Mary, Model of Discipleship: 3rd in a Series on the Self-Referential verus Out Ward Looking Church

The Visitation: Fra Angelico 1433-34

If I've had an overwhelming preoccupation over the last few months it's been with unpacking what Pope Francis means by rejecting a self-referential model of the Church. It's been such a preoccupation that this is the third installment touching upon that theme (the first two can be found here and here). It came up in the Holy Father's apostolic exhortation, and the new Rector Major of the Salesians, Don Angel Fernandez, along with the latest general chapter of our congregation have also commented on this reality. Yet this is an elusive term. At its core it's reminding us, 1: not to not be stuck in a maintenance mode in which we judge success strictly by quantifiable numbers that may not truly reflect lived reality. 2; It is calling us to put dogma, liturgical norms and canonical procedures in perspective. All are meant to help us understand and live out our life in Christ in a more effective, profound way. But if we don't know Christ first, then what should be loving fidelity becomes a slavish consistency with no greater purpose than our own self satisfaction. 3: When we lead our dialogue with the world with dogmas, "rules" and arguments from authority instead of the person of Jesus we end up speaking past a culture that doesn't trust authority, loathes rules and doesn't believe in truth.

In this article I write about the Blessed Mother as the model of discipleship in Christ. I don't mention the struggle between being a self-referential, maintenance church as opposed to being an outward looking, missionary church explicitly, but I think it helps to read it with that reference point in mind. Mary is never someone concerned with her own "hangups," but points us to Christ. As disciples, we are called to do the same. 

As we come to the end of May, and celebrate the Feast of the Visitation, we conclude the Month of Mary.  I was unaware that this custom of dedicating the fifth month of the year to Our Blessed Mother is relatively new: originating with the Jesuits of Rome in the last decades of the 1700's, and becoming more widespread around the world during the following century, especially after the publishing of a series of encyclicals on the Rosary by Pope Leo XIII between 1883 and 1889.

It's certainly no mistake that May became dedicated to Our Lady. Spring is in full force, with finally pleasant temperatures settling in after the fits and starts of April, at least here in the Northern Hemisphere. Flowers are in bloom and the leaves have sprouted on the trees. There is newness and purity mixed with profound fertility; the very image of what Mother Mary represents. She is forever young and new, yet wise, tender and mothering. Her virginity wasn't something guarded as a prize or a source of pride. It did not close her off into her own world, but drew her out into the heart of the community her Divine Son called into being. 

Her presence is still felt in the life of the Church, as she does her Son's bidding: at Tepeyac, appearing pregnant to St. Juan Diego, in word and symbol she assured the people of Mesoamerica that she was indeed their mother who was about to "give birth" for them the true Light of the World who was greater than any of the gods they had previously served. In exchange for gods who asked for the blood of their children, she offered her own Son who gave His Precious Blood for the life of the entire world. At Lourdes she confirmed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and offered hope by way of the healing springs of that place. At Fatima she warned of calamity if people didn't turn back from sin and followed her Son anew.

But before the apparitions we have Mary acting in Scripture. Her actions give us the model of what it means to be a disciple of Christ.

The Annunciation: Henry Ossawa Tanner: 1898

1. Mary Listens, Ponders, Responds

At the moment the angel visited her, Mary was startled and confused. Many an artist and theologian has pondered what exactly the encounter may have been like, from paintings depicting a calm girl conversing with a winged angelic figure, to a frightened young woman before a shaft of light (as staged in Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth, I'm told inspired by the writings of Cardinal Carlo Martini). 

Whatever was sensible to Our Lady, the experience can only be thought of as extraordinary, and not just because of the supernatural nature of the encounter. Mary is given a proposal very different than any other in Scripture. She is to have a child yet remain a virgin. There are many stories of other women who had children after being though too old or sterile. But never before had God made such a promise. 

Mary does not respond at once. She questions how this can be since she is a virgin, not yet living with Joseph, though betrothal legally bound them. Unlike Zechariah, who is punished when he asks how he and Elizabeth can be parents in their old age, the angel entertains her question. What God was offering Zechariah was not so out of the ordinary in relation to how God had worked up to that point, and really wasn't so unreasonable when you think about it. As a priest Zechariah should have known this. But what he was proposing to Mary was beyond anything God had done since the creation itself. Saying yes to God's request would open the girl to reticule, rejection and possibly death. To this day I believe that the Virgin Birth is possibly the greatest obstacle to faith because it seems so fantastic. Even some who profess faith in things like Jesus' miracles and the Resurrection try to explain it away. So Mary questions, and though the answer is simple, and probably insufficient in many ways, she makes her famous Fiat.

Mary listened, pondered, and then responded positively, even if she didn't have all the answers. God asks the same from us as disciples. God calls, we are to discern and ponder, but all the discernment in the world will not ready us for what lies ahead. With faith we give our "let it be" to God and follow the best we know how.

2. Mary Receives the Lord and then Goes Out to Serve Others

On the feast celebrated today we remember Mary, who is now caring Jesus in her womb, visiting her cousin Elizabeth. Elizabeth, pregnant with John the Baptist, greets her young cousin with joy. In this encounter Mary is showing us that letting Jesus into our life does not call us to look inward. We are called to be reflective, prayerful and meditative, but not closed off. Being a disciple means going out into the world and cooperating in the works of the Kingdom. 

Mary understands the many great works of God through the centuries, as reflected in her song of praise, the Magnificate. It is God who established justice, and uses those the world looks upon as worthless to fulfill his saving plan. Saying yes to Jesus means being ready to witness to Him by our acts of charity and striving for justice. Mary's yes led her to be a missionary servant, assisting those in need and proclaiming the glory of God.

All Christians have this call to be missionary servants by virtue of their baptism. Even if we are very young or very old, or live a life that demands we stay close to home, it is possible to fulfill this call. Therese of Lisieux made one pilgrimage to Rome as a child, but beyond that never left France and spent the last decade of her life behind the walls of a momentary, yet she prayed fervently for the missions. Her concern for evangelization was so deep during her life that she is now one of the patron saints of the worldwide missions, along with Francis Xavier. So whether we go to foreign lands, move about our own country or never leave our block we can share this call to be missionary servants with Our Lady.

3. Mary Points Out Jesus, Not Herself. Mary Gives us Courage to Pray

At the Wedding Feast at Cana Mary is presented with a dilemma.The young couple celebrating their marriage has run out of wine. We aren't given a head count, but we have to imagine that there are many people who have joined them for the blessed event. It's a great embarrassment, so not knowing what else to do they turn to Mary. In confidence she goes to her Son for help. Jesus seems indifferent to the plight of the newlyweds. But at her quiet insistence Jesus doesn't simply fix an awkward social situation but performs the first of his signs that reveal who he is and what his mission is about. 

Mary doesn't live for herself. She isn't about self promotion. She never confuses her role; she's there to point the way, not to take center stage. Does she take our part and plead for us? Surely. But more than anything she wants to show us that Jesus is the one that offers us the new wine of His eternal covenant. Through Him we are given the well spring of grace that satisfies our deepest thirst. 

She also teaches us the importance of prayer. When she first went to Jesus with the newlywed's situation He didn't want to get involved: This was not the time to reveal himself. Yet upon her request He does perform this sign. The stone jars used for ceremonial washing represented the Old Covenant; good, but only a foreshadowing of what Christ had to offer. The miraculous vintage was the New Covenant; potent, effective. Not a sign of grace but grace itself. As the Letter to the Hebrews says, the Temple sacrifices in Jerusalem were repeated year after year, but the blood of goats and heifers had no power to forgive sins. The ceremonial washings were a bodily cleansing that reminded people of God's mercy, but the regenerating waters of Baptism actually forgives sins. All this would be fully realized as a result of Jesus' Passion. Jesus had a plan for how and when he would begin to make things clear to His followers, but Our Lord "moves up" his schedule at Mary's intercession.

We too should be unafraid to pray. In the Our Father we pray that God's Kingdom come, His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Surely we are praying for peace and justice now; that when Jesus returns he finds faith on earth, and a society shaped by charity and justice. But we are also praying for the Kingdom that only Christ can establish. One where justice and peace are not relative terms but permanent, objective realities. This will only happen when Jesus returns as he left on the day of His Ascension. God knows the day and the hour, and in the end it's all under His control, but that we are to pray for the Second Coming means that our prayers can hasten the event. 

So we shouldn't be afraid. Pray without ceasing and in total confidence. As long as what we're asking for is in accord with God's will He will listen. And if it fits in with God's plan it will be done. 

And of course we should not be afraid to go to Mary to pray for us. She is our Mother who cares for us. Our Blessed Mother who loves us. As we conclude this Month of Mary, let us be renewed in our devotion to her, and imitate her virtues. 

The Marriage at Cana: Marten de Vos, 1597

Of Rogation Days, Ember Days and Movable Feasts or the Catholic Surrender of the Public Square

Blessing of the Fields

After six years on the East Coast I'm back in Chicago, one of the majority of diocese here in the U.S. that celebrates the Ascension on Sunday. New York and Newark, where I've served previously, are two of the few remaining local churches, mainly in the North East, that still observe the solemnity on the Thursday as a holy day of obligation. I know many people who would like to see all the major holy days shifted to the nearest Sunday, maybe with the exception of Christmas. The reasoning goes that most Catholics ignore the obligation to attend Mass on days like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, so why put so much of the Church into a position of committing mortal sin? Of course some question if missing Mass on a Sunday or a holy day is a sin at all, but that's beside the point right now. The idea is that we no longer live in a culture where these days are treated like other holidays; unlike Christmas most people have to work December 8 no matter what. If they did have the day off, going to Mass would be much easier. Since this isn't the case the Church is placing a great imposition on the people that need not be there. Why not move the Immaculate Conception, for instance, to the nearest Sunday and be done with it?

I understand the point, and it's not a terrible one. I just have come to believe that by moving these solemnities to Sundays, as well as the elimination of other traditional observances like the Ember Days and Rogation Days, we have further marginalized the public practice of the faith. Rather than using these feasts as an opportunity for sanctifying time and organizing our lives around the mysteries of the faith, religion is compartmentalized. The Eucharist is for Sunday, work is for the weekdays and Saturday is for shopping, getting things done around the house or going to weddings or some other social function. But none of this, especially the "church" stuff is really integrated into our lives. 

A question you might be asking yourself at this point is, "What are Ember and Rogation Days?" Rogation Days were traditionally set aside in the spiring planting time to pray to God for a good harvest. April 25 was the major Rogation Day, with the three days before Ascension Thursday making up the minor Rogation Days. Fasting and praying in reparation for sins were also associated with these days, as were public processions that included the blessing of the fields. The Ember Days were observed four times a year: on the Wednesday, Friday and Saturday after the Feast of St. Lucy (December 13) the first Sunday of Lent, Pentecost and the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (September 14). The idea was that these dates coincided with the change of seasons and liturgical times. These days too had a penitential tone to them, involving fasting and at least  a partial abstinence from meat. They were meant to teach us to appreciate God's gifts and use them moderately. They also kept us in touch with the changing times of year. With the 1969 reform of the liturgical calendar both Rogation and Ember Days were made optional, which is to say that they disappeared, for the most part. Some rural farming areas in Europe still observe the Rogation Days.

My point is not that we go back to the pre-1969 calendar. All I'm saying is that we got rid of a lot of things after Vatican II and I wonder sometimes if we really thought about what the effects would be. The Council wanted to open the windows to let in some fresh air so as to prepare the Church for the task of evangelizing the modern world. My guess is that those who reformed the liturgical calendar thought they were doing exactly that by de—emphasizing these ancient practices that they thought had lost meaning in our contemporary society. Most of the developed world lives in cities, and doesn't organize its life around the rhythms of nature and the farm. But now that we live in such a tech driven, industrialized, service industry world keeping in touch with the more primordial aspects of life is more essential. Understanding that, no matter how much influence our activity has on the climate, God is the one who is in control keeps us humble and grateful. At the same time being in tuned with the passing seasons and cycles of planting and harvesting awakens us to the fact that we are stewards of this creation and shouldn't take God's blessings for granted, especially if we are misusing and abusing nature. This awareness is even more crucial for those who live in urban and suburban areas who are detached from "the earth."

I can see why our contemporary mind would be uncomfortable with these observances. In the limited research that I did on Rogation and Ember Days the theme of appeasing an angry God came up in relation to the fasts and prayers observed at harvest time. This is clearly a left over from the pagan origin of this custom. The Romans, among others, held sacrifices and festivals around planting and harvest times, and the Church in her wisdom, and following a long standing policy of harmonizing the faith with existing customs, kept the good while doing away with the bad. In this case since praying for a successful planting season and giving thanks for an abundant harvest is, in it self a good thing why not Christianize it? I admit that when I hear about appeasing God the image that comes to mind is some kind of Aztec human sacrifice, or else Fey Wray being offered up by trembling natives to King King. Obviously the practice needed to be further purified and developed, but that it was put aside is a loss for the Church and her mission to engage and Christify the world.

A struggle that we are engaging in today is over the meaning of freedom of religion and, with it, the place of religion in the public square. There are those who want to reduce freedom of religion to freedom of worship. So that it's all fine if people want to gather on a particular day to honor their god, but this does not have any implications for the public life of a nation's citizenry. These are purely private acts to be done inside, doors closed. As Catholics we see that worship, as important as it is, is one aspect of our life in Christ. The worship of God is meant to lead us out into the world to be a leaven, influencing whatever nation we are living in. The Gospel does have political and social implications so that saying we are only Catholics on Sundays in Church is to say that we are not integrated people, not in the harmony of our innermost being, and not as citizens whose love of country is shaped by our membership in the Body of Christ, and not the other way around.

Ours is a sacramental religion which means that external signs and symbols, like statues, icons, processions, verbal prayer, as well as the Sacraments themselves, are important. They are meant to instruct us in the faith, remind us of what we believe and how we should live, and help us witness these things to the outside world. When these public shows are pushed to the side, de facto suppressed actually, we are further marginalized in society. Rather than going out to meet the world we become more isolated. The light of Christ is hidden under a bushel basket rather than allowed to illuminate  the world. But we can't blame some oppressive government or radical atheist activists for this segregation; we did it to ourselves.

This segregation of worship and the world has caused the Church to become fractured, in a sense, between those who stress social justice, who tend to place less importance on popular piety, and those who are strong on matters of personal morality, who tend to be more comfortable at Marian processions. But when we do try to engage the world on matters of social justice or pro—life issues this divide causes us to run the risk of coming off as just another political pressure group on one side or "religious fanatics" on the other. In both cases worship and doctrine have become detached from the fullness of the person of Christ so that both come off looking hollow.

By de—emphasizing traditional public practices and shifting major feast days to Sundays we become invisible. We are accepting the premise that faith is to be compartmentalized in our lives and segregated in society. We have surrendered the public square, in essence, and rather than going out to meet the world, as was the Council's intention, we have retreated into our sanctuaries, building the walls of our fortress even higher.

As much as I've written I still have more to say on this topic. I wrote a lot about the public aspects of Rogation Days, but not the importance of fasting an abstaining on a personal level. But we have come to the end of May, and I've yet to touch on the Blessed Mother as model of the Church as I've promised. So let me do that, and I'll return with more on this topic soon.

Mad Men Half Season Postmortem, Part 2: Hoping for Hope in 2015

 

Don Draper c. 1960 and 1969 (above)

Monday and Tuesday of this week I caught up with some of the Mad Men commentary from around the web. Having just witnessed a semi—season finale, the dissection and speculation out in the blogosphere was more intense than usual. I guess what struck me about the various round ups was how much it seems that there's an anticipation of - nay, a down right clamoring for, a sadly tragic ending to it all when the show comes back around for its last seven installments next spring. For a long time some critics have taken the now iconic Falling Man opening credits sequence on face value, as if it's some sort of omen for how the show will end. They are so invested in our anti—hero's demise that anything short of Don Draper falling head long from a skyscraper onto Madison Avenue, or into the La Brea Tar Pits (depending on which office he's working in), in their opinion will render the entire eight year run a waste of time. But I have a far different hope. Yes I, the one who usually rales against the contrived happy ending, am holding out for, if not happily ever after, a conclusion that leaves room for hope and redemption. 

It's not terribly original to note that over the years every character, save one, has shifted his or her personal style to move with the sixties' fashions. None is more obvious than Harry Crane; in 1960 he had a crew cut, horn rim glasses and more times than not sported a tight little bow tie to go along with his grey suit. Harry was the very picture of a conservative business man. Beginning some time in 1967, and continuing in the timeline to 1969 he's let the hair grow out a bit (not hippie length, but pushing the envelope for an executive). His sideburns are getting to Elvis in Hawaii length and the suits and ties are bold and flashy. The horn rims have given way to big, thick black plastic frames. The 1969 version of Harry Crane would not be completely out of place in an Austin Powers' movie. While the other characters have undergone less dramatic shifts in style than Harry, all the women are in brighter colors and shorter hems, and the men are, to various degrees, letting their hair down. It's the swinging '60s and no one wants to miss out.

Then we have Don Draper, who has not moved a hair out of place since the Eisenhower Administration, much less changed his tailor. In a world of shifting fashions and social attitudes, Don is stubbornly standing athwart history, in his grey flannel suit, starched white shirt and black wingtips, yelling, "Stop!" But, of course it won't stop, and the big question is will the man who never really left the 1950's be able to adjust to the social changes that, while born in the 60's, will become permanent in the '70s. Most are putting their money on "NO," but I think the answer will be more subtle than that. 

Don may be the same in many superficial ways, but I would argue that he is one of the few truly the changed people on the show. Harry may be rocking the latest hairdo, but he's still the same self important climber trying to make himself irreplaceable as he was when he convinced Roger that the firm needed a media department and he was just the man to head it up. Pete is still whiny, hypocritical Pete. Cutler is still a back stabbing creep. Joan has changed somewhat, but not necessarily for the better. Her experiences have made her vindictive and grasping (not that I can really blame her, considering the humiliations that she's had to endure).  You could argue that Ted has lost his boyish enthusiasm. But Peggy is still insecure, struggling over her decision to take the road less traveled (for 1969), by choosing a career over a family. Most all of them, to one extent or another, are the same as they ever were, just more so.

 

Don, on the other hand has developed as a human being since the first time we saw him all those years ago. He may be holding on to the fashion sense of Cary Grant in a Wavy Gravy world, but we should be careful not to confuse the shell with the substance beneath it. The Don of Season One was nihilistic, hedonistic, and more than a touch sadistic. He proclaimed that life had no meaning, that "the universe is indifferent." As for love, the concept was invented "by guys like me...to sell nylons." There were chinks in his armor, for sure. He always had a deep, platonic love for Anna Draper, the widow of the real Don Draper, whose identity he stole. But beyond that he had no friends outside work, and even they were pretty disposable. He rejected his brother when he tried to come back into his life, and has never known how to be a father (though you could argue he does a better job at parenting their kids than his first wife, Betty).

But the Don of Season Seven really wants to save his second marriage, even if he doesn't know how to do it, and ultimately fails. He encourages Peggy Olsen, boosting her confidence at key moments, not brow beat her as in the past. He chides his daughter over her cynical response to the moon landing, telling her, in essence that, one: it's wrong headed and, two: it's a bad example for her younger brothers. He wants to save his job, yes for all the egotistical reasons a person in his position would have, but also because he sees that the present firm is something he had a large part in building. Whether he sees any cosmic meaning to life is open to debate, but he sees a deeper meaning to his own life, and for the first time he' doesn't see running away and reinventing himself again as the solution to his problems. So he stays, and he fights because he is invested, both financially as well as personally, in the firm. The Don of earlier seasons would never have felt personally invested because he didn't know who he was as a person. Not that he has all the answers now, but he has a much more developed sense of self; he knows he loves the work, he knows he's lonely, he knows the cynicism of his earlier years that cut him off from real relationships was a mistake. The only question now is what does he do about it.

Critics have made the same observations, but have seen his current lack of nihilistic hedonism as a sign of emotional impotence and a loss of identity. It's a clear sign that he's going to die, because he's half dead already. I think that this is completely wrong. Yes, the old Don is dead, as is Dick Whitman. But a new Don is emerging. This new man is never going to be confused with St. Francis, but he's no Marquis de Sade, either. What some critics are confusing with weakness is better thought of a character development. And that he's developing for the better shouldn't seen as a failure or some kind of sell out.

