Barry Hudock's Blog, page 12

This supremely Catholic synod

In an article published today at The Week, Damon Linker opens with a question and asks for some help answering it. He spends a few paragraphs asking it, taking his time and doing a good job laying the groundwork and making clear the reasons for his “confusion.” Here is what he writes:

Maybe you can help me. I’m confused.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares as a matter of binding doctrine that homosexual acts are “acts of grave depravity,” “contrary to the natural law,” and “intrinsically” as well as “objectively disordered.” “Under no circumstances” can those acts “be approved.” Although people who feel same-sex attractions “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” they are called by the church to take up “the Lord’s cross” and embrace a life of “chastity” through “self-mastery” of their desires. That is the only way for them to “gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

That sounds pretty unequivocal, wouldn’t you say?

Now let’s look at Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times, which contains an above-the-fold front-page story about a 12-page document released on Monday by the synod on marriage and the family that Pope Francis has convened at the Vatican. In the second paragraph of the story, we are informed (quite accurately) that the document “does not change church doctrine or teaching.” And yet the story also states (in the third paragraph) that the document is “the first signal that the institutional church may follow the direction Francis has set in the first 18 months of his papacy, away from condemnation of unconventional family situations and toward understanding, openness, and mercy.”

And indeed, the document does say some nice things, about homosexual relationships, but also about “cohabitation” among heterosexual couples. If you’re a non-celibate gay Catholic, or a Catholic who’s divorced and remarried and so technically excluded from receiving the sacrament of Communion at Mass, these words no doubt come as a comfort.

But how significant are they? The answer to that question depends in large part on what the pope has in mind. And that’s where I become confused.

Even if the language of the document released on Monday is approved in total at the conclusion of the synod, it will still change nothing at all in church doctrine or teaching. Homosexual acts will still be deemed intrinsically and objectively disordered. It’s just that the Vatican will now be urging pastors to soft-peddle the doctrine to parishioners. Priests and bishops will be urged to accentuate the positive, to talk about the “gifts and qualities” that gay people “offer to the Christian community,” and to acknowledge that gay couples often provide each other “mutual aid” and “precious support.”

That sounds like a modest expansion on or elaboration of the Catechism’s injunction to accept gay people “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” combined with a suggestion that priests and bishops not shove down people’s throats the much harsher official doctrine about homosexual acts.

But the doctrine itself will remain unchanged.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

I want to offer an answer to the question, because it seems that there are not a few good, faithful Catholics who are asking themselves something like it in recent days, and also because there are many bad answers to it being offered — answers that would have us believe that a “dark and false Church” is in the making, that a “dictatorship of relativism” is holding sway at the synod, that the synod itself is “counterfeit” and “sick,” and that it might be time for the few good bishops who are left in Rome to starting kicking some ass. Linker himself suggests that Pope Francis must have some “supremely Machiavellian strategy” in play to change church teaching.

So, here goes.

I’m a dad. The father of seven, in fact. (And while we’re on the topic, I’m the father of seven largely because my wife and I believe Humanae Vitae to be an expression of moral truth, taught to us authoritatively by Christ’s vicar on earth — so let’s please dispense now with any idea of this whole post being rooted in my wishy-washy heretical modernism.)

My kids do “bad” things all the time. (They’re my kids, after all.) From time to time they squabble, ignore homework assignments, talk disrespectfully to my wife and I, refuse to walk the dog when asked, and other such things. When they do these things, I or my wife correct them. It’s our job as parents, right? And when they sometimes choose to ignore several quick and polite verbal corrections, as they occasionally do, it’s sometimes necessary for me to raise my voice a bit or provide some consequence that gets their attention a little more effectively: they’re sent to their room for a period of time or loose the privilege of watching television for a while, that sort of thing.

But if these corrections and punishments were all I ever had to say to them, or even most of what I ever had to say to them, if I simply kept quiet and bided my time until the next bad choice came along, my relationship with them would quickly go into a tailspin, because what the heck kind of father-child relationship is that: me, the Corrector? They would grow tired of and quite accustomed to my scoldings, and any joy in their relationship with me would wither. Sure, I love them, and I might even convince myself that I am correcting them and punishing them because I love them, because after all, it is true that it’s wrong to fight and be disrespectful, and loving them means teaching them that, dammit. But my children would only with great difficulty know that I love them and experience the relationship as one of love.

