Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Personal note
Despite lots to say, I haven't posted in a week because we have been very busy attending to a serious illness in the family. Back to business soon, I hope.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Benedict XVI
Well, the Electors may not have surprised anyone else, but they surprised me. I had thought that one of the Europeans would be a compromise choice later on in the balloting--third or fourth day, and either Schoenborn or one of the Italians. The best shot seemed to me one of the very promising third-worlders. I wonder what they had in mind?
--They elected the smartest man in the room: a formidable theologian, who would have left his mark, no matter what.
--They elected the oldest man in the room, or pretty close. We saw with John XXIII that the man with little to lose is not necessarily the most cautious.
--They elected a peer of John Paul II. Benedict was one of two cardinals at the conclave who had been among the electors in 1978.
--They elected a consummate European, of a very sophisticated, even subtle, cast of mind. Benedict seems to be a very highly "cultured" person in the most formal sense of that word. I heard this evening that he is a musician, an accomplished classical pianist who loves Mozart.
--Continuing that thought, they probably could not have elected a Pope with a personality that contrasted more with that of his predecessor. Not shy, but very "academic," a grandfatherly type. He seems to be the type who may have "mentored" other members of the hierarchy with discretion and a certain warmth.
--In intellectual style, also very different. A neo-scholastic theologian as opposed to a phenomenological philosopher. Read anything by either man: the difference in approach is immediately apparent.
--Did they Electors choose St. Benedict or Benedict XV? The former was the bold founder of monasteries, the great medieval foundations that rescued not only the faith but also civilization itself from Europe's bearded invaders. The latter was, according to one historian, "a frail, reserved aristocrat" who inherited a Church inspired by a strong Pope Pius X but somewhat angered by the Modernist controversies. Yet Benedict XV also engaged his world by writing what would become the pioneering missionary charter of his century, and by suffering with the Church through World War I. He spent himself in charitable efforts to ease the plight of a huge refugee problem and to bring the nations to the negotiating table, unsuccessfully. He was a fascinating and complex character.
We can only wait, watch and learn what prompting of the Spirit moved the Cardinals in Cardinal Ratzinger's direction.
--They elected the smartest man in the room: a formidable theologian, who would have left his mark, no matter what.
--They elected the oldest man in the room, or pretty close. We saw with John XXIII that the man with little to lose is not necessarily the most cautious.
--They elected a peer of John Paul II. Benedict was one of two cardinals at the conclave who had been among the electors in 1978.
--They elected a consummate European, of a very sophisticated, even subtle, cast of mind. Benedict seems to be a very highly "cultured" person in the most formal sense of that word. I heard this evening that he is a musician, an accomplished classical pianist who loves Mozart.
--Continuing that thought, they probably could not have elected a Pope with a personality that contrasted more with that of his predecessor. Not shy, but very "academic," a grandfatherly type. He seems to be the type who may have "mentored" other members of the hierarchy with discretion and a certain warmth.
--In intellectual style, also very different. A neo-scholastic theologian as opposed to a phenomenological philosopher. Read anything by either man: the difference in approach is immediately apparent.
--Did they Electors choose St. Benedict or Benedict XV? The former was the bold founder of monasteries, the great medieval foundations that rescued not only the faith but also civilization itself from Europe's bearded invaders. The latter was, according to one historian, "a frail, reserved aristocrat" who inherited a Church inspired by a strong Pope Pius X but somewhat angered by the Modernist controversies. Yet Benedict XV also engaged his world by writing what would become the pioneering missionary charter of his century, and by suffering with the Church through World War I. He spent himself in charitable efforts to ease the plight of a huge refugee problem and to bring the nations to the negotiating table, unsuccessfully. He was a fascinating and complex character.
We can only wait, watch and learn what prompting of the Spirit moved the Cardinals in Cardinal Ratzinger's direction.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
#6
The Conclave: Why so much ritual? Why all the secrecy?
Secrecy first: Think back to last fall's presidential campaign and election. It got ugly at times. In a community of religion, one as broad and deep as the Catholic Church, there is danger that a process similar to the raucous American election season, where parties, interest groups, and the media apply all kinds of healthy and unhealthy pressures, would be chaotic and unintelligible. And the outcome, intended to reflect inspired, prayerful consideration, would be terrible uncertainty and partisanship. In its long adventure, the Catholic Church has learned lessons from its own story and from secular history. While the deliberations of the Cardinal-electors will be secret for now, and probably should be, everyone who wants to know the steps of the process and the specific procedures that will take place can do so. There is an abundance of information available about this "secret" ceremony. Eventually, more about the actual events of this conclave will be known, and the electors are certainly aware of that. Further, many facts about these electors and their personal roads to Rome are broadcast and printed daily.
The process now in place for the modern Church to choose its next worldly shepherd is one that respects its long tradition and the spirit of the ancient Church as well. The New Testament shows the apostles deliberating together over important questions and reaching consensus. This is what the electors will do. They need the time and space to do it well and to listen to the stirrings of the Holy Spirit. It won't be long before the rest of the story is investigated. There is a "healthy confidentiality" that needs to be preserved.
This brings us to the general point of ritual. Ritual is two things: symbol and tradition. The rituals accompanying the papal transition remind us that Catholicism is sacramental and universal. Where human language creates differences, distinctions, ambiguities and misunderstanding, the incorporation of public ritual returns the Church to the signification of its fundamental truths. What we believe is made alive, acted out. Liturgy is drama.
At Pope John Paul's funeral, the Mass came to its conclusion and different voices were heard to offer a short series of blessings and committals. In this series was a blessing chanted by a delegation from the Eastern rites of the Church. It was chanted in Greek, echoing the most ancient of the Church's common languages. Hearing the prayers of these ancestral communities gave us a glimpse into the prayer and heart of the first generations of Christians. It was a reminder of the continuity of today's Church with the first-century apostolic community.
G. K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy, "Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death." Especially in the Church, our tradition has an enormous amount to teach us. Liturgy and ritual teach us through powerful symbols and actions. We believe, pray, and hand on the living Scriptures, the words and and acts of the apostles and the many services--in both the liturgical and moral senses--that mark the timeless character of the Christian vocation and identity. Ritual is not only important, but of the essence.
Secrecy first: Think back to last fall's presidential campaign and election. It got ugly at times. In a community of religion, one as broad and deep as the Catholic Church, there is danger that a process similar to the raucous American election season, where parties, interest groups, and the media apply all kinds of healthy and unhealthy pressures, would be chaotic and unintelligible. And the outcome, intended to reflect inspired, prayerful consideration, would be terrible uncertainty and partisanship. In its long adventure, the Catholic Church has learned lessons from its own story and from secular history. While the deliberations of the Cardinal-electors will be secret for now, and probably should be, everyone who wants to know the steps of the process and the specific procedures that will take place can do so. There is an abundance of information available about this "secret" ceremony. Eventually, more about the actual events of this conclave will be known, and the electors are certainly aware of that. Further, many facts about these electors and their personal roads to Rome are broadcast and printed daily.
The process now in place for the modern Church to choose its next worldly shepherd is one that respects its long tradition and the spirit of the ancient Church as well. The New Testament shows the apostles deliberating together over important questions and reaching consensus. This is what the electors will do. They need the time and space to do it well and to listen to the stirrings of the Holy Spirit. It won't be long before the rest of the story is investigated. There is a "healthy confidentiality" that needs to be preserved.
This brings us to the general point of ritual. Ritual is two things: symbol and tradition. The rituals accompanying the papal transition remind us that Catholicism is sacramental and universal. Where human language creates differences, distinctions, ambiguities and misunderstanding, the incorporation of public ritual returns the Church to the signification of its fundamental truths. What we believe is made alive, acted out. Liturgy is drama.
At Pope John Paul's funeral, the Mass came to its conclusion and different voices were heard to offer a short series of blessings and committals. In this series was a blessing chanted by a delegation from the Eastern rites of the Church. It was chanted in Greek, echoing the most ancient of the Church's common languages. Hearing the prayers of these ancestral communities gave us a glimpse into the prayer and heart of the first generations of Christians. It was a reminder of the continuity of today's Church with the first-century apostolic community.
G. K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy, "Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death." Especially in the Church, our tradition has an enormous amount to teach us. Liturgy and ritual teach us through powerful symbols and actions. We believe, pray, and hand on the living Scriptures, the words and and acts of the apostles and the many services--in both the liturgical and moral senses--that mark the timeless character of the Christian vocation and identity. Ritual is not only important, but of the essence.
#5
Who will be the next Pope?
We don't know, do we? The 117 (actually 115, because two are ill and cannot come to the Conclave) Cardinal-electors are highly intelligent individuals, leaders responsible for major archdioceses around the world or major administrative departments of the Church. They all have duties of oversight that are extensive and weighty. They have a view that is at once "from the inside" and global, a view that the media don't and can't begin to share and report. This collective view is of the work of the whole Church, not just that in the United States or Europe, where secularizing decay is rife in society and in parts of the Christian community.
What happened 27 years ago, in October of 1978, may be our best precedent. The electors at that Conclave looked to Poland, a church under oppression, but a community that was well-managed, influential and growing. They chose the very brightest member of a heroic and determined national hierarchy. Are there regions, within Europe or outside of it, where such a resurgent church is replicated and ready to assume a place in history? This, I believe, is one of the questions the Cardinals will answer next week.
I think about 99 per cent of everything we hear about the Conclave is gossip.
We don't know, do we? The 117 (actually 115, because two are ill and cannot come to the Conclave) Cardinal-electors are highly intelligent individuals, leaders responsible for major archdioceses around the world or major administrative departments of the Church. They all have duties of oversight that are extensive and weighty. They have a view that is at once "from the inside" and global, a view that the media don't and can't begin to share and report. This collective view is of the work of the whole Church, not just that in the United States or Europe, where secularizing decay is rife in society and in parts of the Christian community.
What happened 27 years ago, in October of 1978, may be our best precedent. The electors at that Conclave looked to Poland, a church under oppression, but a community that was well-managed, influential and growing. They chose the very brightest member of a heroic and determined national hierarchy. Are there regions, within Europe or outside of it, where such a resurgent church is replicated and ready to assume a place in history? This, I believe, is one of the questions the Cardinals will answer next week.
I think about 99 per cent of everything we hear about the Conclave is gossip.
#4
How does infallibility work?
The teaching on infallibility is about the Pope's job of moral and spiritual guidance within the community of the Roman Catholic Church.
Here's a story: Suppose a business owner hires a contractor to handle certain specialized and important types of work done periodically in that business. When the owner hires this contractor, a couple of things are understood: first, the contractor will agree to perform the job and will have the necessary tools, vehicle, competence, etc., to accomplish that; in return, the contractor has a right to expect that the owner has the ability to provide for the risks and compensate for the expenses incurred by the contractor. In other words, both are on the hook: the owner won't hire this contractor for some work that the contractor is not suited for or where the owner can't be willing to "back up" or guarantee the quality of what's being done. In other words, the buck stops with the owner.
The figures of the owner and contractor are analogous to the principal figures involved in living out the command of Jesus (the owner) to the apostles, especially Peter (the contractor), to "teach all nations" with a "spirit of truth". The specific accountability for transmitting the truth of the faith is focused on Peter as an individual. But Jesus also promises that the Holy Spirit will keep the Church from error. Accountability and empowerment complement each other.
Infallibility is understood to be the asset that will allow the Church to carry out its essential mission without losing heart. The alternative, logically, is that the Church and its leadership have been placed in an impossible position: to proclaim the Gospel message as saving truth, but without a basic tool of teaching, the assurance that one's message is finally truthful. The Church and its earthly voice, the Pope, have the assurance that the Holy Spirit will not permit them to mislead the faithful on what is essential to the faith.
Note those last four words: "essential to the faith." Papal infallibility applies to the core of doctrine and the most significant matters of moral teaching, the propositions upon which all else must rest. These doctrines must be affirmed as truth for the whole of the Church. It applies to the Pope in his duty as successor of Peter to be the one finally accountable for the truth proclaimed in Christ's name. It does not apply to the individual, purely and simply, who happens to hold the office or the traits or preferences of that individual. The making explicit of a specific doctrine "from the chair of Peter" as a matter of objective truth takes place only rarely--truth is simple in its essence. Generally, the popes have spoken in this manner only on issues of serious and global significance, one that the Church in general has acclaimed for a long time.
By their nature, such issues do not happen along very often. The last time an explicitly infallible teaching was declared was in the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, in 1950. In the encyclical message Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II described the Church's basic teaching on issues such as abortion and euthanasia as well as the moral law that protects all innocent life as generally meeting the conditions of infallible truth, but he does not carry the matter to its full conclusion. Over the centuries the popes have been very cautious in any labeling of important affirmations with the term "infallible". They understand that the focus is on the matter of the teaching, not simply on the authority of the one proclaiming the teaching.
