departure in the film.  But almost 25 years on Do The Right Thing still hold up as an artistic statement whose message is still relevant as problems of black unemployment and poverty persist.  In 2013 race relations are better than in 1989, but far from perfect.  So if Do The Right Thing is dated, and I do believe it is, it's not terribly so.

At this point I'll stop and hit Fargo next time, wrapping up my reflection of both films then.   

The Empire Strikes Out: "Catching Fire: The Hunger Games" Movie Review

I walked away from The Hunger Games, the first part of the dystopian trilogy based on the popular teen novels, with mixed feelings.  While I admired it as a movie, I thought it was a dark story, and questioned its appropriateness for the middle school and high school audience it was obviously aimed at.  I went to see the second installment, Catching Fire, mainly out of sense of obligation; since I did write about the first film I might as well see this thing through.  I left Catching Fire, again with mixed feelings: It was an emotionally engaging film that that offers the sense of hope that the first movie lacked, but it's cliff hanger ending misses it's mark.

Our story takes up several months after the 74th Hunger Games ended:  Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is back in District 12, living in relative comfort after she and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) broke precedent by becoming the first duel winners in the game's history.  President Snow (Donald Sotherland), not happy with the trick they pulled, and nervous that this act of defiance is fueling the fire of discontent in the other Districts, wants to find a way to either discredit Katniss, or else destroy her.  On a victory tour of the Districts she sees hints of the oppression of the people and their increasing defiance.  The whole point of the games is to keep the populous fearful and pacified, and the entire balance that has kept the Capital in control is at risk.  The plot is hatched by a new game master (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to pick the participants of the upcoming 75th games from the pool of surviving victors.  Since Katniss is the only female winner from her district we know that she will go.  The only question is if Peeta or Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), their mentor from the last time, will represent the men.

All and all I found the violence less intense than the first movie, and the depth of the characters more profound.  Yes we get the star crossed love angle that you might expect from a teen adventure, but not everything is fun and romance.  Katniss suffers from post traumatic shock, and the thought of having to go back out into the arena nearly drivers her over the edge.  While more than a few of the returning participants seem to be all in, others are obviously leery, discontented and in one case down right bitter with the prospect of having to engage in a kill or be killed competition yet again.

More than the first film, I saw definite borrowing from other movies, including the Star Wars series, The Matrix,  and of course The Running Man.  But the entire experience is original enough, and they avoided simply redoing the first move, which is always a danger with sequels, that I could forgive the cribbing.  The ending most reminded me of the Empire Strikes Back (with a touch of Matrix) but instead of our heroes being up against the wall they clearly have the momentum on their side, even if our heroine is a tad confused.  It seemed to me to go against the spirit of a cliff hanger, until I saw that they are going to pull the most popular cinematic trick of the twenty-first century; the final installment if being made into two movies.  My guess is that the really perilous ending with come around next time.

So, a mixed but positive review from me.  It was engrossing on many levels, and the performances, especially by Ms. Lawrence, are better than we usually see in these kinds of movies.  The themes of economic and governmental oppression, media manipulation, self sacrifice and hope are strong.  On the negative side I guess at a certain point when it becomes clear that the sides are being drawn and system is being challenged I was wondering what took these people 75 years to figure out a strategy.  The ending also seemed a bit bland.  I understand that there wasn't supposed to be a real pay off at the end, but I wish they left me with a greater sense of suspense.  We are left with questions, but I was left wondering how the bad guys will be defeated, not if they will be, which seems to defeat at lest some of the purpose of a cliff hanger.

Beyond JFK: November 22, 1963 and What Else it Means

Today we remember the fiftieth anniversary of the JFK assassination, as if I need to remind you.  This event, and what it meant then as well as it's significance for us now now has been analyzed, not simply over the last several months, but for years.  I approach the observance with more than a touch of ambivalence.  This was obviously a great tragedy, and even though I wasn't around for the assassination, it still seemed to cast a shadow over my childhood.  It was a key experience in the lives of all the adults in my life growing up, and of two of my older brothers, one of whom, as a five year old saw Lee Harvey Oswald shot on national television.  It was a key reference point for my priests, teachers, and in the media.  For many their lives seemed almost subliminally divided between Pre-Assassination and Post-Assassination.  On the other hand this was still not my experience.  I didn't lose my innocence (heck, I wasn't even born), and I'm sure the country didn't either.  Remember, the Civil Rights leader Medgar Evers was murdered in June and four little girls, Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson and Denise McNair, were killed when their church was bombed by racists in Birmingham, Alabama in September. There were already 16,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam, up from 900 three years earlier, and we had gone eyeball to eyeball with the Soviet Union over missiles in Cuba, barley avoiding a nuclear confrontation, in October 1962.  I'm sure the historians out there can think of other things to mention, but I think you get my point; anyone who thought that the United States lost it's collective innocence on November 22, 1963 wasn't paying attention.

What gets lost in all the JFK anniversary talk is that two other people, less powerful, less famous to be sure but just as consequential, died the same day.  The Christian apologist C.S. Lewis died in England, and visionary British author Aldous Huxley died in Los Angeles.  There is no doubt that the murder of a sitting president would be the number one news story on any given day, and be the event most remembered in following years.  But I am not the first to note that the other two gentlemen who met their Maker that day fifty yeas ago have had as much, if not a greater influence over society over the decades since their deaths.



Aldous Huxley is best known for his 1932 novel Brave New World.  In it he tells the story of a future, dystopian society with a difference.  Most stories about future societies depict a great regression or disintegration of the social order (think of the H.G. Welles film Things to Come, from the same era), or else a society ruled by a harsh dictatorship (like in George Orwell's 1984).  In Huxley's story we have the perfect society: population levels strictly controlled by the state; there are no live births anymore, all people are conceived and incubated in a "hatchery."  The family has been abolished.  Sexual promiscuity is the norm and monogamy a perversion.  Pills are dispensed, what we would call today anti-depressants, served up like candy.  People are genetically engineered to fit into strict social classes and conditioned to accept their lot without questioning.  Medical technology has stopped the aging process as we understand it.  People live to about sixty in state of suspended young adulthood, and then die alone and unmourned.  Society is organized around consumption of goods and pleasure, conformity and class stability.  Only a few at the very top of social pyramid understand how contrived and unnatural the whole social order is and crush who ever disrupts the balance, no matter how slight.