This is one reason — though certainly not the only one — that I try to make sure I have lots of conversations with them about the good things happening at school, the fun stuff they’re doing with their friends, the books they’re reading, and the best shows on television. I also make sure that I point out as often as I can the great stuff they do and excellent moral choices they make. When they excel at sports or get good grades, I encourage and praise them, and when they go out of their way to be respectful, loving, or generous, I say so enthusiastically.  Not only is this just; it almost certainly makes my moments of correction and punishment more effective, because they know these corrections are coming from a parent who loves them and respects them, and they know I don’t do it simply because I like correcting them; indeed, they know I would much rather be praising them.

In fact, I make sure my kids know, unequivocally (they have heard me say this clearly and often): There is nothing you can do that would make me stop loving you. If they don’t know that — and I mean know it in their bones — I’ve failed in a significant way as a father.

I would suggest that herein lies the “sense” of approach we find in the mid-term synod document released yesterday. As has been made clear by almost everyone, no doctrinal changes have been proposed or are suggested. The Church still believes marriage is intended by God to be permanent, that it is between a man and a woman, that remarriage after divorce is contrary to the nature of marriage, and that homosexual activity is sinful.

The insight of at least some of the synod fathers and, it seems, Pope Francis, is that if the only thing the Church ever says to people who are divorced and remarried or people who are gay or people who are living together is “what you are doing is wrong” or “your desires are disordered,” then the Church is carrying out its role as mater et magister poorly.

Some will object to this line of thinking: “But that’s not all we say to them. Haven’t you read the Theology of the Body?” I have read it, in fact, and find it to be quite compelling and in places beautiful. I have taught its ideas to others over the years. In fact, I was an “early adopter,” if you will, teaching Theology of the Body in the mid-1990s, long before it became much more widely known within the Church.

But the fact is, it’s not that compelling to some folks. Some are not convinced by Catholic moral teaching — in some cases because they could care less what the Church says, and in some cases because they have reflected on it, prayed about it, discussed it, and struggled with it, and they still don’t buy it. Of course, the Church should and must continue to teach it as the good news that it is. But if all they hear is the Church continually insisting that they’re wrong about that, and they never hear that despite the Church’s different view of things, they are still respected and loved and welcome among us, we’re doing something wrong.

If people, all people, do not know that there’s nothing they can do to make God stop loving them, and therefore that there is nothing they can do to make the Church stop loving them and respecting them and welcoming them, then the Church’s teachers have to some degree failed in their roles as fathers and teachers. In my view, the mid-term synod document was a moment in which the synod of bishops decided to say something like that. And in saying it, they were expressing the orthodox, evangelical, essential truth of Catholic Christianity.

And so maybe Cardinal Burke wasn’t “punished” (as Mr. Linker puts it) “for forthrightly stating and defending in public the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church.” Maybe he was moved on to a less prominent position because he seems unenthusiastic about stating and defending in public another authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church: that God loves sinners, and he wants them to know, through the Church’s teaching and practices, in their bones, that they are loved.

“I submit,” Damon Linker writes, “that there is only one way to make sense of the pope’s actions…. It’s a brilliant, clever, supremely Machiavellian strategy — one that promises to produce far-reaching reforms down the road while permitting the present pope both to claim plausible deniability (‘I haven’t changed church doctrine!’) and to enjoy nearly constant effusive coverage in the secular press.”

But I submit, Mr. Linker, that there is more than one way to make sense of the pope’s actions, and that the most reasonable and likely way involves not a supremely Machiavellian strategy, but a supremely Catholic one, and that is that he intends to proclaim God’s unconditional love to the sinners for whom his Son Jesus died.

 

Subsidiarity explained

Subsidiarity is one of Catholic social teaching’s key concepts. I included a whole chapter on it in my book, Faith Meets World. Today at Crux, Robert Christian offers a helpful and clear explanation of subsidiarity. He provides a clear definition and also notes what it’s not (there are some bad definititions out there about it), notes how respect for it protects us and enriches our lives, and briefly points out where we see it and rejections of it at work in history and the present day. All in all, worth a look! You can find it here.

