Scripture Reflection for September 30, 2018 (26th Sunday of Ordinary Time)

Mark 9:38-43, 45, 47-48

At that time, John said to Jesus, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us."
Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us. Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be letter for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire.
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut if off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye
than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"

This is one of those scripture passages we are given that is compact, but rich with diverse messages. In it, Jesus offers us lessons on at least three of the great dangers we can encounter in the Christian life. One is jealousy of others' gifts. The second is being the cause of scandal that leads others astray. The third is near occasions of sin, and attachment to vices that run deep into our soul that that may or may not lead to sinful actions, but are nonetheless obstacles to our salvation. 

The first part of the Gospel passage is an echo of the first reading, when two of Israel’s chosen leaders, not present with the group, are gifted with the promised Spirit anyway, and begin to prophesy in the camp. Joshua, Moses assistant, wants them stopped, but Moses tells him to not be jealous on his account. The ideal situation, he explains, would be if all the people shared in the prophetic office. In this statement we see a foreshadowing of God’s plan to make a Kingdom of prophets (as well as kings and priests) through baptism in Jesus Christ. 

In the case of the Gospel passage, John is concerned about an exorcist expelling demons in Jesus’ name, but is not one of their group. Jesus instructs him to let the man be, since those who are not against Him, and indeed speak well of him, are “with” Him.

Jesus, like Moses, is warning us against jealousy. In a parish or school, it’d easy for a ministerial tribalism to take hold. Each group or department thinks it’s superior to the others, that it’s concerns are paramount. We need to see that we all work together, building up the Body of Christ, when was he uses their talents and abilities in the service of the whole. This tribalism is usually accompanied by territorialism, that is fearful of those on the outside of the tribe who may be doing the same work. Again, we are called to work together, and have the humility to accept help from others. In this way we are more effective witnesses to Christ.

This passage also has obvious ecumenical implication. Many non-Catholics make great contributions to the pro-life movement, and organizations like Lutheran Church Charities are a great service to the poor. The Quakers, through the American Friends Service Committee, work for justice for migrants and other marginalized people. When we can cooperate with them we should. Of course discernment is necessary. Not all Christian and non Christian groups are friendly with the Catholic Church. Some are down right hostile. While we should be open to dialogue, full on cooperation may not be possible at this time. At the same time Jesus is calling us to an openness to those not of our tribe.

Jesus segues into a discourse on not giving scandal to the little ones, whose faith is simple. We usually associate this passage with children, and while the example certainly applies, it can be read as referring to anyone of any age who’s faith is simple or fragile. Giving scandal is a sin, but taking scandal is a sin as well. The one who gives bad example leads another astray, but the one who takes scandal allows his faith to be weakened. I’m not speaking here of experiencing moral outrage or shock at the misdeeds of others (this is normal and usually appropriate), but of those who use these misdeeds as an excuse to go down the wrong path themselves. 

That a priest or bishop, for example, scandalizes the faithful by their public sins is particularly egregious. It’s a form of murder. They may not kill the body, taking the person’s natural life, but they are potentially killing the supernatural life of grace in those who take offense. In spite of this, the sins of bishops and priests is still no excuse for breaking the commandments ourselves, or abandoning Jesus and His Church. The cleric, or anyone who leads people astray is guilty of a double sin, for sure. But it’s for us to keep things in perspective. Our faith is in Jesus Christ, who is true and the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Our spiritual guides may be holy (please God) or they may be sinners, but it’s Jesus Christ who is our Rock.

In the last section Jesus speaks of occasions of sin, warning us that if our foot or hand I the cause of a sin, we should cut them off, and if it’s our eye it should be plucked out. Jesus is speaking quite clearly in hyperbole when he talks of cutting off limbs and plucking out eyes. He is speaking more directly about a spiritual amputation we need to endure. There may be things in our life that need to be eliminated if we are to cut sin out of our life and truly live the life of holiness Jesus intends. 

Before I begin let me be clear: I’m not anti technology or anti smart phone, but we know that so much filth can enter our lives through such tech if we aren’t vigilant. How much easier it is to give in to the temptation of pornography now that it’s available at anytime, practically anywhere and in the palm of our hands. How many people have secret, impure relationships with other people’s wives and husbands through text message. They may never actually commit a sexual act with the other person, but they communicate in a way that consents to adulatory in their hearts. This spiritual infidelity, if you will, that is still sinful while making actual sins against the flesh much more likely.

