The Popes of World Youth Day – the Popes of Mercy

I'll be going to World Youth Day in Poland this July along with a group sponsored by the Salesian Eastern Province. Here's something I wrote with Fr. Dominic Tran, SDB for the WYD Salesian Facebook page.

World Youth Day 2016 and the Extraordinary Jubilee that goes until November 20 share a common focus: the Mercy of God. This convergence of themes is no coincidence and these great themes came together as the result of the work of the giant figures, the shepherds the Good Shepherds has given to the Church in recent years—Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

St. John Paul was the great promoter of the Divine Mercy devotion and the cause of St. Faustina. He said, early on in his pontificate, "Right from the beginning of my ministry in St. Peter’s See in Rome, I consider this message [of Divine Mercy] my special task. Providence has assigned it to me in the present situation of man, the Church and the world. It could be said that precisely this situation assigned that message to me as my task before God." He beatified and Canonized St. Faustina and established the Second Sunday of Easter as Divine Mercy Sunday. He saw mercy as the remedy for humanity after all the wars and atrocities of the 20th century: it was now the time to return to God and seek forgiveness and to turn to one another in a spirit of reconciliation and mercy.

Pope Benedict XVI, being a great theologian, gave us the theology of God’s mercy. With his very first encyclical, he emphasized, “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 John 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us”.

In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message is both timely and significant. For this reason, I wish in my first Encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others. (Deus Caritas Est, #1)

Pope Francis also has stressed mercy from the beginning of his time as the Vicar of Christ. Just a few days after his election in 2013 he said, “God's mercy can make even the driest land become a garden, can restore life to dry bones ... Let us be renewed by God's mercy, let us be loved by Jesus, let us enable the power of his love to transform our lives too; and let us become agents of this mercy, channels through which God can water the earth, protect all creation and make justice and peace flourish.” He has never ceased to call us to be a Church of mercy, both seeking out God’s forgiveness and living mercy in our lives. He has both promoted the Divine Mercy chaplet as a “powerful medicine” but also called us to go out and live mercy in our lives.

In this way St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis can be called the Popes of Mercy. As it is said, JP II introduced the what - Divine Mercy, Benedict taught us why, and Francis shows us how.

Pope Francis, Cardinal George, Advent and the End Times

Robert Hugh Benson

Cardinal Francis George, who just stepped down three weeks ago as Archbishop of Chicago, had an interview with Crux's John Allen published the day before he left office that made some headlines. While he's been long respected for his coverage of the Vatican by figures on both sides of the ideological divide, it is in this age of Pope Francis that Allen has emerged as the go to American Catholic journalist (this fact alone drew attention to the piece). It's a far reaching interview that covers many topics including George's reputation as a "culture warrior," (which he rejects), and whether the appointment of Archbishop Blase Cupich, a perceived moderate, to replace him is a "course correction" or "repudiation" of his legacy (notions he also rejects, but with caveats).  He also seeks to clarify a now legendary statement about a future persecution of the Church that he said was taken out of context. Most of the attention drawn by the interview focused on his desire for a heart to heart with the Holy Father over perceived ambiguities in the pontiff's statements. The Archbishop Emeritus doesn't question the pope's orthodoxy or intentions, just that he feels that his off the cuff comments have left many in the hierarchy, and in the grass roots, wondering what exactly is expected of them.

But what got my attention was Cardinal George's exploration of the pope's fascination with the end times. He points out that one of the pope's favorite books is The Lord of the World, a novel written in 1907 by an English priest Robert Hugh Benson. In it Benson, the son of an Archbishop of Canterbury who converted to Catholicism, looks ahead a hundred years and envisions a secularized, socialist one world order. (I'm reading it myself right now, and while it gets details wrong, the big picture of a radically secularized West threatened by the rise of "Eastern" religious movements, and a stubborn Catholic Church that won't go away is uncanny). Cardinal George admits to his own interest in eschatology, and finds the pope's references to this novel, in particular, and the end of the world, in general, fascinating. Is Pope Francis moving so fast because he believes that we are living in the final age before the great confrontation between Christ and anti-Christ?

My interest in The Lord of the World stems from the fact that I've seen it referenced in several articles about the Holy Father lately, which might come as a surprise considering the eccentricity of the book. The general perception is that Francis is a social justice pope, which he is, but I would argue not in the vein most think. As I've written many times in this space, the great tragedy of contemporary Catholicism is this artificial divide created between orthodoxy (right belief) and ortho-praxis (right action), as if one is more important than the other. Francis' genius is that he can talk about the plight of the poor and the need to reform unjust political and economic structures, but also say that Satan is working behind the scenes of this injustice (and not mean this in some ironic or figurative way). Yes, he wants us to give alms, but he also talks about getting the unemployed, especially teenagers who need work, proper jobs (not something I usually hear my progressive brothers and sisters talk about). He's a man who prays two hours a day the first thing in the morning, and also works to alleviate the suffering of the poor and marginalized. He will criticize those who put abstract ideas and complex theology ahead of serving people's needs (something "conservatives" are usually accused of), but has traditional minded cardinals as the heads of the congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and Divine Worship. Even Cardinal Burke's replacement is said to be a by the book prelate, in spite of the talk of a traditionalist purge in the Vatican. My point being is that Francis can't be pigeonholed, and the idea that a very down to earth, practical, socially conscious pope is also looking to the skies for the return of Christ in His glory shouldn't shock us.

What does all this have to do with Advent, you might be asking about now.

Amid the Black Fridays and Cyber Mondays, premature Christmas decorating at shopping malls and endless loops of "Jingle Bell Rock" on the radio, we can forget that these first weeks of Advent are meant to focus us on Jesus' second coming. In CCD as children (showing my age, I know), we were told that Advent was the four weeks of preparation for Christmas (which it is). You might have been told that we were preparing to "receive" Jesus, or getting ready for his "arrival." But things were kept somewhat vague as to what this meant. This could be interpreted in a spirtiualized way (i.e. making room for Jesus in our heart), or in a more concrete way (going to confession so you could receive Holy Communion with a clear conscience). But rarely, if ever, did I hear the escatological significance of this liturgical time of year explained. Maybe it was because they thought we couldn't handle it, or maybe it was the '70's and '80's tendency away from teaching doctrine, but we simply weren't educated to this aspect of Advent's significance, at least not in any pronounced way.

When in last week's Sunday Gospel reading (November 30) Jesus tells us to "be alert," it's a warning. We don't know when He will return, so the need to be vigilant in prayer. This past Sunday Peter tells us that the heavens and earth will be destroyed by fire and the elements melted. All the physical world around us will not so much be destroyed as transformed. So the need to distinguish between what is lasting and what is passing, holding firm to the true and eternal.

When this end will come is a mystery. To paraphrase Malcolm X, those who say that they know don't, and those who might have an inkling wouldn't dare say. While I hold Pope Francis is high esteem, I'm not saying he has some special private revelation about these things. As many saints have said, every age is permitted to think theirs is the final age so that they will remain vigilant, firm in the faith. So, he is reading the signs of the times, bringing it to prayer, and acting in accordance with how the Spirit is moving him.

Whether we are entering in to the final stages before the Second Coming or on the verge of a change of historical epoch (which is my belief), we are being called to be vigilant, united in prayer and charity. We shouldn't get caught up in politics, of the church variety or otherwise. We shouldn't get so caught up with the material preparations for the holidays that we lose sight of the deeper meaning of this time. It is a time to prepare for something greater than the anniversary of a birth, it is a time to be made ready to truly meet our Lord in his glory.

Consistory of Cardinals Discuses Family and Married Life

The Consistory of Cardinals that met in Rome this week was preparing for October's Extraordinary Synod of Bishops that will concern itself with the Church's pastoral care of married people and families. We can't underestimate the importance of the upcoming meetings, as well as the regularly scheduled Synod set for 2015 which will continue the discussion. Synods are held normally every three or four years, but these extraordinary synods, called by the pope when he feels that they're necessary, are not all that uncommon.

What is different this time is that Pope Francis plans on using the synod as a catalyst for possible changes, not in doctrine, but in pastoral practice. A complaint by some over the years is that both Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI used these more as information sessions, with information going from the top down, more than as opportunities for the bishops to collaborate with the pope. Whether these criticisms are fair or not, Pope Francis wants to change the perception, at the very least.

And he's beginning with a hot button topic; how the Church cares for divorced and remarried Catholics who didn't have the first union annulled, or are first time married, but in civil unions. Right now Catholics who find themselves in these situations are not supposed to receive the sacraments, particularly Communion and Reconciliation (Confession).

There are two basic points of view and both, as far as I can see, have their merits. The first is that Jesus is very clear, from Matthew 19, that marriage is an indissoluble bond. There are only two ways a person can walk away from a marriage. The first is to prove that some conditions existed at the time the partners exchanged vows that renders the sacrament invalid, thus null and void in the eyes of the Church. Or else, by way of what we call the Pauline Privilege, when two non-Christians marry and one converts to Christianity while the other opposes and puts serious obstacles in the way of the believing partner's practice of the faith. This is based on 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. While it's a sad situation, and we encourage these people to stay close to the community, in light of justice they are living in a persistently sinful condition which renders a turning away from the offending behavior nearly impossible, and so receiving the sacraments itself becomes an occasion of sin.

The other point of view is that Christ was merciful, and the Church's pastoral response needs to reflect mercy more than strict justice. The annulment process is long and arduous, and many give up or don't even begin when they see all that is involved. What do we do with people who may have been married briefly early in life but have been with their second spouse happily for decades? Surly this alone could be seen as a sign that the first union was invalid, even if it's difficult to prove juridically?  The Eastern Orthodox churches, who also see marriage as a sacrament, allow second, and even third marriages, though the ceremonies are rather penitential in nature, as opposed to the joyously ornate ceremonies surrounding a first wedding. Some say that judging the validity of the first marriage should be made by the individual conscience, others that some juridical process, albeit streamlined, would still need to be maintained. Both agree that a mistake made early in life shouldn't translate into decades of separation from the sacraments, which then could only be received when death is imminent. 

