Feast of the Archangels from the Apostelship of Prayer

Hating Derek Jeter

I have to pause from all the heavy news to write about Derek Jeter's swansong this week. I wrote something when he announced his retirement back in the spring, but never went back to it. While the Yankees still have a game left in Boston, Jeter made it clear that he has played his last game at shortstop. The view from short at Yankee Stadium is what he wants to take with him into retirement. So he'll probably DH at least one game up at Fenway, but the leather will be packed away for good.

I had the privilege of seeing Jeter play in his last game at Wrigley Field here back in May. The Chicago fans were gracious, giving him a standing ovation before every at bat. While New York won the game in extra innings, there was no dramatic moment for the Captain. I think he went something like one for six, and stranded men is scoring position at least twice. But that didn't really matter to me, and I'm sure the other forty thousand fans who came out that afternoon. We came to say thank you, and good bye, knowing that a special player was passing from the game; one we will never see the likes of again.

While this scene was repeated in ball parks across the Majors this summer, not everyone has shared in the good feelings. The last week or so some in the press have decided to take this opportunity to knock Jeter, not just a little, but in the most classless ways possible. I get it I guess; if ratings have traditionally been king, then trending is quickly becoming the emperor of the New Media. Nothing will get buzz going like an aggressive attack on a well loved icon. I'm not saying that these critics aren't sincere, only that I'm pretty sure they put a little more mustard on their rhetorical fastballs than they ordinarily would for the sake of a few more clicks on You Tube.

There are basically two basic lines of attack: 1, that DJ is overrated, and 2, he's been disingenuous in his exploiting of this "farewell tour."

I actually think that the second knock, exemplified by a tirade by local New York sports commentator Chris Carlin, has merit.  A bit much? Sure, but at least he had someone debating him, and questioning the appropriateness and motives for the "tour" are fair, especially because Carlin believes the spectacle to be out of step with the rest of Jeter's actions in the past.

The over rated charge has been one that has followed Jeter his entire career. Coming up during the steroid / sabermetric era, when power stats became artificially inflated, while also disproportionately worshiped by a new breed of math geek fan, DJ didn't seem to fit in. Jeter may have been a part of the first group of shortstops who could hit as well as field, but he didn't hit home runs. He also struck out too much and didn't walk enough to please the disciples of the new sabermetrics paradigm. The three top shortstops of the late 90's early 00's were A-Rod, Nomar Garciaparra and Jeter, and this was the order they were always listed in in terms of ranking. When A-Rod was traded to the Yankees and shifted to third base, the joke was that Jeter couldn't be the best shortstop in baseball since he wasn't even the best at the position on his own team. Keith Olbermann drudged up many of these arguments, using advanced statistical analysis, including a liberal use of WAR (aka WARP), to make his point. I'm not even going to get into the the debate over the validity of WAR as an accurate indicator of a player's value, only to say that I don't think it has any validity; this convoluted stat is inherently subjective, which flies in the face of what statistical analysis is supposed to be about.

But even accepting the fact that, besides ending his career sixth on the all time hit list, tenth in runs scored (and leads active players) he doesn't stack up statistically, especially in the power numbers, all time or with his contemporaries, I have to ask one question: where are his contemporaries, at least at short? Nomar, through no fault of his own, suffered from injuries in the last five years of his career and retired early. A-Rod? Do I really have to go there? Jeter is the last man standing, at least the last one standing who can lift his head high.

I think Jeter is not above criticism, especially for the overly sentimental commercials and never ending salutes that seem to go against the the well crafted image he has fostered as a team first, individual second, kind of player. I have nothing against advanced matrix or statistical analysis, but to not see that Derek Jeter's value to the Yankees, and baseball, over the past two decades is greater than what can be measured on a spread sheet is blindness. There is still a question about if he will DH tomorrow in Boston or not. But once the season is officially over I'll go into more retail about how I see Jeter's legacy.

Francis Makes News for Doing the Mundane, or: Who Am I To Judge: Second in a Series

Last time out I commented on Pope Francis presiding over the marriages of twenty couples in St. Peter's, and what a fuss it caused in the press. The commotion was due to the fact that these couples came from varying backgrounds; first time married, second tries after an annulment, or couples  who had been cohabitating previous to the wedding day. My main point was that, while the symbolic nature of the act shouldn't be overlooked, in reality the Holy Father was doing what parish priests the world over have been doing for a very long time; bringing these relationships into accord with the Christian understanding of what marriage is, and thus the people themselves into a deeper participation with the life of the Church.

This has been a hall mark of Pope Francis' brief papacy so far; offering both words and actions that appear more revolutionary than they are. In part this is because, unlike his immediate predecessors he doesn't talk like an intellectual but rather as a pastor, in plain, but colorful images easy to understand. For instance one of the Pope's more flamboyant comments came when he told an audience that if "martians" came knocking on the church door looking to be baptized we should oblige them. Obviously he wasn't commenting on the existence of extraterrestrials, but rather on pastors who put unreasonable requirements on parents seeking to baptize their children. This is not so much different than things Benedict said as pope, but only that the Pope Emeritus didn't say it in such a pithy, evocative way. Francis' comments on economics have gotten a lot of press, and criticism, but he is quick to point out that everything he has said and written can be found in the Catechism, and isn't out of step with things promulgated by his predecessor. Again, it's a matter of tone and vocabulary more than substance.

No words of the Pope have gotten more press than his famous quote, "Who am I to judge," when asked about his views on gays in the Church. The press interpreted that response as representing either a shift in Church teaching on homosexual acts, or at least a greater toleration for Catholics living the gay lifestyle. But was that really the question he was asked, and was that the totality of the answer?

I offer both the original question and answer here below.  Remember the context, which is an impromptu news conference aboard the jet taking the Holy Father back to Rome after last year's World Youth Day in Rio. He is being asked a question about a cardinal who had been under investigation for an alleged inappropriate relationship with an adult man.

The Question to Pope Francis from Ilse, a journalist on the Papal flight

Ilse: I would like to ask permission to pose a rather delicate question.  Another image that went around the world is that of Monsignor Ricca and the news about his personal life.  I would like to know, your Holiness, what will be done about this question.  How should one deal with this question and how does your Holiness wish to deal with the whole question of the gay lobby?

The Pope’s Answer

Regarding the matter of Monsignor Ricca, I did what Canon Law required and did the required investigation.  And from the investigation, we did not find anything corresponding to the accusations against him.  We found none of that.  That is the answer.  But I would like to add one more thing to this: I see that so many times in the Church, apart from this case and also in this case, one  looks for the “sins of youth,” for example, is it not thus?, And then these things are published.  These things are not crimes.  The crimes are something else: child abuse is a crime.  But sins, if a person, or secular priest or a nun, has committed a sin and then that person experienced conversion, the Lord forgives and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives.  When we go to confession and we truly say “I have sinned in this matter,” the Lord forgets and we do not have the right to not forget because we run the risk that the Lord will not forget our sins, eh?  This is a danger.  This is what is important: a theology of sin.  So many times I think of St. Peter: he committed one of the worst sins denying Christ.  And with this sin they made him Pope.  We must think about fact often.

But returning to your question more concretely: in this case [Ricca] I did the required investigation and we found nothing.  That is the first question.  Then you spoke of the gay lobby.  Agh… so much is written about the gay lobby.  I have yet to find on a Vatican identity card the word gay.  They say there are some gay people here.  I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good.  They are bad.  If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this point beautifully but says, wait a moment, how does it say, it says, these persons must never be marginalized and “they must be integrated into society.”

The problem is not that one has this tendency; no, we must be brothers, this is the first matter.  There is another problem, another one: the problem is to form a lobby of those who have this tendency, a lobby of the greedy people, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of Masons, so many lobbies.  This is the most serious problem for me. And thank you so much for doing this question. Thank you very much!

I encourage you to read the entire quote, but the highlighted parts alone give a fuller expression to what the Holy Father was saying.

The issue for the Pope is not whether an individual is gay or not, but that the person have an openness to following Christ and a spirit of repentance when he or she sins. When one sins, even in the sexual realm, even if it involves breaking a vow, and, yes, even when it involves a same sex partner, the attitude of the penitent and the Church should be one of sincere repentance, compassion, and trust in God's mercy. The earth isn't going to open up and swallow the person alive, nor are thunder bolts going to flash from the heavens and strike the person down. But if we really hear what he's saying, on the one hand we shouldn't over react, for lack of a better term, to sexual sin, even homosexual acts, but still understand their inherent sinful nature and return to the Lord with confidence. Sin is still sin, but Christ came to take away the sins of the world, and the Sacrament of Reconciliation is the concrete and effective expression of that fact.