Facebook and other social media platforms can be great ways of keeping connected with family and friends. They can also be ways of spreading gossip and calumny. They can be platforms for bullying and social shaming. In the extreme, they can lead to violence and murder. This is not some wild hypothesis on my part. A young boy was shat and killed just steps from our parking lot a few years age, the result of a fight started on Facebook. The saddest part was that the boy wasn’t involved directly in the argument, but standing by to support his sister. 

If your smart phone causes you to sin, smash it on the ground. It’s better to go through life unconnected than into hell with the latest update. If your social media account causes you to sin, drop out. It’s better to go through life off line than to enter hell with 10,000 likes. If the “innocent” texting with with a colleague not your spouse turnes ambiguous, romantic, or sexually suggestive, never mind explicit, block the number. It’s better to go through life with one less contact than to risk your marriage in this life, and your immortal soul in the next. 

Jealousy, scandal and occasions of sin. These are the three dangers to our life in Christ our Lord is calling us to avoid today.

Scripture Reflection for September 26, 2018

These reflections won't be daily, but I'll try to get them up at least three days a week. Some will be on the daily Mass readings, some, like today, will be drawn from the Divine Office. These are quick meditations taken from my half hour morning meditation. They may not be fully formed, and I'm sure there will be gaps in logic. I only hope they aren't superficial. I hope they help you in your own praying over the Scriptures. 

From the Office of Readings for Wednesday of the Twenty Fifth Week of Ordinary Time 

Ezekiel 37:1-14

Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: Listen! I will make breath enter you so you may come to life. 

I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow over you, cover you with skin, and put breath into you so you may come to life. Then you shall know that I am the LORD. (v. 5-6)

He said to me: Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel! They are saying, “Our bones are dried up, our hope is lost, and we are cut off.”

Therefore, prophesy and say to them: Thus says the Lord GOD: Look! I am going to open your graves; I will make you come up out of your graves, my people, and bring you back to the land of Israel. (v. 11-12)

This striking passage, typical of the extraordinary visions that fill this book, was meant to be a sign of hope for the Israelites in exile. Ezekiel wasn’t speaking literally of the resurrection when he wrote of the people rising from their graves, but was pointing to their eventual rising from the metaphorical grave of exile, and their return to Jerusalem. Renewed by His Spirit the Lord would restore their integrity as a nation dedicated to His service. As disciples of Christ we see this passage’s highest fulfillment in Jesus’ own resurrection, along with the promise that those who have faith in him will one day share in that fullness of life, with their graves literally opening, and their glorified bodies 

We as a people and as individuals can feel like those dry bones. It could be aridity in prayer, or the stress of work or family crises that drains us of our energy. Sometimes plans and dreams that we have for our life or the lives of our children don't come to pass, and we wonder where God is. We were so sure that our will and the will of God were the same, and yet heartache is all we feel. We can't see beyond the present troubles to perceive the big picture of our lives and other possibilities that the Lord might have in store us. We certainly need to live in the here and now, but it’s possible to get so caught up in the present moment we miss the forest for the trees. We can lose hope, forgetting that the trials of the present are nothing compared with the future God has in mind.

When I read these passages from Ezekiel from the Office of Readings in these days I can't help but think of the big picture. Israel was in exile because she didn't follow God's commandments. Israel's history is a series of triumphs and defeats, and theses risings and falls are connected to alternating periods of fidelity and infidelity to God. The fall of Jerusalem, the dispersal of the people and the destruction of the Temple were seen as fatal blows by those who suffered these indignities. God told them through Ezekiel that He could restore life to that which was thought dead. He would restore the nation, the people and the Temple, breathing into them new life.

The Church, in the West anyway, can be said to resemble these dried bones. The numbers of people who self identify as Catholic or Christian is declining, and many of those who remain can feel confused and disheartened. There is a revival of the scandals of the last decade that is shaking the confidence of the faithful in their leaders, while confirming the agnostic or atheist in their skepticism. Vatican II was supposed to be a second Pentecost, and the Millennium was going to see a new springtime for the Church. Yet the march of secularization seems to be driving the Church into a deeper cultural exile with no end in sight.