That's why at this point if the show does end with Don falling out a window, or having a big coronary, or getting shot by a jealous husband, it will be a disappointment. If he's not drinking as much, not sleeping around, and seems genuinely concerned about his co-workers it's not because he's "lost it." It's because he does understand that the old ways didn't work: business as usual cost him two marriages, left him with a terrible relationship with his kids, especially Sally, and almost killed him on at least a couple of occasions. The question is not will Don adjust, but how will he do it and to what degree will he be successful.

I'm not looking for some sentimental farewell next spring. But Matt Weiner is good at setting a mood, and a direction for his characters that leads to a logical, if unexpected end. At this point I think Don has come too far to simply fall backwards out a window. I don't believe that the opening sequence is an omen, but a metaphor.  But if some insist on the point, remember: the titles end with our man lounging in a chair, cigarette in hand, not splattered on the street. 

Harry Crane c. 1960 (above) and 1969

Overview of Pope's Holy Land Pilgrimage from Salt+Light

The Pope Continues His Holy Land Pilgrimage from Catholic News Service

"Mad Men" Half Season Postmortem Part One

 

I am still very much a twentieth century TV watcher, or at least still have a 1900's mentality when it comes to the small screen. I'm used to shows premiering in the fall and wrapping up around Memorial Day, with two dozen or so episodes per season. Back then if you missed an installment of your favorite show, too bad. You either video taped it once the technology became available (if you could figure out how the timer worked) or else you waited for the summer rerun. Now in the age of cable and DVRs such quaint things like broadcast schedules and "must see" moments that everyone talks about the next day are over, more or less. Nielsen now takes into account those who watch programs by way of their TiVo three and seven days out from the original broadcast. Even the whole concept of a season as we understood it is out the window. In the world of cable a show's run can begin anytime of year and usually goes for less than three months. Even the major over the air networks are adopting a more fluid notion of scheduling. Not that these things are bad, simply confusing for someone who grew up in the glory days of the "Big Three," and all the hoopla that usually surrounded the roll out their fall lineups and the subsequent May Sweeps finales (Showing My Age Alert: there wasn't any Fox Broadcasting Company when I was a kid).

What's even more confusing is this whole split last season thing, inaugurated by the Sopranos, and now imitated widely by both TV dramas and movie franchises. All the other changes I mentioned above are simply that: changes that really aren't good or bad but reflect the changing habits of viewers. But this splitting a season in two I'm not so sure about. I've never gotten a satisfactory answer as to why it's done. I'm sure it has to do with money, because it can't be because it enhances the art of dramatic story telling, especially in light of last night's Mad Men "Half Season Finale."

Because we are really dealing with two abbreviated seasons instead of a truly unified set of fourteen episodes there was this need, I guess, to bring things to some dramatic conclusion immediately. The problem is that Mad Men isn't an instant gratification kind of show. Some critics have used the word glacial to describe it's pacing. Last night, and even to a certain extent last week, plot developments seemed to be moving at warp speed. Yes, we knew Ted Chaough was depressed and detached, but to the point that he would pull his cut the engines in mid-flight stunt with the Tropicana people? We knew that the big guy from rival agency McCann, who's had the hots (professionally speaking) for Don since forever, has been hanging around, but a merger just to land his big fish? Roger's been struggling with his untapped potential born of being born into his position for years, but all of a sudden he's the Master of the Deal, taking charge and pulling the merger together? We knew Megan and Don were not long as a married couple, but the over the phone breakup still seemed abrupt. It's not that anything that happened last night was inconsistent with the general trajectory of the story, (with one notable exception) but that they seemed to cut a lot of steps out of the process of getting there, steps that would have made it all a bit more coherent.

The most confusing moment of the night was the death of Bert Cooper (Robert Morse). One minute he's smiling, watching the moon landing with his maid in the comfort of his living room, and the next Roger is sadly taking the name plate off his office door, after we hear one side of the telephone conversation that brought the news. I understand how his death moves the plot along, but the way it was handled looked like a sloppy piece of editing more than a shocking plot twist.

I will end this part one postmortem of Mad Men on a positive note. The fond farewell, by way of the ending musical - fantasy sequence, given to Robert Morse was a beautiful, whimsical touch to an ordinarily heavy show. I've read some criticism of it this morning, and I get it; Don, the sole witness of this vision, was neither asleep, delirious with fever or stoned. It's a tad self indulgent and inconsistent with the overall tone of the show. But I say, as Bert did once to Pete Campbell when he blew the whistle of Don's true identity, who cares. As for the knock that the musical number is unconnected with the rest of the story, I happen to agree with the folks at The Orange Couch that the song, "The Best Things in Life are Free," is a relevant commentary on the choices Don has pursued, not just this season but for the the entire series' run.

While I'm frustrated with the whole half season finale thing, and I guess Matt Weiner did do the best he could with the restrictions AMC put on him, as I read from one critic. Wait until 2015 if I must to see what finally happens, I'll be back before the end of the week with a more in depth look at what I thought of Mad Men Season 7.1.

More on Pope Francis' Pilgrimage to the Holy Land from the Catholic News Service

Highlights of the Holy Father's Trip to the Holy Land from Catholic News Service

Mary, Help of Christians from the Apostleship of Prayer

Mary Help of Christians Prayer

A prayer to prepare ourselves for tomorrows Feast of Mary Help of Christians from Sr. Colleen Clair, FMA, vocation director for the Salesian Sisters here in the States.

Don Bosco's Dream at Nine Years Old, From the Salesians of Ireland

As we get ready for the Feast of Mary Help of Christians on Saturday (May 24), something on Do Bosco's dream at nine years old. In it Jesus gives young John his Mother to be a guide and teacher. Don Bosco had this dreams several times in his life, and it was only toward the end that he fully understood its meaning. But for us today it is a reminder that Mary was the inspiration for Don Bosco's work and is still active in the Church, and the Salesian Family today.

The Difference Between Exorcism and Prayers of Liberation from Catholic News Agency

Here's a brief report about the program for exorcists that went on in Rome recently. I'll have more about this topic as we move ahead.

The Demon is in too Deep

Recently Padre Steve pointed out a Protestant minister to me named Tim Keller, who is the founding pastor of one of the most prominent Methodist congregations in New York City. Dr. Keller is popularly known for his roll in political commentator Kirsten Powers' conversion from secular atheism to Evangelical Christianity. Listening to a lecture of his from eight years ago I was pleasantly surprised to hear that he is very much in line with the thinking of the likes of George Weigel and Pope Francis on the need for a new approach to evangelization (what he calls evangelism). Don't get me wrong, Dr. Keller is Protestant all the way (he talks a lot about justification by faith), but he recognizes that the game has changed, if you will. We live in a post-modern world where the very foundations that Christian thought are built on: the reality of sin, the need for redemption, the existence of objective truth, no longer apply. As a result people of faith can't engage the world under the assumptions of the past because, as he puts it, "the demon is in too deep."