The teaching on infallibility is about the Pope's job of moral and spiritual guidance within the community of the Roman Catholic Church.
Here's a story: Suppose a business owner hires a contractor to handle certain specialized and important types of work done periodically in that business. When the owner hires this contractor, a couple of things are understood: first, the contractor will agree to perform the job and will have the necessary tools, vehicle, competence, etc., to accomplish that; in return, the contractor has a right to expect that the owner has the ability to provide for the risks and compensate for the expenses incurred by the contractor. In other words, both are on the hook: the owner won't hire this contractor for some work that the contractor is not suited for or where the owner can't be willing to "back up" or guarantee the quality of what's being done. In other words, the buck stops with the owner.
The figures of the owner and contractor are analogous to the principal figures involved in living out the command of Jesus (the owner) to the apostles, especially Peter (the contractor), to "teach all nations" with a "spirit of truth". The specific accountability for transmitting the truth of the faith is focused on Peter as an individual. But Jesus also promises that the Holy Spirit will keep the Church from error. Accountability and empowerment complement each other.
Infallibility is understood to be the asset that will allow the Church to carry out its essential mission without losing heart. The alternative, logically, is that the Church and its leadership have been placed in an impossible position: to proclaim the Gospel message as saving truth, but without a basic tool of teaching, the assurance that one's message is finally truthful. The Church and its earthly voice, the Pope, have the assurance that the Holy Spirit will not permit them to mislead the faithful on what is essential to the faith.
Note those last four words: "essential to the faith." Papal infallibility applies to the core of doctrine and the most significant matters of moral teaching, the propositions upon which all else must rest. These doctrines must be affirmed as truth for the whole of the Church. It applies to the Pope in his duty as successor of Peter to be the one finally accountable for the truth proclaimed in Christ's name. It does not apply to the individual, purely and simply, who happens to hold the office or the traits or preferences of that individual. The making explicit of a specific doctrine "from the chair of Peter" as a matter of objective truth takes place only rarely--truth is simple in its essence. Generally, the popes have spoken in this manner only on issues of serious and global significance, one that the Church in general has acclaimed for a long time.
By their nature, such issues do not happen along very often. The last time an explicitly infallible teaching was declared was in the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, in 1950. In the encyclical message Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II described the Church's basic teaching on issues such as abortion and euthanasia as well as the moral law that protects all innocent life as generally meeting the conditions of infallible truth, but he does not carry the matter to its full conclusion. Over the centuries the popes have been very cautious in any labeling of important affirmations with the term "infallible". They understand that the focus is on the matter of the teaching, not simply on the authority of the one proclaiming the teaching.
#3
Why do Catholics worship the Pope?
"Worship" is neither the correct word nor the appropriate concept to describe the relationship between the core Catholic community and its institutional head. The Church is not "the Pope's Church." It is always the church whose beginning and whose end is Jesus Christ. This is an absolute. Everything Catholics do sacramentally and everything they should do institutionally flows from the real headship of Christ.
As a real community, a large one, making its way in the world, Roman Catholicism abides by a principle of authority that is the product of a very long tradition. The history of the papacy is an amazing story, and one that gives a face, positively and negatively, to the history of the Catholic community over the centuries. The "lineage" of the popes provides a focus around which the eras of that history can be given unique characters. Sociologically, this may help to explain why Catholics find special attachment in their hearts for the popes of their era.
Theologically, Catholics understand that the papal sequence traces back historically to the apostolic period. The New Testament places the authority delegated by Jesus to the apostolic community on Peter, who became the apostle with the greatest share of the accountability within the ancestral Church. From the very next generation Peter's successors in Rome were viewed as the primary "overseers" or bishops, of the growing assembly, "Church," which always saw itself as one with the bishop of Rome. And in that same city during its pagan imperial period, the more important efforts to destroy the young Church were focused on the Christian community at Rome. In a perverse way, the world itself acknowledged the importance of the "See of Peter" from a very early time. This diocese suffered like no other at the hands of the first persecutors.
Finally, we should note that no one mistakes the papal authority for the duty of the human conscience to bind itself to God's will. But by virtue of the greatness of the office in history, the sanctity of its origins and the weight of its mandate of teaching and leadership, Catholics today find in the papacy a special kind of authority. It is not the only contact or (necessarily) the most important contact that Catholics have with their Church, but it is still real and defining.
