THE SEQUESTER AND THE POPE

         With all the palaver by pundits and the prattling press in general on politics and papal possibilities  – sorry, couldn’t resist the cheap, shameless, and pathetic alliteration – I thought I would highlight two unusually interesting articles in the newspapers this morning.

         Let’s start with the looming sequestration.  David Ignatius had a particularly balanced, insightful piece on this issue in today’s Washington Post.

         Unlike Post columnists E.J. Dionne and Dane Milbank on the left and George Will and Charles Krauthammer on the right, Ignatius is pretty much down the middle.  He is not a shill for either political persuasion.  His column today is titled “A Political DUI.”   He calls our current political system “the equivalent of a drunk driver.”  It’s time for the sober person in the car to say: “Stop the car.  You’re going to hurt someone. Hand over the keys.”

         He is no fan of the way the President has handled the fiscal crisis.  Instead of providing needed presidential leadership, Ignatius writes, he “has chosen to be codependent…. He double-dared the reckless Republicans by proposing the sequester back in 2011.  And rather than stepping up to leadership since being reelected, he has “tripled-dared the GOP hotheads with a partisan inaugural address and … a road show of blame-game politics.”  Ignatius asks:  “Doesn’t the president see that the GOP is addicted to this showdown at Thunder Road?”

         But, then much as “I would criticize Obama,” he writes, “it’s wrong to say that both sides are equally to blame for what’s about to hit us…. The primary culprits are House Republicans.”  They have an addiction, he says.  “It’s a pattern of behavior....The House Republicans are still grabbing for the wheel, and the car is rumbling toward trouble.”  Intervention is desperately needed, writes Ignatius.  “Obama tries everything to gain control – except a clear, firm presidential statement that speaks to everyone on board, those who voted for him and those who didn’t – that could get the country where it needs to go.”

         Sounds about right, doesn’t it, but don’t forget, logic and reason are not strong suits in the romper room.  And the hour is late.

         Now from one depressing situation to another, let’s move on to the New York Times where noted theologian Hans Kung opines on the possibility of a “Vatican Spring?”   A former close colleague of Pope Benedict when the two theologians worked side by side as theological advisors at Vatican II in the 60s, Kung and Ratzinger later had a falling out and have been at opposite ends of Church’s political spectrum ever since.

         Shortly after being elected Pope, Benedict scheduled a four-hour meeting with Kung, which gave hope to all that Benedict might be a more moderate Pope, seeking reconciliation between the conservative and liberal elements in the Church.  But, that didn’t happen.  Anyway, I recommend you read Kung’s Op-Ed piece.  It provides good background on the historical origins of the papacy and the increased power of the Curia, the Vatican bureaucracy which really runs the Church.  He also discusses the possibility of a change in the Church’s direction under the leadership of a new pope.

         And, finally, a personal note on Hans Kung.  When he came through St. Louis in the 1960’s promoting his exciting and controversial new book ON BEING A CHRISTIAN, I was still in the Jesuits and along with many other of my fellow Jesuits went to hear him speak.  I bought a copy of his book and had it autographed.  I still have this book to this day.  But, instead of the original cover, it features black duct tape that holds its outer shell together.  What happened is that our German shepherd dog apparently liked the glue, or whatever, and started chewing on the book.  By the time I rescued the book, it was pretty badly torn up, but thankfully its contents were still intact.

         Given the animosity that developed between Kung and Ratzinger, it would have been a much better story if our dog had been a Rottweiler.

Jerry

Matters of Church and State: CORRECTION: MAKE THAT GRADE SCHOOL A ...

Matters of Church and State: CORRECTION:  MAKE THAT GRADE SCHOOL             A ...: CORRECTION:   MAKE THAT GRADE SCHOOL               A month or more ago, I posted a piece on my blog site titled “Washington as High S...

CORRECTION:  MAKE THAT GRADE SCHOOL 

   

        A month or more ago, I posted a piece on my blog site titled “Washington as High School.”  It was prompted by the continuing adolescent behavior of the politicians in Washington in the face of national issues that require adult behavior and compromise.

         The high school analogy was taken from Meg Greenfield, the late Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Post.  She wrote a book called simply WASHINGTON, and in it she said that after observing the behavior of politicians in Washington for decades, she concluded that the best analogy was high school. When I first read the book years ago, it was like a “eureka” experience.  It immediately resonated. 

         But, now after watching the Congress and the White House wrangle over the sequestration issue, I have concluded that Meg Greenfield and I have been grossly unfair to high school students and adolescents everywhere.

         Now, I have decided that grade school, or even pre-kindergarten,   would be a better, more apt, analogy.  And, I suspect if Meg Greenfield were alive, she would agree.

         If you haven’t been paying attention, but have been leading a normal life instead, let me bring you up to speed.  As the March 1 deadline looms to trigger draconian, across-the-board cuts to programs that both parties agree would be catastrophic, the White House and the Congress can’t agree on a compromise by sitting down together and agreeing on a more rational approach.  That would be an adult thing to do but don’t forget the premise of this piece.

         Incidentally, this mindless, looming set of cuts called inelegantly a “sequester” are cuts both the White House and the Congress agreed to almost a year ago.  Why?  Well, because they couldn’t agree on a wiser approach at the time and hoped that by the time the cuts were due to take place they would be old enough and mature enough to sit down and work out a reasonable approach.

         Well, now (surprise, surprise) they are no older and wiser, and here we are facing another artificial disaster – another fiscal cliff, if you will.  As the deadline approaches, President Obama is on the hustings telling “real people” how these looming cuts will affect “real people.”  Admittedly, this is a blatant PR gesture designed to rally support for his position and to put pressure on Congress to compromise.  But, using PR to rally support is nothing new.  President Theodore Roosevelt called the presidency a “bully pulpit” and it has been used by both parties since then, if not before.  That’s why the Presidency is such a prize for political parties: It gives the party in power enormous leverage.  Besides, the cuts will come down hard on the very people the President is talking about.  No fakery there.

         Meantime, the members of Congress are trying to figure out how the sequester will affect their political ratings.  If the sequester goes into effect, which party will get the most blame?  That’s their major concern.  Seriously, don’t take my word for it – read the news reports and the political analysis.  The only constituency the House Republicans seem to be worried about are their wealthy supporters.  If you think that’s unfair, take a look at the single most critical issue causing the stalemate:  The President wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in exchange for cuts in programs that the Democrats hold dear, including Medicare.

         That’s the crux of the issue.

         It seems to me that – politically – it would be harder and require more courage to tell Medicare recipients that you aim to cut their benefits, or ask them to pay more for their benefits, than to tell the Koch brothers and Donald Trump that they would have to increase their taxes.  Don’t you think?

         Oh, but you must pardon me, I keep forgetting, this is Washington, we are in the nation’s “romper room” where we are still learning to play together.  But, don’t forget, we adults do get to fill out their report card.

Jerry

                   

 

        

Changing of the Papal Guard

          After Pope Benedict XVI’s surprise announcement yesterday, a friend and former colleague quipped on Facebook:  “Jerry Lavey writes a column harshly critical of the Church’s top hierarchy and the next day the Pope resigns.  I’m impressed.”  Thought you’d like thatJ

          However, like everyone else, I was surprised at the announcement and have been inhaling articles from the newspapers and other media outlets ever since.  It’s what we junkies do.  And as one with a blog titled “Matters of Church and State,” I could hardly avoid a comment or two in the wake of this momentous development, even though I will admit up front I don’t have anything momentous to add.

          That said, I did read interesting articles in the Washington Post today by columnists E.J. Dionne, Jr. and Melinda Henneberger and reporter Michelle Boorstein.  New York Times religion reporter Laurie Goodstein also had a good article on the “turbulent tenure of a quiet scholar.”  These columns and articles include observations by Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., former editor of America, and John Allen, who covers the Vatican up close and personal for the National Catholic Reporter.  These two experts on the Church and the Vatican are particularly well worth listening to.

