Holy Saturday: A Time to Think

Today is taken up with the long wait.  From Holy Thursday night through Good Friday there is a flurry of liturgical and devotional activity surrounding the life of a parish; an Hispanic parish even more, or it seems so to me.  There are English services, then we do it again in Spanish, with the traditional Stations of the Cross taking the form of a procession through the streets, with actors playing out the rolls of Roman soldiers, good and bad thieves, the women of Jerusalem, the Virgin Mary, and of course Jesus, along with the rest of the "cast of characters."  Police need to close the streets to make all this happen.  But once the dust settles late Friday night there is a quiet that descends.  The next idem on the agenda is the Easter Vigil that doesn't begin until after dusk Saturday.  This leaves time for the final preparations, true, but since most of the heavy prep work is already done, there is even more time to simply sit and think.

These are a few things that have been preoccupying my mind.

Pope Francis

I was at the Salesian High School President's Gala last week and the topic of the new Pope did come up.  Everyone I spoke to praised Pope Francis, but one person I spoke to was concerned.  She was impressed by Francis' humility and common touch, but said, "He has to realize that he is the Pope.  He can't act like everything is normal.  His life will never be the same again.  There are people who are going to want to hurt him, and he just shouldn't rush into crowds like he's been doing." (She was referring to when the Holy Father greeted the people on the street after Palm Sunday Mass, driving the security people crazy.)

Francis is not the first pope to try the patience of his security detail.  I know a former Secret Service agent who was assigned to protect Blessed John Paul on his U.S. visit in 1996 and tells the story of asking the Holy Father to simply wave from the steps and then proceed directly to the limo after an event at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York.  There was a huge, cheering crowd waiting for His Holiness on Fifth Avenue.  The agent saw a sea of potential threats.  To John Paul II it was God's people, be they Catholic or not, and he was going to reach out to them.  So the Pope turned to the agent and said, "You can stay here if you want, but that is where the people are, so that is where I'm going."  The agent could only shrug, roll his eyes nervously and follow the man in the white cassock.

But there are other aspects of Pope Francis' informal style that are putting people off.  He is already being criticized by those on the "right" for what appears to be liturgical laxity.  He came out on the Loggia of St. Peter's after his election in the traditional white cassock, but without the red mozzetta, and was only handed a stole by the Papal M.C. just before giving the Urbi et Orbi blessing.  He held the Holy Thursday night Mass in a youth prison (a bit déclassé, but oh well), but then he had the effrontery of breaking Church law by washing the feet of non-Catholics and girls.  Too much, indeed.  Pope Francis has consistently chosen the simpler rout in all his public appearances. While "liberals" take heart in these low church displays, they are not happy with other aspects of the pontiff's "style."

For all his lack of interest in liturgical pomp Francis is simply not the progressive savior many on the left were hoping for.  Theologically he is right in line with Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II. 
So, no married or women priests, no change in the teaching on contraception, while a big yes to social justice and advocacy for the poor it's still a no (and being a Latin American an ironic no) to liberation theology as a means to that end.  And a no to sacramentalizing same sex unions.  For those expecting the Catholic Church to transform Herself into the World Council of Churches, your wait continues, and will into perpetuity.    

Facebook Advocacy

This week many people, including more than a few I'm connected to on FB changed their profile picture to an image of a reddish equal sign on a deep red background to symbolize their support for gay marriage.  Most, if not all, of the people who did this in my "universe" are not gay, but were showing solidarity to the cause.  This flurry of activity coincided with the oral arguments being made before the Supreme Court on two cases that impact this issue.  I have written extensively here in this blog on the topic, and weary of having to once again explain my opposition to calling a relationship, even a committed one, between people of the same sex a marriage in the Christian understanding of what that means.  But I will make two observations about what I saw this week.

First, I saw a lot of sloganeering, but very little reasoning.  It was political debate by Hallmark Card.  Personally, I'm not sure what the same sex marriage lobby thinks matrimony is, or how they define it from the various postings I read, beyond that if you love it you should be able to put a ring on it (a clear legal standard if I ever saw one).  If we are going to say that the sex or gender of the individuals shouldn't pose a limit on their ability to get a marriage license, then what should? Age? Number?  I know that no one likes the slipper slope argument, but we do have a polygamist tradition in this country that has been known to play loose and fast with age of consent laws.  If we are going to argue that the limiting of marriage to people of different sexes is arbitrary (which I do not) then what are age of consent laws?  They vary from state to state with some setting up sliding scales that formulate how much of an age difference between partners has to be before it goes from being consensual sex to statutory rape.  If we follow the FB playbook there really is no reason to place any limits, are there?  If the definition of marriage is going to be so wide open, I'm not sure what interest the state has in regulating it at all.

Second, a word of warning to gay marriage advocates:  Do you really want the Supreme Court deciding this?  They intervened in 1973 on the abortion issue and it has not left us since.  The truth is that if Roe v Wade had never happened abortion would still be legal today, probably in every state.  Some states would have tighter restrictions than others, true.  There would still be a pro-life movement looking for even greater restrictions and eventual abolition, along with a pro-choice movement looking for greater access.  I doubt though that the issue would be this divisive because it would be in the hands of the people, not in the hands of unelected judges.  Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who in my mind is practically a eugenicist, has acknowledged this problem with the high court's decision.

My prediction? If the issue is left to the states gay marriage will become the law of the land within five years.  If things play out like it has in the Scandinavian countries that started issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples twenty years ago there will be a rush on city halls by gay couples, followed by a run on divorce lawyers, and then the percentage of gay couples seeking marriage licences with become a statistical trickle when compared to their straight counterparts (it's interesting to me that the Canadian government, which legalized gay marriage a decade ago, has stopped keeping marriage and divorce statistics.  What is it they don't want us to know?).  If the Court decides you'll get what you want right away, but then we'll have protests and wrangling for decades to come because people will feel this was something forced on them from above.  Either way I see the legal recognition of gay relationships as marriages as being a further erosion of the social structure, but allowing it to proceed more organically will do less damage and really give people a chance to think about what is being proposed and not just throw out catchy slogans.

Easter is Near

My final reflection is that Lent is over, the Triduum is almost completed and Easter is almost upon us.  The point of this cycle for those already baptized is to experience renewal.  We are to look back at our lives and see where it is we are not in line with what Christ taught and lived and make corrections with God's grace .  In other words, it is a time to repent.  For those looking to the Church to alter Her teachings or practices, I quote Mother Teresa, who when asked by a reporter what in the Church needed to change, replied, "You and I."  Being a disciple of Christ was never about getting what we want, or going the easy road.  At times the Apostles themselves questioned if what was being asked of them by the Master was reasonable.

This is not about condemning, judging or any of the like.  I am a sinner.  I have my own crosses.  I have my own impurities that need to be burned away by God's grace.  I, as a priest, have to preach, but not as one who commands, but as one who offers the Gospel to others, as I myself try everyday to live in a better, purer, more holy way this awesome call I have been given. 

I pray for all of you during these Holy Hours.  Please keep me in your prayers as well.  

Some Further Reflections on Pope Francis

A day has passed since the election of Pope Francis, and here are a few more scattered thoughts on the new Bishop of Rome.

You Can't Have a First Without a Second

Officially, the new pope is to be known as Pope Francis, without any Roman numeral after it.  We would only start calling him "the First" if a successor took the name Francis for himself.  For instance, until Queen Elizabeth II assumed the thrown of England her Tudor predecessor was simply known, during her reign and after her death, as Queen Elizabeth.  What is interesting is that Pope John Paul I broke that precedent by declaring himself "the First" when he took his papal name.  It was suggested to me that he "knew" there would be a second.  Maybe a prophetic voice was speaking through him, but I doubt Albino Luciano though his successor would come quite so quickly.

Instruction on Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation"

Yesterday I wrote that Pope Francis has a deep dedication to the poor, and that he knew liberation theology (LT) from the inside.  Both statements are true, but this should not lead to the impression that he supports that theological outlook.  He has been highly critical of LT, criticism that has led to a bit of a rift between himself and the Jesuits, the order he was a member of before becoming a bishop. A few Latin American religious I know were hopeful of a cardinal from their region being elected for the very reason that he would be sympathetic toward LT.  I'm afraid they will be sourly disappointed 

I do not claim to be an expert on LT, but having studied in a Mexican seminary I did get the opportunity to study it in its "native setting," if you will.  The Salesian Theological Institute in Tlaquepaque, Jalisco was not conservative or traditional in the ways we think of here in the U.S., but the professors were for the most part schooled in Rahner and von Balthazar; pretty main stream European theologians.  There was a particular course on LT, and one of our pastoral theology classes was pretty much coming from that approach.   We had seminars on indigenous theology, which is an offshoot of LT.  I don't want to get off track on a critique of the Theology of Liberation, but to say it was presented to me by several professors, both in Mexico and here in the U.S., as an all or nothing proposition.  Either you take it all or you reject it.  Well, if that is the case, I say goodbye and good luck.  While I sympathize with aspects of it, there are simply too many holes in it for me to embrace it in its entirety. 

As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a controversial instruction on LT, that was not a full condemnation, but stated there were deep problems with some expressions of it.  When he became Benedict XVI many of the proponents thought they could just wait him out, and a successor, especially from Latin America, would look more kindly upon their cause.  If they thought approbation would come from Pope Francis, they are seriously mistaken.

A Jesuit Pope

Technically, if a member of a religious order becomes a bishop they leave their community and become a member of a diocese.  This has to do primarily with the vow of obedience; bishops belong to the universal Church, and as successors of the Apostles they can't be subject to a religious superior.  Nonetheless many, probably most, religious bishops still identify with their order.  It is not uncommon for them to sign their names with their congregation's initials after their name, like I would put "SDB" after my signature to identify myself as a Salesian.  When they retire they have the right to be taken back into one of their order's houses to live.

But more than these practicalities, to be a Salesian, a Franciscan or a Jesuit like Pope Francis is to imbued with a particular spirit and spirituality.  We are all Catholic, all disciples of Christ, but we each have different styles of living out that discipleship.  Another added wrinkle is that Francis was a member of a Salesian parish in his youth, and maintains a strong devotion to Mary Help of Christians and Blessed Artemide Zatti, a Salesiam brother.  He also presided at the beatification of Zeffirino  Namuncura, a Salesian alumni from Argentina who, like Dominick Savio, died young.

What the pope being a Jesuit will mean, especially considering his strained ties with his community, I can't say.  Jesuits are intellectuals, but they are also missionaries.  Time will only tell.    

Viva Il Papa: First Thoughts on Pope Francis

First Impressions:

We were in the middle of our afternoon session at the Provincial Chapter when the white smoke started billowing from the Sistine Chapel chimney (more of us were looking at our laptops and tablets than the presentations going on).  We continued with our meeting for about another twenty minutes before finally adjourning to watch the drama together on TV.  And it really was drama.  This entire interregnum has been strange owing to it coming on the heals of a retirement as opposed to a death.  In spite of the intrigue reported on in the press, there was more of an atmosphere of business men getting together for board meetings rather than a spiritual gathering to choose the next Vicar of Christ.  But once the white smoke started and our eyes were fixed on the loggia doors I felt real suspense for the first time. 

I guess my first thought was that Francis looked a bit overwhelmed.  He looked a bit stiff, a bit old, considering all the talk of the cardinals going for a younger, more physically vibrant figure.   I wondered if we were looking at a compromise candidate or a transitional pope (two in a row?), one who will keep the seat warm until the one they really want matures or else gains the proper support.  Upon a second look at the video I would say that the Holy Father looked a touch more natural than at first viewing. Beyond that, in the few hours since he has become pope I have learned more about the man, and have come to the conclusion that first impressions in this case may be deceiving. 

What's in a Name?

In the past popes often chose their name to honor a predecessor who had helped them along the way to the Chair of Peter, or to show a desire to follow in a particular pope's footsteps.  Since at least John XXIII and Paul VI new popes have tried to say something about the kind of pope they want to be, giving hints as to an agenda they might be trying to follow.  What could the choice of Francis mean?

Before I knew he was a Jesuit, the first thing that popped into my head upon hearing his chosen name was Francis of Assisi.  As Cardinal Archbishop of Buenas Aires he sold the episcopal residence, lived in a simple apartment, took the metro to work (he doesn't own a car) and cooked his own meals.  Someone reminded me of Francis Xavier, the Jesuit missionary saint who traveled to India and Japan, dying on the way to China.  This would show a commitment to the New Evangelization and the priority of spreading the Gospel in a secularized world.

But his action upon going out on the Loggia show a clear link to the founder of the Franciscans.  He wore the white cassock, but without the usual fur lined cape and stole that new pontiffs usually don for their first post election appearance.  He presented a simple figure. He spoke of himself as the Bishop of Rome, who presides in charity over the other churches.  This hearkens back to Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr of the late first, early second century who thus described the Roman church in one of his letters.  Again, a more humble, simple discriptor that points to the roots of the Church.  Could he be pointing to a need for simplify?  A need to get back to the roots of the faith and evangelization?  St. Francis' mission was to rebuild a Church that was falling down because of corruption and scandal.  What is Pope Francis trying to tell us about his choice of name?

Liberal or Conservative?


As Cardinal Jorge Mario Borgoglio, Pope Francis was critical of economic policies in his native Argentina that advanced some in the society while leaving many more in poverty.  In general his has been outspoken criticizing the unjust distribution of wealth and the need for Third World debt forgiveness.  So, he's liberal, no?  Well, he's also called abortion the "death penalty" for the unborn and is a staunch supporter of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  So, he's conservative, right? 

Pope Francis is the perfect example of why you can't use contemporary political categories to label popes.  In the teachings of any recent pontiff there will be things to both comfort and enrage people on all sides of the political spectrum.  The bottom line is, if you were hoping for sweeping changes on Catholic moral teachings, you are out of luck.  If you are hopping for someone more sympathetic with the cause of social justice and has a clear understanding of liberation theology from the inside, you should be pleased.

Watch Out Curia

As I wrote, Pope Francis stressed his position as Bishop of Rome, and mentioned the need to "evangelize the city."  This is an odd thing to say for the Universal Pastor whose concern is for all the churches.  Could be be making a veiled comment about the state of the Vatican itself?  There was much talk during the sede vacante about the Curia, the Church's Roman bureaucracy, and it's need for reform.  There was a perceived split inside the College of Cardinals between the Curial insiders (who want to maintain the status quo of secrecy, but who also tend to be more liberal doctrinally) and the outsiders from the U.S. and other parts of the world (who want a more transparent Church government, but who also tend to be more conservative on doctrinal issues).  My gut tells me His Holiness is a New World Pope with a desire to streamline the bureaucracy.  Again, in the spirit of Brother Sun, simplify, strip down, keep the Church simple, but agile and responsive to contemporary needs. 

These are my first impressions.  Only time will tell how much is right and how much misses the mark.  Let's pray for Pope Francis, that he may follow the will of God and have the stregnth to lead his flock. 

Conclave Day 1.2: At the Provincial Chapter

STONY POINT, N.Y. - As the cardinal electors began the conclave in Rome I was participating in day two of a more humble, somewhat less noteworthy assemblage of ecclesiastics here in Rockland County.  The Salesian's of the Eastern U.S. and Canada are holding our triennial meetings known as the Provincial Chapter.  Every Salesian Province world wide are holding them at some point during this year as a way to prepare for the General Chapter taking place in Rome coming up next year.  Those world wide meetings happen every six years, so that the local chapters that don't line up with them handle issues particular to the given province.  The other difference between the chapter I'm on now and those "off year" chapters is that we will elect a delegate to accompany the provincial to Rome for the three months of meetings that will begin in February, 2014.

If it sounds exciting, it's not.  The going can be deadly tedious.  Right now is not so bad.  Actually, what we're doing is pretty important.  We are debating the very meaning of our life as disciples of Christ, and how we are and should be living it out as sons of Don Bosco in 2013.  Today focused on our life as mystics, which always a slippery wicket.  Ours is a active, apostolic congregation that sees action as a key part of our spirituality.  At the same time we are being called to explore what some consider more monastic forms of spirituality in order to avoid superficiality and an activism that can blind us from remembering why we are engaging all the hard work of our everyday life.  The small group discussions have been fruitful.  We don't always agree with each other, but it is in the disagreements and the attempt to reconcile the differences that I believe the Spirit is often speaking to us.

The tedious part will come when the writing committee comes back with an initial draft and we have to all agree on wording.  Have you ever seen 44 men argue over the placement of a comma?  It's not pretty, let me tell you. Once it's done the final document is sent off to our generalate in Rome, and hopefully it will make some impact on the proceedings their next year.

These meetings will go on until Monday, the 18th.  The cardinals will have done their work and elected a pope by then, or at least I hope and pray.  Obviously we are in meetings all day and most evenings, so we are not glued to the TV.  The advent of smart phones and tablets have made sneaking a peak at the various news feeds a bit easier.  It was like March Madness today, but we were looking to see what color the smoke was coming out of the Sistine Chapel as opposed to which teams were getting knocked off our brackets. 

Well, one bright spot is the nightly social we have where we get to just relax and enjoy eachother's company.  So I am off, and will be back soon with more thoughts on the goings on at the Vatican and Stony Point.

Conclave Day One: A New Pope and the Prodigal Son

STONY POINT, NY - This morning (afternoon in Rome) the cardinal electors will enter the Sistine Chapel, after the celebration of the Eucharist in St. Peter’s, to formally begin the election of a new pope.  Since Pope Benedict announced his retirement a month ago the press has been abuzz with speculation over a possible successor.  The U.S. media in particular have asked if the cardinals a will choose a progressive who will usher in sweeping changes or a conservative along the lines of John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Others ask if he will be someone from Latin America or Africa.  All this speculation misses the point a bit, though I admit that a pope from outside Europe would be significant.  In the end the cardinals are not electing a political candidate who needs to conform to some kind of party platform, or at least they shouldn’t be.  They are electing the man best qualified to protect the invaluable inheritance of the Church.  The pope’s main role is to conserve the spiritual treasure handed on from the Apostles, and oversee its authentic development.

This past Sunday most of us heard the story of the Prodigal Son at Mass.  In preaching I usually focus on the loving and forgiving father who eagerly accepts his wayward son back, or maybe the hard hearted older brother who finds forgiveness difficult or the Lost Son himself in all his pitiable desperation.  I guess what struck me this time around was the line that the Lost Son had squandered his inheritance.  Was our Lord speaking of money?  On a literal level; sure.  But there is a deeper meaning as well.  If we recall, Sunday’s first reading from the Book of Joshua told of the Israelites finally entering the Promised Land after forty years in the desert.  The first thing they did was to celebrate the Passover: the memorial of their liberation from slavery in Egypt.  To this day Jews celebrate the Passover to recall the great works God has accomplished for them, and points to the great spiritual heritage encapsulated in the Law and the prophets.  At the Seder Meal, when he youngest of the house asks that ritual question of the oldest: why is this night different from all others, the answer is the story of their Exodus.  This is something to be remembered always, along with the Law received later on Sinai.  These form a spiritual inheritance to be cherished and followed in gratitude to the generous God who freed them from bondage.  What the younger son squandered by his life of dissolute living was more than a material fortune, but more importantly he wasted a spiritual inheritance beyond price given to him by his father.

When we sin, especially when we have allowed sin to become a vice, we are turning away from the path of the Lord, in a way rejecting the great spiritual heritage that has been passed on to us from the Apostles.  This is an inheritance that we should hold close to and not squander.  Is God a forgiving, compassionate Father?  YES!  We should never despair that He will turn us away when we sin if we come back in sincerity of heart.  But we are called to something great, and offered a treasure greater than can be stored in all the bank vaults of the world.  It is not to be squandered but preserved, lived and passed on to future generations.

The role of the pope is to preserve both the moral teachings of Christ and His Church and the Apostolic Tradition in its entirety.  His first duty is not to create new doctrines, alter old ones, or change long standing disciplines that are unpopular.  His main responsibility is to preserve.  This is the heart of papal infallibility.  Over the centuries the Church has seen charismatic figures like Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Sienna, Don Bosco and Dorothy Day, to name a few, who have challenged the status quo.  It was the pope, along with the college of bishops in general, who asked if the movements they inspired represented authentic promptings of the Spirit in harmony with Tradition and Scripture or if they were passing novelties out of step with the living tradition of the Church.  Each of these examples represents a positive response, but only after periods of trial and testing.  There is a constant tension between charism on the one hand and authority on the other; one seeking to push ahead and the other looking to hold fast to the tried and true.  Both have their place, and it is the pope, who represents authority, to test, probe and finally make a judgement with the help of the Spirit.