"Worship" is neither the correct word nor the appropriate concept to describe the relationship between the core Catholic community and its institutional head. The Church is not "the Pope's Church." It is always the church whose beginning and whose end is Jesus Christ. This is an absolute. Everything Catholics do sacramentally and everything they should do institutionally flows from the real headship of Christ.
As a real community, a large one, making its way in the world, Roman Catholicism abides by a principle of authority that is the product of a very long tradition. The history of the papacy is an amazing story, and one that gives a face, positively and negatively, to the history of the Catholic community over the centuries. The "lineage" of the popes provides a focus around which the eras of that history can be given unique characters. Sociologically, this may help to explain why Catholics find special attachment in their hearts for the popes of their era.
Theologically, Catholics understand that the papal sequence traces back historically to the apostolic period. The New Testament places the authority delegated by Jesus to the apostolic community on Peter, who became the apostle with the greatest share of the accountability within the ancestral Church. From the very next generation Peter's successors in Rome were viewed as the primary "overseers" or bishops, of the growing assembly, "Church," which always saw itself as one with the bishop of Rome. And in that same city during its pagan imperial period, the more important efforts to destroy the young Church were focused on the Christian community at Rome. In a perverse way, the world itself acknowledged the importance of the "See of Peter" from a very early time. This diocese suffered like no other at the hands of the first persecutors.
Finally, we should note that no one mistakes the papal authority for the duty of the human conscience to bind itself to God's will. But by virtue of the greatness of the office in history, the sanctity of its origins and the weight of its mandate of teaching and leadership, Catholics today find in the papacy a special kind of authority. It is not the only contact or (necessarily) the most important contact that Catholics have with their Church, but it is still real and defining.
#2
Isn't the Pope just one religious leader among others?
Many leaders of faiths other than the Catholic acknowledge differently. The leadership of Roman Catholicism maintains dialogue with the heads and representatives of many of the world's major faiths, denominations and unique congregations. Under Pope John Paul II in particular, during his very long term of service, such dialogue flourished.
Even in this country, the figure of the Pope is for a significant segment of the Protestant community, as diverse as it is, an important focus of Christian activity, evangelization, scholarship and moral thinking. The Pope has a worldwide audience of 1.1 billion Catholics, and also is heard in a multicultural community of interest in human endeavor in areas from the scientific to the diplomatic.
Today it may not be true to say that "all roads lead to Rome." However, quite a few of the roads, and many of the side streets and detours, still do.
Many leaders of faiths other than the Catholic acknowledge differently. The leadership of Roman Catholicism maintains dialogue with the heads and representatives of many of the world's major faiths, denominations and unique congregations. Under Pope John Paul II in particular, during his very long term of service, such dialogue flourished.
Even in this country, the figure of the Pope is for a significant segment of the Protestant community, as diverse as it is, an important focus of Christian activity, evangelization, scholarship and moral thinking. The Pope has a worldwide audience of 1.1 billion Catholics, and also is heard in a multicultural community of interest in human endeavor in areas from the scientific to the diplomatic.
Today it may not be true to say that "all roads lead to Rome." However, quite a few of the roads, and many of the side streets and detours, still do.
Papal FAQ #1
Responses to some comments heard over the last several days:
Pope John Paul II was buried on Friday, April 8th. It seemed like all that week we were overrun with news on this. Why? Wasn't this overexposure?
I don't think this was a complicated call for the media, here or around the world. There are, give or take, 60 million American Catholics or people who at least call themselves that. There are also a significant number of interested parties who maintain interest in Roman Catholic events for a variety of reasons and many individuals who are simply curious. If the audience exists, it gets the courage.
The media pursue interests, noble or base, of great masses of people. The death and funeral of Pope John Paul sparked the interest of a vast number of people: by Friday's funeral, some 2 billion viewers were expected to look in on some part of the ceremony. So it's not that the coverage was "thrown at us;" the media just followed the crowd. And given the usual programming available, even on the news networks, it was interesting to see the "scandal of the day" steamrollered by Pope John Paul.
Pope John Paul II was buried on Friday, April 8th. It seemed like all that week we were overrun with news on this. Why? Wasn't this overexposure?
I don't think this was a complicated call for the media, here or around the world. There are, give or take, 60 million American Catholics or people who at least call themselves that. There are also a significant number of interested parties who maintain interest in Roman Catholic events for a variety of reasons and many individuals who are simply curious. If the audience exists, it gets the courage.
