Obstruction of Justice

Today is World Youth Day. Instituted by Pope Saint John Paul II, this has been an annual celebration of the youth of the world, who are not only the Church's future, but her present as well.  While WYD is observed every year, Pope Francis thought it would be a good idea to hold the current biennial en masse celebration in Krakow, JPII's hometown, especially because it is the Year of Mercy, and Mercy was perhaps the greatest cause in his pontificate. The theme for the celebration is always taken from scripture; this year's theme is Matthew 5:7, "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." 

By giving us the prayer we have come to call The Lord's Prayer, it is true that Jesus wanted to give us the paradigm of prayer "after His own Heart." That's one important thing that people seek from their spiritual mentors. But he also wanted to remind us of how everyone stands before God as beggars, totally dependent upon Him for everything we have and are.

At the same time, Jesus wants his disciples to seek the fullness of life (cf. John 10:10--which was the theme of WYD 1993, which I was privileged to attend). The abundant life that Jesus promises is far more than a list of goods or services that we might demand from God as if they were terms of surrender or for returning a hostage. We're talking about nothing less than participation in the life of the Blessed Trinity.

Is it possible not to want that? More to the point, is it possible to live as if we didn't want it–is it possible to choose against it? Jesus himself insists so. 

While even the pagan philosopher Aristotle noted that everyone desires happiness and fulfillment by nature, it's just that everyone's vision of happiness doesn't line up appropriately with each other's vision–and quite often they fail to line up with God's vision. We can in fact have a scorpion in hand when our son asks for an egg. When Jesus suggests so, we may think it preposterous (and certainly He meant the question rhetorically), but He sneaked in a grain of truth. All of Jesus's parables and comparisons reflect His keen understanding of our fallen human nature.

In this respect he is consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures that He learned. Say what you will about the content of the Old Testament, its divine and human authors knew well our tendency toward selfish corruption. As we read from Genesis, God couldn't even find ten righteous people in the city of Sodom, so He followed through on the decision to cleanse it by fire. As a literal event it may be hard to understand, but in principle not at all. 

Perhaps you've seen this election sign. Given the contemporary state of politics, one might be tempted to cast such a vote.

The Church's Catechism (1867) picks up on a centuries-old teaching tool that lists sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. Not that any sin is acceptable, but these are so heinous in God's sight that He demands immediate and total redress. 

First is the blood of Abel. Recall how God told Killer Cain, "Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!" (Gen 4:10). The balance of the universe is thrown off by willful murder. Our dignity in the Heart of God ought to be our dignity in each other's hearts; when we treat each other otherwise, we are debasing our own dignity.

Then there is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah alluded to in today's first reading from Gen 18. It has long been understood as sexual activity that physically contravenes human nature, involving persons of the same sex, or by extension persons of the opposite sex who have made a point of separating the two appropriate purposes of marital love: union and procreation.

More recent authors have demonstrated an amplified sense of their sin, to include a lack of concern for the needy. While this fits in with the other examples of vengeance-seeking sin, the most salient example is the one herein cited. Consult this article for more details.

The cry of the Israelites oppressed in Egypt (cf. Ex 3:7-10) also seeped out of the soil. Having heard it (of course God knew of it, but the Scriptures speak poetically), God decided at length to intervene through the initially unwilling agency of Moses. He may have been carrying around the guilt of his earlier Egyptian homicide, as if to object that he was in no place to advocate the cessation of oppression. That God deems otherwise attests to His mercy.

God's outrage at the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan is variously attested in the Hebrew Scriptures. These folks in particular were already disadvantaged, lacking their customary means of security. Israel of all nations should know better than to treat anyone as second-class citizens, because she herself had been so considered in her day.

Injustice to the wage earner is also reprehensible to the Lord. When people in power withhold the funds necessary to live a decent life, that is oppression along the lines of the offenses mentioned above.