Q&A, remedial

Fr. Dwight Longenecker, apparently troubled about the Synod’s encouragement of a more welcoming attitude by the Church toward gay people, asks:

Surely we believe that all persons have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community. Are we saying that homosexuals have some sort of special, unique gifts to offer simply because they are persons with same sex attraction? Where does that come from? What exactly are those unique gifts they have because they are homosexuals? Do they have gifts and qualities and insights because they live a celibate and single life? How are their gifts different then, from the gifts and qualities of the heterosexual single, celibate person? Isn’t this patronizing and offensive to heterosexual single people?…

People with same sex attraction are already welcomed into the church equally with whatever gifts and qualities they have as individuals. Why does their sexuality have anything to do with it? Are we suggesting that homosexual people are more sensitive, caring, artistic or spiritual? If so, isn’t that patronizing–almost like saying, “Gerald is such a witty person! He’d make such a good interior designer…” If that is what we are saying are we suggesting that all homosexual people have these gifts and qualities simply because they have same sex attraction? Does that mean we think there cannot be homosexuals who are dull, selfish, stupid, brutish, violent, vulgar and boorish? Are we putting one group of people in some kind of special category because of their sexual orientation? If so how crazy is that?

Mark Shea, with the patience of a good kindergarten teacher, answers helpfully:

[I]f we are going to welcome homosexuals into the circle of humanity for whom Christ died, that means, you know, treating them like human beings, both made in the image and likeness of God and fallen sinners. And that means, when homosexuals consistently report a sense that they are not welcome and not human beings to many of their fellow Catholics (and when those who are trying to live faithful lives report that even that effort is not good enough for some of their fellow Catholics), it may be time to do a re-think about how best to shepherd them.

As if we should have to explain such things.

“Mercy is joined to justice”: Enzo Bianchi on the synod

Yesterday morning, Massimo Faggioli tweeted that “no Catholic religious in America has had the courage to write what Enzo Bianchi wrote today on the Synod, marriage, and divorce.” (Enzo Bianchi is an Italian monk, the founder and head of a remarkable ecumenical monastic community in Italy called The Community of Bose.) Faggioli pointed to an essay by Bianchi published in Italian at the Vatican Insider website by the Italian newspaper La Stampa. Though many articles on the site are often offered in English as well, this one is not (yet).

I checked it out and agreed, so spent some time doing a quick translation into English. Though I don’t have the time to go over this with the kind of care and attention it deserves, here’s my quick and dirty translation of Bianchi’s peice. It’s worth a look:

 

Immediately after the election of Pope Francis, Cardinal Rivasi declared, “We look forward to a new breeze.” Today, after twenty months of this pontificate, we can say that there is a new climate in the fabric of the church: a climate of freedom in which every Catholic, both bishops and the simple faithful, can feel free to speak with honesty and courage according to their conscience and to say what they think, without being immediately silenced, censored, and even punished, as has been the case over in recent decades.

This doesn’t mean it is an idyllic climate, because even within the Church there are bitter conflicts — as the New Testament shows us was the case from the beginning — but if these are approached without mutual excommunications, if each person listens to the reasons offered by the other before declaring him to be an enemy, if all are careful to maintain communion, then even conflicts are fruitful and serve to deepen and more effectively give reasons for the hope that lives in the hearts of Christians.

Unfortunately, one can see that there are now “enemies of the Pope”: people who don’t limit themselves to respectful criticism, as happened with Benedict XVI and John Paul II, but who go so far as to despise him. A bishop who declares to his priests that the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium “could have been written by a peasant” expresses a judgment of contempt, but at the same time prophetically recognizes that that letter is readable and understandable even to a poor and simple Christian at the peripheries of the world. And so, despite his intentions, these derogatory words are in fact words of praise. Some even attempt to delegitimize Bergoglio’s election by saying the conclave was not conducted according to the rules, while others claim that there are still two popes, both successors of Peter, but with different duties…. We have known for a long time people inclined to follow their own ecclesiastical hypotheses rather than the objectivity of the great Catholic tradition in which the gospel is given primacy.

Certainly the composition of this synod, its new way working, the Pope’s invitation to participants to speak plainly and even to criticize his thinking or offer a different opinion, and the request for frankness in the interventions have created a synodal atmosphere that was unseen in the previous synods. Pope Francis wants [l'assise?] to be lived in the spirit of episcopal collegiality and of ecclesial synodality and not to be a simple celebration: and Francis also doesn’t hesitate to say that the synod takes place according to the great tradition cum Petro et sub Petro, that is with the Pope present and, as successor of Peter, personally reaching a final discernment.

As for the theme of the synod, it is so crucial because what is under discussion is not just a different discipline in regard to marriage, family, and sexuality, but the face of the invisible God, a face that we Christians know only through the face of Jesus Christ, the one who reveals, explains and makes known God. Under discussion is the face of the merciful and compassionate God, as it was revealed in his holy name given to Moses and was spoken about by Jesus, the Son he sent into the world, who never chastised sinners, never punished, but forgave them whereever he met them, and in that way moved them toward repentance and conversion.

There is no doubt that at the heart of the debate and the synodal discussions, there are words of Jesus that can be neither forgotten nor tampered with. In the Gospels, in fact, when talking about divorce — which was permitted by Moses but condemned, we mustn’t forget, by the prophets — Jesus did not choose the way of casuistry but recalled the intention of the Lawgiver and Creator and rejected any possibility of breaking the bond that is formed by the love of a man and a woman: “In the beginning it was not so… The two become one flesh… No person can divide what God has joined together!” The language is clear, demanding, and radical because the relationship between a man and a woman bound in the covenant of the word is a sign of the faithful covenant between God and his people: if fidelity in one becomes a lie, then the other is no longer credible either. It is a demanding and difficult message, which priests should teach their people from their knees: “It is the Lord’s words, not ours, the call for this fidelity. We repeat it because it is our duty to do so, but we offer it from our knees, without conceit or arrogance, because we know that to live one’s marriage faithfully and with a continually renewed love is difficult, exhausting, even impossible without the help of God’s grace….”

But even if this is the unchangable teaching of the Gospel, it remains true that in history, and especially today, this bond in the history of love, romance is not always taken up in faith, in adherence to the word of Christ. In any case, it sometimes deteriorates, withers, and dies. Yes, spouses should remain faithful to their committment until one returns to the other, but if that is no longer possible, after repeated attempts, then separation may be a lesser evil. And it is here that one can sometimes begin a new history of love that can prove to be a bearer of life, lived in loyalty and fidelity, in the sharing of faith and of life-giving connection with the Christian community. For those who live in this situation, it is not possible to celebrate another wedding without contradicting the sacrament of marriage already celebrated, but if there is a penitential journey, if they show fidelity over the passing of the years to the new bonds they have formed, could they not at least be admitted to communion, which offers them nourishment along the way of their journey towards the Kingdom? According to traditional Catholic teaching, the Eucharist is also a sacrament for the forgiveness of sins. Cardinal Martini asked: “The question of whether divorcees can receive Holy Communion should be reversed: how can the Church come to their aid with the power of the sacraments?” The answer to these questions can come only from the Pope, after having heard the voice of the Church through the synod.

One other point should be made: Why can priests, monks, and religious who have made public promises to God in the heart of the Church and then abandoned their vocations and contradicted their vows — vows that St. Thomas Aquinas said the Church can never dissolve — participate fully in the sacramental life of the Church, while those in other situations of infidelity are excluded? There seems to be an injustice in this practice, created by clerics who may or may not live their celibacy well but who have no experience of the effort and the difficulties involved in married life.

What then is a Catholic who is mature in his or her faith to expect from the synod? A proclamation, again and again, of the indissolubility of marriage, yes, but offered in a way that manifests the mercy of God, reaching out to those who, in the course of this demanding adventure, have fallen into a contradiction of the covenant and inviting them into the fullness of ecclesial life. The Christian God has a face in which mercy is joined to justice, a compassionate God who in Jesus walked and continues to walk among the wounded, the sick … a God who calls everyone to conversion and to life.

 

 

Contra Pell, what being “with Jesus” means is not always entirely clear

Some fascinating comments this morning from Fr. Lombardi as the synod concludes its general discussion. Vatican Insider reports:

“Participation peaked” during this very “passionate” debate, with the Synod split down the middle, between those in favour of allowing remarried divorcees to take communion in certain cases and others against. Both sides, however, are faithful to Jesus’ teaching on mercy and support the indissolubility of marriage. It is not yet time to take official counts, we don’t count who is “for” and who “against” at the Synod, Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi said.

Two main lines of argument emerged during the daily press briefing. One “insists on what the Gospel says about marriage: if a first marriage is valid, a remarried divorcee cannot be admitted to the sacraments, as there needs to be coherence between doctrine and faithfulness to the word of the Lord. The other line of reasoning recalls that “Jesus sees human  experiences with a merciful eye” and “takes into account” the “differences” in each “specific case”, which would make access to the Eucharist possible in some cases. Nevertheless, “even those who are most concerned about the preservation of the doctrine, are far from shut off to the suffering of people facing difficult situations.” Likewise, those who are open to allowing access to communion “do not in any way deny the indissolubility of marriage.”

This is interesting in all kinds of ways, and Lombardi does a good job at capturing some of the nuance involved in a complicated and many-faceted question. But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. Here is a point that we must notice: Gathered in Rome right now, some of the finest theologians theologians in the world, some of the most astute pastoral leaders in the world, some of the highest ranking prelates of the Church — by and large very good, very faithful, and very smart people — are quite clearly divided about the answer to this important pastoral-doctrinal question about admission of divorced and remarried people to Holy Communion. Indeed, if you’ve seen recent interview comments from men like Cardinal Wuerl and Cardinal Burke, you know that they don’t even seem to agree upon the degree to which this matter is doctrinal question at all.

Take Cardinal Kasper, for example. Much as Raymond Aroyo and Joseph Fessio and Cardinal Burke want you to think right now that he’s an insufferable liberal, ready to throw the Creed overboard in the name of kumbaya religious goodfeelings, that is downright laughable. Walter Kasper has been recognized as a premier Catholic theologian for almost two generations. His scholarly work in Christology and Trinitarian theology has been standard reading at the most respected and rigorous Catholic schools of theology — including Rome’s Gregorian University, where I studied in the early 1990’s, and that’s no bastion of heretical thinking. Only after his significant scholarly achievements was he named a bishop by Pope John Paul II (I know — another stinkin’ liberal, right?) in 1989. The same John Paul II made him a cardinal in 2001, not long after bringing him to Rome to head the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Then there’s Cardinal Wuerl, whom everyone is touting as one of the “moderates” among the participants in the current synod, because, oh my, he had the chutzpa to suggest there’s a distinction between doctrinal principle and pastoral practice. Wuerl. A liberal. A danger to the true faith. This, too, is laughable. This is the same Donald Wuerl who began his episcopal career with ordination by John Paul II himself in Rome and then an assignment to Seattle to watch over and share power with that city’s residential bishop — Archbishop Raymond Hunhausen – after Hunthausen got himself into some trouble by taking some truly liberal positions on a variety of issues. At the time, the nation’s liberals were all poking pins into little Donald Wuerl dolls. Wuerl is also the author of The Teaching of Christ, one of the most respected, sound, and popular pre-Catechism of the Catholic Church catechisms ever published in English. After a long and successful stint as bishop of Pittsburgh, Wuerl was named Archbishop of Washington by Pope Benedict — damn liberal — in 2006. Benedict also named Wuerl the Relator-General of the 2012 Synod of Bishops on the New Evangelization.

Those are just two of the most prominent leaders who are open to having a conversation about a topic that Cardinal Burke wants us to think no good Catholic would ever consider. Interesting that Lombardi suggests half the bishops gathered in Rome this week are at least open to talking about it. The group is “split down the middle.”

I’m not saying I know which direction things will go or even that I think I know which direction things should go on this particular question. I know neither. What I’m saying is we are seeing a very clear example of the fact that not everything that the ultra-Catholic right wing wishes us to think is simply clear cut Catholic thinking actually is.

When they tell you that it’s obvious that no pro-choice Catholic politician should be admitted to Communion at Mass, that mandatory priestly celibacy is a no-brainer to really faithful Catholics, that refusing to allow your gay son to step foot with his partner into a family gathering is the simple and clear conclusion of basic moral reasoning – well, it’s bunk. Maybe a Catholic pro-choice politician should be barred from Communion, I don’t know for sure; but I tend to think the Eucharistic Christ can take care of Himself. Maybe mandatory celibacy is exactly what God wants for his priests, I can’t say for sure; but if he does, that would make the current church practice of ordaining married ex-Protestant ministers who become Catholic and then discern a call to priesthood contrary to God’s will. And maybe you should tell your gay son he’s not welcome in your home until he dumps his partner, but that doesn’t sound any more morally sound to me than making sure your boy knows he’s welcome in his parents’ home at absolutely any time he wants to come by, just because dammit, he’s your son.