Where the Pope does have a problem is with a gay lobby, if one even exists (and he does some fancy verbal footwork around answering if such a lobby indeed exists at the Vatican). As has been his style Pope Francis is both direct and just vague enough when he speaks to make you wonder what he's driving at. He speaks of a gay lobby as a "most serious problem", but really doesn't elaborate about what he means, beyond comparing it to a lobby of greedy people, of politicians, and of Masons (there's a blast from the past). Then the Holy Father politely, but abruptly, ends the answer.

If I could be so bold, I think that the point is that lobbies advocate for a particular cause or constituency. It tries to justify and promote the activities of the constituency represented. The gun lobby tries to secure the rights of gun owners, and fights against gun control legislation. More innocuously, the corn lobby or some other agriculture lobby will fight for the rights of farmers, seeking subsidies or some other favors from the government.  While as Catholics we are to be sympathetic and compassionate, we can't harbor lobbies that advocate for those dedicated to a lifestyle contrary to Gospel values. There are groups within the Church like Courage, made up of gay Catholics dedicated to living the chaste life. It doesn't attempt to change their orientation, but helps them live in fidelity with the Christian understanding of human sexuality. Usually when a "Gay Lobby" is referred to in the Church it's a group of people who, aren't simply looking to stop discrimination, but also looking to justify a lifestyle contrary to the Gospel. This justification is opposed to the spirit of repentance because it doesn't recognize homosexual acts as sinful. If sin is not recognized then repentance will not be manifested, and so God's mercy frustrated.

Again, as the Holy Father states in his answer, there is nothing in his words that can't be found in some form in the Catechism. But I'm not suggesting that Pope Francis isn't offering something new. He is. It's a tome of reconciliation. It's a tome that doesn't deny sin, but promotes mercy. It doesn't focus on the ugliness of sin but on the beauty of mercy, compassion and, yes, repentance.

It does acknowledge that in defending the truth Catholics can come off as judgmental and harsh. We definitely need to find a new vocabulary, because meanings and nuances of words do change over time. I'm thinking of the word "disordered" in particular. For those familiar with Thomistic philosophy there is nothing wrong with it being used in the context of sexual orientation, but today it has taken on a therapeutic, mental health connotation that makes it look like we are making a judgment on some one's sanity which isn't necessarily the case.

In the end, the Pope is still Catholic, and is trying to show all of us they way to live the truth with charity.

News Flash: Pope Francis Makes News for Doing the Ordinary, First in a Series

Pope Francis made news this weekend by doing what thousands of priests around the world do all the time; he regularized the marriages of 20 couples at the Vatican. Some of the couples were in traditional situations, meaning that they were attempting marriage for the first time and weren't cohabitating ahead of the ceremony. Others were married civilly, had had annulments or were living with their partner before approaching the altar. This may come as a shock to many none Catholics, and to even a few of the baptized, but normalizing these types of irregular arrangements is what the Church does. We do it on the parish level all the time. I would say that a healthy percentage of the weddings that I've done fall into these categories. This is yet another case of the Pope making news for doing the routine.

I will not deny the symbolic nature of the Holy Father's actions. The pope, in his day to day duties, doesn't do things like weddings and baptisms. He is not a "super" parish priest. His roles are primarily those of teaching and governance. So when he does go out of his way to perform these "mundane" tasks they become a teaching opportunity for the Church and the world. Are there still local pastors who would turn away such irregular cases, especially those couples who are living with each other out of wedlock? Sure: so a clear message is being sent that the pastoral approach, not the legal approach, should be the default. 

But it doesn't change the fact that what Pope Francis did over the weekend is very much in line with the standard practice of the Church, especially in Latin America where he comes from; a region in which many countries demand that a separate civil ceremony take place before the religious one. There can be a lag time of weeks, months and quite often years between civil and Church weddings, for various reasons. So, these are not new waters for our Argentine pontiff.

I'm not sure how the Holy Father approached the situation, but I can tell you how many priests handle cohabitating couples. Some priests might refuse to do the wedding unless they separate, most encourage them to move apart but don't make it a prerequisite for getting married. We encourage abstinence before the wedding. When they go to confession before the wedding, as all couples should no matter their situation, I always make abstinence a part of the penance. I understand; telling people that they shouldn't sin isn't really a proper penance, but by incorporating into the Sacrament of Reconciliation it stresses the importance of what they are entering into. I've never had anyone object, and I'm often thanked. Are there priests who ask no questions and give tacit approval to people living in sin (let's not be afraid to call it what it is): again, sure. But they're really not helping the couple reconcile properly with he community or grow in their personal relationship with Christ.