These sins have one commonality: the intentional obstruction of human flourishing. We may wonder why God does not seem to punish these crimes immediately and unmistakably. Perhaps that will remain forever scandalous. But the consequences of these actions nonetheless proceed. The world is basking (basting?) in them right now.

Our heavenly Father invests us with understanding, freedom, and passions to respond gracefully to Him and to our fellow human beings. Again, we may wonder why God does not prevent people from failing to respond gracefully. But the perhaps central component to today's parable is a dual persistence: God's in allowing us to recognize our sins, repent of them, confess them, and to live forward with renewed attentiveness; and our persistence in doing those very things as often as we sin.

Meeting The Pope; Meeting A Saint

One place that American Catholics ought to visit is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. One place that every Catholic ought to visit is Rome. I've gotten to visit the former at least a dozen times, the latter, twice.

I am thankful for the many benefactors who had remembered me upon my diaconate ordination, without whose support I wouldn't have gone.

It all started as a relatively small contingent: just a dozen or so of us. Once word got out, the group just about tripled. Not many of us had been there before or knew what to expect. Well, we knew about St. Peter's. And lots, L  O   T    S of other churches. And the Vatican Museum, the Sistine Chapel, the restaurants...as for an itinerary, however, there was nothing of the sort, as least as far as we knew. Sometimes that's the best way to go.

Not many people boarded the only plane flying to Rome that day from Philadelphia. It seemed as if we had most of it to ourselves. While we had room to stretch our legs, I wasn't very much relaxed--not for fear of flying, but rather because of excitement!

We stayed at the North American College (NAC), the residence for seminarians from American dioceses who study in one of the Pontifical Universities. Study in Rome, perhaps after ordination, was an aspiration of mine since seminary days. People used to tell me that they could see me doing that ("Aw, I bet you say that to all the seminarians!"). But with the passage of time, a clearer realization of internal and external limitations, and acceptance of God's will in the present moment, I am increasingly content with where I'm at. In fact, the will of God positively "matches" people up with precisely who and what they need. It turns out to be splendid.

We toured churches.  Every day. It got a bit tiring, such that I took an afternoon off to nap. I might have had a lot of pasta that day, too. (I might have had a lot of pasta almost every day.) Even with my nap day, there simply wasn't enough time to cover everything.

Our guide for the fortnight was Fr. Frederick Miller, a former professor of Systematic Theology at St. Charles, more recently a professor at Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, MD. At that point Father Miller was a spiritual director for the NAC. His familiarity with Romanitá enabled us to tour the Scavi, the excavations beneath St. Peter's Basilica.

He was also able to speak to now-Cardinal Dziwisz, Pope John Paul's personal secretary, who quickly and unexpectedly got us into a baciamano audience. I can best describe it as a "conveyor-belt" meeting with His Holiness, our group being one among many who were blessed to be there that day. We were instructed to be at a certain place at a certain time, which became a "Hurry Up and Wait" session. Looking back, it could have been an hour and it could have been a week...we were going to meet Pope John Paul II!

That was no cardboard cut-out of Father Miller!

It became clear as we entered the room where he was seated, this was in some respects a shadow of the vigorous man who first ascended the Chair of Peter when I was barely two years old. In August of 1993, the threshold of my senior year of high school, I traveled with other pilgrims from the Diocese of Allentown to World Youth Day in Denver. Although he had suffered numerous health problems, not to mention an assassination attempt, John Paul stood tall! For such an active man, the prospect of scaling the Rockies would be akin to a Roman pilgrim's determination to tour the Scavi or climb the Spanish Steps. In order to adhere to such a rigorous schedule when we met him nearly ten years later, this man had to be moving by dint of a Higher Power!

As people sometimes do in anticipation of meeting a famous leader or celebrity, I waited my turn, thinking about what I should say to the Holy Father. As if I should have had to say anything! What can I tell him? What if he says something to me? At this point, the Pope's debilitation was visible, but he did speak to some people, and blessed others. In reality we were all blessed, and he spoke to us all without having to say a word.