I must be honest, I struggle with this. Some on both sides see things in very cut and dry terms, but not me. Jesus is clear about divorce and remarriage being an occasion for adultery.  He was also merciful with sinners, especially those who were "victims of human passion," as Don Bosco called those who committed sexual sins. I do know that something has to be done. There are too many good, sincere people caught having to chose between their marriage and following their faith. These are people I meet almost everyday. So, I pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens the bishops as they gather and discuss, and the Pope as he makes his decisions, that we reach the right balance between justice and mercy in our pastoral practice.

The Pope and the Pentecostals

Ecumenism, the working for the unification of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians after centuries of division was one of the main prerogatives to emerge from the Second Vatican Council. An assumption that many, including myself, have worked off of is that unification will come quickest with the Eastern Orthodox Churches and possibly the Anglican Communion, which either have valid sacraments, or at least some sacramental sense, to go along with the apostolic succession (though Catholics would say that the Anglicans lack this, as well as lacking valid sacraments).  What we call ecclesial communities, those born of the Reformation in the West that lack the sacraments and apostolic secession would be harder to reach an accord with. Along with these basic differences Rome has deeper theological differences along a broad list of topics with Protestants than with either the Orthodox or even the Anglicans.

My mind on this in the last few years had changed somewhat, but not in a positive way. The Anglicans continue to drift further away from Rome on many key issues, from the ordination of women to gay marriage. Even through the Anglicans voted not to perform same sex marriages this week, there are strong divisions between progressive British and American bishops in favor of such a change and traditional Latin American and, in a more pronounced way, African bishops opposed. Over the last two decades there's been a death watch of sorts on for the Anglican Communion; though they've defied expectations and remained untied thus far the danger of splintering into a hundred little pieces seems real. The Eastern Churches, after decades of existing underground in places like Russia and the Ukraine are becoming reestablished. Their issue has always been more about authority than theology, and now that they can function openly they don't seem eager to recognize the Pope as anything other than the Bishop of Rome, and nothing more. Relations are certainly more cordial with Constantinople, as with Canterbury, these days, but I'm still not sure unification is anywhere close to happening.

Rome has made progress in patching differences with Mainline Protestantism on certain theological issues. But these historical ecclesial communities have been in steep decline, in the U.S. at least, for almost forty years. While these communities often have some shadow of the sacraments at work, and a similar approach to scripture as Catholics (even if they lack Tradition and Magisterium), I'm not sure there's any "there-there." People who identify themselves as Lutherans or Presbyterians, for instance, has nosedived since 1974. As with the Anglicans, I wonder if there will be any organized body to reunite with before long. The real vibrant forms of Protestantism exist today in the Evangelical, Pentecostal, and non-denominational communities, that tend to get lumped together in the popular mind as Christian Fundamentalists. These groups have the least in common with the Church of Rome, and some of them question if we're Christians at all. How do you begin to find common ground with people who think you're a half pagan fulfillment of the Whore of Babylon from the Book of Revelation?

So, as I looked around I began to grow a tad discouraged about the prospect of great progress being made in this front. As Bishop Tony Parker, an Anglican cleric right in the middle of both the ecumenical and charismatic movements, says in a special video I feature below, diversity is Divine, division is demonic. This is not a trivial issue. This division in the Body of Christ is a scandal, and a true turning of the culture back to Christ won't happen until all who bare the name Christian come together.

Well my mind is beginning to change again. Below are two videos. One is the long version, containing Bishop Parker's testimony along with a message from Pope Francis to a group of Pentecostals meeting in Texas, U.S.A.. Yes, the Pope speaking in fraternal terms directly to Bible Belt Pentecostals, and the Pentecostals accepting the message in love and respect. Truly a graced moment. Is reunion coming tomorrow? No, but this gives me hope in a future, and a hope in a direction I had only seen futility. As the Pope says, this is God's work, and He can make miracles happen when and where we least expect it.

I'll stop. I encourage you to watch the complete video, and I'll have further reflections next week.

Pope Francis' Daily Homily for 2/10/14: Mass is "God's Time"

Since ascending the Throne of Peter, Pope Francis has had most of his daily Mass homilies posted on You Tube.  I've been hesitant to post them here, not because of the content but because often times the clips are awkwardly edited by Vatican TV. They seem to rush the voice over translation, leaving long gaps where we hear the Pope speaking; great for those who understand Italian, frustrating for those of us who don't since they usually end the translation with minutes to go, never to resume it.

Sorry. I'll take off the media critic hat now, and focus on the positives, which are the Holy Father's words themselves.  He gives simple, practical yet penetrating explanations of the daily readings. The clip here makes no reference to the scripture passages for today, but I'm guessing that Pope Francis is preaching on the first reading from 1 Kings. This describes the dedication of the Jerusalem Temple under King Solomon.  All Israel came out for this blessed event when the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the Holy of Holies and thanksgiving sacrifices were made to God.

Today the Holy Father speaks of the Mass as "God's Time," when we enter directly into the mysteries we are commemorating. The Mass isn't a reenactment, but a participation and re-presentation of Christ's sacrificial offering of himself to the Father. We shouldn't be preoccupied with how long the Mass is taking, constantly looking at our watches, but rather allow ourselves to enter more deeply into this great theophany (a tangible manifestation of God), the miracle that takes place at every Mass during the consecration.  At this point I'll let the Holy Father speak for himself.  And in the future I'll post more of his homilies, questionable editing choices not withstanding.