Folks, there are doctrinal principles that are non-negotiable, and heresy is indeed a clear and present danger to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But that set of doctrinal principles does not offer a clear answer to every question that the Church faces in any particular time and place, and the most hard-line, conservative, traditionalist answer to every question is not necessarily always the right one. Indeed, Catholic history has shown us again and again that sometimes the “conservative” answer is the one that is soon dismissed by the church to the dustbin of history, and the “liberal” or “progressive” one is what is soon recognized as orthodox and sound.

Cardinal Pell can say, “I’m with Jesus.” But the fact is, everyone in that Synod hall is “with Jesus.” But what exactly being “with Jesus” means on a particular question related to Catholic faith and life is sometimes not very clear.

West Virginia gets redder

This new article at The Daily Beast on West Virginia politics is as true as true can be. I saw the shift that Michael Tomasky describes here happening first hand during my two years there, and clearly it has continued to gain strength since my departure in 2011. It’s sad in many ways, because it represents a state full of people in a precarious situation turning their backs on their own best interests, at the behest of a few powerful (and rich) voices.

Tomasky writes:

So what’s happened? No, it’s not as simple as the president is b-l-a-c-k. It’s the decline in union membership (a handful of men can now mine as much coal as hundreds used to). It’s the organizing strength of the NRA. It’s the less-discussed-but-pivotal inroads the Southern Baptist Convention has made into the state since the 1980s. It’s the fact that there are no real cities to speak of, not many people of color, only one large university, no hipsters (well, a few; I know some of them). I watched the transformation only as an occasional interloper on trips back home to see my folks, but even from that vantage point, things were pretty clear—the increasing proliferation of NASCAR paraphernalia in the stores next to the Mountaineer swag, the appearance in Morgantown of a Christian high school, and of course presidential vote totals (although Obama did carry my home county in 2008). We smart people in the big cities all agree that the right has lost the culture war. That may be so nationally. But West Virginia is the one place where the right won the culture war.

***

The southern part of the state, which is really what outlanders think of when they bother to think of West Virginia, is where the anxieties run deeper. It’s a place in real trouble, and the people know it. Culturally, America has changed on them. The state is now issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Let’s just say that in some of those counties down there, I wouldn’t want to be the first guy to apply for one. And fossil fuels probably aren’t long for this world—there is still plenty of coal in them thar hills, as they say, but in 20 or 30 years, the way energy technologies are transforming, the world may not want it anymore.

The southern part of the state, which is where I lived, is indeed in real trouble, and the people do indeed know it. And yet, rather than looking around them, looking to the horizon where new opportunities and untried options may await, most local and regional leaders have chosen to hunker down, to circle the wagons, the demand faithfulness to the status quo, and to paint those who wish to think bigger as traitors.

In a word, that means pledging fealty to King Coal. Loyalty to the coal industry is the one thing necessary, the sine qua non of politics and culture. And it will condemn the state and its people to (even greater) irrelevance a generation from now, unless something changes.

Tomasky’s entire article, here, is worth a look.

Mainstream media gets this Catholic story precisely right!

From Time magazine, here’s accurate, insightful, and journalistically responsible opening for a major “mainstream media” report on the Synod on the Family happening now in Rome:

It can be easy to fixate on the idea that the Extraordinary Synod on the Family beginning in Rome this week is purely about Catholic Church politics. The world clamors for the latest Catholic hubbub about divorce and remarriage policies, annulment reform, and which Cardinal holds which position on what agenda or controversial marital issue. But something more is happening as bishops gather for the first major doctrinal and pastoral summit of the Francis papacy; something quieter, deeper, and less immediately obvious: a spiritual renewal that Pope Francis hopes to foster between church leaders and their people.