Dr. Keller uses a 1959 talk by twentieth century Welsh minister Dr. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones as a launching pad for his rather wide ranging presentation. Lloyd-Jones references Mark 9 where the disciples weren't able to expel a demon which Jesus ends up casting out with ease. When they ask him why they were unsuccessful in performing the exorcism, Jesus replies that this kind of devil can only be expelled with prayer (Matthew's account says prayer and fasting). Lloyd-Jones explains that Jesus is telling his disciples that the ordinary, business as usual way of doing things no longer work; the demon is in too deep. This passage serves as an allegory for our contemporary society (the boy) and the church (the disciples), and how strategies that worked in spreading the Gospel in the past no longer apply because we are dealing with a different "spirit."

Keller goes on to say is that in previous generations, after Western society had been Christianized, the roll of the evangelist was primarily to awaken whatever dormant, complacent faith was within a person's heart so that he or she would become a more fervent believer. The vast majority of people already knew about Original Sin, personal sin and the guilt that comes along with it, redemption and that in Jesus we encounter the very incarnation of the Truth. In a way the evangelist didn't make the first announcement of the Gospel, but more like a first re-introduction of the Good News. Our own post modern world has lost almost all sense of these things, especially the concept of objective truth. Today we are not dealing with a population of lukewarm Christians in need of a good old fashioned revival. We face a world that has rejected Gospel, doesn't believe in sin, at least not in the traditional sense, and so sees no need for redemption. At the foundation of contemporary belief is that there is no objective truth.  The evangelist not only needs to be expert in the Scripture, but also needs to be a bit of a philosopher who can make the case that the post-modern rejection of truth is self-falsifying proposition (this is my paraphrase, but I think it captures what Dr. Keller is trying to say).

One could argue that the Protestant question that has informed it's evangelizing has been "am I saved." To a certain extent the Catholic questions have been "am I orthodox," and "do I receive valid sacraments." The relevance of these questions for those to whom they are being directed is their acceptance of a Christian ethos, and a culture that believes that sin is real and we are need of salvation, or that their is Truth and error leads to sin and unhappiness, and the sacraments are avenues of grace we need to be forgiven of sin and strengthened from falling again. But if the wider culture believes that there is no sin, just less good choices, there is no truth only alternate lifestyles and we are lords of our own destiny in no need of Divine assistance, the questions are meaningless. While our contemporary culture accepts "spirituality" (even some atheists speak of spirituality) it is vague and highly personal. We are not conditioned to examine or question ourselves, but to justify our own behavior, seemingly at all costs. As evangelists we are not simply dealing with a more wide spread apathy. We are dealing with a de-Christified world. The demon is in too deep and has perverted the culture, not simply anesthetized it.

The old ways no longer work and it is for us as the Church, not to change doctrine to accommodate the "new reality," but to go deeper ourselves. If the demon is in too deep, we need to go deeper. We need to understand why we believe what we believe in a more profound way and be ready to explain it to a skeptical world, not taking for granted that people share the same presuppositions as ourselves. For all of us, the most important thing is an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. Prayer is the starting point, and with it a deep immersion in Scripture. As a Catholic I would say that a Sacramental spirituality is essential. The journey won't be easy. There will be many set backs. But our times call for a more radical commitment than maybe at any other time since the first three centuries of the Church. If we remember that it is, in the end, Christ's work, and he will give us the strength and wisdom we need, anything is possible; there won't be any demon that can't be cast out, no matter how deep it is.

St. Paschal Baylon from the Apostleship of Prayer

St. Isadore: Prayer and Work from the Apostleship of Prayer

"Mad Med" Season 7.1: So Far

Mad Men's new co-star, the IBM 360

The series run of Mad Men, which will come to an end next year, can be divided into two parts. Or at least, that's the way I see it. In Seasons One through Four episodes did carry plot lines across installments, but there didn't seem to be any great plan at work. There were twists and turns, but I'm not sure that producer and writer Matthew Weiner was thinking too far ahead. Even individual episodes didn't seem to have clearly unifying themes to then. He may have had an idea where he wanted the season to go, but I'm not sure he had an endgame for the series in mind. What was happening was that week by week we were learning more about the show's main figure, Don Draper / Dick Whitman. Yes, there was a great deal of office intrigue, and sex and boozing, and corporate reshuffles, but if I were to sum up, these were mainly four seasons of developing and unfolding the enigma that is Don Draper.

After the contract dispute that delayed production of Season Five, Weiner knew that he had two to three seasons left, and returned to work with a greater sense of purpose. Episodes were constructed in a more symmetrical way, with plots and subplots coordinated to accent particular themes. In spite of this the episodes are not completely self contained units. This story is leading in a direction, and it's upon a second look that the foreshadowing becomes clear. The show always had a literary air to it, but now it was being constructed in a literary way. It wasn't clear to me until now, but since at least Season Five, the story has been constructed to lead to a particular end. What that is is yet to be seen, but we are at a point in the show that unless you've seen at least the last three seasons I'm not sure a new viewer will understand what's going on.

I would not want to predict the ultimate payoff Mr. Weiner has in mind, but there are themes that can be identified that can give us clues. There is no doubt that a main theme dominating the entire almost six and half season run of Mad Men is change and people's capacity to adapt to shifting social norms. With the show taking place in the 1960's, and following the decade in a semi-real time fashion, we can follow this theme right from the pilot episode when Don struggles to find the right angle for Lucky Strike cigarettes that will satisfy new government restrictions on tobacco advertising. I would say that in season seven another theme has emerged that melds somewhat with that of change. It's one that may not be completely new to the show, but which is being put forward with greater force than before. Is it me, or are there a lot of people suffering from paranoia in and around SC&P? As far as I can see, all this fearful mistrust begins with a computer.

If a working knowledge of Rosemary's Baby, and it's wider cultural significance to the sixties, was helpful for making sense of last season's goings on, then 2001: A Space Odyssey is this season's touch stone. While there is still a lingering Sharon Tate - Charles Manson vibe hovering over Season 7, the references to the Stanley Kubrick classic came hot and heavy the last couple of weeks. I have to admit that I missed all the references to 2001 made in Episode 4, but once I saw the connections explained on various sites I felt like a bit of a dolt for having those easy fly balls sail over my head. In fairness, many sites that I perused made no mention of the paranoia in space fable either, so maybe I shouldn't feel too bad about it. My only excuse is that I saw 2001 many years ago, and it simply didn't make a lasting impact on my imagination. On the other hand I am familiar with Rosemary's Baby, and it's connection to the Manson Family murders so I saw those clues much more clearly.

It was impossible to miss the 2001 allusion this week, since they essentially re-staged one of the movie's most famous scenes, in a quite clever and comic way. Michael Ginsberg, always a bit neurotic, and even more edgy since a new room size IBM 360 computer was installed in the office, spies Jim Cutler and Lou Avery conspiring inside the glass room that houses the contraption, a la the HAL 9000 eves dropping on the two astronauts. Only instead of being able to read lips like the fictional super computer, Michael fills in the blanks with his increasingly deranged imagination. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Michael wasn't only anxious over being replaced by a machine, but he's struggling with his own sexual identity as well.