We are the inheritors of a great heritage passed on by the Apostles, that in reality goes back even farther to Moses and Abraham.  This inheritance is to be lived and cherished.  No matter who the pope ends up being his first job will be to foster, protect and spread this gift from God.  I certainly hope he is open to where the Spirit wants that Tradition to move, and the courage point out where it is being squandered by false teachers.

As the Cardinals Gather: Sede Vacante Part II. Or "I'm Dreaming of an American Pope?"

Boston's Cardinal O'Malley: Papabile?

I must admit that I feel more than a bit inferior as Catholic bloggers go.  I don't keep in contact with any cardinals, curial or otherwise.  I have no inside track on the Papabili, those poor souls most talked about in the press as contenders to be the next to wear the red shoes.  My one claim to fame is that I was ordained a priest by Oscar Cardinal Rodriguez, SDB of Tegucigalpa, whose name emerged in pope watching circles as early as 2001 and continued to get a lot of buzz before the conclave of 2005.  While he's not on most "experts" short lists now, he's still getting some mentions this time around.  I really don't even have enough time these days to scan the press so I can give you my penetrating inexpert analysis.

But I have done some superficial reading and listening, which has lead me to the conclusion that March 2013 is shaping up to be much like August 1978, and April 2005.   In both 1978 and 2005 voices in the press and in some quarters of the Church were calling for a pope who would follow through on what they considered the logical conclusions of Vatican II: an end to mandatory priestly celibacy, the ordination of women, the relaxing of the traditional prohibitions of contraception and premarital sex.  Today we can add the call for some type of recognition of same sex unions, even if it falls short of actually considering them sacramental marriages.  Along with these very specific reforms, there was a desire to see a more decentralized Church, where local dioceses had more autonomy, much like in the Orthodox Churches or the Anglican Communion.

As I wrote the last time out, I think all this talk of doctrinal shifts is a chasing at shadows.  Every new pope since at least Pius IX in 1846, with the possible exception of Leo XIII, was thought to be the one who was going to "modernize" the Church.  In each case doctrine remained substantially unchanged, with the exception of the two Marian pronouncements.  Some did make structural changes in how the Church apparatus functioned, or made adjustments to certain practices, like the lowering of the First Communion age by Pius X, but none can be called doctrinally progressive in the contemporary sense.  Even Paul VI, seen as the progressive implementer of Vatican II, reaffirmed the Church's teaching on contraception, priestly celibacy and the all male priesthood, as well as speaking of Satan as a real force rather than as an abstraction or metaphor. 

Judging by what I am managing to catch in the press the cardinals right now are not so caught up with doctrinal questions as they are with structure issues.  La Stampa's English edition is setting things up as a fight between the Italians in the Curia against the Americans.  The U.S. contingent is looking for broad reforms including greater transparency in the Vatican, and a Church bureaucracy that serves the interests of the pope and not it's own counter agenda.  The curial Italians want to maintain the status quo.  What I'm hearing is that while Europeans and Latin Americans are leery of an American candidate, the African and Asian contingents have a great deal of respect for the U.S. cardinals, and so a Papabili from the New World is not as far fetched as it has been in the past.  

Among the Americans New York's Cardinal Dolan is the name that gets the most press, but Boston's Sean Cardinal O'Malley's name is emerging as well.  He's seen as someone who reformed the Archdiocese of Boston, epicenter of the sex abuse scandal, with both Sunday collections and enrollment at the local seminary on the rise in the last few years.  While an American being elected pope is still a long shot, it's nice to know that simply being from the United States doesn't automatically disqualify someone from ascending to the See of Peter.

I wrote that this time around was shaping up to be much like interregnums of the past.  But there is at least one big difference, I think.  Since this conclave has followed on the heals of a retirement as opposed to a death, the cardinals have had more time to think dispassionately about what they are doing. There is no mourning a beloved Holy Father, or sentimental feelings that a new pope needs to continue someone's legacy.  While Benedict is loved still, there is a recognition that a new direction, at least in terms of governance, needs to happen, and many of the cardinals are willing to spend the few extra days to make sure they do it right.  I pray they are doing the spiritual preparations as well as they appear to be doing the administrative due diligence.

Next week, as the conclave begins (I hope) I'll be in Provincial Chapter meetings.  We don't get locked in or anything, and there's no smoke, white or otherwise, but these are official deliberations in which we set out an agenda for the next three years and prepare for the General Chapter in Rome next year.   In the midst of the general sessions and small group break outs I'll keep one eye on Rome and the other on the keyboard.

Sede Vacante

 

Port Chester, NY-The Chair of Peter is officially vacant.

As some of you know, I've been pulling double duty of sorts, filling in at Holy Rosary Parish here in Port Chester, while still maintaining some office hours at St. Anthony's in Elizabeth, NJ.  The Lord willing I'll be back to my old post at St. Anthony's by June.

Yesterday was one of those office days in Jersey.  Between consulting with my vicar Fr. George (who's done a great job filling in for me) and my secretary (who's had to have the patience of Job) I caught the coverage of Pope Benedict's last hours as the Vicar of Christ.  I felt very emotional watching the coverage.  It is true that Benedict isn't the charismatic figure that John Paul II was, but he still has a presence that radiates the love of Christ.

I recalled my trip to Australia for World Youth Day in 2008.  At the end of the closing Mass the Holy Father was saying his thank yous, and announced the worst kept secret of the week: that Madrid would host the next WYD.  Before he gave the final blessing, he simply told us that he was going.  I spontaneously said, just above a whisper, "No."  I wasn't the only one.  It felt like there was a quiet wave no's spreading through the crowd.  It was the no of a child who didn't want his father to leave.  It was the no of the two disciples along the road to Emmaus who tried to convince our Lord to stay for the hour was late and the night was drawing near.  I felt in a very visceral way that Peter was here with us, our link back to Christ, and I didn't want him to go. It had nothing to do with being close to power, and everything to do with the fatherly presence he exuded.

I felt that yesterday at 2pm local time when I went to the switch that controls our church bell.  As the top of the hour struck I flipped the switch and the bells rang signifying that the Seat of Peter was vacant.  Although the Pope is not dead, Peter was gone, and it was hard to see the difference. 

Opinion on the Holy Father's decision is split.  Some, including Cardinal Pell from Australia, have questioned the decision.  While being critical of Benedict's governing style, he fears this could lead to future pontiffs being pressured to step down by those who oppose them.  Others, of a more progressive stamp than His Eminence, are happy with the move, and are wasting no time offering their two cents to the cardinal electors as they prepare for the conclave.  For them the Church needs a more practical leader who will listen to others after two intellectual popes.  Popes, they argue, who were so smart they didn't think they needed to listen to anyone.

As for the first opinion, I agree that there is a danger that what Cardinal Pell is afraid of could happen.  In this case I trust the Holy Father:  this retirement was long in the planning, and reputedly included that surprising consistory from late last year that added seven new cardinals, all from outside Europe.  I didn't care, though, for the critique of the Pope Emeritus' reign.  I think Princes of the Church should reserve such comments for pre-conclave meetings and not give the press more reasons to speculate on Church divisions.  As for the second, many of these same liberal voices will criticize Pope St. Pius X for not being sufficiently intellectual to address the subtleties of the Modernist crisis, a crisis they claim was imaginary.  In fact the only pope that they will hold up is Blessed John XXIII, and maybe Paul VI.  They are chasing at phantoms, always hoping that the next pope will give them the "reforms" they itch for but will never come. There may very well be reforms coming, but not the kind I think many of the intellectual class will expect.

Yes, Peter is gone.  But we are not abandoned.  The Lord will supply, not always the pope we want, but the pope we need.  Let us pray that the cardinals are open to God's will, and the man chosen is prepared to say yes, and follow through on it.  

Without a Pope From AOP