This spiritual undercurrent, although quiet, has been powerfully present in the Holy Father’s actions this weekend. On Saturday evening, before the synod officially began and as a pink sun set behind St. Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis called the people to gather in the piazza to pray for the upcoming two-weeks of Synod conversations. A choir chanted a hymn as tens of thousands of people arrived, each silently, most with their families. When dusk fell and the moon had risen, each person lit a candle, and thousands of drops of light filled the square. Vieni Santo Spirito, vieni, or Come Holy Spirit, come, the people sang with the choir, over and over. “May the Wind of Pentecost blow upon the Synod’s work, on the Church, and on all of humanity,” Francis told to the crowd. “Undo the knots which prevent people from encountering one another, heal the wounds that bleed, rekindle hope.”

This prayer service was more testimony to the conviction that any real change in the Church must start with prayer—and a reminder of the people themselves. They, these people, these families, are the reason Francis called this Extraordinary Synod in the first place. It is only the third such special meeting a Pope has called since the Synod of the Bishops was created in 1965. The crowd was so vast that Francis himself most surely could not see the details—the children playing with their candles and dripping wax in patterns on the pavers, mothers comforting crying babies, a son helping a grandmother to a chair, the teenage couple taking selfies—but these are the people who experience the issues of family and marriage in ways clergy, who are celibate, rarely do. He was telling the people that they were foremost on his mind as the Synod began.

The excellent, full report here. Kudos to Time reporter Elizabeth Dias!

“Only the Lover Sings”

Nineteen years ago today, Pope John Paul II was in the midst of a pastoral visit to the United States and the United Nations. On October 7, 1995, he celebrated Mass in Central Park in New York City, with a crowd of over 100,000 people gathered. I was there and remember it fondly.

I especially remember the Pope’s homily (full text here), which was well done, simple, and engaging. It was primarily directed to young people. Here’s a nugget:

Like Mary, you must not be afraid to allow the Holy Spirit to help you become intimate friends of Christ. Like Mary, you must put aside any fear, in order to take Christ to the world in whatever you do—in marriage, as single people in the world, as students, as workers, as professional people. Christ wants to go to many places in the world, and to enter many hearts, through you. Just as Mary visited Elizabeth, so you too are called to “visit” the needs of the poor, the hungry, the homeless, those who are alone or ill; for example those suffering from AIDS. You are called to stand up for life! To respect and defend the mystery of life always and everywhere, including the lives of unborn babies, giving real help and encouragement to mothers in difficult situations. You are called to work and pray against abortion, against violence of all kinds, including the violence done against women’s and children’s dignity through pornography. Stand up for the life of the aged and the handicapped, against attempts to promote assisted-suicide and euthanasia! Stand up for marriage and family life! Stand up for purity! Resist the pressures and temptations of a world that too often tries to ignore a most fundamental truth: that every life is a gift from God our Creator, and that we must give an account to God of how we use it either for good or evil.

But the most memorable part of the homily was when the Pope broke into song. As he reflected on the joyful mysteries of the Rosary (the day being the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary), he recalled a Polish Christmas hymn:

I remember a song I used to sing in Poland as a young man, a song which I still sing as Pope, which tells about the birth of the Savior. On Christmas night, in every church and chapel, this song would ring out, repeating in a musical way the story told in the Gospel. It says: “In the silence of the night, a voice is heard: ‘Get up, shepherds, God is born for you! Hurry to Bethlehem to meet the Lord.'”

He started out the part by reciting the words to the hymn, translated into English as in the prepared homily, but after he’d read them, he looked up from his paper and simply broke into song, singing it in Polish to the crowd! (Very disappointing that there is not a video of this available on YouTube!) I know it took a few seconds for the crowd to realize: He’s singing to us!

He finished and then continued on with his homily, noting, “The same story is told in the beautiful hymn, ‘Silent Night,’ which everyone knows. That is a hymn which moves us deeply by reminding us that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of Mary, born to make us holy and to make us adopted sons and daughters of God. It is a hymn to the creative power of the Holy Spirit. It is a song to help us not to be afraid.”

And then, wonderfully, when he brought his homily to a conclusion, the entire, massive crowd gathered there with him in Central Park spontaneously broke into song, singing Silent Night to the Pope.

What a wonderful moment. Nineteen years ago today.

Happy feast of Our Lady of the Rosary.

 

 

As the Synod begins

My wife and I went without the Eucharist for five years because of our irregular marriage situation. We refrained from receiving despite the objections of our pastor at the time who, knowing our situation, suggested that it might not be such a big deal for us to receive anyway, and also despite the frequent questions of our children about why we did not.

In other words, I’m one of those people that many of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s critics keep speaking up for, when they say that his proposal that the bishops of the Synod on the Family (which starts today) find a way for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion in a way that’s faithful to Church teaching. “There are people who have lived heroically by the teaching of the Church,” says James Hitchcock. “They have not received Communion in living in the teaching of the Church, and they cannot be brushed away.”

I’m one of these patient souls, and I’m telling you I’m a little offended by this line of thinking. Do Hitchcock and others really think that my attitude toward this question will be: “If I was not able to receive Communion when I was in an irregular situation, then no one else should be able to either”? Does he think me to be that childish?

If that’s the biggest thing keeping us from opening the way for divorced and remarried people to receive Communion, then we really do have a problem with mercy. My guess is that most divorced and remarried Catholics who have abstained from Communion out of their love for the sacrament and their respect for the Church’s judgment would be greatly in favor of a way that would allow others in similar situations to receive. I know I would.

But I’m not optimistic that there is such a way. I’ve read the Kasper interviews and articles and his little book, The Gospel of the Family. I greatly admire what the Cardinal is trying to do. By his willingness to acknowledge the difficult situations of many Catholics today and the efforts of many to navigate a life of faith in less than ideal circumstances, Kasper demonstrates both courage and goodness. If nothing else, perhaps his words will help us treat people in these situations less like second-class Catholics. I think the disrespectful comments made publicly about and toward the Cardinal by people who should know better are unfortunate. I sincerely hope there is a way for the truth about marriage and the truth about God’s mercy can be balanced in such a way that those who have divorced and remarried might be able to receive Communion.

But I don’t see it. Sympathetic as I am to Kasper’s efforts, I am unconvinced. And I write this almost with a cringe, because I really hate to put myself on the side of an argument whose chief proponent thinks that the existence of the Roman Curia is part of the deposit of the faith handed down by God (and who, I’d add, doesn’t mind being seen like this and this in public). I don’t see a way around the teaching that marriage is indissoluble and exclusive. If it’s there, I welcome it, but I don’t see it.

I think it comes down to this: “[The Church] cannot propose a solution apart from or contrary to Jesus’ words. The indissolubility of a sacramental marriage during the lifetime of the other partner is a binding part of the Church’s tradition, which one cannot repeal or water down by appealing to a superficially understood and cheapened sense of mercy.” You probably think that’s Burke talking, but it’s Cardinal Kasper, in his The Gospel of the Family (p. 26). And I haven’t found anything else in that book that helps us get beyond that statement.

Certainly there may be a way. I just finished writing a book about John Courtney Murray and the remarkable role he played in forming the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on religious freedom. Almost everyone, including some of the most powerful people in Rome and most prominent defenders of Church teaching (that is, the Cardinal Burkes and Father Fessios of Murray’s day) insisted that to recognize the religious freedom of all people meant renouncing some unchangeable Catholic truths. But they were wrong. Murray demonstrated, in a way that almost everyone else was unable to do, why that was not the case. If there is a new John Courtney Murray out there, who will show us the way in this situation, I hope his voice is heard.

And so I really will be praying this morning at Mass for the Spirit to be heard at those Synod gatherings. I admit it freely: I don’t know what the Spirit wants here. But I hope those guys will figure it out and do it.

It’s International Translation Day!

So says the International Federation of Translators! And Wikipedia reports that the choice of date has a Christian foundation:

International Translation Day is celebrated every year on 30 September on the feast of St. Jerome, the Bible translator who is considered the patron saint of translators. The celebrations have been promoted by FIT (the International Federation of Translators) ever since it was set up in 1953. In 1991 FIT launched the idea of an officially recognised International Translation Day to show solidarity of the worldwide translation community in an effort to promote the translation profession in different countries (not necessarily only in Christian ones). This is an opportunity to display pride in a profession that is becoming increasingly essential in the era of progressing globalization.

There’s information on two books I’ve recently translated into English here. St. Jerome, pray for us!