Later in life Huxley warned about the dangers of governmental over organization.  These highly  centralized governments could use technology like television for propaganda purposes.  The use of mood or mind altering drugs could become prevalent that relieve short term ills but eventually kill the person physically and morally.  Overpopulation could cause social instability that leads to an overly powerful central state as a remedy.  I don't agree with this last point, but his other "prophesies" have been frighteningly accurate, as far as I can see.



C.S. Lewis was an Oxford Don who spent his early adulthood as a atheist, converting to Christianity after  experiencing what Fulton Sheen might have called a Divine invasion.  But Lewis didn't give in to Grace quickly.  By his own admission his was a reluctant conversion, but once he did turn to Christ he put his energies and talents at the service of Christian apologetics.  Like his friend J.R.R. Tolkien he used story and legend as a vehicle to evangelize the culture.  He also wrote essays and made radio presentations, using logic and persuasion to show the reasonableness of faith.  His, in a way, was a perfect standpoint to start from since he knew the atheist position intimately and could answer it from the inside.

While his non fiction essays like Mere Christianity and Surprised by Joy still enjoy a loyal if relatively small readership, his fictional series The Chronicles of Narnia continue to capture the popular imagination.  What Lewis and Tolkien show is that story, myth, and the arts in general are powerful ways of evangelizing the culture and bringing the message of Christ to those who might not read theological essays or attend lectures.

Yes, we lost three important people fifty years ago today.  I have not said much about the third and most well known of them, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  This is because I believe that in spite of his fame JFK is the most mysterious of the three.  His life and death have been shrouded over the last half century in its own peculiar myth; well crafted and fiercely protected by his family, colleagues and large parts of the news and entertainment media.  He has become a blank screen on which both friends and critics project their own hopes, fears and aspirations.  Undeniably photogenic and charismatic, he was the first TV ready president.  His murder was the moment when television came of age as the conduit of a common experience for the American people.  In spite of all the film and photos we have of him getting a handle on the man is elusive.  There are so many contrary images of him fighting to emerge from the official Camelot Legend that endures, even if few people really believe in it anymore.

Personally, I'm not sure that his thousand days in office were as consequential as the effects of the violent way his life ended.  It seems people speak more of what he might have done if he had lived as opposed to what he accomplished in office.  Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have passed?  Some in the civil rights movement before the assassination were unsure, and Malcolm X, who was highly skeptical of the Kennedy record to that point wasn't holding his breath.  That August's March on Washington was in large part a response to what was seen as inactivity by the administration on civil rights issues.  If Kennedy had lived would the Great Society programs have been enacted?  One of his great fights with the Congress was over his plan to cut income tax rates, an issue still unresolved at the time of his murder.  There were even questions about whether JFK would be renominated by his party for a second term.  And lest we forget the question that usually dominates the "what if JFK had lived" conversation: would the U.S. role in Vietnam have escalated the way it did under Lyndon Johnson?  All these questions are unanswerable, as are the ones surrounding a possible assassination plot.  What we are left with is an image, a memory and a legend.  I write this not as a reflection on JFK the man, but on the media that helped create the Camelot myth and the culture that continues to foster it.

We mourn JFK because he was a symbol of youth and vitality in the service of a greater good, cut down unjustly, before he could fulfill his promise.  Huxley gives us a warning about putting our faith in well concocted images and trading our freedom for a bit of passing comfort and security.  Lewis teaches us the power of myth as a conveyer of a deeper truth.

Eternal Rest Grant unto Them, O Lord, And Let Perpetual Light Shine Upon Them.  May Their Souls and all the Souls of the Faithful Departed Through the Mercy of God, Rest In Peace. AMEN

Fr. Barron on the 50th Anniversary of C.S. Lewis' Death

The Catholic (Re) Marriage Dilemma

 

November is flying by, and I've hardly had time to generate new material for The Ax.  In some ways I'm still getting my bearings straight in my new assignment in Chicago.  Some people here figure that this should be easy since I was stationed here once before.  But while much is the same, there is still much that is different.  This parish has always been busy, but it's even busier now, with many new faces to learn, along with different or greatly expanded initiatives on the schedule.  As the month began I was working on a post about marriage and so pick it up again now.  

I ran across an article from a Catholic site that, to my best estimation, emanates from Australia about the whole issue of divorced and remarried Catholics' eligibility to receive Holy Communion.  This among many hot button issues effecting the Church have been featured prominently on both Catholic and secular news services of late.  The practice is for persons married in the Church who divorce and remarry without getting the first union annulled, or Catholics who marry civilly but never have the union con-validated by the Church to refrain from receiving Communion.  If they wish to participate actively in the Sacraments then they are asked to live as friends or brother and sister with their spouse.

I am not arguing perpetual abstinence from sexual relations is the easy or practical solution for these people. The plain fact is that most people in this position either leave the Catholic Church for what they perceive to be a more understanding Christian community, attend Mass without receiving Communion or simply stop practicing any religion.  None of the choices left open to a person who finds themselves in a difficult marital situation is easy, and I know that people truly suffer having to make the perceived choice between their faith and their marriage.