After our individual meetings, the group of us gathered behind the Holy Father to sing a Latin tribute song that we learned in the seminary:

Domine, salvum fac patrem nostrum, Ioannem Paulum, et exaudi nos in die qua invocaverimus Te.

Lord, preserve our father, John Paul, and graciously hear us on the day we call upon You.

Then, off we went, to enjoy the rest of our trip and never wash our hands again.

As John Paul II was such a "mover and shaker," he gave millions of people the opportunity to meet him. He formed and inspired thousands of vocations to the priesthood and religious life. That encounter enabled us seminarians to thank him for nourishing the seeds of faith, hope, and charity in us, so that we in our turn could nourish others.

Saint John Paul II, pray for us to Christ, so that we can be people of His Word!

This Word is on Fire

I suspect that many people--more, as time goes on--are accessing religious and spiritual content online.

As is the case for all online material (good and evil), one can seek it here in comfort and privacy; here one can listen to it, weigh it, filter it with one's previous understanding and preconceived notions, and dismiss it, lest it disturb and foment personal change.

Of course, one also can learn and grow. That is, at heart, the fundamental desire of the seeker, no matter how much we may resist.

The Catholic Church, as a long-time purveyor of wisdom and truth, is sore indebted to Father Robert E. Barron, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, who has a terrific thing going with the Word On Fire enterprise. I first became aware of Fr. Barron through his Catholicism video series a couple of years ago. He has since released a sequel, Catholicism: The New Evangelization. The latter term is what it's all about, according to Bl. John Paul II, with the generous agreement of his successors. The time is ripe for the sowing of the Good News of Jesus Christ, now as ever; but the Church cannot rely on older methods to accomplish this. Because the Internet is the place to be, the Internet is the place to evangelize, particularly on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and dozens of others that pop up when you press the "Share This!" button on an article or photo.

By order of his Ordinary, Cardinal George, Fr. Barron has been devoting his entire priestly ministry to the New Evangelization through "Word On Fire." If you become a regular listener, doubtless you will begin to pick up on some of his favorite words and phrases. That happens with any standing commitment or relationship; and the extent to which you are not deterred by that is the extent of your maturity.

Here is a link to Father Robert Barron's most recent homily, for the feast of the Baptism of the Lord. Enjoy it, and pass it on (by way of this blog, if you would; it may help me improve).

Tell Us How You Really Feel!

On the Facebook, I was privy to a conversation about our culture "shifting to the right of the Pope." That observation, given without context, was the catalyst of discussion. I guess it may have had something to do with what I shall call Duckgate. Maybe lots of people have been acknowledging Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson's right to have and articulate his beliefs regarding same-sex activity. I haven't been following this scandal, and have lost no sleep over it. I've lost more sleep writing for this dank wilderness of a blog.

The conversation proceeded to mention Pope Francis, a favorite among most of the participants for his gentle demeanor, charitable activity, and tolerance of seekers and objectors. This guy approves of public breast-feeding! What has the Pope to do with breasts!? And so forth. It took a humorous turn, such that I wouldn't mind a frank yet charitable conversation with these folks someday!

This panel favors Francis. I don't want to say "for the wrong reasons" (it slipped out), but then again, what are those reasons? I don't claim to know the inner hearts of any of these good people. Conversations of this sort reflect much of the current fascination with Francis. Further speculation into motives for this fascination might exceed my pay grade, but that never stopped me before:

• He gives Catholicism a good face (read: a better face than Benedict or John Paul did. As a late-model Gen-Xer, my peers and I don't go back much earlier than that).
• He's more open to those whose association with Catholicism is at best tenuous and at worst inimical.
• He is the "real deal," because he overtly shows love for the poor and marginalized and tolerance for seekers (again, unlike his predecessors, who could as well have been chaplains for the GOP).