Salesian Loyalty to the Pope

I've always made it an unofficial part of what is an already loosely defined editorial agenda here at The Ax to cover the Pope, no matter who the pope happens to be, and explain his words and defend him as necessary (like he needs me to explain or defend him).  I did this with Pope Benedict, and I continue with Pope Francis.  It's important to me because I am a Salesian, and loyalty to the Pope is a central part of our spirit.  Don Bosco had a close relationship with Bl. Pius IX,  and a more distant one with his successor Leo XIII.  But when the latter pontiff asked Don Bosco to build the Basilica of the Sacred Heart for him the saint put all his energy into the project, to the point of possibly losing his health over it.  And so it is, or should be; our loyalty is not to Joseph Ratzinger or Jorge Bergoglio, but to the Pope, no matter who he is.  Though I must admit that it is with more than a little pride that I can mention that the Holy Father attended a Salesian school as a child.

The 6th grade graduation picture at the Salesian College of Ramos Mejia c. 1949.

At this point, seven months into his pontificate, I've already written more posts about the pope than in the previous three years of this blog's existence, during Benedict XVI's reign.   This is due in large part because of how new the Franciscan Papacy is.  Even though he's not much younger than Cardinal Ratzinger was at the time of his election, Pope Francis is demonstrating a dynamism and charisma that has seemed to be missing since the first decade or so of John Paul II.  While it was less than ten years ago, it seems many forget that there was a buzz surrounding Benedict's first months in the Chair of Peter, and how he was attracting larger crowds to the Wednesday Audiences than Bl. John Paul II.  Peggy Noonan wrote that people came to see John Paul, but they were listening to Benedict.  Yes, he was called "God's Rottweiler," and people viewed him as coming out of JPII's shadow, much like George H.W. Bush emerged from Ronald Reagan's when he became president, but people were also noting differences in style.  Benedict was going off script more than his predecessor did, speaking of himself, as well as the apostles he succeeded as sinners in need of God's grace. (sound familiar?).  

Without a doubt Francis' personal style is much different that that of Benedict, his ascendancy has brought with it a bigger dose of "buzz" than previously, and for good reason.  If people came to hear Benedict, they are hanging on every word that proceeds from Francis' mouth--words that are coming at us almost daily and in differing forms than have been used by pontiffs the past.  He is using interviews, off the cuff comments to reporters at impromptu news conferences, his daily homilies (which can be found most days on You Tube) among other informal methods of communication to get his message across.  This has been beneficial for the faithful and non-believers alike , but has also left the Holy Father open to misinterpretation, a modern danger for any pope in this secular, multimedia age.  But even more so now with a Pope who speaks simply, but in small chunks that can leave room for doubt as to what he "really means."

There is no denying that Francis is shifting emphasis from his predecessors.  He still thinks abortion is evil--the product of a disposable culture that sees value in convenience and instant gratification over the deeper values of life, but wants us to also think about economy justice and the plight of the poor as life issues.  He still teaches that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, and that young people should have the courage to settle down and raise families, but he also doesn't think we should single out or target gays as somehow the greatest sinners in the world, or the root of the world's problems.  The temptation among some long suffering progressives in the Church, who feel they haven't had a "pope of their own" since Paul VI is to read the change of emphasis as a change in doctrine; that Francis somehow wants to do away with the "old rules" and usher in some Post Vatican II Golden Age, or what Ross Douthat calls the desire to "Episcopalianize" the Catholic Church.  I think before we get too far ahead of ourselves we need to do what I've been saying for a while now; take a deep breath, exhale and really see what the Pope is saying.  

The Salesian Rector Major, Don Pascual Chavez Villanueva (center) visiting Pope Francis 

The temptation for the more conservative or traditionalist Catholics is to think that the Church is going to fly off the rails somehow with a "liberal" pope at the controls.  I don't worry, I really don't.  I am a part of the John Paul II Generation of priests who came of age during his pontificate, and was reading Cardinal Ratzinger's books before he became Benedict XVI.  In Francis I see a Salesian educated Jesuit with vast pastoral, as well as academic experience who's putting a human face on Catholic doctrine, connecting them to the Gospel, putting Jesus first.  Not that his predecessors didn't, but their scholarly style may have distracted some from that fact.  I don't worry.  Like Don Bosco I'm with the Pope, now as much as ever.

Next time out I'll give you a more concrete reason why Pope Francis is right on target when we take a second look on his recent comments about Jesus and the existence of the Evil One.

Pope Francis vs. Beelzebub: Round 1

Here's something from Asia News on the sermon Pope Francis gave this morning, and a clip of the Holy Father's remarks from the Vatican You Tube page.  I'm going to have something to say on this a little later.


Vatican City ( AsiaNews) - "We must always remain vigilant, on guard against deception, against the seduction of evil, " because the devil, against whom Jesus truly fought and won," always tries to come back," to "take possession of us. "

Today's Gospel in which Jesus responds to some who accuse him of casting out demons in the name of Beelzebub, gave Pope Francis occasion to warn about the reality of the struggle against the devil, for which he offered three "criteria" of " vigilance. "

During the Mass celebrated this morning at Casa Santa Marta, the Pope, as reported by Vatican Radio, noted that all along, " and even in our days " , there is the temptation to belittle the figure of Jesus.
 
"Some priests when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say : 'But , Jesus healed a person from a mental illness .' They do not read this here , right? It 's true that at that time you could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession, but it is also true that there was the devil! And we have no right to simplify the thing, as if to say: 'They were not possessed ; they were mentally ill .' No! The presence of the devil is in the first page of the Bible and the Bible ends with the presence of the devil, with God's victory over the devil. "

For this reason "we must not be naive". The Pope, therefore, observed that the Lord gives us some criteria to "discern" the presence of evil and to chose "the Christian path when there are temptations ." One of the criteria is "not to follow Jesus' victory over evil "only "halfway". "You're either with me - says the Lord - or you're against me." Jesus came to destroy the devil, "to liberate us" from the "slavery of the devil upon us ." And you can not say that this is an "exaggeration" . "At this point there are no grey areas. There is a battle, a battle where salvation is in play, eternal salvation , eternal salvation" for all of us. Then there is the criterion of vigilance. "We must always remain vigilant, on guard against deception, against the seduction of the evil one".

"And we should ask ourselves this question: 'Am I watching over myself, my heart, my sentiments, my thoughts? Do I still preserve the treasure of grace? Do I still preserve the presence of the Holy Spirit in me, or do I leave it, certain in the belief it is? ' But if you do not safeguard it, along comes someone stronger than you . But when someone stronger attacks it and overcomes it, he takes away the weapons in which one trusted, and divides the spoil. Vigilance ! With three criteria: Do not confuse the truth . Jesus fought against the devil: the first criterion . Second criteria: whoever is not with Jesus, it is against Jesus, there is no halfway. Third criterion: keep guard of our hearts , because the devil is cunning . He is never completely banished, only on the last day will he be. "

Jesus said that when the unclean spirit leaves someone " it haunts desert places , seeking rest and finding none it says : 'I will return to the house from which I came .' And when he finds it " swept and decorated". Then it goes "gathers seven other spirits more wicked than itself , and they take up their abode are". And so , "the last state of that man becomes worse than it first was".

"Vigilance! Because his strategy is this: 'You became Christian. Advance in your faith. I will leave you. I will leave you tranquil. But then when you are used to not being so watchful and you feel secure, I will come back'. The Gospel today begins with the devil being cast out and ends with the devil coming back! St. Peter would say: 'It is like a fierce lion that circles us'. It is like that. 'But, Father, you a little ancient. You are frightening us with these things...' No, not me! It is the Gospel! And these are not lies: it is the Word of the Lord! Let us ask the Lord for the grace to take these things seriously. He came to fight for our salvation. He conquered the devil ! Please do not do business with the devil ! He tries to find his home, to take possession of us ... Do not relativize this, be on guard! And always with Jesus! "

Fr. Barron Comments on the Pope Francis Interview

Another Papal Interview

I was preparing a post about October being the Month of the Rosary and chock full of important saint's days, when I saw that Pope Francis has been interviewed yet again; this time in a secular Italian publication.  Eugenio Scalfari, the veteran journalist and publisher who conducted the tete a tete, is a self proclaimed non-believer who also stresses that he is not anti-clerical.  And he has reason not to be; after he deserted the Italian Army during World War II he was hidden in a Jesuit residence.


The interview is not long, and you can read it for yourselves, so I won't waste time with a line by line review.  I'll just give a few impressions.

The Pope as Happy Culture Warrior
The Holy Father approaches the encounter as a meeting of minds seeking understanding, not as a missionary meeting a heathen in search of a convert (he calls proselytizing "solemn nonsense.")  This doesn't mean that Pope Francis is somehow passive or without an edge.  While it is very obvious that this is a congenial encounter, at one point the Pope makes Scalfari articulate what he believes in if not in God.  It's always hard to judge tone in the written word, but it strikes me as a very forceful, passionate moment in the interview.  The interviewer becomes the interviewee, with the new interrogator always respecting the person while probing the ideas, challenging assumptions.

Also, while some might accuse Francis of being too subjective when he says that a non-believer following his or her conscience, that is following one's natural inclinations as to good versus evil, would be enough to make the world a better place, he speaks of grace in purely objective terms.  When Scalfari expresses incredulity that a non-believer could be touched by grace the Pope tells him that grace touches the soul, not the consciousness, so that we are unaware when of it.  Scalfari protests that he doesn't believe in the soul, to which the Pope assures him that he has one irregardless of what he believes.  The Pope is here to debate, but he's not accepting the world's terms, or acting like he has to necessarily defend Christianity's basic assumptions.  He is willing to be challenged as well as to lay down the gauntlet himself, always with respect, vigor and joy.

The Worldly and the Spiritual Intersect
The Pope states that the most serious evils facing the world right now are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the elderly.  He is asked if these are not matters for governments and trade unions to sort out.  Francis agrees, but stresses that these conditions touch body and soul.  They sap the person economically and emotionally, robbing them of hope for a better life and a feeling of belonging in the social community.  But they also touch the soul.  The Church as an institution is not to get involved with politics, but the People of God certainly have this responsibility to be involved in the shaping of the public order.  Catholics do this not as people who seek to dominate, but rather contribute.