Of all the difficult teachings associated with Catholicism this is the one that effects me as a priest most directly on a day to day basis.  We hear a lot of confessions here at St. John Bosco Parish when compared to other parishes I've served in, and I don't go many days between having a person in what we call an "irregular" situation visit me in the confessional.  Many times these are people with children in our religious education program who have come back to Church because of their children.  Some times the solution to their problem is easy; either the couple is married civilly, or not at all, or if they are divorced their fist marriage was civil and so they can either begin their preparation for marriage in the Church right away or after a brief investigation to make sure the first marriage wasn't contracted during a religious ceremony.  If the first was a Church marriage then an annulment is required.  This can be a long, painful experience for people, and most who approach me about it don't proceed.  This often leads to years either alienated from the Church completely, or else separated from the Sacraments.  A painful situation, indeed.

Pope Francis has called a special Synod of Bishops for next year to look at this and other issued surrounding the present state of married people and the family.  The regularly scheduled Synod takes place the year after, reportedly continuing the theme.   High on the list of priorities is the examination of how divorced and remarried Catholics are to be tended to by their shepherds.  Is there a way to admit these people once again into full communion with the community by way of the Sacraments?   Pope Benedict XVI established a committee to examine the issue, but they came back to him saying, in essence, that there was no way around the status quo.

In dealing with this issue with honesty and integrity we must first face Jesus' revolutionary teaching on marriage, which prohibits divorce.  The Church's teachings are not a set arbitrary rules, but are the result of a reflection on Jesus' teachings and actions.  Jesus was merciful, but his words could also be strikingly stern.  And even his acts of mercy were always followed up by the admonition to "go and sin no more."  As Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith pointed out recently:

"The entire sacramental economy is a work of divine mercy and it cannot simply be swept aside by an appeal to the same.  An objectively false appeal to mercy also runs the risk of trivializing the image of God, by implying that God cannot do other than forgive.  The mystery of God includes not only his mercy but also his holiness and his justice.  If one were to suppress these characteristics of God and refuse to take sin seriously, ultimately it would not even be possible to bring God’s mercy to man.  Jesus encountered the adulteress with great compassion, but he said to her “Go and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11).  God’s mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the Church.  Rather it supplies us with the grace and strength needed to fulfill them, to pick ourselves up after a fall, and to live life in its fullness according to the image of our heavenly Father."

Pope Francis has hinted that maybe a simplifying of the annulment process is in order.  I'm not a canonist, and won't venture to guess what a proposed simplification would look like.  The Holy Father recently told a group of top canon lawyers that their work should be seen as a pastoral ministry designed to heal broken souls and not simply a bureaucratic or legalistic process.  Again, what this means moving ahead I can't say.

All I can say is that considering the present state of marriage in the West, and the cultural shift away from the traditional Catholic - Christian understanding of the Sacrament by most people, I wouldn't be surprised if more couples than we want to admit approach the altar with a deficient understanding of the commitment that they are making, or in their hearts and minds are not making the same commitment at all.  This in spite of all the best efforts of pastors and diocesan offices of family life to prepare our newlyweds well.  I'm the first to say that we shouldn't use an appeal to mercy, no matter how sincere, to nullify the words of Jesus Christ.  At the same time we are dealing with people who are more influenced by the culture than by Christ, and so need a way back into the Church after a failed attempt at marriage, not more roadblocks. 

"Gravity" and the Rebirth of Faith at the Multiplex

The conventional wisdom on the new Sandra Bullock, George Clooney film Gravity is that it is a rousing, action packed, technically stunning masterpiece of special effects film making, that reminds some people of 2001: A Space Odyssey, while lacking that iconic movie's depth.  I made the mistake of reading some reviews and viewing a discussion by a round table of critics on You Tube before seeing the film, that backed up this impression.  In truth I was skeptical about Gravity from the first commercial for it on TV, feeling that it could never live up to the hype.  Plus, with even it's supporters claiming that it was a bit superficial in the message department, I figured this would be all WOW with nothing else there to support all the special effects, something very typical of contemporary Hollywood.  Not to be overly gratuitous in the pun department; Gravity has a lot more gravitas than most of the critics out there want to admit, or maybe have the ability to see.  Many mainstream critics function out of a secular humanist world view that either renders them indifferent or hostile to themes involving faith and religion in movies.  In the case of Gravity I think we can add a third category; blindness.  It is the only way that I can explain how this major theme has gone seemingly unnoticed by the major critics and taste makers.

Briefly; Bullock plays a scientist aboard the space shuttle who learned just enough about being an astronaut to get her on this mission to fix the Hubble Telescope.  George Clooney is a hot shot veteran shuttle pilot on his last mission (so you just know something is going to go wrong).  This is about the only cliche I can think of in the movie, though.  Soon the shuttle and the telescope are bombarded by space debris from a disabled and destroyed satellite, with little warning.  Bullock and Clooney are the only survivors of the disaster and have to find their way to a Russian space station in hopes that its escape pod is functioning.

As for similarities to 2001, it's been years since I've seen Stanley Kubrick's 1968 classic, so I'm ill prepared to make a full blown comparison of the two films.  But I can't see that the two movies have much in common other than that they take place, for the most part, in outer space, and are both groundbreaking technically in relation to their respective generations.  2001 is a sweeping film, following human evolution from the caveman, questioning the role of technology, the roots of violence in society and what it means to be human.  For all it's spectacle, Gravity is a very intimate story about one person's journey from spiritual and emotional death to rebirth.  2001 questions the reality of the transcendent, but leaves you wondering.  Gravity affirms that we are not alone, and that there are no atheists in escape pods burning their way through the atmosphere. 

What hit me from watching it, and talking with others who have, is how rich the film is in religious symbols, and where some of the more tangible symbols show up, and where they don't.  I'd noticed that the Russian station features a small icon of St. Christopher and a Chinese rig contains a Buddha, but it was pointed out to me that no such religious image can be seen among the debris floating from the U.S. wreckage.  The most prominent symbol that emerges from the gaping hole in the shuttle's fuselage is a statuette of Marvin the Martian of Bugs Bunny fame.  The two cultures that have experienced religious persecution and state sanctioned atheism in the last century still maintains the religious sense, while the one that has religious freedom codified in its constitution seems oblivious, exchanging centuries old touchstones for a trivial piece of pop culture nostalgia.