The media pursue interests, noble or base, of great masses of people. The death and funeral of Pope John Paul sparked the interest of a vast number of people: by Friday's funeral, some 2 billion viewers were expected to look in on some part of the ceremony. So it's not that the coverage was "thrown at us;" the media just followed the crowd. And given the usual programming available, even on the news networks, it was interesting to see the "scandal of the day" steamrollered by Pope John Paul.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Sad
What's very sad is that most of the media types trying to explain what's happening in Rome just don't get it. Certainly Hewitt's comments (www.hughhewitt.com) today say as much.
Portraying the "issues" facing the Church in terms of a political agenda (abortion, women priests, contraception, and the whole rest of the litany) just doesn't strike anywhere near what the Cardinal-electors are focused on. They're concerned about the meta-issues, not the controversies.
If I were in Rome as a Cardinal today, I'd be looking for conversations about the following: love of people and inner empathy with their condition, powerful intellect, adminstrative competence, ability to communicate and understand/use the media, visibly prayerful quality and excellence as a liturgical presence, ability to see the whole picture, ability to subordinate narrow loyalties to a universal view of the Church, "built-in" diversities (someone with more than one background, culturally and socially), deep knowledge of and faithfulness to the Scriptures as a whole, and faithfulness to the existing body of the Church's teachings. Add to these a charismatic presence and zeal for teaching and exemplifying the Gospel for the current age, and you've really got something.
What you don't have (Deo gratias!) is someone who will jump up one day and say to all those who want extensive doctrinal and pastoral reform that they've been right all along and their wishes are granted. Won't happen and shouldn't happen.
Portraying the "issues" facing the Church in terms of a political agenda (abortion, women priests, contraception, and the whole rest of the litany) just doesn't strike anywhere near what the Cardinal-electors are focused on. They're concerned about the meta-issues, not the controversies.
If I were in Rome as a Cardinal today, I'd be looking for conversations about the following: love of people and inner empathy with their condition, powerful intellect, adminstrative competence, ability to communicate and understand/use the media, visibly prayerful quality and excellence as a liturgical presence, ability to see the whole picture, ability to subordinate narrow loyalties to a universal view of the Church, "built-in" diversities (someone with more than one background, culturally and socially), deep knowledge of and faithfulness to the Scriptures as a whole, and faithfulness to the existing body of the Church's teachings. Add to these a charismatic presence and zeal for teaching and exemplifying the Gospel for the current age, and you've really got something.
What you don't have (Deo gratias!) is someone who will jump up one day and say to all those who want extensive doctrinal and pastoral reform that they've been right all along and their wishes are granted. Won't happen and shouldn't happen.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Owning the Pope
It's amazing how many of the folks who are interviewed in the media feel an entitlement to John Paul's "endorsement" of their views on nearly everything. The problem is, neither Catholic teaching, nor this pope's representations of same, lend themselves to easy endorsement of any secular/social/political doctrine whatsoever. Being rooted in revealed truth, they give and they take away. The politicians must be very careful about how much they ride John Paul's coattails. It wouldn't hurt if more of us were even superficially familiar with his approach to the central points of the Church's ancient doctrines.
On the other hand, I believe that those who have somehow cast themselves in opposition to what seems to be John Paul's loving insistence that there is a Catholic insight into truth about how we should live are also in error. They miss the point. The late pope truly understood that there were dangerous ideologies in today's world. One of them is Communism--philosophical materialism that reduces humans to matter in a great historical, progressive sweep that aims at a perfected, concrete, earthly paradise of economic regimentation and sociological conformity. None of us likes that.
The other ideology is moral relativism, the theoretical ability to pick my truth, and in so doing create moral validity. This doctrine the average Westerner accepts without question today. It assumes that moral statements have no more substance than the decision to have pepperoni or anchovies on my pizza tonight, so no one needs to presume to tell me they're right and I'm wrong. Of course, such an idea is a self-contradiction. What is true is by its nature inconvenient and resistant to my rationalizations. The truth is exactly that which I don't like.
On the other hand, I believe that those who have somehow cast themselves in opposition to what seems to be John Paul's loving insistence that there is a Catholic insight into truth about how we should live are also in error. They miss the point. The late pope truly understood that there were dangerous ideologies in today's world. One of them is Communism--philosophical materialism that reduces humans to matter in a great historical, progressive sweep that aims at a perfected, concrete, earthly paradise of economic regimentation and sociological conformity. None of us likes that.
The other ideology is moral relativism, the theoretical ability to pick my truth, and in so doing create moral validity. This doctrine the average Westerner accepts without question today. It assumes that moral statements have no more substance than the decision to have pepperoni or anchovies on my pizza tonight, so no one needs to presume to tell me they're right and I'm wrong. Of course, such an idea is a self-contradiction. What is true is by its nature inconvenient and resistant to my rationalizations. The truth is exactly that which I don't like.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Two papal facts
Will these be significant facts or not?
The most recent Spanish pope: Alexander VI, 1492-1503. A Borgia, Spanish-Moorish ethnicity.
The most recent African pope: Gelasius I, 492-496. A Roman of African descent.
Who knows what the Cardinals are thinking, and what their level of fellowship is? What will the length of the Conclave portend? Will they return to the Italians? Choose another European? Choose a semi-European--a prominent, Argentinian cardinal is a man with an Italian name, and he has been on some of the short lists. We can't rule out an African (Cardinal Arinze is a leading candidate), or someone from South Asia's strong Catholic community.
The Cardinals--the larger group of 135 and the voting group of 117 have a couple of weeks to hold at least general conversations about the general direction of the Church Universal. They are smart fellows and will do so artfully and purposefully before the curtain of silence falls on their deliberations.
If it's a deadlock, look for an older European--perhaps Schoenborn or Lustiger. Otherwise, all bets are off in these times. Are there other Cardinals of "mixed" background? Who, among the Cardinals, do they regard as "the smartest man in the room"--and a man with heroic quality?
The most recent Spanish pope: Alexander VI, 1492-1503. A Borgia, Spanish-Moorish ethnicity.
The most recent African pope: Gelasius I, 492-496. A Roman of African descent.
Who knows what the Cardinals are thinking, and what their level of fellowship is? What will the length of the Conclave portend? Will they return to the Italians? Choose another European? Choose a semi-European--a prominent, Argentinian cardinal is a man with an Italian name, and he has been on some of the short lists. We can't rule out an African (Cardinal Arinze is a leading candidate), or someone from South Asia's strong Catholic community.
The Cardinals--the larger group of 135 and the voting group of 117 have a couple of weeks to hold at least general conversations about the general direction of the Church Universal. They are smart fellows and will do so artfully and purposefully before the curtain of silence falls on their deliberations.
If it's a deadlock, look for an older European--perhaps Schoenborn or Lustiger. Otherwise, all bets are off in these times. Are there other Cardinals of "mixed" background? Who, among the Cardinals, do they regard as "the smartest man in the room"--and a man with heroic quality?
Friday, April 01, 2005
A Titan
Thousands keep vigil around the world, keep company with a hero of the century and of the Catholic Church. Just read the biographies, see the consensus that has emerged. A few of the gifts this great one leaves us:
The map of the world today is different today than it was in 1978.
Our moral language is different: "Be not afraid." "The culture of death...and the culture of life." The implications of recasting moral and political discussion in these and many more subtle terms raised, if it did not solve, the essential questions of our version of "modernity". The moral struggle will be fought on these Christian grounds, not on the muddy turf of modern secularism.
The Church is different:
--The runaway train of experimenters and dissidents has been slowed to allow mature reflection on the real legacy of Vatican II.
--The heart of the Church was inspired to a courageous renewal.
--Theological study and discourse found a new and fertile field and new rigor in Karol Wojtyla's philosophical contributions and in his profound writings as John Paul II.
--His mature example of leadership brought a certain peace to an uncertain and turbulent Church. A new generation of guides has been nurtured and brought to influence.
The map of the world today is different today than it was in 1978.
Our moral language is different: "Be not afraid." "The culture of death...and the culture of life." The implications of recasting moral and political discussion in these and many more subtle terms raised, if it did not solve, the essential questions of our version of "modernity". The moral struggle will be fought on these Christian grounds, not on the muddy turf of modern secularism.
The Church is different:
--The runaway train of experimenters and dissidents has been slowed to allow mature reflection on the real legacy of Vatican II.
--The heart of the Church was inspired to a courageous renewal.
--Theological study and discourse found a new and fertile field and new rigor in Karol Wojtyla's philosophical contributions and in his profound writings as John Paul II.
--His mature example of leadership brought a certain peace to an uncertain and turbulent Church. A new generation of guides has been nurtured and brought to influence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)