Of course, we must have faith. God's will will be done, if not now, if not during our earthly life times, it will be completed certainly in His good time. As Catholics faith is not a noun but a verb. Israel lost the land because they did not live the faith that was handed on to them. They thought they were adult enough to do their own wills, and of course God would go along with it. They were collectively like Adam and Eve who stretched out their hands to grasp the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They would judge for themselves what was right or wrong according to their consciences. They would adopt the practices of their gentile neighbors, in cultic, economic and moral matters, keeping the Law in word but not in deed. So God, in His mercy, at the very least permitted the exile to happen in order to wake them up to their sins, call them back, purify them, and return them to the Land.

As Church the Lord is permitting us to pass through this trial. We have long believed that we can live on our own, following our own ways, and somehow in the following of our own wills is equal to following God's. As a wider society we have made the personal conscience sovereign, and it has brought cultural disintegration and spiritual sterility. The Church has made a decision to swim with the flow of these societal trends, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that fragmentation and spiritual dryness have followed. 

The bones of the Church may appear lifeless, dry and disjointed. But it will be the breath of the Lord that will revive her. He will raise us up, while literally on the last day, metaphorically here and now whenever now happens to be. As I wrote, faith is a verb, so we need to respond by repentance. Only then will the New Pentecost and Spring Time promised to us will truly come to pass. Only when we have the humility to align our consciences with the will of God will, when we stop willing our own power but surrender to God's, will we really be given a vivifying portion of His grace. 

Scripture Reflection for September 25, 2018

The mother of Jesus and his brothers came to him but were unable to join him because of the crowd. He was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside and they wish to see you."

He said to them in reply, "My mother and my brothers 

are those who hear the word of God and act on it." (Luke 8:19-21)

I’ve actually heard this Gospel passage for today's Mass used to denigrate Marian devotion.  So sad, as the president might say. It wouldn't have been quite so bad if the culprit wasn't a vowed religious teaching a classroom full of undergrads in a Catholic college (I'll save that tirade for another time). The point of this passage isn't that Mary was somehow estranged from or even hostile toward her Son and his mission (as the professor argued) but that blood relationship alone doesn't connect us to the Lord or warrant us privilege. It is the faith that we put into practice that makes us truly a part of Christ's family.

In this spirit we venerate the Blessed Mother more for her faith than for her physical relation to her Son. That she is Jesus’ mother isn’t insignificant, but we know that being a biological parent isn’t a guarantee of parental love. There are parents who abandon their children. There are parents who abuse or neglect their children. There are parents who snuff out the life of their child before he or she is even born. So while Mary being the mother of the Savior is important, we know on an instinctual level that it isn’t enough to give her honor, as we do. 

We are devoted to her because she heard the word of God and acted it out. I should say, she acts it out, since she is still active in her Son’s service to this day. She said yes to the Father’s invitation to be bear the Son of God. She prompted Jesus to reveal himself in the first of His signs at Cana. She stood by at the cross, suffering a spiritual crucifixion, when so many others had abandoned Him. She was present at the beginning of the Church at Pentecost, receiving the outpouring of the Spirit. She continues to be a prophetess by way of her apparitions. 

We honor her for her faith. In saying yes to the angel who delivered God's call to be mother of the Messiah, she was risking, not only her reputation, but her very life, since she would have been accused of adultery, which carried with it a punishment of stoning. She suffered physically and materially when she had to travel late in her pregnancy from Nazareth to Bethlehem, then after His birth during the flight to Egypt to escape Herod. She had faith that her Son was truly the Son of God, so she didn't fear to prod Jesus at Cana to reveal Himself in the first of His signs. She continues to point Jesus out, delivering his message of repentance and mercy when she appears in places like Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima. 

Succeeding generations continue to call her blessed because of her faith. When we live out our own call from God faithfully we are imitating Mary. When we venerate her, call her blessed, we are fulfilling the prophesy contained in Luke's Gospel. We do not contradict the Word of God, but putting the Word very clearly into action.

Struggling into the Future: Third in a Continuing Series on the Current Crisis

I put a lot of stock in the Venerable Fulton Sheen's theory that history has progressed, since at least the birth of Christ, in a succession of roughly five hundred year long epochs. According to this theory we are presently at the end of an age that began with the Reformation in the early 1500's. Changes in epoch are rarely peaceful, and it takes time; decades or even a century or so, for the new normal to settle in. On the worldly level we are still in the process of secularization that began with the French Revolution. In the Church we are still coming to grips with the meaning of the Second Vatican Council, and how it's pastoral initiatives should be interpreted theologically and, implemented. We are in the final phase of the secularizing of Western society, but are only in the middle of the project that is the implementation of Vatican II. In some ways the scandals we are experiencing, and fault lines that they have exposed, are an extension the epochal changes we are passing through.

