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.
No comments:
Post a Comment