Gravity could have easily devolved into a "triumph of technology and human know how over adversity" story like Apollo 13, but as Fr. Barron points out in his analysis (which contains spoilers) the movie shows the fragility of technology and the need to be grounded in a deeper reality if true meaning in life is to found.  In her darkest hour Bullock's character begins to speak to no one in particular, coming to grips with the fact that her death is near. She expresses a desire to pray but feels lost because no one has ever taught her how.  I don't want to give anything away, but she has an unlikely encounter that can be variously interpreted as an apparition, a hallucination caused by a lack of oxygen or some mystical combination of the two.  The mysterious visitor, along with assuring her that she'll get home, reminds her of her training, and repeats to her, "you know this," as the protocols are reviewed.  I think she knew how to fix the problems that she faced all along, but had given up, essentially committing a form of passive suicide.  She was diverted from this course as soon as she was tuned into a reality beyond herself.  In coming to an understanding that she isn't alone she is renewed, and in her determination to get home alive begins to speak with purpose to someone in particular who has obviously passed on to another realm.

I could go on about Gravity's religious symbolism and themes, and maybe will in a later post, but for now I want to end off by saying that I very much see Gravity as falling in line with a couple of films that have come out over the last few years.  I'm thinking particularly of last year's Life of Pi, 2011's The Tree of Life and 2010's Hereafter: major Hollywood movies that take religion, God and the afterlife seriously.  Since the New Hollywood era of the late sixties and 1970's irony and iconoclasm have been the bywords in Hollywood.  All things related to tradition and authority were (and still are) fair game for ridicule and rejection, with religion held up for scorn in a particular way.  One could understand the movement to a point considering how subject matter and points of view that could be presented in films were so rigidly regulated by the old Production Code. Nonetheless the pendulum has swung so far the other way it's been rare to ever see faith or religious people treated in anything other than negative stereo types.   In these four films in particular I see a small trend that I pray grows, of Hollywood once again taking faith and God seriously.

Without a doubt I can say that I have never seen anything quite like Gravity on a movie screen anywhere ever.  I held on stubbornly to my snarky skepticism through about the first quarter, but it eventually melted away and I had to simply sit there, nodding my head and say "WOW," to the visual spectacle before me.  But this movie is much more than just visual wizardry.  The themes may not be as complex as 2001: A Space Odyssey, but they are no less profound.  Not only does Spanish director Alfonso Cuarón engage the mind, he touches the heart, something Kubrick was never able to accomplish in any of his films, as truly great as they are.  Keep in mind, I knew exactly what was going to happen walking in and I found myself getting choked up then, and still feel affected four days later.

So see Gravity:  a film that engages the imagination, the intellect and the heart.  A rare feat in any age. 

Pope Francis vs. Beelzebub: Round 2

I Posted a story about, and a video of, Pope Francis' homily from the Friday before last, which he offered at the Domus Sanctæ Marthæ.  The Gospel passage he preached on was Luke 11:15-26, where Jesus is casting out demons and is accused by the Pharisees of doing so by the power of the Evil One.  The Lord explains that this charge is absurd from the get go because a kingdom divided against itself can not stand.  Satan may be evil, but he isn't dumb; he knows that his only chance at wreaking maximum havoc is to maintain a disciplined unity among his minions (and these aren't the cute, yellow, goggle wearing weebles from Despicable Me we're talking about here).  The Holy Father went out of his way to say that neither Jesus nor the Evangelist were speaking metaphorically about possession, demons and the destructiveness of demonic powers.  

I bring this up because the Holy Father has raised eyebrows on both sides of the ideological divide since his election in March; some perplexed (on the right) others gleeful (on the left).  This divide has been a plague on the Church since at least the end of Vatican II, sapping us of our ability to truly put into practice the true aim of the Council; the evangelization of the contemporary world.  Too many of us within the Church are overly concerned about coming off seeming the most intelligent, most relevant, most enlightened or most orthodox, forgetting that all that really matters is that we all should be holy; which does means being bold and unafraid, but more to the point humble and simple.  

Satan is a real force, a personal being who made a choice to do evil; a choice that because of his angelic nature makes his an eternal option.  To paraphrase the Holy Father, his existence and mission are real not because I say it, or the Pope says it, but because the scripture says it.  How we understand the nature of demons may be a bit murky if we stick with the Old Testament, but by the time of Jesus things are made clear; Satan is not simply a jokster or some kind of cosmic prosecutor.  He is the Enemy who has set his back to The Lord, and is a murderer from the beginning.  This is not true because any earthly myth or legend says it's so, it is true because Our Lord and His faithful witnesses do.

There are those that in the light of modern psychology try to explain away these passages.  They are mistaken, as much as those who try to dismiss the Sermon on the Mount as some sort of pious impossibility.  Both are real and the challenge is to embrace them, along with accepting all the hard teachings required of a disciple.

If we do not learn to embrace the whole Gospel we will continue to be divided by idiological lines.  The Evil One is very happy with this.  While we squabble over the "true meaning of Vatican II" or the proper posture of the priest during Mass we are giving the devil a head start to steal souls.  Does this mean we shouldn't care about or discuss things like the direction the Church should be taking or how the liturgy should be celebrated?  Of course not.  But we have to understand that the average woman on the street doesn't care about how Lumen Gentium, 9 should be read or if the priest should be facing east or west during the Canon of the Mass.   Insignificant issues?  No.  But to a person on the outside, a person searching and poking her head in to the Church to see if Christ really will fulfill the longings of her soul these discussions probably strike her as navel gazing and more than a bit obtuse.  Rather than a refuge from an idiologicly confused and relativistic world, she sees nothing but a mirror image of the chaos she is trying to leave behind.

Unlike the Enemy we do not see the value in being united.  We are happy to be divided up, not only Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, but also within our own tribes (high church, low church, evangelical, nondenominational or what have you).  While we argue and keep a distance, Satan is cleaning our collective clocks.  Are there not real issues dividing those who bear the name Christian that can't be airbrushed away?  Yes.  But when we can't even agree on who the Enemy really is, or if he exists at all, we are not as intelligent, relevant, enlightened or orthodox as we suppose.

The Pope understands that greatest weapons against the devil are humility and unity.  It's time for us to stop worrying about if the Holy Father will change this teaching or that, and if it will be to our liking, and stand with him in the battle for souls. 

Salesian Loyalty to the Pope

I've always made it an unofficial part of what is an already loosely defined editorial agenda here at The Ax to cover the Pope, no matter who the pope happens to be, and explain his words and defend him as necessary (like he needs me to explain or defend him).  I did this with Pope Benedict, and I continue with Pope Francis.  It's important to me because I am a Salesian, and loyalty to the Pope is a central part of our spirit.  Don Bosco had a close relationship with Bl. Pius IX,  and a more distant one with his successor Leo XIII.  But when the latter pontiff asked Don Bosco to build the Basilica of the Sacred Heart for him the saint put all his energy into the project, to the point of possibly losing his health over it.  And so it is, or should be; our loyalty is not to Joseph Ratzinger or Jorge Bergoglio, but to the Pope, no matter who he is.  Though I must admit that it is with more than a little pride that I can mention that the Holy Father attended a Salesian school as a child.

The 6th grade graduation picture at the Salesian College of Ramos Mejia c. 1949.

At this point, seven months into his pontificate, I've already written more posts about the pope than in the previous three years of this blog's existence, during Benedict XVI's reign.   This is due in large part because of how new the Franciscan Papacy is.  Even though he's not much younger than Cardinal Ratzinger was at the time of his election, Pope Francis is demonstrating a dynamism and charisma that has seemed to be missing since the first decade or so of John Paul II.  While it was less than ten years ago, it seems many forget that there was a buzz surrounding Benedict's first months in the Chair of Peter, and how he was attracting larger crowds to the Wednesday Audiences than Bl. John Paul II.  Peggy Noonan wrote that people came to see John Paul, but they were listening to Benedict.  Yes, he was called "God's Rottweiler," and people viewed him as coming out of JPII's shadow, much like George H.W. Bush emerged from Ronald Reagan's when he became president, but people were also noting differences in style.  Benedict was going off script more than his predecessor did, speaking of himself, as well as the apostles he succeeded as sinners in need of God's grace. (sound familiar?).  

Without a doubt Francis' personal style is much different that that of Benedict, his ascendancy has brought with it a bigger dose of "buzz" than previously, and for good reason.  If people came to hear Benedict, they are hanging on every word that proceeds from Francis' mouth--words that are coming at us almost daily and in differing forms than have been used by pontiffs the past.  He is using interviews, off the cuff comments to reporters at impromptu news conferences, his daily homilies (which can be found most days on You Tube) among other informal methods of communication to get his message across.  This has been beneficial for the faithful and non-believers alike , but has also left the Holy Father open to misinterpretation, a modern danger for any pope in this secular, multimedia age.  But even more so now with a Pope who speaks simply, but in small chunks that can leave room for doubt as to what he "really means."

There is no denying that Francis is shifting emphasis from his predecessors.  He still thinks abortion is evil--the product of a disposable culture that sees value in convenience and instant gratification over the deeper values of life, but wants us to also think about economy justice and the plight of the poor as life issues.  He still teaches that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, and that young people should have the courage to settle down and raise families, but he also doesn't think we should single out or target gays as somehow the greatest sinners in the world, or the root of the world's problems.  The temptation among some long suffering progressives in the Church, who feel they haven't had a "pope of their own" since Paul VI is to read the change of emphasis as a change in doctrine; that Francis somehow wants to do away with the "old rules" and usher in some Post Vatican II Golden Age, or what Ross Douthat calls the desire to "Episcopalianize" the Catholic Church.  I think before we get too far ahead of ourselves we need to do what I've been saying for a while now; take a deep breath, exhale and really see what the Pope is saying.  

The Salesian Rector Major, Don Pascual Chavez Villanueva (center) visiting Pope Francis 

The temptation for the more conservative or traditionalist Catholics is to think that the Church is going to fly off the rails somehow with a "liberal" pope at the controls.  I don't worry, I really don't.  I am a part of the John Paul II Generation of priests who came of age during his pontificate, and was reading Cardinal Ratzinger's books before he became Benedict XVI.  In Francis I see a Salesian educated Jesuit with vast pastoral, as well as academic experience who's putting a human face on Catholic doctrine, connecting them to the Gospel, putting Jesus first.  Not that his predecessors didn't, but their scholarly style may have distracted some from that fact.  I don't worry.  Like Don Bosco I'm with the Pope, now as much as ever.

Next time out I'll give you a more concrete reason why Pope Francis is right on target when we take a second look on his recent comments about Jesus and the existence of the Evil One.

Pope Francis vs. Beelzebub: Round 1

Here's something from Asia News on the sermon Pope Francis gave this morning, and a clip of the Holy Father's remarks from the Vatican You Tube page.  I'm going to have something to say on this a little later.


Vatican City ( AsiaNews) - "We must always remain vigilant, on guard against deception, against the seduction of evil, " because the devil, against whom Jesus truly fought and won," always tries to come back," to "take possession of us. "

Today's Gospel in which Jesus responds to some who accuse him of casting out demons in the name of Beelzebub, gave Pope Francis occasion to warn about the reality of the struggle against the devil, for which he offered three "criteria" of " vigilance. "

During the Mass celebrated this morning at Casa Santa Marta, the Pope, as reported by Vatican Radio, noted that all along, " and even in our days " , there is the temptation to belittle the figure of Jesus.
 
"Some priests when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say : 'But , Jesus healed a person from a mental illness .' They do not read this here , right? It 's true that at that time you could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession, but it is also true that there was the devil! And we have no right to simplify the thing, as if to say: 'They were not possessed ; they were mentally ill .' No! The presence of the devil is in the first page of the Bible and the Bible ends with the presence of the devil, with God's victory over the devil. "

For this reason "we must not be naive". The Pope, therefore, observed that the Lord gives us some criteria to "discern" the presence of evil and to chose "the Christian path when there are temptations ." One of the criteria is "not to follow Jesus' victory over evil "only "halfway". "You're either with me - says the Lord - or you're against me." Jesus came to destroy the devil, "to liberate us" from the "slavery of the devil upon us ." And you can not say that this is an "exaggeration" . "At this point there are no grey areas. There is a battle, a battle where salvation is in play, eternal salvation , eternal salvation" for all of us. Then there is the criterion of vigilance. "We must always remain vigilant, on guard against deception, against the seduction of the evil one".

"And we should ask ourselves this question: 'Am I watching over myself, my heart, my sentiments, my thoughts? Do I still preserve the treasure of grace? Do I still preserve the presence of the Holy Spirit in me, or do I leave it, certain in the belief it is? ' But if you do not safeguard it, along comes someone stronger than you . But when someone stronger attacks it and overcomes it, he takes away the weapons in which one trusted, and divides the spoil. Vigilance ! With three criteria: Do not confuse the truth . Jesus fought against the devil: the first criterion . Second criteria: whoever is not with Jesus, it is against Jesus, there is no halfway. Third criterion: keep guard of our hearts , because the devil is cunning . He is never completely banished, only on the last day will he be. "

Jesus said that when the unclean spirit leaves someone " it haunts desert places , seeking rest and finding none it says : 'I will return to the house from which I came .' And when he finds it " swept and decorated". Then it goes "gathers seven other spirits more wicked than itself , and they take up their abode are". And so , "the last state of that man becomes worse than it first was".

"Vigilance! Because his strategy is this: 'You became Christian. Advance in your faith. I will leave you. I will leave you tranquil. But then when you are used to not being so watchful and you feel secure, I will come back'. The Gospel today begins with the devil being cast out and ends with the devil coming back! St. Peter would say: 'It is like a fierce lion that circles us'. It is like that. 'But, Father, you a little ancient. You are frightening us with these things...' No, not me! It is the Gospel! And these are not lies: it is the Word of the Lord! Let us ask the Lord for the grace to take these things seriously. He came to fight for our salvation. He conquered the devil ! Please do not do business with the devil ! He tries to find his home, to take possession of us ... Do not relativize this, be on guard! And always with Jesus! "

Fr. Barron Comments on the Pope Francis Interview

St. Francis of Assisi: The Transitus

Another Papal Interview

I was preparing a post about October being the Month of the Rosary and chock full of important saint's days, when I saw that Pope Francis has been interviewed yet again; this time in a secular Italian publication.  Eugenio Scalfari, the veteran journalist and publisher who conducted the tete a tete, is a self proclaimed non-believer who also stresses that he is not anti-clerical.  And he has reason not to be; after he deserted the Italian Army during World War II he was hidden in a Jesuit residence.


The interview is not long, and you can read it for yourselves, so I won't waste time with a line by line review.  I'll just give a few impressions.

The Pope as Happy Culture Warrior
The Holy Father approaches the encounter as a meeting of minds seeking understanding, not as a missionary meeting a heathen in search of a convert (he calls proselytizing "solemn nonsense.")  This doesn't mean that Pope Francis is somehow passive or without an edge.  While it is very obvious that this is a congenial encounter, at one point the Pope makes Scalfari articulate what he believes in if not in God.  It's always hard to judge tone in the written word, but it strikes me as a very forceful, passionate moment in the interview.  The interviewer becomes the interviewee, with the new interrogator always respecting the person while probing the ideas, challenging assumptions.

Also, while some might accuse Francis of being too subjective when he says that a non-believer following his or her conscience, that is following one's natural inclinations as to good versus evil, would be enough to make the world a better place, he speaks of grace in purely objective terms.  When Scalfari expresses incredulity that a non-believer could be touched by grace the Pope tells him that grace touches the soul, not the consciousness, so that we are unaware when of it.  Scalfari protests that he doesn't believe in the soul, to which the Pope assures him that he has one irregardless of what he believes.  The Pope is here to debate, but he's not accepting the world's terms, or acting like he has to necessarily defend Christianity's basic assumptions.  He is willing to be challenged as well as to lay down the gauntlet himself, always with respect, vigor and joy.

The Worldly and the Spiritual Intersect
The Pope states that the most serious evils facing the world right now are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the elderly.  He is asked if these are not matters for governments and trade unions to sort out.  Francis agrees, but stresses that these conditions touch body and soul.  They sap the person economically and emotionally, robbing them of hope for a better life and a feeling of belonging in the social community.  But they also touch the soul.  The Church as an institution is not to get involved with politics, but the People of God certainly have this responsibility to be involved in the shaping of the public order.  Catholics do this not as people who seek to dominate, but rather contribute.

The Holy Father also stressed the importance of mysticism.  The Church has a distinct role from that of government, which is secular by nature.  We come to certain conclusions about what constitutes the correct social order because we have met Jesus Christ, not because we adhere to some political ideology.  He states clearly that "Religion without mysticism is philosophy."  While he does not see himself as being a mystic in the strict sense, he has had what he would describe as brushes with the mystical, particularly when he was elected and asked for a few moments to reflect before accepting.  While politics and religion are distinct, you can gather from the Holy Father's words he believes that faith brings with it political implications, even if the Church as an institution needs to let the state do it's job free of interference.  

The Liberation Theology Pope?
This is strictly me musing a bit, but a lot of ink has been spilt over Francis' views on liberation theology, and that his election signals a sea change in the Vatican's attitude toward that controversial theological school of thought.  Both Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were cool to LT, but with Francis, a native of the region where it was born, meeting recently with LT's founding father Gustavo Gutierrez there is much speculation that the theology of liberation's time has come.  I think we need to take a pause and a deep breath on that one.