What is the meaning of Vatican II and how should it be implemented? This is not easy to say. I'm reminded of the story about a well loved Salesian who had died. A year or so after he'd passed away one of his lay devotees asked another confrere when the process of canonization was going to be initiated. The Salesian retorted dryly, "When all the witnesses are dead." My point in bringing up this anecdote isn't to imply that this particular Salesian wasn't holy, or that Vatican II was in anyway flawed. But for many who lived through the Council, especially if they were young, it was a defining, if not the defining moment of their lives. For priests and religious especially, who were either newly minted or still in formation when the documents were being promulgated, there is a nostalgic enthusiasm surrounding that period. They had hopes and dreams for what the Council was trying to do that may or may not be the case. I feel sometimes as if they have tried to impose a meaning, or push an agenda, that was important to them, but may not be all that important to the generations that have followed, and may not even be a part of what the Council was trying to do. The struggle over how the Council should be interpreted is really only going to be settled in the decades ahead, when those not so emotionally invested in desired outcomes have passed from the stage (I'm including myself in this category). Then those with more objective eyes, freed from preconceived agendas will be able to see the project home. 

Right now the struggle goes on at the edges, between the enthusiasts of rupture and the guardians of a mythic past. Human beings aren't all that creative, and on this point we seem even less so. We drive ahead while looking in the rear view mirror, as Marshall McLuhan put it. But some see as far back as the '50's while others are stuck in 1968. Neither era was perfect, and both eras are gone, never to be recovered. What the Spirit is guiding us toward probably looks nothing like the felt banner and paper mâché butterflies of the 70's, when I grew up, and even less like the fiddle backs of the counter-reformation era. But these paradigms, or some variation on them, is all we really know. What both sides, progressive and conservative alike, are engaging in is an exercises in repackaging doubling for authentic development. Rather than being open to truly new possibilities we are struggling over agendas, that no matter how novel they appear are really rooted in the past.

Regrettably, these divisions that have been present in the Church for quite a while now have only deepened. The Holy Father has become a polarizing figure, and the scandals have made his critics more emboldened. In the past they would hint at what they found troubling in the Pope’s pronouncements, but now they feel justified in not simply questioning or criticizing, but actually demanding his resignation over how he has handled the sex abuse crisis thus far. His supporters have rallied around him, and the Holy Father himself has maintained a disciplined silence, punctuated by not so cryptic daily homilies addressing those who seem to revel in the scandals. The attitude one has on how Francis has handled the crisis is a litmus test for how he or she views his papacy as a whole. If you are critical of his leadership in this area it means you want to scuttle Amoris Laetitia, turning back the clock on Vatican II. If you defend the Pope it means you’re for leading the Church down the road to secularized Protestantism. We are at a change of epoch, for sure, and mood is apocalyptic.

What this change of epoch is going to look like once the dust settles I'm hesitant to predict. I'll go as far as to posit that we are being called back to a simpler faith. This doesn’t mean that we are being called to live as Catholics did in the first century, or fourth or seventeenth. It is an age of the Church that is now, rooted in the eternal Truth responding to the needs of the present moment with our hope in the Kingdom to come. This doesn’t mean change of doctrine, or even discipline. It means getting to the root of what the Master meant when he said we have to be converted so as to be like children. It means an open acceptance of God’s will, especially when it contravenes our own desires and the wider conventional wisdom. In an age that makes economics the standard by which morality is judged, we live a detached poverty. In an age that makes sexual pleasure the highest experience and sexual proclivity the basis of personal identity, we live a disinterested chastity. In an age that puts the will to power as the prime directive, we live a dynamic obedience to God’s will.

We are at a point in time that seems to confirm the prophecies of our Lady of Akita, where the Blessed Mother spoke of a crisis that pits bishops against bishops. But some of the Pope's strongest critics and defenders right now come from within the laity (especially his critics). There is a feeling that the clerics haven't governed the Church correctly and now it's time for the lay faithful to step up. We shouldn't be shocked by this. They have heard from their pastors for over fifty years that the Church isn't a hierarchical pyramid, with the pope sitting on top and the pew sitters at the base, with religious and clergy stacked up on top of them. The Church is instead a circle of collaboration with the pope as the center of unity. The rallying cry had been the "Church is the People of God," not the institution or the clergy. It's going to come as news to some, but they actually believe that, and prelates on both sides of the divide are going to have to come to grips with it.

As I've written in the past I am hopeful because I'm a Christian. As a Salesian I'm optimistic, but not delusional. Christ has won the victory, but we are still a Church struggling, freed from slavery like the Israelites of old, but still wandering in the desert, awaiting entrance into the eternal Promised Land. The present crisis won't kill the Church, but it has already maimed her. Whatever the future paradigm will be, at its core will be greater simplicity, humility, fidelity and active participation of the laity in the actual governing of the institution. The future won't be realized, and the scandals adequately handled, until the agendas are put aside and the real issues at hand dealt with honestly.

10 Day Movie Challenge - Part One

After a couple of heavy installments I'm going to take a walk on the lighter side this time out. A couple of weeks ago I noticed a post from a friend on Facebook that read "10 DAY MOVIE CHALLENGE DAY 1: You are to post just an image, no explanation, from 10 movies that had an impact on you. 10 movies, 10 images, 10 nominations. No explanations." Below the text was a still from the movie Sideways. I didn't bite right way, but as the days passed, and the cinematic images piled up, I started putting my own list together, and I'm going to go over it now, beginning with the first five. For the most part I saw these movies within the first fifteen years of my life. They hit me at an early age, helping to form my movie going habits and tastes. I think enough time has past since the challenge was made, so I'm throwing the "no explanations" part of it out the window right here.

The first three movies I selected have nothing in common other than that they were filmed in black and white, and had visionary directors at their helm. But each is linked in my mind for the above mentioned formative effect they had on me growing up. Within less than a year, when I was 13 going on 14, I saw La Belle et la Bête, Citizen Kane and, Raging Bull. The first is Jean Cocteau's French masterpiece, whose production design was robbed quite openly by Disney almost a half century later when they made the animated Beauty and the Beast. Kane often tops the list of greatest movies of all time, which is obviously subjective. But there is no denying that with his 1941 magnum opus Orson Welles changed how movies were to be made in the future, from their visual style and dialogue, to their story structure and pacing. Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull opened to mixed reviews and a lukewarm box-office when it first came out in late 1980, though Robert De Niro's Oscar winning performance was universally hailed. When I saw it, after having snuck into the "wrong" theater at the multiplex in the spring of '81, I thought it was the best movie I had ever seen. In a delayed reaction similar to what happened to Kane, in 1990 it showed up consistently at or near the top of critics' lists of best movies of the previous decade. 

Each of these films deserves it's own post; series of posts even, but a couple of paragraphs will have to due. For me each film impressed into my mind the power of image over dialogue. La Belle et La Bête is a French film, so the visuals had to be powerful to keep my attention at such a young age, and needless to say they did. Both Kane and Raging Bull have strong scripts (the former won the Oscar for best screenplay), but like the Cocteau's film used strong visuals to tell their stories. As I wrote, all three were filmed in glorious black and white, using shadow and light to create an other worldly, atmospheric feel. Even though Welles and Cocteau worked in the 1940's when black and white was still the usual formate, it's hard to imagine any of these movies being shot in color and working as well.

When I was 14, after having seen these three movies, I was convinced that my calling was to be a film director. I'd been a cinephile from practically the time I was in diapers, but the vision of these three artists changed my life. Film from then on wasn't just something that was entertaining or amusing. It could make a statement, dig deep into human emotion and experience, and provoke thought and discussion. Obviously God had other plans for me, but deep down within me there is still an inner child who wishes he could be a part of the magical art of filmmaking. For this I thank Jean Cocteau, Orson Welles and, Martin Scorsese. 

Don't let the above paragraph fool you. I appreciate artful films, love them even, but I'm as much a sucker for a swashbuckling adventure or screwball comedy as the next guy. Did I mention buttered popcorn is a weakness as well? The fourth film on my list is sort of a combination of both: 1974's The Three Musketeers. Directed by Richard Lester (who worked with he Beatles on their two live action movies) and boasting an all star cast including Michael York, Oliver Reed and, Raquel Welch, to name only three of the big time stars in this flick, it's a mashup of adventure, romance and absurdist comedy. 

