Odds and Ends on the Bread and Circuses

I just want to follow up a little on what I wrote the other day concerning the ongoing campaign for president. 

A friend of mine commented that he was a bit surprised at the little fervorino with which I concluded the piece. I didn't take it as a criticism, but an observation, one that nonetheless got me thinking. I write on many topics here, from pop culture to current events to all things Catholic. No matter the topic I certainly try to connect everything back to faith in Jesus Christ and the truth of the Catholic religion. I've also tried not to make that the sole justification for my point of view as presented here. Not that faith isn't enough; it's more than enough for me. But I'm not trying to preach to the converted: I'm hoping to reach those who either don't believe, or my accept Christ but aren't sure if the traditional beliefs held by the Church are still valid. Arguments from authority or tradition aren't effective in persuading most people because so many don't trust authority or respect traditions as still being valid. So I avoid making Scripture or Apostolic Tradition the reasons to believe (though as I've said, they're good enough for me) as much as show that these two fonts of Divine Revelation are themselves reasonable. In light of this, I rarely give the hard line pitch to accept Christ and His Gospel, preferring a more subtle approach.

In normal times this strategy is perfectly fine. And there is still a place for this approach today (we're basically talking about the method used by many solid Catholic apologists). But for me, I believe the Lord is calling me in a different direction: to be more explicit, more "evangelical," for lack of a better term. We are living in a time of decision, and I'm not simply referring to the election, though the presidential campaign is a microcosm of the crisis we face. So desperate times call for clarity of purpose and the bold proclamation of the Gospel.

One reason that we (I'm speaking of practicing Catholics) are at this cross roads is that we have, either explicitly or implicitly, accepted the idea that our religion is about the here and now exclusively. Marx charged that religion is the opiate of the people, drugging them with promises of a future paradise so as to anesthetize then to the injustices of this earth. We uncritically accepted the charge, and proceeded to turn the Church into a social service agency or NGO. The Church's charitable works and advocacy initiatives are essential to Her identity, but are one ore by which the barque is moved forward. Without the proclamation of the Gospel in its completeness: the call to repentance because the Kingdom of God is at hand, we become just another political party or lobbying group, moving in circles since we have only one ore, offering temporary solutions to perennial problems.

For too long people of faith, with all good intentions, have tried to effect change through the political process. Maybe we thought that we could be a leaven that influences the system, making it more Christian. Maybe we thought that one side or the other better reflected Gospel values, or worse thought one side was the "Catholic Party." In this way some were even deceived into seeing one candidate or another as "God's Candidate," even if subconsciously so. We have gotten into bed with political movements that are flawed in the misguided notion that the very real political implications of the Gospel render our faith another political movement. Archbishop Sheen predicted this identification of religion with politics, and how destructive if would be to the faith.

Many of us clung to the Republican party because they got the life issues right, and generally defended traditional marriage. Others of us clung to the Democrats because of their record as being pro-labor and more concerned about the plight of the poor and disenfranchised. We ignored the parts of their platforms that didn't jibe by telling our selves that one part of the Gospel was more important than the other. We convinced ourselves that God doesn't care about our prudential judgments or private morality, as long as we were against abortion or for a larger social safety net.

But we were used, by both sides. But not just people of faith were duped. I believe the rise of Donald Trump and the persistence of Bernie Sanders is rooted in the fact that people of both the left and right feel betrayed by their respective parties. They know the the system is broken and corrupt. I don't believe that any of the three candidates left standing are the solution. They will either lead us into tyranny or further economic and spiritual ruin: but probably all three things. But the American people are desperate: a very dangerous atmosphere in which to select a new president.

In future posts I'll get into more details, especially about how I see things shaking out over the next six months. I'll only say now that we may see a third or even fourth party candidate run, and we may have the first election to be decided by the House of Representatives since 1824. I'm no prophet, nor the son of a prophet, I'm just riding a hunch. But my thoughts here will not be guided solely by human logic or conventional wisdom. We got in this mess because we took God out of the picture. We're only going to get out of it by inviting Him back in and seeing the world through spiritual eyes.

21st Century Bread and Circus Democracy at Work

I vote, but I don't publicly endorse political candidates, so don't expect to find me throwing my two bits in here for anyone running for county clerk, let alone president. That's not what this is about. I just want to give a few thoughts on why we are through the political looking glass heading toward an electoral rabbit hole.

If you are one of those life long Democrats who saw the results out of Indiana Tuesday night and think the general election is a lock for your side, and the Republican Party is dead, hold off on making hotel reservations for Washington on January 20, 2017, as well as getting that Mass Card that reads RIP-GOP. I'm not saying Donald Trump is going to win. In fact I have to agree that Hillary Clinton should be considered the favorite at this point. It's just that nothing has gone the way it's supposed to this cycle, and we'd be fools to think the campaign is going to suddenly revert to business as usual now.

Add to that that Hillary Clinton hasn't been able to shake Bernie Sanders, someone who wouldn't get 5% of the vote if he wasn't a septuagenarian social democrat running on the coattails of the Occupy movement.

I'm not sure my attempt at irony worked there, but of course, in a normal election year Senator Sanders would have announced his candidacy, as he did, on April 30, 2015 and bowed out before the the trade deadline (July 31, for you non-baseball fans out there). This was Clinton's turn, and there wasn't even supposed to be completion. The Democrats were treating this as if she was an incumbent who, unless the party's not sure of his or her ability to win a second tern, normally runs for the nod uncontested. But Sanders keeps on bitting at Ms Clinton's ankles, in spite of the fact that his chances at forcing a contested convention, never mind winning the nomination outright, are beyond slim to none.

The big question is why. Why did the GOP nominate (presumptively) Donald Trump, a celebrity business man with no political experience? Why have the Democrats been unable coalesce fully around Clinton, a former first lady with legislative and cabinet experience who's been seen as the their sure thing candidate for 2016 since the day after election day 2008?

There are many plausible reasons we could come up with: I'll point to three possible ones:

1) Both Sides Tried to Fix the Nominating Process. 
I'm using the term fix in a very loose manner. I'm not suggesting that anyone cheated or broke rules, just that the rules were set to ensure an outcome. The reality is that the respective parties are essentially private entities that can choose their nominees any way their rules committees want. For historical reasons they've decided to make it a more open procedure, using the trappings of a democratic process. But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that there is still much maneuvering behind the scenes and both parties, this year particularly, wanted to make sure that their preferred outcome came to pass. The Democrats wanted to ensure that Clinton got the nomination, and the Republicans wanted to make sure Ted Cruz didn't. Both establishments got what they wanted, but at a price.

The suppressing of competition, an asymmetrical apportioning of pledged delegates through the primary process and early wooing of super delegates by Clinton made it hard for anyone to upend her through the voting process alone. But the truth is that she's really not that well liked, even within her own party. The solution was to limit the number of competitors, with any perceived threats, like Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, pressured to stay on the sidelines. Bernie wasn't taken seriously, but proved to be hard to shake because of his outsider status and social democrat rhetoric that appeals to millennials, among others. But for a rigged system, the race on the Democratic side would be much tighter. I have to ask, if Clinton is having such tough time closing things out when the nomination is being all but handed to her, how is she going to fare in the fall when she's going to actually have to fight for it?

The Republicans tried to fix things in more subtle ways, behind the scenes with donors and party officials pulling the strings, but none of them saw Donald Trump coming. If there weren't enough options on the Dem side, there were too many among the GOP. Trump, the best known of the "outsider" candidates stood out among the crowd of established politicians running, captured an early plurality of popular support and never looked back.

By the end, the party was stuck. They didn't want Cruz, an ideological conservative who's disliked by many of his colleagues, but none of the establishment candidates like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were able to garner enough popular support. The 17 original contenders didn't whittle down fast enough for support to shift to one clear challenger to Trump, and by the time it got down to Cruz v Trump it was too late. Depending on who you listen to there are just as many "Anyone But Cruz" people among the GOP establishment as there are "Anyone but Trumsters." So, they were successful in blocking the movement conservative, but now they have a nominee they can't control, who could not only lose big, but could actually cause the dissolution of the party itself.

2) The Mistrust of Institutions and Rejection of Tradition has Come to Fruition.
It's no great insight to say the the American people don't trust institutions or establishments. This has been true since at least the 1960's. From churches to the government to big corporations such institutions are seen as greedy, corrupt, uncaring and out of touch with the needs of the common person. But we have pretty much elected men and women to public office who are products of the very political-governmental establishment that we don't trust. Both Sanders and Trump represent breaks from that establishment. Sanders may be a senator, but he's served as an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, with radical bona fides that make him impossible to confuse with a party boss. Trump has never held public office, having dealt with both parties in his business life, while keeping enough of a distance so as to avoid the perception that he's in bed with either side.

Add to this mistrust of institutions a rejection of tradition. We are living through a time of rapid social change, especially on the morality front. The legal recognition of gay marriage coupled with  the wide spread rejection of the same social institution by heterosexuals represent major departures from cultural and religious attitudes that go back millennia. Because our nation is so young Americans have never had a good sense of tradition. I think there are other, even stronger reasons as well, but it would be too much of a digression to get into right here. The bottom line is, that appealing to the wisdom of the ages, or established rules of logic is not going to work in convincing their supporters  that neither Trump nor Sanders may be qualified to be president. All they know is that the professional politicians and bureaucrats have been in charge for too long, and a real change is in order. Institutions and traditions have failed us, so the thinking goes, and we must chart a new course freed from the encumbrances of the past.

3) Donald Trump is Not a Fringe Candidate in the Minds of Many Voters
David French wrote an interesting piece in National Review Online, giving his three reasons for the rise of Trump. One was that because of the divide between popular culture and political culture, presidential candidates are not well known to the general public before they actually run. They may be household names around the breakfast table in a news junkie's kitchen, but to consumers of popular culture, who increasingly are not paying attention to hard news, they are cyphers. Candidates have a relatively short time to create an image in the public's mind, and this image is fragile, easily defaced by the opposition. Often it's the negative image that sticks.

But in the case of Donald Trump, he's been in the public eye for over 30 years. The general public "knows" him, even though they probably wouldn't know their congressional representative if he shook their hand. You can call Trump a racist, narcissistic, demagogue fascist who tortures kittens in his spare time all you want. The average guy or gal on the street has already made up their mind as to who he is, whether good or bad, and nothing the press or electronic mass media (other institutions the public increasingly mistrusts) say is going to change it.

To the political class Trump is a fringe candidate, and the Constitution does have provisions to protect us from potential despots taking power. The Electoral College, along with the "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution, were meant to prevent some fringe, and possibly foreign, would-be dictator from sweeping upon the scene, stirring up the emotions of the people, and winning the presidency with, say, 33% of the vote in a three or four way race. In such a case where no one wins enough electors the election switches to the House where a compromise candidate is chosen. I think this is an under-appreciated constitutional mechanism that shouldn't be overthrown lightly.

But the hard truth is that Trump is only fringe to the political class. For most people he's a successful real estate developer, TV personality and author. His name is written in superhuman sized letters on buildings across the nation. He doesn't speak like a politician, in polished, well crafted speeches, but off the cuff in words that can be blunt and crude, but hard to misinterpret. In the popular culture he's not fringe; he's a very mainstream presence, and for those weary of the "party line," mistrustful of the establishment, he's just the solution to a failed system.

In Conclusion
A common thread running through all this, as far as I can see, is that there is a disconnect in American life. There is an establishment, and it has tried to keep the public distracted with music, movies, video games, role playing games, websites and apps that draw us into an inner life devoid of outside contact with the human or divine. We are fed our "rights," especially where our personal autonomy and identity are concerned, but there is no talk of corresponding responsibilities. We are kept perpetually distracted, not really meditating on the deeper meaning of reality. Better yet, we are convinced that no such meaning even exists. We should be satisfied knowing that our rights are respected, that we can be pleasured with random stimuli and sensual excitement whenever we want. Then the establishment is free to rule with the consent of the distracted, but comfortable, masses.

But it didn't work this time. It's not that people woke up, so much as the establishment's very machinations and manipulations ended up working against them. They create and destroy media personalities on a whim, but one more cunning than themselves turned the tables on them. They want a big, all encompassing government presence, but they also want their mansions and stock options. Then a true socialist came along, who doesn't see the Occupy movement as a tool but a means, and they're thanking their lucky stars that their procedural firewall has held, so far.

What we are seeing is what happens when any reference to a transcendent reality (I mean God, if you didn't catch that) is taken away. There will be a rebellion eventually, even if the rebels aren't sure what they're trying to over throw. There is a spiritual huger that human politics and culture, popular or high, alone can't fill. We know that, so we're rejecting the status quo, and trying something, anything, other than what's been done before. One side is rushing to a cult of personality created by the popular culture establishment , the only culture they know. The other is clinging to an ideology learned in a schools system controlled by the establishment left. In a way the establishment built this monster itself, and is about to get eaten by it. They try to appeal to reason, to precedent, to the founding spirit, but it's like talking Swahili to a Laplander. These concepts are meaningless in a culture mistrustful of institutions, that place more value in emotions than logic, and has no appreciation of traditions. Everything begins and ends in the individual, in the moment.

God opens us to something bigger than ourselves. The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the Apostles opens us to the idea that God is here now, but has been walking with us as well, guiding us to a destiny. We move forward into something new, with a firm sense of who we are, who we have been, and with a firm purpose that transcends the emotions of the moment. We are lacking that purpose and sense of the transcendent right now, and we are paying a steep price.

Without an outside standard rooted in God, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we are doomed to replace one failed system with another. We will replace one soulless establishment for another, get one cult figure in the White House in place of another. As long as it's all about the here and now, about the material or even emotional well being of the individual without reference to community and God, the relief will only be temporary, if at all.

Quick Takes: Charlie, Charlie Challenge, The Ireland Vote, Should ISIS Make you Nervous?

Charlie, Charlie Challenge: Better to Stick to Water Buckets 

Over the last couple of days I've seen these posts on Facebook about the so called Charlie, Charlie Challenge. A geezer like me knowing about this can only mean that this latest internet phenomenon has been circulating around the kids for a while now.

Basically it's a ouija board for people with attention deficit, since the board itself has been reduced to small square with "Yes" and "No" quadrants, navigated by two pencils (no spelling required). Charlie, the challenge's name sake, is billed as a Mexican demon, and there are rules about how to gain and break contact with said Charlie. I don't want to give too much info, lest I inadvertently lead people to try it. I have mixed feelings about mentioning it at all, but feel moved by prayer to write at least this brief warning.

STAY AS FAR AWAY FROM THIS, OR ANY OTHER OCCULT PRACTICE AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN.

As I told the young people at Mass last night, you wouldn't purposely stand on a dangerous street corner where a lot of drive-bys take place. You wouldn't wear the wrong colors in the wrong neighborhood to see what'll happen. You wouldn't flash gang signs on the street for a laugh. The spiritual world is the same. When we play with these forces we open doors that are not easily closed. Whether Charle is a real demon is beside the point. Demons are real and will exploit any opening to lay a claim either on a person or a place, and he'll answer to Charlie, Captain Howdy, or Bobo the Monkey if it's to his advantage.

Let me be clear: playing these games does not necessarily lead to demonic possession. Possessions are extremely rare, even taking into account the recent rise in reports of such cases. But demonic oppression and infestations of places are arguably more common than we may think. That's why I recommend getting your house blessed and living a moral, prayerful life, which for Catholics includes the regular reception of Holy Communion and frequent confessions. And avoiding door openers like ouija boards, seances, fortune telling, palm readings along with any other form of spiritualism is vitally important.

Keeping the dark forces out is easy when you let God, who is life and light, in.

The Ireland Vote

I know that the recent vote to legalize gay marriage in Ireland has left many Catholics reeling. Ireland, once a bulwark of the Faith, has gone completely secular, and some would say is now anti-religion, not simply anti-Catholic. I'm troubled, like most of my sisters and brothers are, but I wish I could say I'm perplexed by this development, but I'm simply not. I'm one who thinks that social commentator Camille Paglia is correct, the current gender wars are a sign that Western Civilization is dying, and I would say it's already dead.

I have written at length in this space about the Catholic teaching on marriage, and I admit that I've backed off over the last couple of years. Not because I've reconsidered what I believe, rather that I've come to conclusion that all the blog posts in the world are not going to sway minds and hearts. As a culture we have chosen the path we want to walk, and now it's time to await the consequences of that choice. For those Catholics who remain in the truth (and I pray I receive the grace to do that) it will mean social marginalization, limits put on how and where we can minister, loss of tax exempt status and possibly jail for not accepting the new secular orthodoxy.

Both Pope Emeritus Benedict and the late Cardinal George have gotten praise and consternation for comments they made about where they see the Church and society heading. Benedict VVI spoke of a smaller, more faithful Church, George famously said that he expected to die in bed, his successor to die in jail and his successor to die a martyr. But the archbishop after that would help restore society, starting with the shards of a broken culture, much like the Church has done in the past. Both men were criticized as either looking for the Church to be an elitist organization, or else was guilty of being a prophet of doom. But both assessments are false.

Cardinal George, in his last major interview before he passed away clarified what he meant by those now famous (to some infamous) words. He stressed that this was a private conversation that he didn't expect to be made public. He also framed his observations, not as a prophesy, but as a worst case scenario. It's not that he expects that these things would happen, but even if they do come to pass, we shouldn't lose heart: the Church will still be there to pick the pieces up when the crisis is over. These were meant to be worlds of hope to a friend who was depressed over where he saw things heading.

As for Pope Benedict, a fuller understanding of the context of his comments, as we can see here in Fr. Dwight Lonhenecker's post, again shows that we're not talking about an ideal, but the logical consequences that will face the Church in an age of militant secularism. Those who choose to remain with the main body of the Church once doing so means loss of status, property, and possibly liberty, will likely be a relative few, human nature being what it is. Countless numbers chose to burn incense to the Roman emperor and surrender the sacred books to be destroyed in the early centuries of the Church rather then face, not only imprisonment, but possible death. Once the peace came the debate turned to whether to admit these apostates back into full communion (which the Church eventually did). How many will flee the persecution by renouncing the Faith is anybody's guess, and a guessing game better not to play. All of us will be tested, none of us is so strong as to boast that we will, without doubt, do the right thing. In light of this we all need to pray continually for the gifts of courage and wisdom.

Until then, there is no point being depressed or worried. Christ won the victory already. He always told us trials would come (persecutions, earthquakes, famines, wars and rumors of war) but he also assured us that these would not have the final word.

Should ISIS Make You Nervous?

I had a meeting of young adults at the parish last Friday, and two young women from another parish joined, what is a small but growing group. I was finishing up a talk on the Book of Revelation that I'd begun the month before. My main point was that, while the book does point to a definitive end of history as we understand it, it is also showing how history is a series of repeating patterns. Not that events repeat, but that the rise and fall of empires follow a predictable cycle, and the Church needs to know how to adapt to these ever changing circumstances. I then mentioned the Venerable Fulton Sheen's belief, expressed in the 1970's during a retreat he was giving to priests, that we're at the end of a Christendom. What he meant was that we were at the end of a unified Christian culture where Gospel values are at the root of our social, political and moral life. He claimed that history could be broken up into roughly five hundred year epochs, beginning with the birth of Jesus, and that we were now at the end of one such period.

One of our visitors looked up from the notebook that she was feverishly scribbling in, and asked, "What do you think of ISIS? They make me nervous." Normally this would be the time when I would make some reassuring comment about them being half a world away, and that they're really a rag tag outfit, the JV team, actually: no need to worry, at all. But I couldn't get myself to lie. These were adults I was talking to, so I said, "Well, they make me nervous, too."

Yes, they do make me a little nervous, mainly because the world's leaders don't seem to be taking them seriously. These are people who really believe in what they are doing, and they will stop at nothing to reach their objectives. There is no internal debate that I can see that they are having over who they are and what values they hold. We in the West really don't believe in anything. We say we believe in freedom of speech, but do we really? It seems that we do as long it doesn't offend anybody. Being self critical and self questioning is a healthy trait of Western Civilization. But we now question everything about ourselves, including the things that are genetically and anatomically obvious. Sheen would say that we have subordinated all moral and ethical values to the economic and the political. I would add another value: the emotional, or therapeutic. Because our leaders, and many of us, can't understand why people would fight for something beyond purely practical or even animal motives, they don't understand ISIS.

The secular society that at the same time dabbles in spiritualism, among other quasi religious activities, to fill the gap, is not prepared to stand up to a force of true believes, no matter how rag tag they seem. We are not ready to defend our society because we really don't believe in it. We take freedom for granted because we don't believe in responsibility. The world's leaders are making decisions based on political and economic considerations, and the electorate is being swayed more and more by emotions. This is a combination for disaster.

But I end, as I must, because I can't lie, on a positive note. I'm no prophet, nor am I from a school of prophets (as I think I've written before), but I have no doubt who's going to win this struggle. In the short term there will be trials and, dare I say, tribulations, but Christ won the victory already. I do believe, like John Paul the Great, that we are at the beginning of a new spring time for the Faith. Spiring brings flowers and new life, but also rain, and even a few thunder storms along the way. ISIS makes me nervous, sure, but not bowed, and certainly not defeated.

Poppies to Keep Us Awake

The World War I Poppy Memorial at the Tower of London

For us here in the United States the 11th of November is Veteran's Day; a moment to say thank you to the men and women who have served in the armed forces, and increasingly to recognize those still serving in uniform. But we have lost the reason why this day is different from all other days, so to speak. Today is the 96th anniversary of the ceasefire agreement on the Western front during World War I, and until 1954 we observed it as Armistice Day to reflect that connection. Even as child, long after Veterans Day supplanted the previous holiday, I can recall church bells ringing at 11am, a faint echo of remembrance that the fighting ended at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918. Here in the States this fact is lost on many people. But in Canada and England the observances still focus on this singular event.

And for good reason. England alone lost upwards of a million people, both military and civilian due to battle, war crimes and disease. Those young adults who were killed, as well as those who survived the experience are often called the Lost Generation. There was mourning for lives that never reached maturity as well for those who were able to carry on but had lost a sense of purpose and meaning in life. We have short memories on this side of the Pond, but even a hundred years after the war began the people of the United Kingdom, and much of the Commonwealth, are still enveloped with a pall of sadness over the destruction, both human and cultural, that resulted from the conflict.

But there was another casualty of World War I. If the Faith is dead, or at least dormant, in Europe today it is due to a great degree to the war. A profound existential doubt hit Western Culture over the years of 1914 to1918, and then was solidified by World War II resulting in people losing faith that there is a providential God who loves and guides human progress. If God is all loving why would he permit such suffering and destruction? What is the purpose of being born if life can be taken so swiftly and senselessly? Where is God in all this? For many, no satisfactory answer was found, so the churches emptied and the culture became increasingly secular. But does this reaction make sense?

While questioning one's faith in the face of calamity is more than understandable, in the particular case of the Great War, I would argue that it, along with World War II, were not religiously motivated conflicts, but came after periods of increased secularization and optimism in the ability of human progress to shape a bright, prosperous and peaceful future. In the second half of the previous century Germany, France and Italy had all undergone Church - State conflicts that saw the place of religious institution is public life greatly limited (some would call it a persecution). We can see here the beginnings of later totalitarianism in which the state claimed complete control over the loyalty and even wills of the people. Nietzsche saw that religion was on the retreat as a relevant cultural and social force, proclaiming the God was dead, and that it was our indifference that had "killed" Him.  The late 19th and early 20th century saw an explosion of world's fairs and exhibitions where the latest scientific and technological advancements were put on display. While many of the items being shown off were the latest turbines or industrial machines, there were also plenty of artillery pieces and other armaments. The industrial revolution had given birth to modern warfare and killing could be done wholesale.

World War I was the time when all the technology, all the political strategy and all the secular notions of progress were put into practice. Our faith was no longer in a providential God who needed to be obeyed, but in science and technology's ability to shape and manipulate nature and the state which would guide and control our lives from cradle to grave. The guiding principle was enlightened human reason's ability to control it all. If World War I was a failure it was in humanity's ability to shepherd itself.

The failure of the churches during this time was that they tended to go along with the notion, even implicetly, of boundless human progress, and in surrendering to nationalism that was the great tool used to stir up hate between the nations. Priests, bishops, ministers and preachers helped promote the war effort, and were really dupes. Yes, there were voices like Pope Benedict XV calling for peace and reconciliation between peoples, but far too many churchmen, both Catholic and Protestant, were preaching "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

The church, in the broad sense of the word, has learned from this experience. While not nearly all religious people are pacifists, I do believe that most know that war is not to be glorified and the men and women who served need to be cared for, and not shepherded to their deaths on behalf of blind nationalism. We also know, I hope, the difference between patriotism and nationalism; one being a love of country and the other a love of the state (maybe a discussion for another day).

But otherwise the broader culture has doubled down on stupid. We still believe that science, technology and government are our saviors, in spite of the 20th Century's atomic bombs, gulags and genocides, which used man made tools meant to save us rather to destroy and dominate. Some may point to Islamic terrorism as a sign of how religion motivates wars and conflict, but if we look closely can anyone honestly say that ISIS is motivated by faith, or is religion being used as an excuse for political conquest? Again, a discussion for another day.

The people of England still mourn a century later. There is a temporary memorial made up of clay poppies filling the moat of the Tower of London; one for each life lost by that country. The public out pouring as been overwhelming, with thousands of people coming to visit the site everyday for the past several months. Poppies are usually associated with opium, sleep and forgetfulness. Here they are meant to keep us awake and remembering. But what we remember is important. As Christians we need to remember that we are at the service of the One Lord, Jesus Christ, and while we love our country, we are not slaves of the state. For the entire culture science, technology and sound government are tools that are not goods in and of themselves, but need to be guided by deeper principles rooted in faith, or else all manner of atrocity is possible.

While the memorial's reference to the blood spilled in the poppy fields of Belgium is obvious, the way they appear to be cascading out of a window of the Tower is reminiscent of the blood flowing from our Saviour's wounded side. England, Europe and all Western Civilization suffered a passion in the 20th Century. I pray that we may all soon experience a resurrection of the Faith.

Not with Flesh and Blood

The funeral of Fr. Jesus Plaza, SDB and Brother Luis Sanchez, SDB on Monday, February 17

Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. Ephesians 6:11-13

As I reported last time, two Salesians were murdered over the weekend in Valencia, Venezuela, when their school residence was broken into. On one level this is a very personal tragedy, and there are no words that can properly express the loss of Fr. Jesus Plaza, 80, and Brother Luis Sanchez, 84. Both dedicated their lives to the Gospel and sharing the love of Christ with young people. How ironic that two of the suspects in connection with the murders are teenagers or pre-teens.

Unfortunately this is not the first time that I've read about priests or religious being murdered in recent years. Some are martyrs for the faith, others are victims of random crime. A priest in New Jersey was killed in 2009 by a parish employee angered by his recent firing. A Salesian in the Dominican Republic was killed a few years back in a carjacking. These murders, like all murders are senseless, but at the same time I never had the feeling that there was something darker lurking underneath the surface beyond the "normal" evil that is murder.  There were no plots, conspiracies or grand designs involved as far as I could tell. The killer's motives were transparent, though the crimes still shocking. Even in the famous case of the Monks of Atlas, whose deaths are so shrouded in mystery, we know that whatever the particulars, they had made a decision to stay in a dangerous location, making violent death a strong possibility. The Salesians in Venezuela are going to pains to say that these murders are apart of the epidemic of crime effecting their country, and are not connected with any political strife they're presently experiencing. I'm not going to argue with that. But these killings seem to have a different feel to them, one that points to something deeper and darker.

On the surface this does seem like a routine robbery gone terribly wrong. Schools getting broken into are not uncommon. Computers and other AV equipment are the usual targets, and there's sometimes loose cash hanging around in teachers' desks; field trip money, prom money that teachers are collecting, things like that. Gangs are most often behind the break-ins, though the cash grabs are most likely "inside" jobs; students who know what teacher is collecting money for what event, and where they hide it, which is usually in an obvious place.

The break-in at the Salesian school in Valencia, Venezuela has all the earmarks of a gang related burglary. Add to this the rampant crime, as well as the social-political unrest which has plagued that nation for months, the pieces fall into place neatly for a rather prosaic explanation for what happened. So while these murders are all very shocking, the explanation for why they happened seems to be very logical. So why the queasy feeling that things may be more than what it appears?

Because gangs in Latin America and, increasingly, in the United States, are connected with drug cartels. Many of these cartels have adopted a form of occult practice and spirituality; a mixture of "folk Catholicism" and occult beliefs known as Santa Muerte (Saint Death). She is usually depicted as a grim reaper holding a sickle and an orb. Statuettes and other images of the "saint" come in black and white (I know this because someone left one of each outside our church doors a number of years back). She is invoked for protection and good fortune, especially before big drug deals and other criminal activities like robberies. She is nonjudgmental, or so her devotees claim, the goddess for those whose lifestyle leaves them outside the norms of both civil society and mainstream religions like Christianity. Though there are devotional elements associated with Catholicism mixed into Santa Muerte ritual, they view the Church as an enemy and priests as legitimate targets for violence and murder. Don't take my word for it, the FBI has a report on their website detailing this insidious cult, which is especially popular among the Mexican gangs.

The reports I've seen in both English and Spanish on this tragedy have been brief. And yes, the Salesian provincial there has rightly tried to down play the sensationalistic aspects of the murders. Still, I'm faced with questions. I'm not familiar with the layout of this school's campus, but Salesian residences are usually placed in an out of the way location on the grounds, if it's on the property at all. They are not practical targets for thieves if their goal is to steal computers, grab some cash and get out quick. They also went out of their way to enter the chapel to desecrate the Blessed Sacrament. Again, while the community chapel isn't hidden per say, it is in a quiet part of the house that typically has to be sought out. While avoiding hysteria is important, I can't help but think that this was a robbery, true, but one that didn't go "wrong" as far as the perpetrators' intentions are concerned.

This adds up, in my mind, to gangs, possibly ones with particular animus for the Church. And, sadly, young people with familiarity with the school. That the intruders were teens, one possibly as young as 12 years old, is incomprehensible, and yet not unheard of. Gangs do recruit kids that young, and indoctrinate their minds, steal their souls.

These gangs are not values neutral. They want to justify their actions as good. Many who engage in crime and vice as a way of life abandon God and religion. Atheism, though, is not a natural human inclination; we are "wired" for God. So when some one's life is at odds with traditional religious values, but they want to hold on to some transcendent connection one of two things happen. Traditional religion is kept but perverted in some way. The criminal reduces religion to superstition, often living a double life of devotion and murder, unable to see the contradiction. Otherwise esoteric devotions arise which are confused at best, demonic at worst. We know what side the gangs and cartels have thrown there lot in with.

The problem of organized crime in Latin America and the United States is a complex one. There are social, political and economic factors at work. But there are also spiritual realities at work. Yes, the murders of Br. Luis and Fr. Jesus are two of thousands of such killings that result from the rampant crime in Venezuela, be it organized or random. As good citizens, in the spirit of Don Bosco, we need to advocate social changes that will bring a world of greater justice and peace.

We also need to understand that there is a spiritual battle taking place, and the enemy isn't flesh and blood. He doesn't carry knives or guns. He seduces with promises of paradise and power, which leads to short term benefits and eternal death. The deaths of our brother Salesians came at the intersection of the earthly and spiritual struggle that we are engaged in. Our part, as children of the light is to advocate justice through peace, while aggressively fighting the powers of darkness with the spiritual weapons at our disposal.

Some Further Reflections on Pope Francis

A day has passed since the election of Pope Francis, and here are a few more scattered thoughts on the new Bishop of Rome.

You Can't Have a First Without a Second

Officially, the new pope is to be known as Pope Francis, without any Roman numeral after it.  We would only start calling him "the First" if a successor took the name Francis for himself.  For instance, until Queen Elizabeth II assumed the thrown of England her Tudor predecessor was simply known, during her reign and after her death, as Queen Elizabeth.  What is interesting is that Pope John Paul I broke that precedent by declaring himself "the First" when he took his papal name.  It was suggested to me that he "knew" there would be a second.  Maybe a prophetic voice was speaking through him, but I doubt Albino Luciano though his successor would come quite so quickly.

Instruction on Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation"

Yesterday I wrote that Pope Francis has a deep dedication to the poor, and that he knew liberation theology (LT) from the inside.  Both statements are true, but this should not lead to the impression that he supports that theological outlook.  He has been highly critical of LT, criticism that has led to a bit of a rift between himself and the Jesuits, the order he was a member of before becoming a bishop. A few Latin American religious I know were hopeful of a cardinal from their region being elected for the very reason that he would be sympathetic toward LT.  I'm afraid they will be sourly disappointed 

I do not claim to be an expert on LT, but having studied in a Mexican seminary I did get the opportunity to study it in its "native setting," if you will.  The Salesian Theological Institute in Tlaquepaque, Jalisco was not conservative or traditional in the ways we think of here in the U.S., but the professors were for the most part schooled in Rahner and von Balthazar; pretty main stream European theologians.  There was a particular course on LT, and one of our pastoral theology classes was pretty much coming from that approach.   We had seminars on indigenous theology, which is an offshoot of LT.  I don't want to get off track on a critique of the Theology of Liberation, but to say it was presented to me by several professors, both in Mexico and here in the U.S., as an all or nothing proposition.  Either you take it all or you reject it.  Well, if that is the case, I say goodbye and good luck.  While I sympathize with aspects of it, there are simply too many holes in it for me to embrace it in its entirety. 

As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a controversial instruction on LT, that was not a full condemnation, but stated there were deep problems with some expressions of it.  When he became Benedict XVI many of the proponents thought they could just wait him out, and a successor, especially from Latin America, would look more kindly upon their cause.  If they thought approbation would come from Pope Francis, they are seriously mistaken.

A Jesuit Pope

Technically, if a member of a religious order becomes a bishop they leave their community and become a member of a diocese.  This has to do primarily with the vow of obedience; bishops belong to the universal Church, and as successors of the Apostles they can't be subject to a religious superior.  Nonetheless many, probably most, religious bishops still identify with their order.  It is not uncommon for them to sign their names with their congregation's initials after their name, like I would put "SDB" after my signature to identify myself as a Salesian.  When they retire they have the right to be taken back into one of their order's houses to live.

But more than these practicalities, to be a Salesian, a Franciscan or a Jesuit like Pope Francis is to imbued with a particular spirit and spirituality.  We are all Catholic, all disciples of Christ, but we each have different styles of living out that discipleship.  Another added wrinkle is that Francis was a member of a Salesian parish in his youth, and maintains a strong devotion to Mary Help of Christians and Blessed Artemide Zatti, a Salesiam brother.  He also presided at the beatification of Zeffirino  Namuncura, a Salesian alumni from Argentina who, like Dominick Savio, died young.

What the pope being a Jesuit will mean, especially considering his strained ties with his community, I can't say.  Jesuits are intellectuals, but they are also missionaries.  Time will only tell.    

Viva Il Papa: First Thoughts on Pope Francis

First Impressions:

We were in the middle of our afternoon session at the Provincial Chapter when the white smoke started billowing from the Sistine Chapel chimney (more of us were looking at our laptops and tablets than the presentations going on).  We continued with our meeting for about another twenty minutes before finally adjourning to watch the drama together on TV.  And it really was drama.  This entire interregnum has been strange owing to it coming on the heals of a retirement as opposed to a death.  In spite of the intrigue reported on in the press, there was more of an atmosphere of business men getting together for board meetings rather than a spiritual gathering to choose the next Vicar of Christ.  But once the white smoke started and our eyes were fixed on the loggia doors I felt real suspense for the first time. 

I guess my first thought was that Francis looked a bit overwhelmed.  He looked a bit stiff, a bit old, considering all the talk of the cardinals going for a younger, more physically vibrant figure.   I wondered if we were looking at a compromise candidate or a transitional pope (two in a row?), one who will keep the seat warm until the one they really want matures or else gains the proper support.  Upon a second look at the video I would say that the Holy Father looked a touch more natural than at first viewing. Beyond that, in the few hours since he has become pope I have learned more about the man, and have come to the conclusion that first impressions in this case may be deceiving. 

What's in a Name?

In the past popes often chose their name to honor a predecessor who had helped them along the way to the Chair of Peter, or to show a desire to follow in a particular pope's footsteps.  Since at least John XXIII and Paul VI new popes have tried to say something about the kind of pope they want to be, giving hints as to an agenda they might be trying to follow.  What could the choice of Francis mean?

Before I knew he was a Jesuit, the first thing that popped into my head upon hearing his chosen name was Francis of Assisi.  As Cardinal Archbishop of Buenas Aires he sold the episcopal residence, lived in a simple apartment, took the metro to work (he doesn't own a car) and cooked his own meals.  Someone reminded me of Francis Xavier, the Jesuit missionary saint who traveled to India and Japan, dying on the way to China.  This would show a commitment to the New Evangelization and the priority of spreading the Gospel in a secularized world.

But his action upon going out on the Loggia show a clear link to the founder of the Franciscans.  He wore the white cassock, but without the usual fur lined cape and stole that new pontiffs usually don for their first post election appearance.  He presented a simple figure. He spoke of himself as the Bishop of Rome, who presides in charity over the other churches.  This hearkens back to Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr of the late first, early second century who thus described the Roman church in one of his letters.  Again, a more humble, simple discriptor that points to the roots of the Church.  Could he be pointing to a need for simplify?  A need to get back to the roots of the faith and evangelization?  St. Francis' mission was to rebuild a Church that was falling down because of corruption and scandal.  What is Pope Francis trying to tell us about his choice of name?

Liberal or Conservative?


As Cardinal Jorge Mario Borgoglio, Pope Francis was critical of economic policies in his native Argentina that advanced some in the society while leaving many more in poverty.  In general his has been outspoken criticizing the unjust distribution of wealth and the need for Third World debt forgiveness.  So, he's liberal, no?  Well, he's also called abortion the "death penalty" for the unborn and is a staunch supporter of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  So, he's conservative, right? 

Pope Francis is the perfect example of why you can't use contemporary political categories to label popes.  In the teachings of any recent pontiff there will be things to both comfort and enrage people on all sides of the political spectrum.  The bottom line is, if you were hoping for sweeping changes on Catholic moral teachings, you are out of luck.  If you are hopping for someone more sympathetic with the cause of social justice and has a clear understanding of liberation theology from the inside, you should be pleased.

Watch Out Curia

As I wrote, Pope Francis stressed his position as Bishop of Rome, and mentioned the need to "evangelize the city."  This is an odd thing to say for the Universal Pastor whose concern is for all the churches.  Could be be making a veiled comment about the state of the Vatican itself?  There was much talk during the sede vacante about the Curia, the Church's Roman bureaucracy, and it's need for reform.  There was a perceived split inside the College of Cardinals between the Curial insiders (who want to maintain the status quo of secrecy, but who also tend to be more liberal doctrinally) and the outsiders from the U.S. and other parts of the world (who want a more transparent Church government, but who also tend to be more conservative on doctrinal issues).  My gut tells me His Holiness is a New World Pope with a desire to streamline the bureaucracy.  Again, in the spirit of Brother Sun, simplify, strip down, keep the Church simple, but agile and responsive to contemporary needs. 

These are my first impressions.  Only time will tell how much is right and how much misses the mark.  Let's pray for Pope Francis, that he may follow the will of God and have the stregnth to lead his flock. 

Conclave Day 1.2: At the Provincial Chapter

STONY POINT, N.Y. - As the cardinal electors began the conclave in Rome I was participating in day two of a more humble, somewhat less noteworthy assemblage of ecclesiastics here in Rockland County.  The Salesian's of the Eastern U.S. and Canada are holding our triennial meetings known as the Provincial Chapter.  Every Salesian Province world wide are holding them at some point during this year as a way to prepare for the General Chapter taking place in Rome coming up next year.  Those world wide meetings happen every six years, so that the local chapters that don't line up with them handle issues particular to the given province.  The other difference between the chapter I'm on now and those "off year" chapters is that we will elect a delegate to accompany the provincial to Rome for the three months of meetings that will begin in February, 2014.

If it sounds exciting, it's not.  The going can be deadly tedious.  Right now is not so bad.  Actually, what we're doing is pretty important.  We are debating the very meaning of our life as disciples of Christ, and how we are and should be living it out as sons of Don Bosco in 2013.  Today focused on our life as mystics, which always a slippery wicket.  Ours is a active, apostolic congregation that sees action as a key part of our spirituality.  At the same time we are being called to explore what some consider more monastic forms of spirituality in order to avoid superficiality and an activism that can blind us from remembering why we are engaging all the hard work of our everyday life.  The small group discussions have been fruitful.  We don't always agree with each other, but it is in the disagreements and the attempt to reconcile the differences that I believe the Spirit is often speaking to us.

The tedious part will come when the writing committee comes back with an initial draft and we have to all agree on wording.  Have you ever seen 44 men argue over the placement of a comma?  It's not pretty, let me tell you. Once it's done the final document is sent off to our generalate in Rome, and hopefully it will make some impact on the proceedings their next year.

These meetings will go on until Monday, the 18th.  The cardinals will have done their work and elected a pope by then, or at least I hope and pray.  Obviously we are in meetings all day and most evenings, so we are not glued to the TV.  The advent of smart phones and tablets have made sneaking a peak at the various news feeds a bit easier.  It was like March Madness today, but we were looking to see what color the smoke was coming out of the Sistine Chapel as opposed to which teams were getting knocked off our brackets. 

Well, one bright spot is the nightly social we have where we get to just relax and enjoy eachother's company.  So I am off, and will be back soon with more thoughts on the goings on at the Vatican and Stony Point.

Conclave Day One: A New Pope and the Prodigal Son

STONY POINT, NY - This morning (afternoon in Rome) the cardinal electors will enter the Sistine Chapel, after the celebration of the Eucharist in St. Peter’s, to formally begin the election of a new pope.  Since Pope Benedict announced his retirement a month ago the press has been abuzz with speculation over a possible successor.  The U.S. media in particular have asked if the cardinals a will choose a progressive who will usher in sweeping changes or a conservative along the lines of John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Others ask if he will be someone from Latin America or Africa.  All this speculation misses the point a bit, though I admit that a pope from outside Europe would be significant.  In the end the cardinals are not electing a political candidate who needs to conform to some kind of party platform, or at least they shouldn’t be.  They are electing the man best qualified to protect the invaluable inheritance of the Church.  The pope’s main role is to conserve the spiritual treasure handed on from the Apostles, and oversee its authentic development.

This past Sunday most of us heard the story of the Prodigal Son at Mass.  In preaching I usually focus on the loving and forgiving father who eagerly accepts his wayward son back, or maybe the hard hearted older brother who finds forgiveness difficult or the Lost Son himself in all his pitiable desperation.  I guess what struck me this time around was the line that the Lost Son had squandered his inheritance.  Was our Lord speaking of money?  On a literal level; sure.  But there is a deeper meaning as well.  If we recall, Sunday’s first reading from the Book of Joshua told of the Israelites finally entering the Promised Land after forty years in the desert.  The first thing they did was to celebrate the Passover: the memorial of their liberation from slavery in Egypt.  To this day Jews celebrate the Passover to recall the great works God has accomplished for them, and points to the great spiritual heritage encapsulated in the Law and the prophets.  At the Seder Meal, when he youngest of the house asks that ritual question of the oldest: why is this night different from all others, the answer is the story of their Exodus.  This is something to be remembered always, along with the Law received later on Sinai.  These form a spiritual inheritance to be cherished and followed in gratitude to the generous God who freed them from bondage.  What the younger son squandered by his life of dissolute living was more than a material fortune, but more importantly he wasted a spiritual inheritance beyond price given to him by his father.

When we sin, especially when we have allowed sin to become a vice, we are turning away from the path of the Lord, in a way rejecting the great spiritual heritage that has been passed on to us from the Apostles.  This is an inheritance that we should hold close to and not squander.  Is God a forgiving, compassionate Father?  YES!  We should never despair that He will turn us away when we sin if we come back in sincerity of heart.  But we are called to something great, and offered a treasure greater than can be stored in all the bank vaults of the world.  It is not to be squandered but preserved, lived and passed on to future generations.

The role of the pope is to preserve both the moral teachings of Christ and His Church and the Apostolic Tradition in its entirety.  His first duty is not to create new doctrines, alter old ones, or change long standing disciplines that are unpopular.  His main responsibility is to preserve.  This is the heart of papal infallibility.  Over the centuries the Church has seen charismatic figures like Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Sienna, Don Bosco and Dorothy Day, to name a few, who have challenged the status quo.  It was the pope, along with the college of bishops in general, who asked if the movements they inspired represented authentic promptings of the Spirit in harmony with Tradition and Scripture or if they were passing novelties out of step with the living tradition of the Church.  Each of these examples represents a positive response, but only after periods of trial and testing.  There is a constant tension between charism on the one hand and authority on the other; one seeking to push ahead and the other looking to hold fast to the tried and true.  Both have their place, and it is the pope, who represents authority, to test, probe and finally make a judgement with the help of the Spirit.

We are the inheritors of a great heritage passed on by the Apostles, that in reality goes back even farther to Moses and Abraham.  This inheritance is to be lived and cherished.  No matter who the pope ends up being his first job will be to foster, protect and spread this gift from God.  I certainly hope he is open to where the Spirit wants that Tradition to move, and the courage point out where it is being squandered by false teachers.

As the Cardinals Gather: Sede Vacante Part II. Or "I'm Dreaming of an American Pope?"

Boston's Cardinal O'Malley: Papabile?

I must admit that I feel more than a bit inferior as Catholic bloggers go.  I don't keep in contact with any cardinals, curial or otherwise.  I have no inside track on the Papabili, those poor souls most talked about in the press as contenders to be the next to wear the red shoes.  My one claim to fame is that I was ordained a priest by Oscar Cardinal Rodriguez, SDB of Tegucigalpa, whose name emerged in pope watching circles as early as 2001 and continued to get a lot of buzz before the conclave of 2005.  While he's not on most "experts" short lists now, he's still getting some mentions this time around.  I really don't even have enough time these days to scan the press so I can give you my penetrating inexpert analysis.

But I have done some superficial reading and listening, which has lead me to the conclusion that March 2013 is shaping up to be much like August 1978, and April 2005.   In both 1978 and 2005 voices in the press and in some quarters of the Church were calling for a pope who would follow through on what they considered the logical conclusions of Vatican II: an end to mandatory priestly celibacy, the ordination of women, the relaxing of the traditional prohibitions of contraception and premarital sex.  Today we can add the call for some type of recognition of same sex unions, even if it falls short of actually considering them sacramental marriages.  Along with these very specific reforms, there was a desire to see a more decentralized Church, where local dioceses had more autonomy, much like in the Orthodox Churches or the Anglican Communion.

As I wrote the last time out, I think all this talk of doctrinal shifts is a chasing at shadows.  Every new pope since at least Pius IX in 1846, with the possible exception of Leo XIII, was thought to be the one who was going to "modernize" the Church.  In each case doctrine remained substantially unchanged, with the exception of the two Marian pronouncements.  Some did make structural changes in how the Church apparatus functioned, or made adjustments to certain practices, like the lowering of the First Communion age by Pius X, but none can be called doctrinally progressive in the contemporary sense.  Even Paul VI, seen as the progressive implementer of Vatican II, reaffirmed the Church's teaching on contraception, priestly celibacy and the all male priesthood, as well as speaking of Satan as a real force rather than as an abstraction or metaphor. 

Judging by what I am managing to catch in the press the cardinals right now are not so caught up with doctrinal questions as they are with structure issues.  La Stampa's English edition is setting things up as a fight between the Italians in the Curia against the Americans.  The U.S. contingent is looking for broad reforms including greater transparency in the Vatican, and a Church bureaucracy that serves the interests of the pope and not it's own counter agenda.  The curial Italians want to maintain the status quo.  What I'm hearing is that while Europeans and Latin Americans are leery of an American candidate, the African and Asian contingents have a great deal of respect for the U.S. cardinals, and so a Papabili from the New World is not as far fetched as it has been in the past.  

Among the Americans New York's Cardinal Dolan is the name that gets the most press, but Boston's Sean Cardinal O'Malley's name is emerging as well.  He's seen as someone who reformed the Archdiocese of Boston, epicenter of the sex abuse scandal, with both Sunday collections and enrollment at the local seminary on the rise in the last few years.  While an American being elected pope is still a long shot, it's nice to know that simply being from the United States doesn't automatically disqualify someone from ascending to the See of Peter.

I wrote that this time around was shaping up to be much like interregnums of the past.  But there is at least one big difference, I think.  Since this conclave has followed on the heals of a retirement as opposed to a death, the cardinals have had more time to think dispassionately about what they are doing. There is no mourning a beloved Holy Father, or sentimental feelings that a new pope needs to continue someone's legacy.  While Benedict is loved still, there is a recognition that a new direction, at least in terms of governance, needs to happen, and many of the cardinals are willing to spend the few extra days to make sure they do it right.  I pray they are doing the spiritual preparations as well as they appear to be doing the administrative due diligence.

Next week, as the conclave begins (I hope) I'll be in Provincial Chapter meetings.  We don't get locked in or anything, and there's no smoke, white or otherwise, but these are official deliberations in which we set out an agenda for the next three years and prepare for the General Chapter in Rome next year.   In the midst of the general sessions and small group break outs I'll keep one eye on Rome and the other on the keyboard.

Sede Vacante

 

Port Chester, NY-The Chair of Peter is officially vacant.

As some of you know, I've been pulling double duty of sorts, filling in at Holy Rosary Parish here in Port Chester, while still maintaining some office hours at St. Anthony's in Elizabeth, NJ.  The Lord willing I'll be back to my old post at St. Anthony's by June.

Yesterday was one of those office days in Jersey.  Between consulting with my vicar Fr. George (who's done a great job filling in for me) and my secretary (who's had to have the patience of Job) I caught the coverage of Pope Benedict's last hours as the Vicar of Christ.  I felt very emotional watching the coverage.  It is true that Benedict isn't the charismatic figure that John Paul II was, but he still has a presence that radiates the love of Christ.

I recalled my trip to Australia for World Youth Day in 2008.  At the end of the closing Mass the Holy Father was saying his thank yous, and announced the worst kept secret of the week: that Madrid would host the next WYD.  Before he gave the final blessing, he simply told us that he was going.  I spontaneously said, just above a whisper, "No."  I wasn't the only one.  It felt like there was a quiet wave no's spreading through the crowd.  It was the no of a child who didn't want his father to leave.  It was the no of the two disciples along the road to Emmaus who tried to convince our Lord to stay for the hour was late and the night was drawing near.  I felt in a very visceral way that Peter was here with us, our link back to Christ, and I didn't want him to go. It had nothing to do with being close to power, and everything to do with the fatherly presence he exuded.