The Holy Father also stressed the importance of mysticism.  The Church has a distinct role from that of government, which is secular by nature.  We come to certain conclusions about what constitutes the correct social order because we have met Jesus Christ, not because we adhere to some political ideology.  He states clearly that "Religion without mysticism is philosophy."  While he does not see himself as being a mystic in the strict sense, he has had what he would describe as brushes with the mystical, particularly when he was elected and asked for a few moments to reflect before accepting.  While politics and religion are distinct, you can gather from the Holy Father's words he believes that faith brings with it political implications, even if the Church as an institution needs to let the state do it's job free of interference.  

The Liberation Theology Pope?
This is strictly me musing a bit, but a lot of ink has been spilt over Francis' views on liberation theology, and that his election signals a sea change in the Vatican's attitude toward that controversial theological school of thought.  Both Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were cool to LT, but with Francis, a native of the region where it was born, meeting recently with LT's founding father Gustavo Gutierrez there is much speculation that the theology of liberation's time has come.  I think we need to take a pause and a deep breath on that one.

It is true that the Pope has spoken on economic justice, both as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and in his recent interviews and talks.  It's safe to say that Francis, like most European and Latin American prelates, can probably be best described as a social democrat (as was JP II and BXVI).  In other words he believes in more government oversight of the economy than your average Republican, but is no Marxist.  He has stressed in the past that there is not one liberation theology, but rather theologies of liberation, some in greater accord with Church teaching than others.  Someone at a private audience with the Pope after the sit down with Fr. Gutierrez indicated that Francis made it clear that the approval of the theologian's work given by a curial cardinal was that person's personal opinion and did not necessarily reflect Francis' point of view.   Even in the latest interview the Holy father talks about the need for economic rules, but that "if necessary direct intervention from the state to correct the more intolerable inequalities" should happen (emphasis mine).   

Again, I'm not arguing that Francis is a free market libertarian.  He also said that "Personally I think so-called unrestrained liberalism only makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker and excludes the most excluded."  He means liberalism in the classical sense, not in today's U.S. political usage.  His words tell me that his threshold for when government should intervene into the economy would be lower than mine, but he still doesn't see the state as the first or only line of defense against economic injustice.  

In other words Francis will not be afraid to appeal to elements of LT, but is a true believer in Christ, not in an ideology, even one that dresses in theological cloths.
    
Who's Wig is the Holy Father Twisting?
It is becoming a cliche to say that Pope Francis is the liberal (in the contemporary political sense) answer to Benedict and John Paul.  There is no doubt that some conservative minded or traditionalist Catholics are nervous about the Pope's recent statements.  As one friend said to me recently, "I love Pope Francis, I just wish he wouldn't talk so much."  

If I can be so bold, both liberals and conservatives in the Church are getting things wrong.  We can't view the Holy Father's words through the lens of ideology or politics.  He is not advocating fundamental changes in doctrine but in structure and emphasis.  Look to his words on clericalism and role of Church councils and synods in Church governance and you will find the key to understanding the Pope's mind.  

Conservatives should be nervous about talk of conciliarism, but liberals shouldn't think they're off the hook when he speaks of clericalism.  Clericalism takes many forms, and I've encountered it here in the States, but also in Latin America where the clergy has by and large abandoned the use of clerical dress and some like to think of themselves as a part of the "People's Church."  It can take the form of priests overly concerned with liturgical pomp and circumstance and with those who are entrenched in diocesan bureaucracies more concerned with the maintenance of the Church "machinery" than in extending the mission they are there to serve.  In my experience people who think of themselves as progressive fall into the trap of clericalism just a easily those on the right.  If we think the Pope's words are meant for "the other guy," we better think twice.  The call is to move beyond ideology and into the pure light of the Gospel, and that should make all of us a little nervous.

Quick Takes: The Pope and Prince Amukamara

Further Thoughts on Pope Francis' Interview 

As I hinted at previously the Pope's recent interview, along with other statements he has made, has been read by many in both secular and Church circles as representing a change of policy, much like what happens when a new political party comes into power in a country, at the Vatican.  There is no doubt that Francis' words and actions are a change of tone over previous pontificates, but we should be careful not to read a change of substance in the Pope's words.  As I wrote before, the Pope has spoken out against abortion recently, and the Catholic News Agency reported today that he ordered the excommunication of a priest in Australia, functioning without the proper faculties, who was publicly supporting gay marriage and abortion.  As one cardinal put it in response to questions of Francis' orthodoxy, the Pope is still Catholic.

Nonetheless there are those who would normally be considered on the "right" and involved with the pro-life movement who are troubled by the Holy Father's words.  Janet Smith, apologist, speaker and philosophy professor at the University of Dallas, who has been out spoken for years about the evils of artificial contraception and abortion, wrote a piece in First Things questioning what the Pope meant by saying we shouldn't be "obsessed" with particular moral issues when preaching the Gospel.  While she is never hostile toward the Pope, and strikes a conciliatory note at the end, you can feel the hurt and confusion of one toiling faithfully in the fields for years who feels a bit betrayed (she doesn't say that, this is strictly my impression of the article).

I  have a great deal of respect for Dr. Smith, and have often drawn on her materials in preparing classes and homilies.  I don't disagree with many of the points she makes, but in the end we have to match the words and the actions together.  The Holy Father is trying to stress the love God has for us all while pointing out that sin is ugly.  He is telling us that we need to be mindful of a wide variety of concerns, and at the same time he isn't afraid to discipline someone who steps out of line in very particular ways.    

A Prince Among Men

New York (Football) Giants corner back Prince Amukamara revealed in an interview on the Muscle and Fitness website that some of his teammates call him the "Black Tim Tebow."  The 24 year old is engaged to be married, but is "unashamed" to say that the is a virgin and has never had an alcoholic drink in his life.  He is a practicing Catholic, and from his youth has seen the path of chastity and sobriety as a way to heaven.  He does say that he might break the no drinking policy at his bachelor party, though I hope he takes that one slow.

My first reaction was: Fantastic.  Professional athletes, musicians, actors and just about anyone in the sports and entertainment field are surrounded by temptations the average person can't imagine.  That is a big reason why lasting, lifelong marriages are so hard to come by in Hollywood.  Add on to that the ego that goes along with being in the NFL, and the sense of entitlement so many young, suddenly rich and famous people often feel; to not let it go to your head, to stay grounded and true to your faith is quite an accomplishment.  For a game that has been marred in recent years by stories of murder and off the field violence, the Tebows and Amukamaras of the world come as breath of fresh air.

My second reaction was, what a shame he felt compelled to say that he "wasn't ashamed" of living his faith. Against living virtuously there is no law, except in the eyes of the twisted.  But ours is such an age when virtue makes headlines.  I noticed the story last week on Drudge, who linked to the local CBS afiliate in New York, and the next morning it was all over the place, even making London's Daily Mail.  It reminded me a little bit of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, where monogamy is thought of as perverted, and any one who only sleeps with only one partner is thought of as "one of those girls."

Prince, congratulatuions on your upcoming nuptuals, and remember;  If you stay true to the faith you'll never have to worry about feeling ashamed (well, maybe except for how the G-Men have played the first three weeks of the season).

The Pope's Interview: What He "Really" Means

 
Back in the 1960's, shortly after the Second Vatican Council, Rome announced modifications to the Friday abstinence from meat, which was in effect for the entire year, not just during Lent.  In essence, Friday was still to be observed as a day of penance in commemoration of Our Lord's Passion, but one could substitute some other appropriate penance for the ordinary practice of going meatless.  Individual dioceses were also able to modify the observance in light of local customs.  But not eating meat was still considered the ordinary way of observing Friday as a day of penance, with the Lenten practice of meatless Fridays remaining in force.  This is still the prescribed discipline of the Church today.  By the time the secular press got hold of the story it was reduced to VATICAN SAYS: HOT DOGS FOR EVERYONE ON FRIDAYS.  That meat was now permissible fare on Fridays, without any of the nuances, was all most of the faithful, and even many priests, ever heard about the change.  As one priest who lived through that period told me, most Catholics, including priests, got their news about the Church from secular tabloids like The New York Daily News more than from the L' Osservatore Romano.  To this day most Catholics think the Church changed Her long standing discipline without qualification.  I will admit that in the big picture whether you eat meat or not on Friday may seem like a small matter, but the example is illustrative of how the secular press often over simplifies stories about the Church, and sometimes just gets them plain wrong.
This past Friday I was on my way to the airport and saw a man standing on a median at a traffic light selling the paper.  It was the Sun-Times, which is the tabloid daily here in Chicago.  He wore a nylon vest with a see-through panel on the front and back that housed the front page.  The headline was bold and succinct as you would expect from a tabloid: POPE RIPS FOCUS ON GAYS, ABORTION. The Sun-Times was making reference to an interview of Pope Francis published last week in several Jesuit journals around the world and here in the States by the Society of Jesus' flagship publication America.  I read the interview finally, after hearing and reading much about it and can say that the Holy Father "rips" no one.  His comments about gays, abortion and contraception were less than a paragraph of a rather lengthy interview that covers a variety of topics.  He isn't supporting same sex marriage or suggesting abortion is OK. In fact the day after the interview first appeared His Holiness met with a gathering of Italian OG-BYNs and spoke of the evils of abortion and the need to promote the Gospel of Life.  So what did the Pope mean? 

What the Holy Father is saying that what comes first and foremost is the proclamation of the Gospel message of salvation and repentance.  We live in a wounded world with people who are spiritually injured and these wounds need to be healed first.  He likens the Church to a field hospital.  In a triage situation where a person has a compound fracture and is bleeding to death you don't ask about his cholesterol and blood sugar - to use Pope Francis' example.  There is time for that once the patient has been stabilized.  But the first proclamation of the Gospel needs to be about God's love and mercy.  Once the person has been introduced to Jesus Christ, and has that personal encounter with Him then the doctrines and moral  teachings can be introduced in a more systematic way.  Once the person knows Jesus, has a relationship with Him the doctrines will be better understood and seen as flowing naturally from being a disciple, as opposed to being a "disjointed" collection of moral imperatives that don't seem to have a link to life in general, let alone to life in Christ.

