KEEPING OUR FINGERS CROSSED

         To all my non-Catholic, disaffected Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and other friends and readers, you’ll have to forgive me for devoting the last three blog postings to the papacy.   But, like many Catholics who for decades have been shaking their heads in dismay and disappointment at the ways of the Vatican, the selection of Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina as Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air, if not a badly needed whiff of oxygen.  I feel almost giddy, like I did as a young Jesuit seminarian in my early 20’s when Pope John XXIII introduced aggiornamento (a bringing up to date) that led to Vatican II and many needed Church reforms.

          The selection of Francis I was beyond my wildest dreams, considering all the Cardinals voting for the selection had been appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, both deep disappointments to many progressive Catholics.  To be sure, there are questions lingering from some of the positions Cardinal Bergoglio took in Argentina, among them the language he used in his public spat with the government over same-sex marriage.  Nonetheless, we are still “keeping our fingers crossed,” a Christian symbol dating back to the early Church when Christians crossed their fingers to invoke the power associated with the cross.

          The early signals and symbolic gestures by Francis offer reasons to hope that this new Pope understands how deeply irrelevant the papacy and the Vatican have become.  The fact that he insists on wearing simple priestly garb versus the garish, ornate costumes reflective of an imperial monarch is heartening just in itself.  This was reinforced when in one of first acts as Pope he refused to sit on a throne or any elevated chair and turned down the red cape with ermine by saying: “No thank you, Monsignore. You put it on instead. Carnival time is over!”

          But most heartening has been his emphasis on the Church’s predilection for the poor and disadvantaged.  This week, for example, he is going to celebrate Holy Thursday in a Mass at a youth detention center rather than at the basilica, which is the seat of the Bishop of Rome.  This focus on the poor is a tradition he started long ago as Cardinal Bergoglio in Argentina.  Also deeply encouraging is the new Pope’s outreach and embrace of other religious faiths and traditions:  Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians, and atheists, raising hope the Catholic Church will truly become “catholic” and not just in name only.

     

          I am starting to gush and I apologize.  But, I can’t help it.  It’s been a long time since I was truly proud of a Pope.  Admittedly, it is still too early to tell what Francis will do in terms of more substantive issues.  But, I am heartened by the fact that he had a Jesuit formation and didn’t come out of one of these cookie-cutter priest factories that spawned John Paul II or Benedict XVI clones and look-alikes.  As a member of the Jesuit Order for almost 12 years, I know how rigorous that training is and how much emphasis was put on teaching seminarians to think and to challenge, not just repeat what they were taught.  It’s an experience I will always treasure.

          This is why I believe, or hope, that despite what he might have said as a Cardinal in Argentina, closely monitored by the Vatican thought-police, he will re-examine some of these traditions that rigidly traditional Catholics have deemed immutable and unchanging.  Don’t look for doctrinal changes on abortion.  The Church will never approve abortion because it believes that that life begins at conception and there is compelling evidence for that.  That said, I would like to see the hierarchical Church respect those who disagree and shift the public focus from condemnation of abortion to embracing and taking care of women who have made the agonizing abortion choice and to the care and upbringing of their children.

          I do believe that Francis will move sooner rather than later to provide women full partnership in the Church, including allowing women to be ordained priests.  That should be an easy one, despite its centuries-long tradition.  I try to imagine having a conversation with any Jesuit I know and hear him say:  “The Church can never allow women priests because Jesus did not pick a woman as one of his apostles and therefore that’s part of the Church’s immutable traditions.”  That is just too stupid an argument for a Jesuit to ignore.  Whether Francis doesn’t want to engage on that issue in the short term and chooses to kick that can down the road is another matter.

  

          As for same-sex marriage, I hope to see some movement there, but I don’t think that will happen anytime soon.  It will happen over time but now the Church is still too focused on the “physical act” of marriage and whether it is open to procreation and not enough on the larger issue of love and commitment between two individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.  It all comes down to what “marriage” means and the Church is still too focused on the erogenous zone and not enough on upper regions of the heart and mind.