The Three Musketeers also represents my first trip to a movie theater, back when I was seven years old. Long story short, for some reason lost to the annals of time, my mother was off at some family event, and neither of my grandmothers was available to babysit me, so I was stuck at the family grocery store on a Saturday afternoon. My father, in no mood to put up with a rambunctious child during business hours, gave me five dollars and told me to go around the corner to the UA Bronxville Theater to catch the next show (yes, five bucks got me a 12 years old and under ticket, popcorn and a Coke back then, with change). I vaguely remember him asking one of the college kids working for him what was playing and if it was ok for a little boy. Once they gave the green light I was off like a shot. 

Looking back, even though it was almost forty five years ago, it's amazing they let me in unaccompanied. But they did, and I'm eternally grateful. What at show! Sword fights, explosions, double crossing scoundrels and noble heroes, beautiful maidens (did I mention Faye Dunaway co-stared with Ms. Welch?). I played at being d'Artagnan in the back yard with friends, and daydreamed about what adventures could be had. The impact was that this film showed me the power of imagination and play. 

The fifth film on my list is actually the weakest. It's the Jonathan Demme directed, 1984 Talking Heads concert film Stop Making Sense. I say the weakest, not because it's a bad movie, but because it had the least impact on me as a movie among the ten. I chose it more for nostalgia's sake: it was my first midnight film, out with high school friends, mainly from my parish youth group. If memory serves me I owned the album first, which was a mainstay on my turntable, and only saw the film after it had been out a while. It brings be back to a more innocent age, to old friends, most of whom I haven't seen in years, but still pray for. 

As for the film itself it offered alternate arraignments for familiar Talking Heads songs. Lead singer David Byrne wore his famous oversized grey suit, that kept on expanding as the movie went on. The band emerged gradually onto the stage, the ensemble growing song by song. He, and the band, came off as very deep but vague as to what the songs or the exaggerated gestures Byrne was pulling off were supposed to mean. For me, it was about the music. The album and the film were the first in either medium to be released with an all digital soundtrack, and sounded almost too perfect. At the same time, there was no denying that Stop Making Sense contained the definitive versions of many if their songs, most notably Burning Down the House, which has a driving, building intensity that the original studio version lacked.  

So that's the top five. The list really doesn't go in any particular order, except for the numbers one through four. Even that is more for sentimental reasons than for matters of art, per say. I'll be back soon with the rest of the list, and a few honorable mentions that didn't make the initial cut. 

Who Judges Peter?: Second in a Continuing Series on the Current Crisis

Pope St. John Paul II in Winter

During the final decade plus of John Paul II's pontificate there were those who openly questioned if he should retire. I'm not talking about journalists or commentators, though that may have been the case. I'm not talking of those who opposed him on theological or political grounds, though there were many of those. I'm speaking anecdotally, of conversations around dinner tables or over beer and wings after a long day. These were priests and religious who were otherwise devoted to John Paul, but had concerns. He was declining physically, and especially in the last five or six years of his life saw a marked decline in his health. The once vigorous, athletic man was increasingly stooped, unsteady on his feet, his face rendered expressionless by the Parkinson's disease that ravaged his body. People wondered out loud if he should step aside for a younger, healthier man. What if he became disabled? What if his mental faculties fail him? How can the Church function with an incapacitated pope? I heard more than one priest wonder out loud if there should be a mandatory retirement age for popes like there is for other bishops.

I understood the arguments, but was left unmoved. The pope is the successor of Peter. He is only a man, true. There is politicking that goes on before and maybe during the conclave. While the Holy Spirit directs, He's not a dictator. The cardinals don't lose their freedom when they enter the Sistine Chapel. There are human agendas that can steer the electors to one candidate or another. We can argue if God's candidate always wins the papal election, but once the vote is validly held and decided, and the bishop elected accepts in freedom, it is God's will that he faithfully fulfill the Petrine ministry he is entrusted with. He holds the Keys, he enjoys the charism of infallibility, he bears the terrible responsibility before God to tend His flock until the Lord returns, or calls him home in death (a far more likely scenario). 

Beyond that the pope is a bishop. For well over the first millennium  and a half of the Church's history, bishops were assigned for life, to preside over one local church, as the lone bishop. He was seen as the father of the diocese. The father of a family doesn't move from one household to another, and he doesn't stop being the father because he is old or sick. And there is only one father at a time. So a bishop didn't get "promoted" from one local church to another. He was married to his local church, and the commitment was until death dis they part. A great scandal in the Middle Ages involved bishops holding the title of several sees at once, collecting the revenue from each. Beyond the obvious greed and neglect (since most of these bishops never set foot in their other possessions), this kind of bishop was a bigamist, married to more than one church at a time. Even the practice of having auxiliary bishops is a relatively new development. A bishop, even to this day, has to be the bishop of somewhere, and there can be only one ordinary at a time. So auxiliaries are made titular bishops of defunct diocese, often in the Middle East or North Africa, where the local church died out centuries ago. It's a sort of legal fiction, but it maintains the illusion of the bishop as the sole father of his family church. And, as I wrote, he was bishop unto death; none of this mandatory retirement letter at 75 business.

I'm not going to argue the wisdom of having auxiliary bishops, or moving experienced men from lesser responsibilities to greater, or even mandatory retirement ages (or maybe I will at another time). It's simply this: the pope isn't just a regular bishop.  He holds a singular position in the Church as Christ's Vicar. He presides over the other churches in charity. He isn't a first among equals: he alone carries the Keys entrusted to Peter by Christ. He alone enjoys the charism of infallibility. He is a spiritual father to us all. He can not be deposed lawfully. He can not be impeached like a common politician, because he isn't a common politician. He is the Supreme Pontiff.

I know that in a rebellious and lawless age authority means nothing, and even those legitimately filled with righteous rage can be blinded by their condition, but have we no shame or fear of God? To demand that a pope resign, as if he were some governmental functionary, staggers belief. 

Some will point to St. Paul challenging Peter over the issue of table fellowship with gentile Christians. Paul opposed him to his face, but he didn't demand he hand over the Keys. Some will invoke Catherine of Siena. Catherine called the pope back to his rightful place, but she didn't demand he take off the tiara. There have been saintly popes and there have been scoundrels on the Chair of Peter. There have been holy men and moral disgraces wearing the papal robes as well. The failings of a pope gives none of us the right to stand as his judge, or jump to conclusions based on the testimony of one man. If David feared deposing Saul, when he had a clear claim to the thrown, just because Saul was God's anointed, how much more should we tread lightly here, with more than simple respect.

I understand that there is a great deal of pain out there. As I wrote last time, just when it seemed like the worst of this mess was passed us, it has come back with a vengeance. Some of Pope Francis' critics were themselves victims of clerical abuse or harassment. I don't think that Archbishop Viganòs testimony should be brushed aside without seriously examining it's veracity. The Holy Father, by his own admission, hasn't always handled the sex abuse crisis well, especially in Chile. I don't think the pope, any pope, is above scrutiny or questioning. I do think he's above being treated presumptuously. 

The thought of popes resigning, or having a mandatory retirement age imposed upon then was repugnant to me twenty years ago, and the feeling hasn't changed. I respected Pope Benedict XVI's decision to step down, but was made uneasy by it. My impression is that it helped contribute to the present atmosphere where the pope is treated like a company head or civil leader, subject to stock holder votes and daily tracking polls. If we don't like the job he's doing, we can boycott or put pressure on him to step aside. He isn't our father, in this case, just an interchangeable functionary. 

St. John Bosco had a deep devotion for the pope. He was close to Pope Pius IX in particular. It was this pontiff who encouraged Don Bosco's mission, and urged him to write his story in what became the Memoirs of the Oratory. Don Bosco didn't have such a close relationship with Pius' successor Leo XIII. There were times when that pope made decisions that hurt Don Bosco's cause. On one such occasion when an assistant asked why he was deciding against the priest, even though he knew the he was in the right, Leo replied, "Don Bosco is an obedient son; he will follow my commands faithfully. The other I'm to so sure about." But when Leo asked him to build the Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Rome, (a project that pretty much killed him) he did it without hesitation. For Don Bosco it didn't matter who the pope was, any request was considered an order to be fulfilled as a son obeys a father. 

So, I stand with Francis: not because of his agenda. Not because I think he's perfect in everything he says and does. I stand with him because he is Peter. Because I believe the promise of our Lord that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. And because I believe that all that is hidden will be revealed in the Spirit's good time.

Until then, question, demand the truth, put pressure on bishops and priests to tell the truth and live their call faithfully. I'm not suggesting passivity. But I am expecting that we work out our salvation with fear and trembling as we live out these confusing days. I expect that we understand that in our present situation, with so much contradictory information and spin going on, we should acknowledge what we know, but also admit what we don't. Be slow to judge, quick to listen, always at prayer, and always trusting in the Lord.