STIRRINGS IN THE DESERT

       Like many Catholics who have been wandering in a desert since the death of Pope John XXIII in 1963, I like what I see so far in Pope Francis I.  But, I am afraid to get my hopes up too high.  After all, our desert sojourn has been 50 long years, and in the intervening years we watched the gradual erosion of many of the hopes of reform sparked by John XXIII.

   

          Still, it’s hard not to get excited by Jesuit Pope Francis.  Just the selection of the name Francis was a stroke of genius.  Not only does it underscore the new Pope’s commitment to the poor – which he demonstrated unequivocally as a bishop and later Cardinal in Argentina – it tantalizes with the suggestion that Pope Francis will follow up on God’s mandate to St. Francis to “rebuild my church.”

          Since becoming Pope, Francis has gotten all the optics right – from getting rid of the glitter and gold and other trappings of royalty and referring to himself as “the bishop of Rome” (instead of Pope or Supreme Pontiff) to reaching out to peoples of other faiths, or no faith at all.

   

          My high hopes for Francis were further boosted by reading ON HEAVEN AND EARTH.  Originally published in 2010, this book “brings together a series of conversations between then Cardinal Bergoglio, Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, now Pope Francis I, and Rabbi Abraham Skorka, an Argentine rabbi, biophysicist, and professor of biblical and rabbinical literature at the Seminario Rabinico Latinoamericano in Buenos Aires.

          Bergoglio and Skora – who have become close friends over the years – had been promoting interreligious dialogue for years among Catholics, Judaism, Islam, and the world at large on matters of faith and reason.  This book brings together a series of their conversations on theological and worldly issues such as “God, fundamentalism, atheism, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, same sex marriage,” and others.  They don’t agree on everything, of course, but their attitudes towards one another are marked by strong friendship and deep mutual respect.  And, of course, there is a great deal of common ground on so many of these issues.

          The new Pope shows the same level of respect toward those of other faiths, or no faith at all, referring to the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, for example, as his brother.  And declaring that all peoples who are moral and do good are redeemed and heaven bound, even atheists.  The fact that this last statement caused heartburn among the rigid traditionalists at the Vatican is a sign that Francis is moving in the right direction and is not afraid to challenge orthodoxy.

          Yet, while many Catholics and others see these “symbolic” signs as encouraging, they want to see more positive steps by the new Pope on such issues as priestly celibacy, women priests, equality for women in the Church, as well as more forthright action dealing with priestly pedophilia and cleaning up the Vatican Curia.

   

          Meantime, as we wait impatiently for the next shoe to drop, we must keep in mind that symbolic actions are not meaningless actions.  Symbols are at the heart of Catholicism and getting the symbols right is crucial and central.  Already Francis has shown by word and example that the Catholic Church is no longer “catholic” in name only but an organization that makes Jesus and His open-arms approach to all peoples the central focus of the Church, not a remnant of the Roman Empire ensconced on the banks of the Tiber desperately clinging to power and prestige.

          That is a huge change.  Still, getting the right people in place to implement that change in a far-flung church of 1.2 billion Catholics throughout the world is an enormous challenge.  From all signs thus far, though, Francis seems to warm to the challenge.  Let’s hope God grants him the time to pull it off.

 

          Stay tuned.  This could get exciting.  Hope springs eternal.

Jerry

THIS TOO SHALL PASS

         It’s frustrating but comical at the same time to see the reactions of politicians and the news media over the latest “scandals” in Washington:  Benghazi, the IRS and the Tea Party, the Justice Department and the Associated Press, and only God knows what else is next up in the queue.

         The conservatives on Capitol Hill are running around like demented windmills, bumping into each other in an effort to schedule hearings.  And the news media, with all the perspective of gerbils on a wheel, plunge ahead as if they are on to something major that has never happened before.

         Meanwhile, right on cue, FOX News and the Tea Party wing nuts are intoning the dreaded word “Watergate” and drawing comparisons between President Obama and President Nixon.  Michelle Bachman and her ilk are even calling for the President’s impeachment.  The reason this works with a certain segment of American society is that Bachman and her Tea Party folks are painting on a fresh canvas.  For many of her adherents, history began yesterday, so these are brand new, unprecedented charges. 

         Which brings me to a larger point:   With all of the current emphasis on the U.S. falling behind in math and science competency, why does no one seem to be concerned about the abysmal lack of historical perspective that has such an enormous impact on American politics?  I am not talking about ancient history, just contemporary American history that would help put today’s events in some kind of rational perspective.  The lack of this perspective is what fuels the ignorance that fuels American politics.

         Some prominent examples:  Joseph McCarthy and the witch hunt he launched, the China Lobby and pernicious ramifications it had, giving birth to the domino theory that gave us Vietnam and 55,000 Americans dead.  The Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration’s second term.  Fourteen Reagan Administration officials were indicted.  Do any conservatives remember that?  President Reagan is not unique.  No party in recent memory has escaped the “second term blues.”  President Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky affair is a glaring example.  That overshadowed his entire second term, leading to his impeachment by the House of Representatives.  Yet, both Reagan and Clinton are now revered as icons in their respective parties.

         Can President Obama overcome these latest crises, his supporters nervously wonder?  Of course he can, unless these charges can be traced back to the White House and the Oval Office, and there is no evidence of that. So, my guess is that these charges are probably much ado about nothing -- or deja vu all over again.  The people seem to agree with the latest polls showing the President's approval ratings holding steady despite it all.

         So, in absence of White House involvement, the President has to put on a happy face and not escalate the crisis by over-reaction.  To that end, I was encouraged by a recent article in the New York Times about the President and his Chief of Staff Denis McDonough instructing the White House staff not to get distracted and to focus its attention on the critical agenda ahead: “revamping immigration laws, reaching a budget deal, and carrying out the health care law.”

         If the President is able to reach out to the other side and accomplish these three initiatives – or just two of the three -- he won’t make it to Mount Rushmore, but he will have accomplished a mighty agenda, considering what he has already accomplished despite the hand he was dealt when he came into office and the entrenched opposition he faced during his entire administration.

         So, for his supporters who may be wavering, let me assure you:  Hang tough -- take a look at recent Presidential history.  This too shall pass.

Jerry

          

       

HOW TO SPOT AND DEAL WITH “ASSHOLES”

               A few months ago, I read a helpful little book with the rude, but fetching title of ASSHOLES: A THEORY.  With a title like that, it fairly jumped off the shelf at Barnes & Noble begging to be bought.  I couldn’t resist.

         I hadn’t thought of it recently until this morning when I was flipping through the Washington Post and read a story about Senator Ted Cruz of Texas in the “Style” section. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-nation-comes-around-to-noticing-ted-cruz/2013/05/06/47a96986-b40e-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html

  

         In a eureka moment, it struck me that this guy should be the poster child for that book.  He’s perfect.  If I were Aaron James, the book’s author, I would put Cruz on the dust check for the next edition of the book.  Cruz is Hall of Fame quality and he achieved his preeminence just four months after joining the Senate.  That’s impressive.

         But first let’s talk about Aaron’s theory.   None of us really needs a philosophical discussion of what constitutes an “asshole” because we’ve been dealing with them all our lives.  Still, it’s interesting to hear what a PhD from Harvard and an associate professor of Philosophy at the University of California has to say on the subject.  His book deals not only with how to spot them, but explains why they are so deeply aggravating and annoying.  And how to deal with them and manage them.

         Aaron’s theory is this: “A person counts as an asshole when, and only when, he systematically allows himself to enjoy special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people.  So, by example, “the asshole is the person who habitually cuts in line.  Or who frequently interrupts in a conversation.  Or who weaves in and out of lanes in traffic…. Or, anyone who has ever uttered the phrase:  ‘Do you know who I am?’”  I have another one that immediately qualifies a person as an “asshole:” anyone who abuses and mistreats a waiter or waitress.

         What distinguishes an “asshole” from a mere jerk, says Aaron, is “the way he acts, the reasons that motivate him to act in an abusive and arrogant way.  The asshole acts out of a firm sense that he is special, that the normal rules of conduct do not apply to him.”  He doesn’t care what you think of his behavior.  He’s special.

         Now, for me to single out Cruz from a star-studded roster in Washington is quite an honor. It’s a crowded field and on Capitol Hill alone he is competing with the likes of Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor, to name just two.  Then, of course, covering politics and the news, FOX News has perennial stars like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, not to mention frequent guests, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin.  To be fair, left wing politicians such as Sen. Chuck Shumer also display asshole qualities, and MSNBC and other liberal outlets have their stars, such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Bill Maher.  But, they’re my assholes, so to speak, so I look on them more leniently.

         Finally, there are “asshole” types who have their own blogs – with pretentious Latin names in their links -- and who opine and pontificate on this and that subject, including delicate matters such as politics and religion, as if they have something worthwhile to say on either subject.

         They’re the worst kind of “assholes.”

Jerry