Paranoia is not not restricted to poor Michael (I was sad to see him wheeled out of the office, strapped to a gurney, knowing he may never return. He was one of my favorite minor characters). Lou and Cutler plot secretly. Lou, himself, is nervy about Don's return to the office. Peggy sees the hand of her would be lover Ted Chaough behind every flower arraignment. Megan is convinced that Don is cheating, even though, for once, he isn't.  She essentially kicks his pregnant "niece" out of the house because she suspects that he's the daddy. Some of this mistrust is understandable, some is truly paranoia. But as the times do indeed change, no one knows where they stand and if they can trust that the ground won't fall out from under them.

The only person who doesn't seem to be looking over his shoulder is Don Draper; the person who has the most business being nervous. He's the Army deserting, identity stealing, serial philanderer who's probably on more than one jealous husband's hit list. Lets not forget that he's been let back to work after a forced leave under duress, with harsh conditions and partners salivating at the opportunity to get rid of him for good. Yet he, as always, is cool as a cucumber. Frustrated, sure, but he's the one plotting to get ahead, not to simply hold his place.

Like I wrote, there have been hints of paranoia spread throughout the show's run. I think specifically of Season Five when Sally is fed the sorted details of the Richard Speck murders by her babysitting step grandmother. At first she tries to hide the newspaper from the child, but eventually shares the gruesome details with the overwrought drama of a camp counselor telling ghost stories before lights out. When Betty and Henry come home after their long weekend, they find grandma sleeping on the couch with a knife and Sally sleeping under her feet (imitating the lone survivor of Speck's rampage who had hidden under a bed). Both are haunted by the idea of random murder at the hands of a demented intruder.

So we see this year these two themes; the specter of change and the psychological unease that it brings. Life is nothing more than a series of changes, but the 60's saw them come at lightning speed. And yes, there is a dark side to the era that often gets white washed by the romance of flower children and cool music. I hope that there are no Manson style murders thrust directly into the Mad Men story line, but I'm glad for the paranoia. I read this approach criticized as a reactionary questioning of the glorious social progress made during that era. I think that's ridiculous. If the 1960's era Baby Boomers are going to take credit for Civil Rights, ending the Vietnam War, Woodstock, the ushering in of an era of self awareness and the sexual revolution then it also has to own the Manson Murders, and their glorification by the underground press at the time, Altamont, drug abuse, dislocated lives and broken families; in other words they need to wrestle with the dark side of the dream.

Charles Manson: Still looming large from the foreshadows 

The Harvard Controversy Wrap Up

In the end the atrocity planned for last night at Harvard didn't go on. The student organization that was to host the "Black Mass" thought better of it, or at least decided to move it off campus, but they couldn't find any one who would give them a room. Good for them, who ever they are. So, it was canceled. The New York "Satanist" group that was going to do the actual ritual sent out an email around 10:30pm saying that the ceremony was taking place at that very moment in a Chinese restaurant near by the campus. When a reporter called the place an employee identifying himself as Fred said that the principals involved were presently at the bar drinking and didn't appear to be performing any rituals (I'm not making this stuff up). Another report says that the ritual did go on on the second floor of the establishment, but without the consecrated host. 

My thoughts on all this.

johnnyc, who leaves comments now and again (something I strongly encourage, as long as they're not profane, and johnnyc's are always respectful, even if we may disagree), commented on an earlier post that we should be more concerned about dissent within the the Church as opposed to these "clowns." He points out the Leadership Confrence of Women Religious (LCWR), who have been under scrutiny by the Vatican and the USCCB for heterodox pronouncements, and a general disregard for Church doctrine and discipline. They are the ones, along with Catholic politicians who support abortion on demand, who should be the main focus of our concern, according to him. I agree that these satanist wannabees are clowns, but don't agree that we're misdirecting our fire upon them. Whatever the conflict between the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the LCWR, it should not be happening in the New York Times. These internecine battles played out in the public square are the very definition of the Church at her most self-referential, and irrelevant.

The outrage expressed at the Harvard affair is not a reflection of fear, but was a teaching moment in which the Church engaged the world and educated it anew about the centrality of the Eucharist in our life, the True Presence and the beauty of Eucharistic Adoration. All the LCWR battle comes off as is more Church politics that few outside of a small group within the community is paying attention to. For those in the main stream media who cover it, it's just an extension of the same old liberal-conservative battles, and to the world the Church just ends up looking like a political organization.  I have faith that the Spirit will sort that situation out, one way or another, and I don't see the need to air our family business in public. But if we are going to make a strong public stand let it be in these moments of engagement with the world when we are given these opportunities to show what what the Church really stands for.

My other thought is that as a Church we really do need to examine how Holy Communion is distributed, specifically if Communion in the hand while standing is the most reverent, and safest, way of distributing the Sacred Body of Christ. The problem is that this is usually broken down into a "progressive-traditionalist" battle, and that's wrong. In our parish we have had problems of non consecrated hosts being stolen, and of people having to be instructed to consume the host after they tried to walk away with it. A couple of our ushers had an altercation with someone on Easter who refused to consume the host and ran away with it.

Let me go on record: I don't speak Latin (mine was a social promotion out of the class) and, while I'm not opposed to it, I have no desire to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. I'm Novus Ordo born and bread, and proud of it. I am troubled though by the disrespect showed to the Blessed Sacrament and believe that in this time of increased occult activity certain aspects of our practice needs to be reexamined, free of prejudice and agenda. If we really believe the Eucharist is what we say it is; the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread; then we need to do all that we can to prevent such desecrations from happening.

Update: Harvard "Black Mass" Canceled

According to several news outlets, including Time Magazine, the "Black Mass" scheduled for tonight on the Harvard campus was abruptly canceled. More commentary to follow.

President Faust Speaks: Harvard "Black Mass" Controversy Update

President Faust of Harvard

As of this writing the so called "Black Mass" is still set to be held on the Harvard campus, with a Eucharistic Procession and Holy Hour to be held at St. Paul's Church in Cambridge as a sort of spiritual counter protest.

The President of Harvard, Drew Faust, issued a statement today that basically said, yes, this is wrong and not really what Harvard is all about, but we will leave the decision as to whether the atrocity will go on or not in the hands of the organizers. She made this decision in light of the "University's commitment to free expression, including expression that may deeply offend us." She went on to write that...

"I plan to attend a Eucharistic Holy Hour and Benediction at St. Paul's Church on our campus on Monday evening in order to join others in reaffirming our respect for the Catholic faith at Harvard and to demonstrate that the most powerful response to offensive speech is not censorship, but reasoned discourse and robust dissent."