The interlocutors never asked me to participate. Your Reverend Troll (if I deserve that moniker) was moved to comment on the general tenor of the thread, as well as the possibility, voiced by one speaker, that people may return to the Church--not necessarily they, but others--on account of Pope Francis. The comment, in toto:

As gentle and tolerant as Pope Francis is, I don't expect scads of "reverts" to the faith on account of him. He's already reaffirmed certain teachings as immutable, even while reminding (especially priests, 'cause we need it!) that Jesus' identity and mission undergird all the hot-button topics...at least for Catholics; and this no matter who wears the white skullcap. What kinda irks me is how Francis' immediate predecessors have been billed as authoritarian, callous, elitist, I'd almost say because of Francis' style and content. "[Thinking of Francis as] the real deal" insults his predecessors, and puts him on an unfair pedestal as well. Although he seems like the kind of person who is content to be himself, no matter what the public perception – and this may well be the key to his charm. In this and several other respects, I'd like to be like him when I grow up. [emphases mine, because Facebook doesn't use italics]

Then it seemed that further development was necessary. Once salt is added, it's hard to remove.

..."Upon further review," as they say in the NFL, it's rather pessimistic not to expect some genuine conversions; and why not, because many things about him manifest the appeal of Jesus and, yes, of the Catholic faith, in ways that other popes may not have exhibited; or the signals weren't so clear (that's very much the Holy Spirit's domain). That's all for now.

I've just about had enough defending Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II. But hey--they didn't ask for it, nor do they really need it!

A Rave And A Rant

Blogger Leah Libresco writes about the excitement that numerous disparate voices share concerning Pope Francis, from Time to Vanity Fair to The Advocate. While Catholic periodicals might be expected to feature the Pope, the honorable mentions from the secular press are, well, honorable to mention (see Kathy Schiffer's cover of the covers)! Recently ABC's Good Morning America offered a fine feature of the Pontiff's encounter with two of its reporters. He's a good "bad penny," always turning up.

It's refreshing to witness such interest in times when people recognize the faces of entertainers more easily than public servants! One thing we can say about Pope Francis: He is getting the Word out.  But what word? Whose word?

Christ's, of course!

Insofar as he has taught about matters of faith and morals, his teachings are due our "religious submission of intellect and will," according to the Church's teaching on her teaching authority, the Magisterium. So far, he has issued his highest-level teachings in the form of an encyclical letter, Lumen Fidei (a "concerto for four hands," two of them Benedict's), and most recently, an apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium.

Upon reading this last paragraph, even if you are a Catholic, you may be wondering about that phrase religious submission of will and intellect. It is often presented as professional jargon (the profession in question being "theologian"), but it is not at all difficult to understand, though perchance to execute. A faithful Catholic would seek to understand and assent to papal declarations that concern Catholic teaching. Cardinal Newman assured us, "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt," but it would be worthwhile to seek prompt and satisfactory resolution to any difficulties from trusted resources. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the most reliable resource for our dollar.

You may have noticed that Pope Francis is fond of interviews. To date, the interview has not been a medium for the Magisterium, although Benedict and John Paul II both gave interviews that were published in book form. True to the form of our age of information, Francis already has given three in his first year upon Peter's Chair. People have complained that interviews (and these in particular) lack precision of content and delivery, but this doesn't much matter to many listeners, who find refreshing his portrayal of the Catholic Church, in word, yes, but more so in gesture.

Like Ms. Libresco, however, I am not thrilled to the point of effusive joy. He has said nothing new, although he has restated orthodox utterances in different ways. In terms of charitable outreach, he has done nothing new. (Somewhere there is a "meme" of photos of Francis doing certain beautiful things, alongside his predecessors doing the same things, e.g., embracing disfigured persons).

Excuse me: with regard to the pontifical lifestyle, he has done new things. He has abandoned most papal peculiarities, no longer emblazoning his coat of arms on his fascia (sash, or as one of our seminary deans called it, "belly band"), living in the traditional Vatican apartment suite, or wearing red Gucci slippers. He drives his own car, etc. If a successor ever wished to reintroduce anything of what Francis set aside, or in any way look or sound like himself rather than Francis, he might have a hard time. That's the "cult of personality," which very much characterizes this age, probably as much as any other ("I belong to Apollos!").