As for the couples who were divorced, either after a sacramental or civil marriage, I'm sure the proper canonical processes were observed to make sure that they were free to marry in the Church.

In spite of the fact that what the Pope did was so ordinary, there were still reactions from secular news sources proclaiming the novelty of it all, exemplified by this snippet from a Reuters report:


"Francis, who is the first non-European pope in 1,300 years, has expressed tolerance regarding other topics that are traditionally taboo in the Church, asking 'who am I to judge?' a gay person 'who seeks God and has good will'.

His approach contrasts with that of his predecessor, the German Pope Benedict, who said that threats to the traditional family undermined the future of humanity itself."

The now famous line, "Who am I to judge," really deserves it's own post because it's been so misinterpreted, in part because it's been removed from the context of the question Francis was asked and the relatively lengthy answer he gave, and the willful ignorance of the media in reporting it. But following the line, yet again trying to contrast Francis with the Pope Emeritus, is particularly shameful, and I will address it here now.

To suggest that the actions of Pope Francis over the weekend, or in his papacy up to now, are some sort of repudiation of his predecessor is absurd. Can we see a change of style or of emphasis?; without a doubt. But before we get too ahead of ourselves let's remember that in June it was reported that the Holy Father, while addressing a charismatic convention, said that:

"'Married couples are sinners just like everyone else, but they want to continue with love, in all its fecundity. They continue in the faith, bearing children.' ... 'Let us pray to the Lord and ask him to protect the family in the crisis with which the devil wants to destroy it,” the Pope said. 'Families are the domestic church where Jesus grows in the love of a married couple, in the lives of their children. This is why the devil attacks the family so much,' Francis explained. 'The devil doesn’t want it and tries to destroy it. The devil tries to make love disappear from there.”'

Wow, the Devil is trying to destroy the family? Bearing children is central to married love? Doesn't sound like someone trying to redefine marriage, or who believes that recent social changes effecting the family represent an unqualified good.

There has been much debate in recent months about Francis' position on gay marriage, with some suggesting that he supports or could tolerate gay civil unions. But as Archbishop of Buenos Aires his opposition to gay marriage was called "medieval" by that county's president, and he's been quoted as saying that the idea of gay marriage represents an "anthropological regression." Again, a far cry from the feel good message disseminated by the main stream press.

In all this mangling of the Pope's words and actions we lose the fact that he really is doing something new. But it has nothing to do with changing doctrines or disciplines. It has to do with getting back to the heart of the Gospel, and understanding that policies and disciplines are there to help us live as more faithful disciples of Jesus; they are not to be simply followed for their own sake. He has said that we can't be afraid of change, and that we should have the courage to change structures, policies, and even disciplines if they no longer help us in following Christ faithfully, and in spreading the Gospel to the nations.

This last part is the key. If there is a change the Pope is trying to effect it is to move the Church from maintenance mode to mission mode. The Church doesn't exist to be a self sustaining institution but to be the herald of the Good News. What that means I'll get into in the next post.

Francis represents a change of tone from his predecessors, to be sure, but not a change of doctrine. If we look at the words of both Benedict and Francis we will see convergence in mind while a difference in tone. One is a theologian, the other is a pastor. One teaches what we believe the other shows us how it's lived in practice. Unfortunately there are many reporting the news who can't, or refuse, to see the difference.

Part two of this post will cover the famous "Who am I to judge?" quote, and the mission of the Church to reach out to the peripheries.

Wars and Rumors of War, Part 1

 

Take heed that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, `I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs. Matthew 24:4-8 (RSV)

The name of this blog was inspired by the words of John the Baptist as recorded by the Evangelist St. Matthew. In this passage from Matthew 3 where he warns those who came to him for the baptism of repentance that he offered that a judgement was coming, and so their repentance needed to be sincere. Jesus was the embodiment of that judgment that John spoke of, but rather than with fire and wrath, Our Lord came with a gentler approach. John the prophet wants to spur people to follow the right path, Jesus wants to assure them that they will find a loving, merciful God when they get there and, yes, he will wait patiently for the return of the sinner.
  
Nonetheless a time of definitive judgement will come; it's simply a matter of when. As we move more into the autumn, closer to the end of the liturgical year the readings will reflect this reality. The Church has a funny way of teaching us along with the seasons; so as nature seems to be experiencing a death of sorts by way of the trees losing their leaves and the hours of daylight running short we are reminded that death, judgement and the End Times are realities that cannot be avoided. 