I do not doubt Dr. Faust's sincerity, and am actually touched by her gesture of solidarity. But this does bring up other questions in my mind, not simply about Harvard, but about American academia in general, and how committed it really is to open discourse and debate; the reason she said the University wouldn't stand in the way of the "Black Mass" from being staged.  Unfortunately my schedule doesn't allow me to elaborate at this moment. Time to go hear confessions before celebrating the Holy Mass.

More to come...

Satan and Man at Harvard

Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here

CORRECTION: I link below to a post on The Anchoress blog, and go on to describe it's content. One big problem though: The description refers to a piece on the God and the Machine blog by Thomas McDonald (my bad). He makes the observations about real versus pretend satanists and gives a good review of the history of the black mass. If you follow the links on The Anchoress you will indeed get a good run through of the story at hand. Ms Scalia has been covering the story like a journalist, talking to all the concerned parties. Both sites, part of the Patheos network of religious blogs, are worth a read.  

I'm taking a detour from the series of posts on the missionary-evangelical Church to address a story that popped up in some corners of the web this past week. A so called Satanist group has announced that it will be holding a black mass on the Harvard University campus, using a consecrated host in the ritual. The event is supposed to take place Monday.

The secular story came with the usual caveat that there is no historical proof that such rituals, purportedly originating during the Middle Ages, actually ever took place. The argument goes that these were inventions of the establishment to persecute dissenters, mainly proto-feminists, much like how the Salem Witch Hysteria of 1692 is usually spun. And I do mean spun. Whatever one might think of the efficaciousness of satanic ritual, and witchcraft in general, there are scholarly studies to back up that such activities were going on in the Massachusetts Bay Colony at the time. Does this justify the witch hunts or mean that innocent people didn't get caught up in the hysteria, sometimes at the hands of malicious opportunists? No, it doesn't. But it does mean that we need to be honest about the reality of the occult. To perpetuate the idea that black masses and witches are a part of some contrived mythology is itself a myth. And I happen to believe that these rituals do have an effect and a certain power, even though it's not the effects intended by their practitioners.

Satanists, Fellow Travelers or Useful Idiots? Elizabeth Scalia, in an excellent post on her blog The Anchoress, gives a rundown of the story, and her own take on the so called satanists behind this atrocity. She comments that these aren't real satanists at all (as she points out the real ones don't put out press releases) but atheists who use the guise of the occult to attack traditional religion. Satan has long been used by otherwise secular types as a symbol of rebellion and "freedom." These posers would be eaten alive (literally?) by the real thing. She goes on to write that what the pseudo-satanists believe isn't so much the point, the Enemy is more than willing to take advantage of these "useful idiots." And it really is the best of both worlds for him. The devil gets some free publicity (Mephistopheles and his crew love to see their names in the paper more than a Kardashian), gains an opening with which to cause some mayhem and possibly destroy a soul or two hundred, while continuing to reinforce the notion in the popular mind that he really doesn't exist to begin with. What ever you want to say about him, the Prince of Darkness knows how to manipulate the media industrial complex like a pro.

As for Harvard. A cliche I've heard repeatedly from friends this week is some variation on the "Harvard would never have the guts to allow a Koran burning on campus" motif. Just because it's cliche doesn't mean it isn't true, and in this case it is. Of course I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HARVARD, OR ANY PLACE ELSE SHOULD BE HOSTING KORAN BURNINGS. On some level the what that's being desecrated isn't the point; it's that Harvard would take such a hypocritical stance and allow this highly offensive act to go on under their sign.

The great sin of modern academia is being offensive and insensitive to others' beliefs and "life style" choices. The point of the organization hosting this "event" is to share different cultural and religious expressions in a spirit mutual appreciation. But we aren't talking about the performing of an ancient and hollowed ritual adored by countless generations. They're essentially reenacting a scene from a 60's horror movie, based on nothing more than the warped imagination of the film maker. Harvard itself, if I can read into their statement a bit, would love for this thing to go away, but they've backed themselves into a PC corner. If they cave and stop the black mass from being held they look like they're giving in to the "Man," and being untrue to their pluralistic, inclusive goals. If they let it go on, somewhere, in someone's mind there has to be the understanding that they are cooperating in a cynical, craven act that has nothing to do with cultural awareness or inclusivity.

As for the Consecrated Host. To me what's being desecrated is important, above and beyond any other considerations. It really doesn't matter what these lost souls believe. It doesn't matter to me what the folks at Harvard believe, either. As far as I know none of them thinks that the Catholic Sacraments or their satanic inversion have any power what so ever. In their post modern, deconstructed world words have no meaning, ritual has no meaning, apart from what we give them, which in their case is nothing. But words do have meaning. And they know it; no one is quicker to take offense when contradicted than your average Ivy League academic. They know deep down that words have meaning. They inspire people to action. They can cause joy and break hearts.

I believe that the divine words of Jesus Christ have supreme meaning. So yes, my main devotion is not to a book, though that Book contains the Words of everlasting life. I believe the words themselves, and when Jesus tells us through that Word that he gives us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink under the appearance of bread and wine I believe it. When he tells us, in one of the only direct commands he gives in Scripture, to "do this in memory of me," I believe it. And when someone purposely mocks and desecrates the Eucharist I'm enraged.

I hope this atrocity is canceled. Yes, because of the hurt it will cause the faithful. But also because of the harm it will cause Harvard. Let no one be deceived; this is a door opener. I fear for the Harvard community if this goes on. These are foolish, frivolous people. They are like drunks who dive head first off a cliff into water that is far shallower than they can see. Only it will not be merely themselves who will be harmed. I've seen too much damage done by people who engage in occult practice, and most of the damage happens to others; family members, the target of a spell or incantation, or simply a family that had the misfortune of buying a house or living in a building where the rituals were performed. Whether they believe it or not, the administration of Harvard should keep clear of this. No good will come of it, in this life or the next.

The Church's Mission IS Mission: An Outward Looking vs. a Self Referential Church Part 2

 
The last time out I wrote about the need for the Church to be outward looking in it's approach, engaging the world, bringing it the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and not be caught up with internal politics and worldly concerns that makes her self-referential and irrelevant. This isn't my idea; it's been a major theme of Pope Francis' pontificate, expressed at length in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. The Holy Father is making a conscious effort to be a "post partisan" pontiff because he sees how getting caught up in progressive-traditionalist battles that mirror secular politics detracts from Church unity and distracts her from the work of reaching out to lost, wounded souls seeking the healing power of Christ, which is what the Church does best.

The Church is at her best when she is engaging the world by proclaiming the Gospel because evangelization is her mission; it is why she exists. Fr. Robert Barron has argued that the goal of Vatican II was to prepare the Church to evangelize the post-modern world, not to modernize herself, as many commentators contend. While a certain degree of updating was needed, this was not the purpose of the Council. Whatever "modernizing" the Church needs to engage in is meant to make her a more effective vehicle for proclaiming the Gospel, it's not to conform her with the values of the contemporary society. George Weigel, in his book Evangelical Catholicism, published in the last months of Pope Benedict's reign, asserted that we have long ago come to the end of the age of Counter Reformation Catholicism within the context of a Christianized culture and are now in the period of the New Evangelization in a post Christian culture. In this new era using the authority of the Church to back up an argument is useless. We need to lead with Jesus Christ, showing how what we believe as Catholics has it's origin in the person of Jesus and his Gospel.