As one who tends to fancy the theoretical over the practical (yet seeks balance here, as elsewhere), I respect, admire, and weakly imitate the Pope's outreach. As Cardinal Bergoglio, he presented a remarkable portrait of the Church as a whole, and, perhaps unwittingly, of his pontificate : "The Church is called to come out of herself and to go to the peripheries, not only geographically, but also the existential peripheries: the mystery of sin, of pain, of injustice, of ignorance and indifference to religion, of intellectual currents, and of all misery." This smacks of mission, a constitutive element of the Church and her children, regardless of what form of the Mass or style of vestments or (insert your favorite variable here) you prefer.

This is a Jesuit talking here. I don't mean that (anymore) as a jibe. The Society is the Church's peripheral nervous system; and what fully operative Body lacks one? But you don't have to be a Jesuit to be a Creatively Faithful Contrarian (a CFC, but the good kind that improves the environment). CFCs have a way of challenging everyone, and that can be somewhat disconcerting. Ask Jesus.

I have withstood enjoyed the company of such people over the years. They may not have been faithful to the Church as such, but they were faithful to me, even if I sometimes felt like clay being molded (not in a romantic way, à la Ghost, but in a heartless way, à la Jeremiah 18). These friends have brought me to the present moment, oftentimes staying awake as late as now, helping to clarify and purify my faith.

It's getting late, and I want to finish the thought.

I can't control my own life, so sure as shittake mushrooms I can't control yours; but would people please just stop framing Pope Emeritus Benedict, and even Pope Soon-Saint John Paul II, as antitheses of Pope Francis? Would you respect B16 and JP2 for their acceptance of the "trappings" (we know not in what spirit) as much as you respect Francis for his rejection of them? Would you stop contrasting B16 and JP2's styles of interaction and preaching to Francis'? Would you consider each man's content alongside his delivery, allowing some of the dust to settle around Francis' latest utterance and photos before reluctantly, or gleefully, waving goodbye to the Church's future, or to her past?

Insofar as these men hesitatingly yet confidently accepted the call to the papacy as they had accepted priesthood, they are Peter, part of a Tradition that can both embrace and eschew trappings, speak gently and stridently, affirm the Church's teachings while loving God's confused and contrary children, among whom they must include themselves. All three would concur: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and I am not."

I Hate Divorce, But I Love The Divorced

Our local daily recently featured the efforts of several area churches that offer informational and supportive programs for the separated and divorced. One participant happily noted that the Catholic Church is "beginning to recognize that divorce is real."

This and other quotes are best understood in their contexts: the whole article, the whole interview (much of which didn't likely make the article), the life of the speaker, and so forth. Articles are necessarily selective, and therefore are subject to scrutiny and contention.

Articles also can foster genuine dialogue, the mutual search for truth-in-charity. To that end, I would affirm that the Church has always recognized divorce, in the sense that it's a reality, that people do it. Recognition, permission, and approval are three different words.

Divorce long predates the Church. In Dt 24:1-4, Moses recognized that couples already were divorcing on the basis of "something indecent" that the man found in the woman. Neither the laws nor the culture admitted reciprocity, whenever the woman might have found indecency in the man's conduct. Earlier, in Dt 22:13ff, Moses treated a divorce scenario that involved dishonesty (as many do, from both parties!). Then you have the prophet Malachi, whose biting sound byte says it all: "For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel" (2:16; for context see 2:10-17, if not the whole book--it's short).

With curiosity I note that Mal 2:!6 expresses divorce with the Greek participle ἐξαποστείλῃς  ("sending away"), rooted in [ex]apostello, the origin of apostle.

Jesus declared Moses' divorce laws to be a concession, "by reason of the hardness of your hearts" (Mt 19:8f), and reaffirmed the primordial arrangement: "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate" (19:4-6).