Trying to discern the when and how this will take place is as old as the Church herself. But this is foolishness. It's enough to know that it will happen to keep us awake and ready, or at least it should. 

People ask me now, considering all the tumult in the world, if these are the end times. Bear in mind I've been asked this question for the last twenty-five years, which tells me that people are always shocked that world and national events are, by nature, unpredictable and unstable. I will admit that the upheaval we are passing through now does seem to be more intense than we have experienced in recent history. All the same, since no one knows the day of the hour I feel foolish trying to answer the question at all. But my gut answer is no. We are not witnessing the end of the world, or even the beginning of the end. 

But this doesn't mean that I don't think that we are at crossroads, and that something is ending, with something new, that we probably can't even imagine, beginning.

The Venerable Fulton Sheen promoted a theory of historical development that cut world history into roughly five hundred year epochs. At the dawn of the Christian Era was the birth of Christ. Five hundred years later the Roman Empire fell and a new Western Civilization began to take shape. In 1054 we have the schism between Rome and Constantinople, that split the Church in two. In 1519 the Protestant Reformation begins, causing divisions in the Church as well as political divides in Europe. This coincided with the age of exploration, and revolutions in science and industry. When he spoke in the 1970's he saw that another five-hundred year period was coming to an end. A unified Christian culture in the West was on its last legs, the Arab-Muslim world was on the rise after centuries of European domination, and the culture in general was splintering. He saw the century ahead, the beginning of the Third Millennium as marking the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. 

In light of this theory I think we need to look soberly at what's going on right now in the world. Al Qaeda has morphed into ISIS (or ISIL or IS, depending on the acronym you prefer) and is engaging in terrorism of the most barbaric fashion imaginable. And yes, I do believe that their organization is present in some form here in the U.S. waiting for an opportunity to strike. 

Russia is resuming their expansionist goals that were suspended at the end of the Cold War. I personally think Vladamir Putin's objectives are more Czarist than Soviet, but either way it's foolish to dismiss him as a 19th century throwback who's on the wrong side of history. Hitler had Napoleonic ambitions out of step with the Brave New World people were envisioning after the disaster of World War I, and look at the havoc he caused along the way to personal and national destruction. 

As a side bar, in general I don't see Hitler and Putin as having all that much in common, but there is an interesting similarity in the situations that one was and the other is trying to take advantage of. It's been said that Germany was forced to sign a surrender treaty at the end of the Great War, but was never really defeated definitively on the battle field. By 1918 the war was essentially a stalemate, with the late entry of the US on the side of the Allies making victory for the Central Powers an impossible goal, even if tactical defeat wasn't eminent. The soldiers went home, Germany was forced to suffer severe "peace" conditions, but never really felt like that they had lost. What they did feel was let down by their leaders, both military and political. This made the rise of a nationalistic party like the Nazis possible. In the same way the USSR was never really defeated by the US in a military encounter. We had our Vietnam and they had Afghanistan, but we never went head to head (thank God), and so the dissolution of the Soviet Union didn't really feel like a defeat to the Russian people but was seen as a political failure. Russia has always seen itself as the protector of the Slavs, and had imperial ambitions in the region going back to the Czars, so what Putin is up to is very much in line with Russian aspirations through the ages. Like Hitler wanted to revive German national pride, so Putin is taping into Russia's recent and distant past to unify his country's resolve and sense of purpose. 

We have not heard much about Venezuela's trouble's lately, but that country is still in civil unrest, and Latin American countries like Brazil and Argentina are experiencing political, economic and social convulsions. 

Again, not much in the news about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the last couple of weeks, or about the Iranian or North Korean nuclear programs, but we know those situations can heat up on a moment's notice.

I haven't even talked about the social, political and economic crises at home, and I don't plan to. I think you get the point: there's a lot going on. Wars, rumors of war, as well as epidemics and natural disasters all seeming to be happening at once. It's easy to believe that Biblical prophesies are coming to pass and the world is coming to an end. I believe that the words of our Lord are coming to pass, but that the world is not ending. A world, if you will, is in it's final hours though. I'll leave the judgement as to whether Fulton Sheen was prophetic or lucky about his timing to others. But we are in a period of epochal change, and what this means for the faithful I'll leave for the next installment to explore.

Introduction to the Rosary | Columbia Catholic Ministry

A Video On The Nativity of Mary

First Impressions on the Suspension of Fulton Sheen's Cause

 

Venerable Fulton Sheen's cause for canonization has hit an inexplicable wall. Inexplicable because we aren't talking about some revelation of a previously unknown impropriety, or the discovery of heresy in his writings that would disqualify him being raised to the altars. No, the problem is that both the Archdiocese of New York, where Archbishop Sheen served as an auxiliary bishop, lived most of his adult life and is presently entombed in St. Patrick's Cathedral's crypt, and the Diocese of Peoria, IL., where he was born and raised and whose staff has been handling the canonization process up to now, can't agree on what to do with his remains. Peoria wants the body so it can be examined and first class relics collected. New York is saying that Archbishop Sheen's wishes, spelled out in his will, was for his final resting place to be St. Patrick's, and his family wants these wishes respected. This unexpected pause puts on hold Sheen's beatification that some were expecting could happen as early as next year.

I was ready to come out with guns blazing on this, but reading The Anchoress this morning made me take a pause and reset. But even with the cooling off period I'm seething over this development. The word that came to my mind first was "scandal." And it is scandalous that this disagreement is being handled in such a public manner. It disheartens the faithful and gives ammunition to secular critics. It gives off the impression to all that the Church is about power and politics, and is not actually interested in promoting the truth. Both Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York and Bishop Jenky, the Bishop of Peoria are honorable men, and I do have confidence, as Elizabeth Scalia does, that this is a bump in the road that will be resolved quickly.

I'm sure Peoria, which has done most of the heavy lifting up to now feels pushed around by New York, who they may perceive as trying to jump in to grab the glory at the end, and felt the need to go public with this dispute as it's only recourse. New York does have a responsibility to respect Fulton Sheen's final wishes, and the continued wishes of his surviving relatives. And while he may have been a small town boy from El Paso, Illinois, Fulton Sheen was a New Yorker through and through, and his desire to be laid to rest there was heart felt. All this is true. But we hear a lot of talk in the press these days about "optics"; that things need to look good as well as be good, that people's perceptions of reality matter almost as much as the reality itself. While both sides have a point, they really do need to think about how this all looks, sit down together and work this thing out.

For those of us who toil in the apologetics vineyard, even if only in a small corner of it like myself, Fulton Sheen is a hero. He was a pioneer in using emerging media, first radio and later more famously television, to spread the Gospel. He wrote over 60 books, and also managed to head up the U.S. office of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, a main fundraising arm for the Church's missionary efforts. During his heyday in the 1950's he had one of the most popular shows on TV, and was only surpassed by Billy Graham as the most recognized Christian figure in the U.S.. He went out of favor a bit after his death in 1979, but his stature has made a steady comeback since the 90's due to the republication of his books and videos.

I only knew the old, frail Fulton Sheen, epitomized by his encounter with Pope St. John Paul II at St. Patrick's only two months before his death. The image we usually see is of the two men embracing, Sheen with tears in his eyes. But I remember as a boy watching on television that as Archbishop Sheen approached John Paul in the sanctuary he seemed to collapse to his knees with great emotion, startling the attendants, and the Holy Father, who quickly moved to help him back up. A loyal son of the Church, as the Pope would describe him, he would have knelt for anyone wearing the shoes of the fisherman, but he knew the historical significance of this man, from the Communist Block, becoming pope at that time. He had preached vigorously against atheistic communism his whole life, could this be the one who would help turn the tide of history? It was as if he was Simeon waiting in the temple, not for the Messiah, but for confirmation that his work hadn't been in vain. With the election of John Paul II he knew that the beginning of the end of atheistic communism had begun (as some inside the Kremlin would later admit they thought themselves the day the Polish Pope first appeared on the Loggia). So while he may have knelt for the Pope simply because he was the pope, I'm not sure he would have done so with such purpose had it been another man. And yes, he was dead two months later, as if to say, your servant can go in peace; that which I have been praying for has been set in motion.

I didn't understand all that as a 12 year old boy. I only saw the devotion and the tears, and they've stuck with me all these years later. As I got older and discovered his recorded sermons and TV shows for myself it all came together. There are many great Catholic apologists around today using the internet and other new forms of social communication to get the Word out. Fr. Robert Barron, the closest thing to a Fulton Sheen we have today, has observed that the Venerable bishop would have given his right arm to take advantage of outlets like You Tube and Twitter. But whether we're out there in front, like the Word on Fire ministry, or like many of us who work the information superhighway on our spare time, we are all Fulton Sheen's children. My prayer is that whatever the disagreement is, it may be resolved soon and Archbishop Sheen's cause may carry on to a favorable end.