This is no easy task. We are fifty years on from the Council and in many ways we still struggle to understand what Vatican II meant and how we are to live the reforms it initiated. We have been bogged down in partisan bickering over theology, liturgy and social action. We are too often irrelevant to he world, not because the Gospel is irrelevant, but because too many people see in us and in our squabbling a mirror of the secular political fights that rage around us. Rather than letting Jesus Christ be the criteria of how we shape our politics we have let our politics define the parameters of our discipleship. The Catholic Church is neither the Republican nor Democratic Party at prayer. If a conservative accuses the Pope of being a Marxist for his proclamation of the social Gospel and a liberal accuses him of being a medieval throwback because he reaffirms the evil of abortion and same-sex marriage, rejoice and be glad; he's fulfilling his mission well.

The word mission in all this is key. The days of the Church in the "first world" that sits back and waits for the people to come to the local parish, register, marry, baptize the babies when they arrive and dutifully plop the envelope in the basket each Sunday is over. We are no longer a maintenance Church. The people aren't following the old patterns of behavior and the society doesn't hold to the same values that were their underpinning in the first place.

We need to understand that we don't need to go halfway around the world be be in mission territory. The United States, the UK, Canada, Western Europe: we are mission territory. The Gospel needs to be reintroduced. Many of us have so identified the Faith with Western Culture (and for good reasons) that we take for grated that ours is a Christian culture and it is for the Faith to align itself with cultural shifts. While we have things to learn from the culture, the influence needs to flow, by and large, in the other direction. We need the courage to understand that now we are the counter culture. But our tools aren't rioting, bombs and guns. We are not looking to overthrow anything. We are to be like yeast that penetrates dough, influencing, causing it to rise. In this the whole loaf is influenced; it's flavor and it's texture.

This all begins with our own conversion to a deeper living of the Gospel. I was going to write about the Blessed Mother in the context of this outward reaching Church, but I guess the Spirit took me in another direction. I can see that this is good, because next time I'll be able to introduce our Lady into the conversation in a deeper way, since she is not just the model of the Church, but she offers us the model of discipleship we are called to grow into. 

Mother of the Redeemer from AOP

An Outward Looking vs. a Self Referential Church Part 1

 

There was a piece in last Sunday's Chicago Tribune about the impending appointment of a new archbishop here in Chicago. Cardinal George is suffering from a recurrence of his cancer (pray for this good man, please), and has asked that the papal nuncio begin the process of choosing his successor. He submitted his letter of resignation three years ago when he turned 75, per Church law, but first Pope Benedict and now Francis have yet to accept it. The article was pretty standard, but there was one quote that stuck out at me as being terribly wrong headed:

"'For a place like Chicago, obviously the eyes of the world are upon it, especially given the fact that this is the first cardinal-level diocese in the country to be named by Francis,' said Rocco Palmo, a Philadelphia writer who covers the Catholic church hierarchy."

My almost instantaneous reaction to this line is unprintable. I don't think that Mr. Palmo has bad intentions, but this line of reasoning is exactly what's wrong with how the Church is covered in the press, and how too many people inside the Church view things like curial appointments and papal conclaves. "The eyes of the world" are upon Chicago? Really? I don't think any average Catholic, or average anyone else, in Santiago, Chile, for instance knows who the archbishop of Chicago is now, let alone cares about who his successor will be. For that matter the same holds true for the rank and file in New York, Los Angeles and Kalamazoo (OK, there is a good chance they may know who Cardinal George is, but that's about it). The faithful care about who their pastor is, and maybe the local bishop, maybe. Beyond that they have lives with concerns that weigh on them with more urgency that matters of popes and cardinals. In 2005 the only people who knew who Josef Ratzinger was were priests, seminarians and the staffs of the National Catholic Reporter and Ignatius Press. As famous as he was to us on the "inside," few average people knew who this little German bishop was before he appeared on the Loggia as Benedict XVI.

My point is that this focusing on things like who the next archbishop of Chicago (or pick your elccesiastical posting) will be can be a futile and counter productive occupation. It's natural for priests and employees of a diocese, or members of a religious order to speculate and debate on such things when a change of leadership is pending. Discussion and discernment of such things is not only natural, but essential when a process of consultation is called for. But a preoccupation with such things leads to looking inward, making the inner workings of the Church bureaucracy the important thing, when quite the opposite is true. When the Church is proclaiming the truth even, and maybe especially, when it is controversial she draws a response from the world. Sometimes it is positive, sometimes it is hostile, but when the Church proclaims Jesus Christ to the world she is relevant. When she gets caught up with office politics she is decidedly irrelevant to the wider world as well as to the flock. We should be concerned about Cardinal George, for sure. But not nearly as much about who might be sitting in his chair in the near future. There are simply more important things to concern ourselves with.

Francis has said, in reference to the role of women in the Church, that women are more important than bishops. True enough, but we could also say non ordained men and children are equally more important than bishops or clerics in general.  Jesus came to reach out to those outside the religious structures of his day, not because the structures were bad in and of themselves, but because those on the inside of those structures had forgotten why the Temple and the synagogue existed to begin with. They were not there to be self sustaining and self referential institutions but rather bridges that would bring people in closer contact with the God who is Love. Whether we want to believe it or not, it's God who is ultimately in control of the leavers, who happens to be wearing the miter and bearing the crosier at a given moment is less important than we may think, as long as he is leading the flock toward Christ and welcoming those on the outside in.

Last Sunday we celebrated the canonizations of Sts. John XXIII and John Paul the Great. The eyes of the world were indeed on St. Peter's Square as Pope Francis raised these two giants of the twentieth century to the altar. It was covered widely by the secular as well as Catholic press because this was an example of the Church celebrating two men who, though the ultimate insiders, used the Church's institutional reach to build bridges to the world. Both were signs of hope in a world ravaged by war and genocide, barbed wired walls and oppression. Both are great saints because they were holy, faithful disciples of Jesus Christ, not because they were popes. Sunday past no one cared about the intrigues, real or imagined, of the respective conclaves that elected them, or their appeal to one church "party" or the other. The world watched because they saw close to a million people flock to Rome to see these two men canonized and wondered why. They watched because they sensed, if they understood it fully or not, that Christ was reflected in the lives of St. John and St. John Paul. A light that emanates in Christ and reflects back to Him; Jesus does not see us a competitors, but rejoices to share His glory with His servants who faithfully serve the Gospel.

As a Church we are not called to serve the institution but use the institution to serve Jesus Christ and His Gospel. I will have more to say on this, and in my next post I'll show how our Blessed Mother is the model of the Church par excellence in this regard.  She never looked to herself, but always pointed the way to Jesus, and still does.