Querida Amazonia_____________________________________
The not so long awaited post synodal exhortation reflecting on last October's Amazon Synod was just released (Francis wastes no time in publishing these reports). As has been the case with many documents issued during Pope Francis' tenure, commentators and critics weren't really interested in the main point, but the perceived agenda behind the agenda. The synod was supposed to be about the Church's ministry in Amazonia, exploring how we can foster an integrated vision of evangelization, respect for local cultures and environmental protection of the region. All most people want to know though is if the Pope would allow married priests and women deacons to help alleviate the clergy shortage in the Amazon. The answer was no, on both counts, with the first question not even mentioned in the text.
The official presenters of the document stated that this exhortation doesn't represent the final word on these matters.
While not the central issues tackled by the synod, they were among the topics that caused the most controversy on social media (I know, what about Pachamama? Maybe I'll get to that some other time). Traditionalist critics were afraid the synod was going to be used as an excuse to introduce changes in practice, not just in Amazonia, but in the Church universal.
The bottom line is, if we listen closely to what Pope Francis has said over the years about the possibility of married priests and, especially, ordaining women, his words or absence of words, should not surprise you. He speaks of clericalism, but he means more than just clergy who act as if they are a higher class of Christian who crave power rather submit to a life of service. He also connects clericalism with priests who try to act like lay people and laity who try to assume the role of a cleric. For Francis clericalism is more than about power, but the role each person plays and gifts they have to offer. The upshot being that clerics and laity both need to cherish and respect the gifts of the other.
Sadly there are two extreme groups in the Church right now: those, who tend to be progressive, who support the Pope no matter what, and those, mainly traditionalist, who feel he can do nothing right. What's sad is that one side forgets that many progressives never seemed afraid to criticize St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) back in the day. I should know: I had them as professors in various Catholic colleges in the '80's and '90's. The traditionalist side is a bit more complex, because they run the gamut from sedevacantists (those who believe Francis and his predecessors going back to at least John XXIII aren't valid popes) to those who acknowledge the legitimacy of the pope but believe him guilty of grave errors. This presents a bit of a mixed bag, because some were critical of JPII and BXVI as well. But for the most part more conservative minded Catholics would have defended either of Francis' predecessors vigorously, and the idea of publicly calling out the pope would cause the vapors.
To end this overly long segment, both sides need to take a breath. Papal infallibility does not mean that everything that proceeds from the mouth of the Roman Pontiff is necessarily without error. It certainly doesn't mean that those manning the Vatican dicasteries can't make mistakes. He does enjoy the charism of infallibility when teaching on matters of faith and morals, to the universal Church, in his role as the successor of Peter. This charism is not about making new doctrines but better defining, developing and formalizing teachings that have been a part of the deposit of faith all along. He teaches infallibly also when he reiterates established doctrines of the Church when he preaches or writes. To wonder about the direction the Church is taking under Francis's leadership isn't a mortal sin. But to be overly panicked by it may show a need for renewed faith. Those who get upset with people with questions may need to grow in charity, as well as examine their own intellectual past.
Post Script...I wrote a friend this week that I thought this could be Francis' "Humanae Vitae" moment. (I was disappointed to see the Catholic Herald made the same observation. Disappointed because no writer wants to be second to publish an opinion). I also didn't think the negative response would be as severe as what happened 52 years ago.
In 1968 the expectation was that St. Pope Paul VI would modify the Church's teaching on artificial contraception, by allowing its use under at least certain conditions. The encyclical, released in July of that year, reaffirmed the traditional prohibition, causing a backlash among some theologians and bishops conferences. Those who didn't openly criticize the pope's decision did their best to ignore it. Paul, who was pope for another ten years, never wrote another encyclical (though he did issue several exhortations among other official documents), and curtailed his traveling to the point that he never made an official trip outside of Italy after 1970. Some feel that the negative reaction to HM played a large role in his relative withdrawal from public view the last decade of his life.
Today there is a backlash to Querida Amazonia, both in Germany, where the local bishops have been trying to gain more independence in doctrinal matters the last few years, and in the United States. What the long term ramifications will be is anyone's guess.
Paul and Francis are different personalities, though their similarity in approaches to the papacy hasn't been lost on some observers. In terms of personality, Paul VI is sometimes referred to as the "Hamlet" pope. He was a man of deep personal holiness, highly intelligent, but indecisive. George Weigel saw his intelligence as a bit of a hindrance, because Paul would struggle to see every issue from every side, with he constant analyzing keeping him from making clear decisions.
No one is ever going to confuse Pope Francis with Hamlet. Whatever the blow back is from Querida Amazonia, I don't think the Holy Father is going to withdraw from public life or stop writing. My hope is that critics on both sides use the Holy Father's writings as a way of judging their own beliefs, and not making their opinions, no matter how well grounded and sincerely held, the standard by which they judge the pope.
Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame ___________________________
I have friends in Cincinnati from my days at Xavier who are not going to be happy with me. But I've been a pretty hard core "No" on the question of Peter Rose going into the Hall of Fame. I've softened a bit over the years, but I'm still not 100% convinced. In light of the sign stealing brouhaha Rose has applied to have his lifetime suspension lifted, which would then make his election to the Hall possible, if not certain.
On one level, I say why not? It's been three decades, and what he did wasn't worse than what many others have done. Or at least, that's the line of thought. While not unreasonable, I still have some reservations.
He denied betting on baseball and specifically on the Reds, the team he managed, for a decade and a half after the suspension came down. He had many high profile supporters like stats guru Bill James (who actually claimed to have mathematical proof Rose didn't bet on the Reds) and elder statesman sports writer Roger Kahn. He only fessed up when it was time to sell a book, in 2004. No one likes having egg on their face, especially members of the press. He ended up losing a lot of support in his bid for reinstatement after that.
In admitting to betting on the Reds, he insisted that he never beg against them. As admirable as that might be, how do we know he is telling the truth now? He wasn't before. I also think it's naive to think his gambling interests didn't effect the way he managed a given game, even the ones he didn't place a wager on. We shouldn't kid ourselves. Pete was knee deep in the hoopla. There were reports he was scared to come to New York on a road trip because he owed money to bookies. I have no doubt the pressure to win both games and bets played into decisions he made. Because Pete is a bad man? No. Because he is a human being.
The bottom line for me is the if he had told the truth from the beginning, been contrite in taking his suspension, it would have been lifted a long time ago and he'd be in the Hall today. This entire episode has been prison of his own making, to reference Rose's confessional tome.
So, in 2020, I'm not against Pete Rose's rehabilitation, but I'm not going to protest for it either.
Coming Attractions______________________________________
I was going to write something about my experiences at Catholic University, but the post was running too long for my taste. I'll be sure to get to it next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment