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
No comments:
Post a Comment