Someone, though, should have warned Rita and Praytell that using the term Jesuit and Liturgist together is an oxymoron!
From Praytell: Prophetic Gesture?
When Francis departed from papal precedent to celebrate the Holy Thursday liturgy in a prison, it was clearly a prophetic gesture. Is this also the case with the disgraced Cardinal?
Perhaps it was meant to be prophetic in just the same way. But if so, that disposes of the theory that this is a vindication. By going to the prison, Francis did not proclaim anyone innocent of the crimes for which they were incarcerated. Neither did his visit result in a commutation of their sentences. Following the logic of the prison example, the hope is rather that the person who has committed a crime might still be viewed as precious in God’s eyes, and worthy of redemption. Social rehabilitation is important. No human life should be “thrown away.”
In this particular case, however, because the original offense seems to be cast as a betrayal of Francis’s trust, the other possible “prophetic” interpretation of this gesture is that Jesus ate with his betrayer at the Last Supper, so Francis follows in the footsteps of Jesus here. No one has claimed this interpretation, and I am sure the Cardinal would not be happy to be cast in the role of Judas! But the possibility fairly leaps to the eye. Could this be the intended parallel? Ouch.
We didn’t have this problem with the prisoners whom Francis visited, because he was not involved, either directly or indirectly, in the circumstances which landed them in jail. Here Francis is a protagonist in the case, which adds complexity and ambiguity to the situation.
Pastoral Care
On the other hand, maybe it was not intended as a prophetic gesture at all, but simply meant as a “fatherly gesture” as Becciu stated. The goal may simply have been pastoral care for someone who has been isolated because of a scandal in which he is currently embroiled. Perhaps what is happening is that Francis is putting charity ahead of justice, and thus giving us an example to follow. “As I did, you also should do.”
Obviously, one can have no quarrel with charity, and pastoral care is a virtue.
But if that is the case, another important question arises. Why now? Why the Holy Thursday liturgy? Is this undoubtedly precious personal outreach to a former member of the Curia really so important that it should take center stage during the first liturgy of the Triduum?
Personal Drama vs. Liturgy
I do not in any way question the goodness of the motivations of the Holy Father. But I do question whether it is a good idea to make one of the three integrally-related liturgies that form the high point of the whole liturgical year into a quasi-private event in response to one man’s pastoral needs.
It’s really a question of liturgy. What is this liturgy? What is it for? I am concerned that this use of the liturgy has veered a bit too far into the realm of personal drama. This no longer seems prophetic to me, but rather a public liturgy being put to a purpose which is good but idiosyncratic. It raises more questions than it answers, because the Triduum liturgies belong to everyone.
Because we know the crime of which the Cardinal stands accused (which we did not know for any of the prisoners) it also implicitly drags into the liturgy the question of whether he’s guilty, whether Francis still thinks he’s guilty, and whether white collar crime and specifically misuse of church funds by the clergy, so seldom seriously punished, is being played down in the process. We don’t have to wonder whether this will stir up speculation concerning the criminal case; it’s evident in the press coverage.
The relationship between the personal and the public in liturgy is a well-known tension. To be sure, we all have personal dramas. And we bring these with us into the Triduum. How could we not? But the normal way we do this is by entering into the publicly celebrated rites, which are freighted with meaning and symbolism large enough to embrace our personal struggles and individual hopes for redemption within the story of Jesus Christ. The most personal issues, at bottom, are also the most universal.
Yet in this instance it looks like the personal dimension has taken priority.
Perhaps Francis is right, and we need more lessons in humble service from the Pope, whose knack for the potent gesture is unparalleled. Perhaps my own cynicism is at work, when I see a privileged figure — a curial Cardinal who has had millions at his disposal and even now has the wherewithal to sue a media company — as the object of the Pope’s solicitude on Holy Thursday, rather than some wretched group of people in prison who have nothing, and who stand as a symbol of all the people who have nothing.
Reconciliation is reconciliation, and I trust that something worthwhile was accomplished. Still, I wish Francis had decided on a different form of outreach. They could have shared a meal. Or celebrated Morning Prayer together. Or something else. The Bishop of Rome can do anything he wants, obviously. But the liturgy of Holy Thursday is a very special celebration, which has its own agenda. A personal “use” of that liturgy seems problematic to me.
7 comments:
My favourite liturgical expert of the 20th century was the Archbishop of Milwaukee from 1977 to 2002, Rembert Weakland OSB (Motto : AEqualis omnibus caritas); I hope the good Archbishop is enjoying his well earned retirement in this his 95th year.
Who now can recall that in May, 1964, he received a papal appointment as Consultor to the Commission for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council and was appointed a member of that commission in 1968......or when in 1999, Weakland defended and received a Doctorate in Musicology - “with distinction” - from Columbia University, NY, for his research and thesis on “The Office Antiphons of the Ambrosian Can’t”.
Ambrosian Chant....
She has a very low bar to cross in regards to the meaning of "prophetic", for sure.
If it’s Rita, there’s no point in reading it
Anonymous at 11:58. I think the scandals over Weakland's lifestyle overshadow any good that he may have done.
Amazing. People actually not only read this stuff, but pay to read it, and people paid to write it. Too much free time, too spoiled.
Anonymous at 11:58 AM you need to have your head examined if you admire Archbishop Rembert Weakland. I live in Milwaukee. His payout of almost a million dollars to his ex boyfriend, Paul Marcoux, is only the tip of the iceberg. He had multiple sexual partners. What was the total cost of that? This is not how faithful Catholics want their money spent. We are two archbishops removed from Weakland and no one has started the clean up. His personal life has left many scandalized and cynical. His liturgical aberrations have been made the norm, Catholic schools and religious life is almost non-existent, and almost every parish is only a shell of what it was "in its hay day." His handling of the sex abuse crisis was like that of most bishops. After the first round of this problem in 2002, I remember stories and interviews with families who had sons who committed suicide. It was heart wrenching. I am sure when he dies, he will be treated like the hero he is not.
Post a Comment