It is true that the Pope has spoken on economic justice, both as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and in his recent interviews and talks.  It's safe to say that Francis, like most European and Latin American prelates, can probably be best described as a social democrat (as was JP II and BXVI).  In other words he believes in more government oversight of the economy than your average Republican, but is no Marxist.  He has stressed in the past that there is not one liberation theology, but rather theologies of liberation, some in greater accord with Church teaching than others.  Someone at a private audience with the Pope after the sit down with Fr. Gutierrez indicated that Francis made it clear that the approval of the theologian's work given by a curial cardinal was that person's personal opinion and did not necessarily reflect Francis' point of view.   Even in the latest interview the Holy father talks about the need for economic rules, but that "if necessary direct intervention from the state to correct the more intolerable inequalities" should happen (emphasis mine).   

Again, I'm not arguing that Francis is a free market libertarian.  He also said that "Personally I think so-called unrestrained liberalism only makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker and excludes the most excluded."  He means liberalism in the classical sense, not in today's U.S. political usage.  His words tell me that his threshold for when government should intervene into the economy would be lower than mine, but he still doesn't see the state as the first or only line of defense against economic injustice.  

In other words Francis will not be afraid to appeal to elements of LT, but is a true believer in Christ, not in an ideology, even one that dresses in theological cloths.
    
Who's Wig is the Holy Father Twisting?
It is becoming a cliche to say that Pope Francis is the liberal (in the contemporary political sense) answer to Benedict and John Paul.  There is no doubt that some conservative minded or traditionalist Catholics are nervous about the Pope's recent statements.  As one friend said to me recently, "I love Pope Francis, I just wish he wouldn't talk so much."  

If I can be so bold, both liberals and conservatives in the Church are getting things wrong.  We can't view the Holy Father's words through the lens of ideology or politics.  He is not advocating fundamental changes in doctrine but in structure and emphasis.  Look to his words on clericalism and role of Church councils and synods in Church governance and you will find the key to understanding the Pope's mind.  

Conservatives should be nervous about talk of conciliarism, but liberals shouldn't think they're off the hook when he speaks of clericalism.  Clericalism takes many forms, and I've encountered it here in the States, but also in Latin America where the clergy has by and large abandoned the use of clerical dress and some like to think of themselves as a part of the "People's Church."  It can take the form of priests overly concerned with liturgical pomp and circumstance and with those who are entrenched in diocesan bureaucracies more concerned with the maintenance of the Church "machinery" than in extending the mission they are there to serve.  In my experience people who think of themselves as progressive fall into the trap of clericalism just a easily those on the right.  If we think the Pope's words are meant for "the other guy," we better think twice.  The call is to move beyond ideology and into the pure light of the Gospel, and that should make all of us a little nervous.

St. Jerome from AOP

Third in a Series: Fr. Barron comments on The Sacrament of the Eucharist as Real Presence

The Value of Silence from AOP

Quick Takes: The Pope and Prince Amukamara

Further Thoughts on Pope Francis' Interview 

As I hinted at previously the Pope's recent interview, along with other statements he has made, has been read by many in both secular and Church circles as representing a change of policy, much like what happens when a new political party comes into power in a country, at the Vatican.  There is no doubt that Francis' words and actions are a change of tone over previous pontificates, but we should be careful not to read a change of substance in the Pope's words.  As I wrote before, the Pope has spoken out against abortion recently, and the Catholic News Agency reported today that he ordered the excommunication of a priest in Australia, functioning without the proper faculties, who was publicly supporting gay marriage and abortion.  As one cardinal put it in response to questions of Francis' orthodoxy, the Pope is still Catholic.

Nonetheless there are those who would normally be considered on the "right" and involved with the pro-life movement who are troubled by the Holy Father's words.  Janet Smith, apologist, speaker and philosophy professor at the University of Dallas, who has been out spoken for years about the evils of artificial contraception and abortion, wrote a piece in First Things questioning what the Pope meant by saying we shouldn't be "obsessed" with particular moral issues when preaching the Gospel.  While she is never hostile toward the Pope, and strikes a conciliatory note at the end, you can feel the hurt and confusion of one toiling faithfully in the fields for years who feels a bit betrayed (she doesn't say that, this is strictly my impression of the article).

I  have a great deal of respect for Dr. Smith, and have often drawn on her materials in preparing classes and homilies.  I don't disagree with many of the points she makes, but in the end we have to match the words and the actions together.  The Holy Father is trying to stress the love God has for us all while pointing out that sin is ugly.  He is telling us that we need to be mindful of a wide variety of concerns, and at the same time he isn't afraid to discipline someone who steps out of line in very particular ways.    

A Prince Among Men

New York (Football) Giants corner back Prince Amukamara revealed in an interview on the Muscle and Fitness website that some of his teammates call him the "Black Tim Tebow."  The 24 year old is engaged to be married, but is "unashamed" to say that the is a virgin and has never had an alcoholic drink in his life.  He is a practicing Catholic, and from his youth has seen the path of chastity and sobriety as a way to heaven.  He does say that he might break the no drinking policy at his bachelor party, though I hope he takes that one slow.

My first reaction was: Fantastic.  Professional athletes, musicians, actors and just about anyone in the sports and entertainment field are surrounded by temptations the average person can't imagine.  That is a big reason why lasting, lifelong marriages are so hard to come by in Hollywood.  Add on to that the ego that goes along with being in the NFL, and the sense of entitlement so many young, suddenly rich and famous people often feel; to not let it go to your head, to stay grounded and true to your faith is quite an accomplishment.  For a game that has been marred in recent years by stories of murder and off the field violence, the Tebows and Amukamaras of the world come as breath of fresh air.

My second reaction was, what a shame he felt compelled to say that he "wasn't ashamed" of living his faith. Against living virtuously there is no law, except in the eyes of the twisted.  But ours is such an age when virtue makes headlines.  I noticed the story last week on Drudge, who linked to the local CBS afiliate in New York, and the next morning it was all over the place, even making London's Daily Mail.  It reminded me a little bit of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, where monogamy is thought of as perverted, and any one who only sleeps with only one partner is thought of as "one of those girls."

Prince, congratulatuions on your upcoming nuptuals, and remember;  If you stay true to the faith you'll never have to worry about feeling ashamed (well, maybe except for how the G-Men have played the first three weeks of the season).

The Pope's Interview: What He "Really" Means

 
Back in the 1960's, shortly after the Second Vatican Council, Rome announced modifications to the Friday abstinence from meat, which was in effect for the entire year, not just during Lent.  In essence, Friday was still to be observed as a day of penance in commemoration of Our Lord's Passion, but one could substitute some other appropriate penance for the ordinary practice of going meatless.  Individual dioceses were also able to modify the observance in light of local customs.  But not eating meat was still considered the ordinary way of observing Friday as a day of penance, with the Lenten practice of meatless Fridays remaining in force.  This is still the prescribed discipline of the Church today.  By the time the secular press got hold of the story it was reduced to VATICAN SAYS: HOT DOGS FOR EVERYONE ON FRIDAYS.  That meat was now permissible fare on Fridays, without any of the nuances, was all most of the faithful, and even many priests, ever heard about the change.  As one priest who lived through that period told me, most Catholics, including priests, got their news about the Church from secular tabloids like The New York Daily News more than from the L' Osservatore Romano.  To this day most Catholics think the Church changed Her long standing discipline without qualification.  I will admit that in the big picture whether you eat meat or not on Friday may seem like a small matter, but the example is illustrative of how the secular press often over simplifies stories about the Church, and sometimes just gets them plain wrong.
This past Friday I was on my way to the airport and saw a man standing on a median at a traffic light selling the paper.  It was the Sun-Times, which is the tabloid daily here in Chicago.  He wore a nylon vest with a see-through panel on the front and back that housed the front page.  The headline was bold and succinct as you would expect from a tabloid: POPE RIPS FOCUS ON GAYS, ABORTION. The Sun-Times was making reference to an interview of Pope Francis published last week in several Jesuit journals around the world and here in the States by the Society of Jesus' flagship publication America.  I read the interview finally, after hearing and reading much about it and can say that the Holy Father "rips" no one.  His comments about gays, abortion and contraception were less than a paragraph of a rather lengthy interview that covers a variety of topics.  He isn't supporting same sex marriage or suggesting abortion is OK. In fact the day after the interview first appeared His Holiness met with a gathering of Italian OG-BYNs and spoke of the evils of abortion and the need to promote the Gospel of Life.  So what did the Pope mean? 

What the Holy Father is saying that what comes first and foremost is the proclamation of the Gospel message of salvation and repentance.  We live in a wounded world with people who are spiritually injured and these wounds need to be healed first.  He likens the Church to a field hospital.  In a triage situation where a person has a compound fracture and is bleeding to death you don't ask about his cholesterol and blood sugar - to use Pope Francis' example.  There is time for that once the patient has been stabilized.  But the first proclamation of the Gospel needs to be about God's love and mercy.  Once the person has been introduced to Jesus Christ, and has that personal encounter with Him then the doctrines and moral  teachings can be introduced in a more systematic way.  Once the person knows Jesus, has a relationship with Him the doctrines will be better understood and seen as flowing naturally from being a disciple, as opposed to being a "disjointed" collection of moral imperatives that don't seem to have a link to life in general, let alone to life in Christ.

The Holy Father is at once subtle and clear that we are to always separate behavior from the person.  In the case of homosexuals, the teaching is clear on homosexual acts, and as a son of the Church the Pope holds to them.  But we also have the person who is a child of God who needs to be treated as such; with respect, dignity and love. 

Is the truth of the Church's teachings on human sexuality to be taught and proclaimed?  Yes.  But so are Her teachings on social justice, respect for the environment, the dignity of the disabled, the proper care of the sick and the need for an active and deep prayer life, to name a few things.  We need to preach it all, but as Pope Francis said, we don't have to preach it all at once.  So when the Pope talks to gynecologists he'll speak about abortion, and when he speaks to the unemployed in Sardinia, as he did the other day, he'll speak of the dangers of globalization and the need for an economic system that puts people and their right to work ahead of greed.  He will chose the right time and place to proclaim the message needed in the moment, and he is reminding all of us charged with preaching to do the same. 

In the end the reaction to the Pope's interview highlights our contemporary crisis of a politicized Church, with people taking sides as liberals and conservatives.  With his words of conciliation and talk of mercy many liberals see an ally in Pope Francis, hoping that the changes they've been waiting for since 1965 are finally on the way.  Conservatives, stung that the Holy Father is seemingly not as stringent on liturgy and "hammering heretics" as his immediate predecessors are scrambling to explain what the Pope really meant. This misses the point.  We are neither a liberal nor a conservative Church in the way that the world understands these words.  Christ is concerned about the poor and the afflicted, wants us to form a more perfect and just world.  He also calls us as individuals to a high standard of personal holiness and self control. He is interested about what goes on in the chambers of the senate and also in the spiritual chambers of our hearts, and yes, even in the privacy of our bedrooms.  Nonetheless we can never reduce Him to a political candidate, a self help guru or puritanical moralist.  He loves us with the deepest love imaginable, beyond our imagining, really, but will never flash an OK sign at us and say, "Your OK, I'm OK."  He will always challenge us to move beyond our opinions, beyond our certitudes and beyond our comfort to surrender all to Him. 

And one final message to everyone out there: beware stories about the Church appearing in the secular news services, be they print, radio or television.  They usually over simplyfy things and force bloggers like me to slave over  posts like this.