The press, which I think sometimes likes to make the Catholic Church into the Church of the Media, in a similar fashion as Pope Benedict described the two Councils of the Second Vatican Council, the bogus one, "The Council of the Media" and then what he called the "True Council," wants now to highlight the differences in Pope Benedict and Pope Francis and in the sense of repudiating and rebuking the pontificate of Pope Benedict as though Pope Francis is something else altogether different than actually being Catholic and in essentials in continuity with Pope Benedict.
Many progressives in the Church resent Pope Benedict's description of the "Council of the Media" because they take the pope's words literally. What he means by that, based upon how the media reports on the Church, is a perception of the Church based upon "sound bites" and the politicization of the Church's message and teaching based upon a hermeneutic of discontinuity of persons in the Church whether these be popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, religious or lay people. Thus political categories are applied to Vatican II, the Church in general and person in the Church such as conservative and liberal and so on. These are superficial dichotomies and hide the true identity of the an ecumenical council, of the papacy and of Catholicism.
But let's get back to the Church of the Media as it concerns Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. Pope Benedict is ridiculed both by a segment of Catholic and secular media/news as being preoccupied with the trappings of the papacy and reintroducing many elements once discarded, the worst offenders being the "mozzetta" which in reality was never discarded, ermine lined mozettas, papal head gear, red shoes and worst of all the fannon.
Over night Pope Francis has eliminated these. Overnight another pope might reintroduce these. I'm not clairvoyant or am I?
But listen to what John Allen, reporter for the National Chismatic Reporter (my favorite reporter at my least favorite catholic publication, although the NCR does at times do wonderful reporting, its their post-Catholic editorial position that I deplore) wrote about Pope Benedict in 2008 prior to his visit to the United States:
"Another [mega trend] major force is the relentless press for a stronger sense of Catholic identity, an impulse felt in virtually every area, from liturgy to education, from religious orders to the church's engagement with secular politics. In his famous homily 24 hours before his election as pope, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger laid out what he saw as the central challenge facing the church: a "dictatorship of relativism," meaning the rejection of objective truth. Like John Paul II before him, Benedict is keenly concerned that Catholics do not assimilate to this broader secular mentality. As the practical translation of this imperative, the church has seen a growing emphasis over the last 25 years on what sociologists call the "politics of identity" -- efforts to reinforce distinctively Roman Catholic language, practices and belief systems, our markers of difference in a rapidly homogenizing world. The emphasis on identity cuts across debates large and small, from whether theologians should have a mandatum from a bishop certifying their orthodoxy, to whether lay people should be allowed to purify the sacred vessels after Mass."
I think John Allen simplifies Pope Benedict's thrust but let's face it the external markers of our Catholic identity, which I think are very important should be shored up by an explicit call to our true marker as Catholics, which is love and love properly understood. That is why Pope Benedict's first encyclical was on Love, CARITAS IN VERITATE which you can read HERE.
It is a wonderful encyclical and this is the first paragraph of it:
"Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32). To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact, “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). All people feel the interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never abandon them completely, because these are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person. The search for love and truth is purified and liberated by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the plan for true life that God has prepared for us. In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, a vocation for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his plan. Indeed, he himself is the Truth" (cf. Jn 14:6).
What Pope Francis is doing in his short papacy is placing the trappings of love, not of clothes onto this major teaching of Jesus elucidated in an academic way by Pope Benedict in his encyclical. Thus he washes feet of delinquents in a youth detention center and not just of boys and not just of Catholics, but of girls and of non believers and others of other faiths. Love knows no bounds!
Pope Francis may well be the most "pastoral" pope we've had in centuries. Some of what was written of him or what he said as Cardinal Bergoglio in Argentina point us to this very pastoral pope:
John Allen writes this of Pope Francis: Overall, the impression of Pope Francis that emerges is of a moderate realist. He comes off as committed to classic Christian orthodoxy (clearly defending the idea of the Devil as a personal force of evil, for instance), always expressed in balanced fashion, and with a special emphasis on the poor and those at the margins of society.
At another stage, Francis warns of the dangers of “rigid religiosity” and “fundamentalism.”
“This type of rigid religiosity is disguised with doctrines that claim to give justifications, but in reality deprive people of their freedom and do not allow them to grow as persons,” he says. “A large number end up living a double life.”
With regard to homosexuality, Francis defends the idea of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but condemns “spiritual and pastoral harassment” of individuals and couples, and suggests that “a union of a private nature” among same-sex partners is another matter.
More broadly, Francis identifies what he considers the original sin of clerical life: The temptation to “worldliness.”
“One Catholic theologian, Henri de Lubac, says that the worst that can happen to those that are anointed and called to service is that they live with the criteria of the world instead of the criteria that the Lord commands from the tablets of the law and the Gospel,” Francis says.
MY COMMENT: THIS IS GREAT, HE IS OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC LIGHT FOR PRIESTS AND BY WAY OF EXTENSION OF THAT, CERTAINLY FOR RELIGIOUS AND LAITY TOO! “The worst that can happen in the priestly life is to be worldly, to be a ‘light’ bishop or a ‘light’ priest.”
The pope evinces little preoccupation for externals: “The problem is not whether you wear a cassock, but rather if you roll up its sleeves when you have to work for the good of others,” he says, quoting another priest he respects.
Finally, Francis rejects clericalism, which he calls a “distortion of religion.”
“When a priest leads a diocese or a parish, he has to listen to his community, to make mature decisions and lead the community accordingly,” he says. “In contrast, when the priest imposes himself, when in some way he says, ‘I am the boss here,’ he falls into clericalism.”
MY FINAL COMMENT: Bishop Raymond Lessard lived simply as a bishop. HIs tastes for vesture at Mass and in life were and are quite simple. For the first ten or so years of being bishop, he only had one miter and it was ultra 1970's! . His staff was a simple wooden crozier, which was elegant in its simplicity.
He lived in the Cathedral rectory in two large rooms. He drove himself everywhere and would chauffeur me when I went with him. He flew in coach. He hated flying preferring the train. He humbly resigned his position as bishop long before retirement age to live as a humble professor at St. Vincent de Paul Seminary in the Diocese of Palm Beach.
But he had a strong Catholic identity; he was moderate, understanding and pastoral with his priests and his people. He loved the "majesty of the priesthood" and hated seeing it denigrated by his priests who had lost their priestly way and he tried hard to bring them back to their priesthood and priestly identity.
He was open to my "re-enchanting" the Cathedral Liturgy although a bit leery of me and my 1970's freewheeling with some aspects of the liturgy. He helped to purify me of that. But he did come to appreciate my high church ethos especially with his cathedral liturgies. I had suppressed my love of high church in my ultra liberal and trendy 1970's seminary formation and maintained that suppression in my first assignment although hints of it came through, but being assigned to the Cathedral in 1985 allowed that suppression to come out of the closet and blossom and it still hasn't subsided and thank God for Pope Benedict liberating the 1962 missal from the closet of a museum! Perhaps Monsignor Guido Marini will have the same impact on Pope Francis. Time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment