IRON JOHN: An interesting profile of Opus Dei priest Fr. John McCloskey by Chris Sullentrop in today's Slate. Since McCloskey is a reasonably well known figure, there wasn't anything particularly new here. Sullentrop quotes (of course) Fr. Richard McBrien, who says that Opus Dei wants to take us back to the days before Vatican II. I think Fr. McBrien may be incorrect. I think it's fair to say that Opus Dei would like to take us back to the days before Vatican I, to those halcyon days of the pontificate of Pius IX...
RRR ON WYD:Reverend Ron Rolheiser offers a few thoughts on World Youth Day. He notes that secular commentators, particularly in Canada, were stunned at the outpouring of religious energy created by the event. While granting that the personal appeal of Pope John Paul II had a great deal to do with the event's success, Rolheiser also believes that some more primal forces were at work: "Something happened here that, ideally, should be happening a lot more often -- namely, energy and wisdom were meeting and doing to each other what God and nature intended." Both are key elements of a healthy spiritual life and they need each other, but as Rolheiser notes:
Tragically, in our day and culture, wisdom and energy are rarely brought together and live almost as enemies. We never mistake Jerry Seinfeld for Henri Nouwen, Madonna for Mother Theresa, Alanis Morissette for Therese of Lisieux, Jay Leno for Billy Graham, or Mick Jagger for John Paul II. We look to the one for energy and to the other for wisdom. That's unfortunate because God is the deep source of both the energy of the one and the wisdom of the other.
The marvel of World Youth Day is that it brought these two together. Energy and wisdom met, had a party, prayed together, informed and initiated each other. John Paul II got to do what every elder, male or female, is meant to do: bless, challenge and direct young energy, even as he was colored, enlivened and delighted by it.
And the young pilgrims there got to do what every young person is meant to do: fill the air with dreams and surround those dreams with robust, lively, colorful, healthy, physically-beautiful, sexually-young-and-yearning energy, even as all of that is challenged, directed, and blessed by what's wise, aged, gray and full of secrets that still need to be learned.
There's also a wonderful interview with Fr. Ron in the new issue of Saint Anthony Messenger. Those interested in reading previous columns can check out his personal web site here.
Over the past two years, John Allen's Vatican reporting has probably surprised some of his paper's readership, an integral part of the aging culture of dissent in U.S. Catholicism. In the paper, and in a weekly e-mail letter from Rome, Allen has challenged "progressive Catholic" shibboleths more than once - even if he challenges them rather gently. He also brings to his reporting and commentary a lot of energy, a sense of fair play, and a willingness to listen to those with whom he disagrees (or whom his paper considers Neanderthals).
In this week's column, Weigel takes issue (gently) with the issues that Allen identifies as important for the next papal conclave. Whenever that conclave occurs, I think it would be great to have Allen and Weigel as commentators, sort of like "Shields and Gigot" on McNeil/Leher (I just can't bring myself to call it the New Hour with Jim Leher).
When the pope pronounced the words of canonization for Juan Diego, conch shells began to blow, and the hundreds of indigenous persons present began to shake rattles they had brought for the occasion. Then native music began to thump out, as 11 dancers in Aztec costume slowly twirled their way down a specially prepared runway. As they snaked their way towards the pope, incense was burned and candles lit, while flower petals were strewn in their path. Finally red confetti was fired over our heads. It was an electrifying moment, and left the people inside the basilica cheering like it was Game Seven of the NBA finals.
As we were filing out to catch the press bus, a colleague from one of the American TV networks, a non-Catholic, said to me: “Hell, if they did Mass like this all the time, I’d come!”
Allen notes that while Vatican liturgical officials tend to be pretty “by the book,” the man responsible for the papal masses—Bishop Piero Marini—often tries to incorporate local cultural traditions into the masses the pope himself celebrates during his trips. Where does the Pope himself stand? Allen speculates:
As a general rule, I suspect John Paul tolerates this tension as an exercise in pendulum governance, giving a little bit here and a little bit there, never letting any wing of the church feel too alienated. On this theory, the pope sees not a contradiction but a dialectic.
While such inconsistency can be maddening to observers trying to figure out what the church stands for, I dare say if you look closely, most pontificates embrace seeming contradictions. It was John XXIII, the beloved reformer, whose 1959 Roman synod forbade priests from driving cars or going to the cinema, and who decreed in his 1962 apostolic constitution Veterum sapientia that only Latin be used in seminaries. It was Paul VI, the “pope of the council,” who gave us both the new Mass as well as HumanaeVitae. How to explain this? John XXIII once quipped that he had to be pope both of those with their foot on the accelerator, and those with their foot on the brake. Such a view of papal responsibilities sometimes makes for a muddled approach to policy, but perhaps also for a kind of balance over time that prevents the whole thing from spinning apart.
Last week I posted an excerpt from Allen’s column that talked about his visit to a hospital for paralyzed and deformed children in Guatemala. This week, he supplies the address of a U.S. 501(c)3 foundation that supports the hospital, to which contributions may be addressed: Hermano Pedro Social Works Foundation, P.O. Box 32, McLean, Virginia, 22101, USA. If you wish to drop a note of support to Fr. Giuseppe Contran, administrator of the hospital, you may do so at 6 Call Oriente No. 20, La Antigua, Guatemala, or by e-mail at ohp@conexion.com.gt
THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB?Our Sunday Visitor has an assessment of Governor Frank Keating, who was appointed by the U.S. Bishops to head the advisory board to the U.S. bishops’ Office for Child and Youth Protection. There is some discussion about the controversy about Keating's support of capital punishment.
I’m willing to concede a few points. First of all, it seems clear that having a homosexual orientation, per se, is not sufficient to get you banned from B4G. David Morrison’s blog Sed Contra is available on B4G. Although B4G has yet to make an explicit public statement about its policy, it seems clear that what they find objectionable about Mike Hardy’s blog Enemy of the Church? is that it fails to condemn homosexual acts and thus appears to contradict several centuries of received Christian tradition.
Second, I believe that I overreacted to Josh Claybourn’s letter. I still have some concerns about it, but calling it a “bureaucratic brushoff” was a gross exaggeration and unfair to Josh. I probably should have just shrugged my shoulders and taken my complaint to Dean.
Third, I’m willing to concede Mark’s point that B4G is a private organization and can do whatever it likes. On the other hand, I’m perfectly free to think what they’ve done is wrong, to publicize it, and to encourage my readers—to the extent they agree with me—to register their disapproval as well. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
Let me clear up one other misconception. Mike Hardy is in no way behind this little “campaign” if you want to call it that. After confirming that he still had received no clear reason for his exclusion from B4G, I just told him I was going to post “something.”
But if I had to do it all over again, I’d still have sent the original letter and I would still have posted it on my site. Something about this sticks in my craw. Maybe I better try to explain why.
A long time ago—actually it was less than six months ago—Saint Blogs was a pretty small place and those blogs that were operating were getting a fairly small amount of traffic. But then The Scandal started making the headlines, and pretty soon there were a dozen of us and the number kept on growing. There was a lot of growth in Protestant blogs too.
Why do we do it? Well, if we’re honest I think we’d say that one reasons is that we’re all opinionated pains in the you-know-what. We’ve got something to say, and we’re throwing it out there to see what people think. There’s been some serious disagreement among us on some issues, but the discussion has remained reasonably civil and I think we’ve all learned a thing or two and grown to respect one another.
Mike’s been part of that discussion. His blog came along in early May, and he quickly became one of the more prolific bloggers. At a time when a lot of people seemed to want to make homosexual men the scapegoat for the abuse crisis, Mike offered a perspective that needed to be heard. Mike has always been pretty clear about what the Church teaches on the issue of homosexuality and his site includes links to the Catechism and statements from the U.S. Bishops and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He’s also been clear that however much he may personally wrestle with some of what the Church teaches, he is not “out to change Church teaching or ‘pressure’ the Church to change its teaching.”
So along comes Blogs4God, which in a lot of ways is a great tool. In the rapidly expanding world of Christian Blogs, we need something to help people find the kind of Blogs they are most interested in. It’s setting itself up to be the portal of choice for individuals interested in Christian Blogs. I think it is something that will benefit all of us involved in this kind of work.
Except Mike, of course. And that’s what it came down to for me. Once I learned that Mike had been excluded, should I have just shrugged my shoulders and said, “well, that’s the way it is.” Call me politically correct, call me a bleeding heart, call me whatever you like. I had to say something. Maybe I was a little rude. If so, I apologize. Generally I’m a fairly polite guy. But like everyone else, I have my bad days. Maybe this was one of them.
What about the witness of Scripture and Tradition? What about boundaries? I agree we need them. If Mike spent all his time trashing the Church and its teaching, I’d have no time for him. But anyone who’s spent any time reading his site knows he’s not that kind of guy. He takes the Tradition seriously and tries to wrestle with it. There are a lot of people out there who just can’t go where David Morrison wants to lead them right now. But maybe they’ll listen to Mike.
Ultimately, that’s why I think B4G made a mistake excluding Mike. Not because Mike has a “right” to be included. Of course he doesn’t. None of us do. It’s rather than Mike incarnates the Gospel in a way that is unique and will reach people who can’t be reached any other way. I suspect he will keep doing that, whether or not he is listed in B4G.
FREE MIKE HARDY! Mike Hardy, who blogs Enemy of the Church?seems to have been blacklisted by the Blogs4God site (the successor to the Martin Roth list). Although Mike has had a hard time getting an answer out of the people who run the site, it seems clear that they are uncomfortable with the fact that Mike is gay. Personally, I think this sucks. Anyone who has spent any time at Mike's site knows he is anything but an "Enemy of the Church?" Most of us at Saint Blogs link to him for Pete's sake! I sent a letter to Josh Clayborn at Blogs4God and if you want to do the same, click here. My letter reads as follows:
Josh:
I'm writing because I am disturbed that my fellow Blogger Mike Hardy, who blogs "Enemy of the Church?", seems to have been excluded from Blogs4God simply because he is gay. If you've spent any time at Mike's blog, you would know he is anything but an enemy of the Church. He is a sincere and committed Catholic who wrestles openly and honestly with his orientation and is always very clear about where his personal views are at variance with the official teaching of the Church. Believe it or not, there is less distance than you might believe.
I'm not sure why Blogs4God feels it necessary to take on the role of doctrinal policing. The writers and readers of Blogs handle that function pretty well ourselves. Mike has certainly taken heat for his views, primarily from other Catholic Bloggers. But he's an important part of Saint Blogs and since most of us link to him, I'm not sure where B4G gets off keeping the Church door closed.
Yours in Christ,
Peter Nixon
Sursum Corda
http://sursumcorda.blogspot.com
SEND IN THE CLONES: In this week’s New Republic, Jerome Groopman—a physician and Harvard medicine professor—takes issue with the recommendation from the President’s Council on Bioethics that there be a moratorium on cloning for biomedical research. Grossman takes issue with the idea that the early human embryo should have the same moral status as a fully-formed human being:
An early-stage zygote is crucially different from the disabled, the deformed, the fragile young, or the fragile old. Before 14 days--the legal cutoff Britain has established for scientific research--the zygote has developed no organs, no nervous system, nor even the precursor to a nervous system. This absence of the most primitive neural anatomy means that biologically the zygote cannot receive any form of stimulation related to the senses, cannot perceive or cogitate, and thus cannot be hurt or suffer.
But as Groopman is no doubt well aware, the developing fetus is unable to perceive, cogitate, be hurt, or suffer for a considerable time after 14 days of life. The nervous system of the fetus remains relatively primitive for several weeks and any faculty that could remotely be termed “cognition” does not appear for several months.
As I pointed out in my comments on the report issued by the President’s Council (posted on 7/29/02—archive links non-functional), the lack of a clear dividing line between what exists prior to 14-days and what exists afterward suggests that the legal limit could conceivably be expanded. What if it turns out that research using more developed embryos could lead to life-saving treatments for various diseases? Couldn’t Groopman just as easily claim that 30-day old embryos “cannot perceive or cogitate, and thus cannot be hurt or suffer?” What about 60 days? Or 90? Where does it end?
SULLIVAN ON WILLS:Andrew Sullivan reviews Gary Wills "Why I am a Catholic." It's an interesting review. Not surprisingly, Sullivan agrees with much of Wills critique. What surprised me, given Amy Welborn's comments on what she perceived as the intellectual aridity of Wills' faith, were some of the excerpts Sullivan chose that reveal a more passionate mind at work:
When Wills captures something in theology, it can be exhilarating, a reminder of what good priests used to do from the pulpit. Take his description of the Trinity, where he again deploys Augustine to memorable effect. Augustine is discussing the mystery of how God can be three beings in one. He argues that this three-part divinity, in some sense, must be true if God is, as Christians believe, the profoundest manifestation of love. God the Father cannot father himself; but if his fatherhood is bound by time and place, as it is for human fathers, then at some time he wasn't a father, and the love he expresses didn't have an object. So the Son always had to be there as an object of love - eternally. And the relationship - the act of loving - is equally eternal. As Augustine saw: "Love is the act of a lover and the love given to a loved person. It is a trinity: the lover, loved and love itself." God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
Similarly, in Wills' own words, "The Christian doctrine of the Trinity means that it is not good for God to be alone. He is a society, a dialogue, a set of interrelationships that impel him out from himself toward himself. He is pure act, and the divinity is a raging field of energy, of self-emptying to fulfill the self."
I really must get around to reading Wills' book myself one of these days, but I'm afraid the current pile on my bedside table will have to be worked through first.
TRANSFIGURATION: Today is the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord. As recounted in the 17th chapter of Matthew, Jesus takes Peter, James and John up a high mountain. Jesus is transfigured before them—“his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light”—and the figures of Moses and Elijah—embodying the Law and the Prophets—appear on either side of Him. A voice comes from the heavens: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”
In standing between Moses and Elijah, Jesus shows us how to hold two important aspects of religious life in tension. The Law is associated with the institutional elements of faith--Creed, Code and Cult—the elements that emphasize the boundaries of our community and allow for historic continuity. In a time when our community of faith is constantly being subjected to the centrifugal forces of our culture, we need the foundation that a reverence for the Law provides.
But we need prophetic energy as well. We need to be able to call our institutions into question and to separate the accretions of history from the core of our faith. Prophetic energy is particularly attentive to those at the margins of our community. It demands inclusion and voice for those who have gone unheard. At a time when the Church is acutely attuned to the abuses committed by those in positions of authority, we need the prophetic voice.
Holding these two poles in tension is very difficult. Lean too far toward the Law and the faith becomes Pharisaic, an authority structure enforcing a set of rules. But lean too far in the other direction and the community can fragment and lose its cohesion, as no structure can ever withstand the withering gaze of the Prophet.
The history of the Church suggests that we have a difficult time holding these poles in proper tension, tending to careen back and forth between them. If, like Peter, James, and John, we keep our eyes focused on Jesus, perhaps we can find the proper balance.
WYD: THE DAY AFTER:The Tablet has a well-balanced article about the World Youth Day extravaganza. Alexandra Huston, like most of those attending, had a very positive experience but was still able to raise some probing questions:
Where was the discussion of the state of the Church, or an exchange of news of the work of the Church in our assembled nations? It irked me that youngsters could run up to a group of Palestinians and ask where their flag was from and then drift off after the response. Or that they could swap T-shirts with the Colombians without ever knowing of the Church’s front-line battle against the drug barons in that country, and the assassination just months ago of Cardinal Isaías Duarte of Cali. WYD offered the potential to inform young people of the Church’s inspiring struggle for social justice, something that continually persuades me to remain a practising Catholic. But they only gained this information incidentally, at fringe events, or if they happened to ask the right questions of the right people.
Now in general I don't tie my faith to the historicity of each and every miracle reported in the Gospels. I'm open to the idea that the oral traditions about Jesus that were used by the Gospel writers probably "grew in the telling." as J.R.R. Tolkein might say.
But this story appears in all four Gospels. The fact that it appears in Mark (twice) suggests that it was a very early tradition. The fact that it appears in all four Gospels--including John, which is not thought to be dependent on Mark--means that it was known in many of the Church's geographically dispersed communities and thought to be important.
If the only thing that happened that day was the sharing of food, I can't imagine that all four Gospel writers would have thought it important enough to include. Something happened that day, something extraordinary. Whether it was 5,000 people or 500 or how many baskets were actually left over seems beside the point.
VOICE OF THE FAITHFUL: There has been a lot of discussion about Voice of the Faithful on the Catholic Blogs. Frankly, I have no idea what to say about VOTF because I still have no idea what they are about. Their Mission Statement is to "provide a prayerful voice, attentive to the Spirit, through which the Faithful can actively participate in the governance and guidance of the Catholic Church." Their goals are 1) support those who have been abused; 2) support priests of integrity; 3) shape structural change within Church.
Well, who could argue? But before I send in my check, I'd like to know a little bit more about what particular structural changes VOTF would like to see. I'd like to know what they mean by a "priest of integrity." In short, I'd like to know a lot more than I know right now. Some have suggested that Catholic Bloggers should stop their grousing about VOTF and get on board. But before I buy a ticket, I'd like to know where I'm going.
I use a definition offered by G.K. Chesterton, who said that orthodox Christianity is "the Apostles' Creed, as understood by everybody calling himself Christian until a very short time ago and the general historic conduct of those who heed such a creed." He wrote that in 1908, but it still holds true. One Generation Xer, Andy Crouch, editor of re:generation and a CT columnist, defined orthodox Christians pretty succinctly as people who can say that creed without crossing their fingers behind their backs.
I actually think the GKC definition is a pretty good one, but it is probably a little looser than many self-described "Orthodox Catholics" would be comfortable with. It's also not that far from the argument that Garry Wills makes in his new book Why I am a Catholic? It seems to me that many of the issues that most divide contemporary Catholics--sexual ethics, the role of women in the Church, the liturgy, etc.--are not explicitly covered in the Creed. Perhaps we all have more in common than we like to acknowledge.