          I have mixed feelings about Benedict.  Unlike his extroverted predecessor, John Paul II, who I think set the Church back several generations, if not more, Benedict was like a fish out of water.  He himself reportedly voiced doubts whether he should have accepted the post in the first place.  He was, and is, a scholar, very bookish and not cut out to manage the Curia, the Byzantine bureaucracy which left unbridled actually runs the Church at its peril, let alone set a course for the 21^st Catholic Church of more than one billion members.

          Someone said that Benedict’s greatest legacy will be his books, specifically his three-volume series JESUS OF NAZARETH. That’s an odd legacy for a Pope who you would think had little time for reflection on major issues confronting the Church, let alone write books.  But, that reinforces my impression that Benedict left the running of the Church to the Curia, with disastrous results, and retreated to the world of scholarship where he was more comfortable.

          I have read the first volume in his JESUS OF NAZARETH series, and surprisingly I found it very good and not at all what you would expect from “God’s Rottweiler,” as Benedict was referred to by some of his harshest critics.  In this book, and in his encyclicals, the overriding theme I get is God’s love and forgiveness, not punishment or retribution.

          My overall impression is that Benedict was caught in a dilemma:  Between his moderate progressive approach that he exhibited as an expert theological adviser at Vatican II, along with his then friend Hans Kung, who later became very critical of Benedict, and his later position as John Paul II’s enforcer of strict traditional Catholic teaching.

          But, now the question is:  Who is waiting in the wings to take his place? In making that choice, I suggest the Cardinals take note of the advice of Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J. as reported by Michelle Boorstein in today’s Post.  “In the last two enclaves, they’ve elected the smartest man in the room.  It might be better to elect someone who will listen to all the other smart people in the church.”

          Chances are, though, that we won’t see much of a change, if any, because John Paul II and Benedict XVI appointed the vast majority of Cardinals, all traditional, conservative types.  Yet, some of us recall the “safe choice” that Cardinal Angelo Roncalli seemed to represent when he became Pope John XXIII in 1958.  Yet, he turned the Church upside down when he convened Vatican II and unleashed a host of reforms that scared the wits out of the conservatives and traditionalists.  The reforms of Vatican II have still to be fully realized and some of them were shunted aside.  But, still a great stirring of hope occurred and for many of us it charted a whole new path.

          Regardless of what happens in the selection of the next Pope, Catholic priests will still be ministering to the poor in barrios, Catholic nuns will be caring for the sick and the homeless, as well as teaching our at-risk youth, and lay Catholics around the world will be trying to live out their Catholic faith by loving and caring for their fellow human beings, who don’t have a clue or care about what is happening in Rome over the next month or so.

Jerry

 

GOTTA BE A PONY HERE SOMEWHERE

         It’s tough being a Catholic these days.

         It seems that every time you pick up a newspaper or turn on the news, there’s another story of priestly pedophilia and a subsequent cover-up by a bishop or cardinal.  Or another story about the Vatican excommunicating a priest for having the audacity to suggest that the Catholic Church should ordain women to the priesthood.

         Today, for example, the New York Times ran a story (“The Priest That Preyed”) on the Op Ed page by Daniel A. Olivas, who wrote a fictionalized account of a pedophile priest in the L.A diocese who was transferred 15 times from parish to parish by Cardinal Roger M. Mahony.  The Cardinal himself was finally relieved of his duties after a long, sordid history of covering up these and other criminal acts.  None of these incidents are fictional, by the way, they’re all too real.

         Thank God for the news media which is bringing these abuses and criminal acts to light, painful as it is to read about them.  Without that public spotlight, the cover-ups in all likelihood would have continued, sad to say. By the way, it’s not just the secular media.  Commonweal and the National Catholic Reporter, for example, excellent publications by Catholic laymen, have been in the forefront of reporting these stories, no holds barred.

         It’s no wonder Catholics are leaving the Church in droves.  I am told that if the number of ex-Catholics in the U.S. were to form a separate denomination, it would be among the largest, if not the largest Christian denomination in the U.S.

         So, what about those of us who continue to hang in there, despite it all, and who see signs of hope in all this mess?  What does this say of our intelligence?   Sometimes, I think of myself as the little boy in Ronald Reagan’s oft-told story about the two brothers, one a hard core pessimist and the other an incurable optimist.  The parents ask a psychiatrist to test the boys.  In the first test, when the doctor shows the pessimist a roomful of toys, the boy breaks into tears saying that all he will do is end up breaking these toys.  Next, he takes the optimist into a room full of manure.  The little boy claps his hands in glee, climbs up on the pile, and starts digging.  When the psychiatrist asks him what on earth he is doing, the boy looks down with a big smile on his face and says, “There’s just got be to a pony in here somewhere.”

         For those of us who continue to maintain a sense of hope, that hope is not based on the expectation of any large-scale Vatican reform.  The top layer of the Catholic Church has been too badly corrupted and the faster it disintegrates and goes away the better.  Sic semper tyrannis.  But underneath that top layer is a vibrant “catholic” church carrying out the work of the Gospel in parishes, hospitals, and schools as well soup kitchens, shelters for the homeless and for battered and abused women, and refugee camps throughout the world.  They are caring for the sick and disabled, lifting up the poor, comforting the afflicted, and teaching youngsters in our inner cities and impoverished communities across the globe who otherwise wouldn’t have a chance at a good life.

         They’re my “pony,” the best part of this broken and dysfunctional spiritual family that I was born into.  They need my continued support and encouragement, and I can’t for the life of me give up on them.

         Jerry 

BRING IN THE CLOWNS

          If you hadn’t paid attention to the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, you missed the stuff of great comedy, albeit exceedingly dark comedy.  Not to worry, just read Walter Pincus’s column in today’s Washington Post.  He brilliantly captures the silliness of it all.

         For those who don’t subscribe to the Washington Post, Walter Pincus is a national security columnist for the Post.  He has won a number of journalism awards and is always a refreshing and enlightening read.

         As Pincus explains, the committee was loaded for bear because of Hagel’s past comments about the intimidating influence of the Israeli lobby on members of Congress and also because of his past comments on Iran.  In high dudgeon over the charges that it is unduly influenced by the Israeli lobby, the committee plunged ahead to validate and underscore that charge.  It was a perfect example of – if I may paraphrase Shakespeare:  “The committee did protest too much, methinks."

         For example, when Senator Lindsey Graham asked Hagel to “name one person, in your opinion, who is intimidated by the Israeli lobby in the United States Senate,” Pincus, who is Jewish, suggests that the one answer could have been: “the two of us: Graham … by asking such a silly gotcha question, and Hagel for not standing up for his past words….”  Later, when Graham asked Hagel “to name one dumb thing we’ve been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli or Jewish lobby,” the answer should have been ‘a good part of today’s eight-hour hearing’.”

         Every member of Congress probably likes to think of himself or herself as above the fray and not susceptible of being unduly influenced, let alone intimidated, by lobbyists.  But that is ludicrous on the face of it and on the record.  Look at the influence of the NRA on gun policy, the Catholic Church on health policy, Wall Street on business policies, the list is endless.  Trying to influence Congress is what lobbyists do, and some are better at it than others.  According to Pincus, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) proudly claims that it is “consistently ranked as the most influential foreign policy lobbying organization on Capitol Hill.”

         This column is not primarily about AIPAC or other lobbying groups.  It’s about Congress, in this case one of its most important Senate committees.  The committee spent virtually no time asking Hagel about national defense issues facing the U.S. going forward, as current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and others have pointed out.  Issues such as Afghanistan, terrorism, the looming threat of sequestration on the Pentagon budget, cyber security, and so on and so on.

         Instead, it spent virtually all the time defending its bruised egos.  And, sadly as a result, as Pincus states, “Thursday’s hearing was a perfect illustration of why the public has such a low opinion of Congress and why Americans should be concerned that the legislative branch often seems no longer to be playing a serious role in government.”

Jerry

Matters of Church and State: LETTHERE BE LIFE My wife Brigitte and I par...

Matters of Church and State: LETTHERE BE LIFE        My wife Brigitte and I par...: LET THERE BE LIFE         My wife Brigitte and I participated in the recent March on Washington for sensible gun control.   As we assemb...