           But, before we get ahead of ourselves with our expectations, let’s not forget that the new Pope’s absolute first priority should be dealing with the Curia and the entrenched bureaucracy.  That will take the heart of a lion and the most intrepid of souls, and from what I have seen and heard so far Francis appears to have the “right stuff.”

 

          How he handles the Curia will largely determine his papacy and the future of the Church.  That’s a heavy lift and for that we all need to keep our fingers crossed.

        

Jerry     

        

          

OPEN LETTER TO THE NEXT POPE (2)

Dear ________________:

          Much as I try to be blasé in my belief that Popes and Cardinals aren’t all that important in the greater Catholic scheme of things, I can’t help but get excited now that you guys have locked yourself into the Conclave.  Over the next hours or days, one of you will emerge as the next Pope.  That’s a great burden but also a great opportunity for you – and for us.  That’s what I want to talk about today.

          Choose your name carefully.  Whatever you do, don’t choose John Paul III or Benedict XVII.  Either of those names will send a signal -- much clearer than the smoke signal from the Sistine Chapel -- that you’re not interested in reform.  On the other hand, if you choose the name John XXIV, you will cheer the hearts of millions around the world.

          But, first, let’s talk about a few more cosmetics.  When you walk out on that balcony for the first time as Pope, don’t come out arrayed in the livery of a monarch.  That whole talk in the press this week about the Papacy as being the longest-living monarchy in the world is totally embarrassing.  You’re not a monarch, a king, you’re a servant and you should act and dress like a servant.  I’m not talking about sack cloth and ashes.  You’re an international figure, and you should dress accordingly.  But you’re not a monarch.  So, if anyone tries to put the papal Tiara on your head, tell him where to put it.  Better yet, tell him to send it over to the Vatican Museum.

          Now, to a couple of big ticket items that you need to get behind you or you’ll never gain the credibility you need to carry out your responsibilities as the Servant of the servants of God, at least in Europe and the United States.

          Contraception and birth control.  Go back and dig out the recommendations that the Papal Commission on Birth Control made to Paul VI back in the 60’s.  The Commission got it right when it recommended that the Church overturn its ban on artificial birth control.  Unfortunately, Paul VI listened more to conservative advisors than to the Papal Commission, and decided to maintain the status quo.  Paul VI reportedly anguished over this decision for the rest of his life.   He should have.  The consequences of that decision, not just for individual Catholic couples, but for overpopulation, AIDS prevention, and unwanted pregnancies have been overwhelming.

          As you know, the main reason for not overturning the ban on artificial birth control was that if Paul VI approved artificial control, ERGO, the previous Popes must have been wrong.  And, of course, the Vatican bureaucracy can’t allow that because Popes can never be wrong.  Really? This is mortifying in the extreme, given the painful history of the Papacy and how wrong some of their decisions were.  Does Galileo ring a bell?

          But, let’s move on.  The Vatican’s whole attitude toward sexuality is so bizarre that it’s hard to know where to begin, and you could recapture a great deal of credibility by dealing with that head-on.   Since we just discussed birth control, let’s start with that.  The Church officially maintains that the only legitimate purpose of the sexual act is procreation and that every sexual act must be open to procreation or it is mortally sinful.  To be fair, it’s always been okay to use the rhythm method but we know how successful that has been.  I am probably the unsuccessful product of the rhythm method, born in 1938 in the Depression with my Dad out of a job.  And Vatican II broadened the interpretation to allow the sexual act as a sign of love between married couples even when procreation is not possible.

          But, that’s it?   Come on, get serious.  It’s like saying that the only purpose of eating is to sustain life and only taking food or drink necessary to sustain life is morally lawful.  Dessert?  Nope, sorry, mortal sin.  Not necessary to sustain life.  Glass of wine?  Maybe one, but if you have a second one, you’re going to hell.  Unfortunately, we older Catholics remember how easy it was to go to hell by eating a hamburger on Friday or even sipping a cup of cold water after midnight before taking Communion the next day.

          Now, before I wear you out with hectoring, let me quickly address gay and lesbians since we’re in the same subject area.  The Church considers homosexuality a moral evil because it is "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil," that is, it is not open to procreation.  (See above.)  So, in other words, these people who were made this way – they didn’t choose to be born gay – are SOL.  Since their sexual instincts and orientation is towards members of their own sex, they are in terms of Church doctrine --  shall we say, screwed.  Try to run that thinking by the Guy who started this whole Christian movement and see if that makes sense.  (Cf. New Testament.)

          Okay, I hear you, enough for now.  But, next time, I am going to take up what should be an easy one – ordination of women to the priesthood.  That sounds like a non-starter, but it should be easy and you could send an electrifying message throughout the world, not just to Catholics but people everywhere.  After all, the greatest long-standing scandal of the Catholic Church has not been the priestly pedophile scandal -- ugly as that has been -- but the historic refusal to grant women full partnership and participation in the life of the Church.   

          More later.

          Ciao,

          Jerry

OPEN LETTER TO THE NEXT POPE

Dear __________:

          I should probably use the term “Holy Father” as a greeting, but that term leaves me cold and should be scrapped along with some of the other trappings of royalty and empire I am about to mention.  It’s so retro and so emblematic of how much the Church is out of touch.  Sorry for starting off on such a negative note.  But there’s more to come. 

          First, before I go on, if you believe that your first priority is to double down on the conservative agenda that John Paul II and Benedict XVI gave us over the last decades, then we have nothing to discuss.  You can stop reading right here and toss this letter in the wastebasket.  Have a good Papacy. 

          However, if you agree that the Church is in need of some changes – we can always talk about the extent of change later – then I would like to offer the following suggestions.  Let’s start with the easy stuff first, the cosmetic stuff.  The tougher stuff can wait. 

·        Get rid of those silly Gucci slippers.  They’re embarrassing.  So are the capes and the robes and the funny hats.  Bag them. Send them to the Vatican museum or to Ringling Brothers Circus.   Man up and get real men’s clothes.  Make the Swiss Guards get rid of their costumes, too.  They look like clowns.

·        And, talk about embarrassing; please outlaw the silly genuflections and kissing of the Papal ring.  Some will continue to insist on it.  If they do, tell them your ring is in your back pocket.  That should stop their bowing and scraping.

·        All this embarrassing folderol just reinforces how outdated the Church is.  All right, okay, I agree, there are some principles and creeds that the Church cannot and should not change.  But, they’re not as many as Popes have led us to believe.

·        And now moving into more substantive areas.  Do something with that embarrassing infallibility doctrine.  Educated people know how that developed. A naked power grab, it was. I’d like to see you repeal it, but you probably couldn’t get away with that, at least not right away.  At the very least, clarify its extremely limited scope.  Recent Popes have left the impression that everything they said was an ex cathedra infallible statement.

·        This next one if crucial to the management of your Papacy.  Get an early hold on the Curial bureaucrats or they will eat you alive.  If any of these lock-step John Paul II look-alikes start telling you what progressive step you can’t make, ship them out to very unpleasant places or defrock them.  Without a hearing or appeal; just like they dealt with dissident theologians.  They’re a menace.    

·        Presumably, they’re in place right now to help you run the Church, but that’s ridiculous on the face of it.  Trying to run a worldwide organization of 1.2 billion members from a centralized perch on the Tiber is ludicrous.  Any basic management book will give you a quick primer on span of control.

·        Dig out the documents from Vatican II and re-read the sections on collegiality and distributive leadership and management of the Church.  To do that right, though, make sure you have the right people in place to run the Church at the diocesan level and that means a lot of heads will roll.  Now, you’ve got too many “moral cops” on the beat with an agenda limited to abortion, contraception, and gay-marriage.  That’s embarrassing.  Besides, even the majority of Catholics aren’t buying.

·        If you get the right people in place at the local levels, you can decimate the Curia.  You don’t need all those nay-sayers hanging around seeing what theologians they can summon to Rome for a thuggish brow-beating or excommunication sentence.

·        And, by the way, while I am at it:   Tell the curial thugs to lay off the nuns.  You, too.  They’re an easy hit – or at least used to be.  Yet, they’re the best thing the Church has going for it.   Continuing to make nuns a scapegoat is a real loser for you guys.  They’ve got credibility; you guys don’t.   

·        Oh, yes, before I forget it, any Cardinal, Archbishop, or Bishop who participated in a cover-up of priestly pedophilia should be removed from his position immediately and should be turned over to the civil authorities.  The fact that some actually ended up getting cushy jobs in the Vatican and actually participated in the recent Conclave is mortifying beyond measure. So, get rid of these people forthwith. 

·        And finally down to more basics.  Make sure you and your top people understand the concept of servant leadership.  There’s a good book on the subject:  It’s called the New Testament and the central character in the book exemplifies and embodies servant leadership.

·        Management gurus in the private sector have caught on to servant leadership in a big way.  Most of them have long realized that in many sectors of society the command and control model of leadership simply doesn’t work.  Is sure hasn’t worked in the Church except to swell the ranks ofx-Catholics.

·        And a reminder: the Church is not about you and a centralized corporate leadership.  It’s about us, the people who are out here on the front lines trying to live according to the Good News trying to help the poor and disadvantaged along the way.  We could use your help.  But, you must learn how to listen.

·        We can do without you guys – and have for decades – but it’d be nice to have you with us, on the same page singing the same joyful love poem about God’s love and forgiveness that some of you and your entourage seem to have forgotten. 

Enough for now.  Good luck, and I mean that.  We’ll be following events with great interest.  More later.

Ciao

DUMB AND DUMBER

          In one of his first speeches abroad as Secretary of State, John Kerry -- in defense of America’s liberty and individual freedom -- said that “in America you have the right to be stupid, if you want to be.”

         A few days later, right on cue, the House Republicans stood up and proved his point en masse when they refused to compromise on the sequester.   The President said that allowing sequestration to take effect was “just plain dumb.”  It’s dumber than dumb.  But, the GOP led House simply can’t help itself.  It drank the tea and now it’s addicted and doesn’t know how to stop.

         Another case in point before it gets overlooked is the GOP House vote on the Violence against Women Act (VAWA).  The House finally passed a bill recently -- the Senate version, which it had resisted strenuously up until a week or so ago.   The reason for its resistance was that the Senate bill enlarged the scope of the legislation to ensure that gays and lesbians, immigrants and Native American women have equal access to anti-violence programs.  But, then looking over its shoulder at the results of the November election in which President Obama won 55 percent of the women’s vote, the House finally reluctantly relented.

         Still, 138 House Republicans voted against passage, with only 87 GOP members voting for.  In the Senate, 22 GOP senators voted against passage.  To be fair, as a good friend recently cautioned me, there are legitimate reasons why some principled members of Congress voted against the bill.  Constitutional reasons:  state vs. federal jurisdiction.  Plus, other considerations, such as including gays (men) in the bill.  Okay, I concede both points.   But, I remember, for example, only too vividly states’ rights arguments being made against passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

         But, let’s move on to a related matter. March is Women’s History Month.  It is ironic when you think about it, considering that women constitute a greater percentage of the American population than men.  Can you imagine celebrating “Men’s History Month” or “White History Month?”   But, you don’t have to be a student of history or current events to understand that despite its numerical superiority, women still have a way to go to achieve equality, not only in other countries around the world, but here at home. 

         In the U.S. workplace, for example, women are still paid less than men at every educational level and in every job category, according to a recent New York Times article on gender equality.  Moreover, they are less likely than men to hold jobs that offer flexibility or family-friendly benefits.  When they become mothers, they face more scrutiny and prejudice on the job than fathers do.

         But, more directly related to the point of this blog:  From a personal safety perspective, women are much more at risk than men, not only in our streets and communities, but in our own homes.  Statistics show that one out of every three women in the world is physically or sexually abused at some point in her life.  And the overwhelming majority of these assaults are not from strangers but family members or other people familiar to them. 

         These are not just statistics.  These are our wives, our sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters.  They’re not all straight and they’re not all white.  Some of them are lesbian, Native Americans, and immigrants.

Jerry