The Church cannot fight the fact that the civil law may terminate the civil dimensions of a marital contract. The Church cannot fight the fact that men and women cease to live together as husband and wife (which often happens long before the civil divorce date, indeed long before the physical separation). For the Church, or anyone, to claim that these are not realities would be insane.

When the woman in the above article praises the Church's recognition of the reality of divorce, I suspect she means to praise her parish and other congregations that are offering forums for compassion, education, and support, even if local-level support has taken a couple of decades to materialize.

+ + + + +

In 1980, a Synod of Bishops first addressed the marital problems that Catholics and others face within the positive context of Church teaching. In conjunction with that synod, Pope John Paul II wrote Familiaris Consortio.  In 1997, Pope John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Council for the Family in response to their meeting "On the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried."

To summarize the 1997 document:

• The Church will do what she can to assist the baptized who have attempted non-sacramental marriages, affirming the grace of God and the Church's maternal compassion even while affirming Church teachings.
• Remarried Catholics are welcome in the Church. Like everyone else, they must listen to the Word of God and engage in prayer, repentance, and charity, so to foster genuine hope for their eternal salvation.
• Special attention must be paid to the formation of children born to non-sacramental marriage, as well as to their "support network" (close influences among their family and friends).

While non-Catholic religious bodies may sanction second-plus marriages, the Catholic Church maintains that a sacramental marriage remains binding until the death of a spouse, or until the validity of the bond has been disproven by the Church Tribunal's scrutiny. This latter situation is called the "declaration of nullity" or "annulment," for short. It does not intend to pass judgment on the good intentions of a couple, but rather whether the consent they exchanged truly gave rise to the Sacrament of Matrimony. Tribunals rely on the honest testimony of the petitioning spouse and those enlisted to offer corroborating testimony.

Divorced but not remarried Catholics are encouraged to remain faithful to the Sacraments, to prayer, sacrifice, and charity. They must also preserve the integrity and chastity of their initial bond, because it is considered sacramental and binding until proven otherwise. We recognize that many Catholics initiate dating and indeed courtship after (and often before!) civil divorce; to deny this would be as foolish as to deny the reality of divorce itself. These couples must preserve chastity like any other unmarried couple, and must also avoid giving the "wink-wink" impression of being as married as anyone else "except for the technicality."

I recall (and still shudder at the recollection of) one best man who publicly declared of the  groom, "It's about time he makes an honest woman of her (the bride)." A ceremony of the highest solemnity will not make a dishonest person honest. Grace builds upon nature.

As far as I am aware, this couple is no longer married to each other.

"But when the Son of Man comes, will he find valid marriages on earth?" #thingsJesusneversaid

For various reasons some Catholics attempt subsequent marriages without seeking a declaration of nullity for their first union. And there are situations in which the couple had sought a declaration but the Church would not grant it (by far the minority, and for reasons that are beyond the scope of this article, and my competency, to discuss). The Church owes compassion to Catholics in this situation, though they may not partake of the Sacraments of Eucharist or Reconciliation until the initial bond (and any intervening bonds, where applicable) is declared null and the current marriage is solemnized ("convalidated") by a duly-authorized priest or deacon of the Catholic Church.

Some finer points on these matters are treated by this 1994 letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Here as always, it is most prudent not to act on one's own intentionally isolated judgment of conscience, but rather to consult a qualified external source on the local level (e.g. a parish priest, deacon, or pastoral minister).

This teaching is hard to accept, but personal experience in my own family attests that it can be accepted and lived, though patience is needed during the time of ineligibility to receive the sacraments, and during the annulment process.

+ + + + +

The Reading Eagle article did not specify whether these post-divorce programs were assisting the (validly or invalidly) remarried. Whether or not remarriage is involved, these spiritual initiatives are laudable. Alongside our premarital preparation programs, they express the Church's ardent care for souls, as well as her insistence upon the sacredness of Holy Matrimony.