I felt that yesterday at 2pm local time when I went to the switch that controls our church bell.  As the top of the hour struck I flipped the switch and the bells rang signifying that the Seat of Peter was vacant.  Although the Pope is not dead, Peter was gone, and it was hard to see the difference. 

Opinion on the Holy Father's decision is split.  Some, including Cardinal Pell from Australia, have questioned the decision.  While being critical of Benedict's governing style, he fears this could lead to future pontiffs being pressured to step down by those who oppose them.  Others, of a more progressive stamp than His Eminence, are happy with the move, and are wasting no time offering their two cents to the cardinal electors as they prepare for the conclave.  For them the Church needs a more practical leader who will listen to others after two intellectual popes.  Popes, they argue, who were so smart they didn't think they needed to listen to anyone.

As for the first opinion, I agree that there is a danger that what Cardinal Pell is afraid of could happen.  In this case I trust the Holy Father:  this retirement was long in the planning, and reputedly included that surprising consistory from late last year that added seven new cardinals, all from outside Europe.  I didn't care, though, for the critique of the Pope Emeritus' reign.  I think Princes of the Church should reserve such comments for pre-conclave meetings and not give the press more reasons to speculate on Church divisions.  As for the second, many of these same liberal voices will criticize Pope St. Pius X for not being sufficiently intellectual to address the subtleties of the Modernist crisis, a crisis they claim was imaginary.  In fact the only pope that they will hold up is Blessed John XXIII, and maybe Paul VI.  They are chasing at phantoms, always hoping that the next pope will give them the "reforms" they itch for but will never come. There may very well be reforms coming, but not the kind I think many of the intellectual class will expect.

Yes, Peter is gone.  But we are not abandoned.  The Lord will supply, not always the pope we want, but the pope we need.  Let us pray that the cardinals are open to God's will, and the man chosen is prepared to say yes, and follow through on it.  

Rachel Cries For Her Children

 

We had an "Active Shooter" drill at our grade school yesterday morning, much like the fire drills you may remember from your school days.  My emotions were mixed; it's the smart thing to do in light of the Sandy Hook tragedy, but devastatingly sad to think it's necessary.  The eighth graders I was with aren't dumb; they're old enough to figure out that bullets can break locks and closet doors can't stop high caliber rounds.  I tried to assure them that while there is no such thing as 100% security, there are things you can do to be smart and safer in an emergency (I'm not sure they believed me).  As I left the building after class I was filled with a mixture of sadness and rage.  When the Cold War ended I had hopped that the next generation would grow up with less anxiety.  I thought we had a chance to live in relative peace and security.  Then 9/11 shattered all that, and now these random acts of violence that are invading our social sanctuaries are leading to dread greater than Khrushchev or Brezhnev ever inspired.

We are searching for meaning, and the answers seem distant.  People ask where God is, and so do I.  I have long ago reconciled myself to the idea that God's plan is bigger than we can take in from our limited vantage point inside time and space.  Also, that we have free will, and He respects us so much He allows us to exercises it, even when it hurts us and others.   God is not a slave driver; He wants us to follow His will, but will not force us to do so.  And yes, on days like Friday, and yesterday, I wonder why He couldn't have made an exception, at least this once.

While I question God, I always end up coming back to us.  We were given this world, so instead of questioning God so much I tend to ask what are we doing with it?  Specifically, we were given stewardship over the earth.  Think of it as a lease agreement or a business partnership, but much deeper.  I'm not a deist; God didn't walk away after He signed over the deed.  He is still a providential guide.  It's still His plan at work, leading to a final end point of history.  But He gave us a lot of responsibility to organize things down here.  A very enigmatic question Jesus asks in the Gospel is when He returns, will the Son of Man find faith on earth?  This implies, at the very least, that we will arrange our world according to God's plan and designs as we understand them.  So when the End comes, and the King returns for his "inspection," will what He sees reflect that ideal.  As a Catholic I'm not writing of some Sharia style government, but one that has the Divine Law in mind, and certain core values as guiding principles.  One that understands its limitations, and allows God to walk with us.  Our contemporary, "Post Modern" world view does not allow for this type of arrangement, and we are now paying the price.  Human beings are the center of the new universe, and reason is our god and we are now reaping the results.  

When I was in grad school I was told that we need to have a values free approach to education.  It is not the schools place, so the reasoning goes, to tell children what is right and wrong, out side of very broad notions of decency and decorum.  But things like promoting a set of virtues, including faith, and even patriotism, are considered passe impositions of a bygone, unenlightened  age.  The trouble is that there is no such thing as values free education.  If you take one set of values away then it will be replaced, knowingly or not, by another.  There are no vacuums in a classroom apart from those used to clean the rugs.  We have replaced the traditional values, rooted in faith (in a general way) and patriotism with a secularized, individualistic hedonism, centered on a cult the of the state.   There is no reference point for family, community or God.

What caused this young man to act as he did in this particular case is complicated and we are still gathering information.  Evidently the mother was a member of her local parish.  Maybe God was a part of his upbringing.  It would be wrong for me to apply all the ills of society to this case.  But there is a bigger picture; a culture that is becoming more fragmented, dislocated, with young people living in more isolation.  One of our summer camps reported that it is getting more and more difficult to get their campers to play together in organized activities, so many are use to playing alone, or with just one other person, on a video console at home.  A small, trivial example of a real problem. In the larger sense we need to ask if we are we better socialized and more humane now than sixty years ago?  In some ways yes, but in a whole lot more ways, no.

We are convinced that we live in the best of all possible worlds and that those who complain about restoring traditional values want to "go back to the '50's"  Well, no, I wouldn't want to go back to Jim Crow or the sexism that existed back then.  I love the technological advancements we've made.  All and all today is pretty good on those fronts.  But this isn't living.  Wondering if your child will be leaving school in a bus or a hearse, or if you'll make it out of the movie theater in one piece is not progress, nor is it a fair exchange for the social advancements we've made. 

Don't get me wrong.  I hear from all sorts of people who lament the "good old days,"  and I understand that those days weren't always so good.  But there was a rootedness that people had, a deeper sense of family and community responsibility that is simply lacking today. Those that think a family is who you choose and the government is the one thing we all belong to are deluding themselves.  This has not worked, and it will only get worse.  These attitudes are contributing to an impersonal society, where life is cheep.  There needs to be a radical restructuring of society, keeping the best of what we have while restoring core values of faith, family and patriotism (as opposed to nationalism or leader worship).  Only then will things begin to turn around.  I'm not a Utopian.  There will always be people who do evil things.  But as the President has said, that isn't an excuse to do nothing. 

I have not mentioned guns.  Yes, we need sensible gun control laws.  I doubt the framers really intended for the citizenry to be armed with these types of gruesome weapons.  But we can eliminate every gun from the land, but it will not solve the deeper issues effecting us as a society.  It begins by renewing our lease with God.

We had the Christmas Pageant at our school this morning, much like the ones you may remember from your own school days.  I was filled with joy and contentment as I watched the children sing and dance.  After various classes sang Christmas songs from around the world, a group put on an adaptation of The Nutcracker.  I looked at those children a little differently this year.  I saw more clearly the innocents, promise and spark of Divine life within them than before.  It's sad that it takes a tragedy to do that.  I also thought of the life ahead of them, and my prayer was that they live in a world a little less cruel, violent and warped.  A pretty meager prayer, I admit.  But it's really in our hands, and much loftier goals are possible if we say yes to God, and let Him be our guide.