The Holy Father is at once subtle and clear that we are to always separate behavior from the person.  In the case of homosexuals, the teaching is clear on homosexual acts, and as a son of the Church the Pope holds to them.  But we also have the person who is a child of God who needs to be treated as such; with respect, dignity and love. 

Is the truth of the Church's teachings on human sexuality to be taught and proclaimed?  Yes.  But so are Her teachings on social justice, respect for the environment, the dignity of the disabled, the proper care of the sick and the need for an active and deep prayer life, to name a few things.  We need to preach it all, but as Pope Francis said, we don't have to preach it all at once.  So when the Pope talks to gynecologists he'll speak about abortion, and when he speaks to the unemployed in Sardinia, as he did the other day, he'll speak of the dangers of globalization and the need for an economic system that puts people and their right to work ahead of greed.  He will chose the right time and place to proclaim the message needed in the moment, and he is reminding all of us charged with preaching to do the same. 

In the end the reaction to the Pope's interview highlights our contemporary crisis of a politicized Church, with people taking sides as liberals and conservatives.  With his words of conciliation and talk of mercy many liberals see an ally in Pope Francis, hoping that the changes they've been waiting for since 1965 are finally on the way.  Conservatives, stung that the Holy Father is seemingly not as stringent on liturgy and "hammering heretics" as his immediate predecessors are scrambling to explain what the Pope really meant. This misses the point.  We are neither a liberal nor a conservative Church in the way that the world understands these words.  Christ is concerned about the poor and the afflicted, wants us to form a more perfect and just world.  He also calls us as individuals to a high standard of personal holiness and self control. He is interested about what goes on in the chambers of the senate and also in the spiritual chambers of our hearts, and yes, even in the privacy of our bedrooms.  Nonetheless we can never reduce Him to a political candidate, a self help guru or puritanical moralist.  He loves us with the deepest love imaginable, beyond our imagining, really, but will never flash an OK sign at us and say, "Your OK, I'm OK."  He will always challenge us to move beyond our opinions, beyond our certitudes and beyond our comfort to surrender all to Him. 

And one final message to everyone out there: beware stories about the Church appearing in the secular news services, be they print, radio or television.  They usually over simplyfy things and force bloggers like me to slave over  posts like this.

Lasting Peace

Last Saturday, September 7, the Holy Father asked Catholics to fast and pray for peace in Syria.  While there appears to be a diplomatic solution in the offing, the outcome of the crisis is still in doubt, albeit less so than forty-eight hours ago.  In taking such a strong stand against military action Pope Francis has faced criticism from some people in the press.  He has been accused of taking sides against the United Stated in the conflict.  This is a misinterpretation of the Pope’s words and actions.  He is calling on all sides to slow down, use the diplomatic process and avoid a conflict that could grow into a wider, far more destructive war.  The Holy Father is calling upon us,  as disciples of Christ, to use our spiritual weapons, namely prayer and fasting, to aid in bringing healing to a world in conflict.

This striving for peace must not be confined to nice thoughts or abstract wishes.  We must make peace an everyday reality of our lives.  It is true that we as individuals can do little to influence the course of human events directly and immediately.  We are living our everyday lives; trying to make a living, or going to school.  Maybe we are retired.  Either way we have worries of our own right here.  We are not great and powerful people.  How can we make world peace a reality?

We help make world peace a reality by making peace right here and now with the people we live with and around.  When we forgive a brother or sister who has offended us, we are making a more peaceful world.  When we act with kindness toward a neighbor, especially one we may not get along with, we are making the world more peaceful.  When we reconcile with someone who has offended us, or we reach out a hand and seek forgiveness for our own sins, we are making the world more peaceful.  We shouldn’t think of the world as only places that are far away.  The world for us is the house and the block in.  It is the place we work and the school we attend.  If there is no peace in these places we should not be surprised when there is no peace in the wider world.  

As active and honest citizens should we vote, call our congressman and sign petitions?  Yes.  But all the political action will be useless if there is no conversion of heart.  There is a saying that all politics is local.  We can also say that the struggle for peace in the world begins locally.  Actually, we should say it begins inside of each and every one of us.  The Holy Father asked us for a day of fasting and prayer, and I would like to think that the quick turn of events is a result of our heeding of this call.  But we simply can’t return to old ways once the crisis is diverted and expect lasting change.  An attitude of simplicity, self-denial and openness to the Spirit of reconciliation is a key to forming a world of true peace; not for a day or an evening, but every day and at every moment, beginning with the people right around us.  May Christ our light open our hearts and minds so that we can be peacemakers right here and now in the place we live.  

Here is Pope Francis in his own words from last Saturday

The Pope's Monthly Prayer Intention: For Persecuted Christians

Fr. Barron's Take on Pope Francis and World Youth Day

The Pope Francis: Real Conversion is the Work of the Spirit

The Vatican YouTube page has been posting the Holy Father's morning homily almost every day since shortly after his election.  Pope Francis gives a simple, extemporaneous reflection on the readings of the day, and as we can see from the video he enjoys a rather mixed group of people at Mass.  Enjoy.

Pope Francis and "The Religious Sense": A commentary by Fr. Robert Barron

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.