POPE FRANCIS: THIS IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE A MIRACLE!

3/13/13




That sure was a shocker.



The Cardinals have selected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, as our new pope. Cardinal Bergoglio is now Pope Francis.

At mass Monday morning, the pastor of one of the churches we attend in Naperville said in his homily that we can’t predict who will be pope. I agreed with that, though I took issue with the examples he used. He said that no one could have predicted that either the Polish Cardinal Karol Wojtyla nor the German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger would have been selected by the papal conclave. Wrong. Cardinal Ratzinger was the heavy favorite going into the 2005 conclave that selected him, a near shoo-in. Cardinal Wojtyla, though not known much outside Church circles in Europe, was one of the contenders at the 1978 conclave at which John Paul I was chosen. Wojtyla was a favorite, or near favorite, entering the conclave only weeks later that selected him to succeed John Paul I. Anyone could have predicted Ratzinger, and most people, at least inside the conclave, could have predicted Wojtyla.



But just about no one would have predicted Bergoglio, even though he was supposedly the runner-up eight years ago when Benedict XVI was chosen. He was considered, by 2013, too old and having had his chance. He was mentioned almost only in passing as being among the papabile. I was teaching when the announcement was made and, heading home and listening to CNN on satellite radio (Satellite radio is one of the world’s great inventions, but I digress.), I thought someone had made a mistake and meant Scherer of Brazil, not Bergoglio of Argentina, of whom I knew nearly nothing.

This is a terrific selection. A Jesuit (Ad majorem Dei gloriam, to be sure!) of any stripe would delight the Jesuit educated yours truly and ought to delight any Catholic; after being God’s paratroopers since the Reformation, the Jebs deserve to have one of their own in charge. A Latin American is only logical and long overdue. Someone from outside the Curia was necessary with the problems that permeate that organization; selecting someone on the inside would indicate that the Church would be trying to avoid a thorough housecleaning in favor of more sweeping of nastiness under the rug.



Beyond the demographics and relationship to the Curia, it is Francis’s personal traits that make him such a wonderful selection. He apparently eschews, to the extent he can, the pomp and circumstance (Some, including yours truly, would use the term “pompousness.”) that seems to permeate the mindset of elements of the clergy and hierarchy. One wonders what the reaction of the world, both Catholic and non-Catholic, was to the Cardinals’ parading around for the past week or so in expensive, elaborate, and ornate robes among the gold and glitter of the Vatican, being chauffeured around and generally kowtowed to. Such showiness and outright silliness stuck in this Catholic’s craw; it seemed as if they were parodying themselves, and the Church, and not being sharp enough to realize it.



It is utterly amazing that a Church that increasingly seems to thrive on its showier aspects has selected such a seemingly humble man to lead it. The signs are all there: He cooks his own meals and takes the bus to work. His crucifix was utterly simple. His bow to the people as he asked for their prayers as the new pope was extraordinary. His call for fraternity, charity, and simple kindness say much about the man. And his appeal to men AND WOMEN of goodwill? Wow!



At least as important, the new Pope seems to be nearly fixated on serving the poor and the sick. His work among AIDS patients is legendary in Argentina. His upbraiding of Argentinean priests for refusing to baptize the babies of single mothers for “turning away our own” is a great sign, if indeed that story is not apocryphal. Priests couldn’t deny baptism to babies of unwed mothers…can they? Maybe I’m being naïve here.



I, and many of you, would have liked someone less conservative, more likely to make some major changes in the Church regarding the role of women and married people in its structure and hierarchy. But, as I said in 2/12/13 post THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS YOU, POPE BENEDICT, we weren’t going to get a progressive out of this conclave, in which every participant was selected by John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Yes, Francis is pretty much a down the line conservative in matters of doctrine, but his personal humility and sense of perspective and mission still make him stand out among his brother Cardinals who share his innate conservatism.



Like many observers, I am reminded, when I consider Francis, of no one more than John XXIII, the greatest pope of my lifetime. John was 77 when he was selected; Francis is 76. John was, and Francis is, expected to be a caretaker, to not make any waves and keep the seat warm for the next guy. It didn’t work that way for John; in his own words, he threw “open the windows of the Church and let the fresh air of the spirit blow through” by convening Vatican II and changing the Church forever. It seemed at times as if John’s successors were working to render Vatican II irrelevant, and it more than seems that of late many elements of the Church of consider Vatican II to be an obstacle that must be worked around or eradicated, like the mustard seed that sprouts, grows wild, and makes life problematical for those who must contend with its voracious growth. But, like that bothersome mustard seed, Vatican II lives on as a testimony to John XXIII who also was a humble man who came to the Chair of St. Peter with few expectations.



It looks as if, besides being a man of the poor and servant of Christ, Pope Francis is a reformer. That reform may not take the direction that more progressive elements of the Church might like. But, in many ways, there is nothing inconsistent with theological and doctrinal conservatism and a spirit of reform. And God knows our Church needs reform. Pope Francis may be the man to achieve it.



Please join me in saying a prayer for our new Papa and heeding his call for fraternity, charity, and kindness.

THE PHARISEES TELL JESUS TO FIX THE CIGARET LIGHTER

3/6/13




Tomorrow’s Gospel reading, from the 11th chapter of Luke’s account, presents, as do most gospel passages, a situation from the time of Jesus with distinct echoes into our time.



As Luke tells us,



“(Jesus) was driving out a demon that was mute, and when the demon had gone out, the mute person spoke and the crowds were amazed.” Luke 11, 14



We don’t see many exorcisms (or instantaneous cures for epilepsy, as many, but not all, of these reported exorcisms of Jesus were) nowadays. But bear with me.

What was the reaction of “some of them,” as Luke refers to a group of people probably comprised of Pharisees and/or Scribes?



“By the power of Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he drives out demons.” Luke 11, 15



Jesus goes on to admonish those who contended that He was an agent of Satan. That admonition, in which He speaks of a “kingdom (in other gospels, a “house”) divided against itself,” was quoted, or paraphrased, by Abraham Lincoln in his speech accepting the Republican Party’s nomination for the Senate in 1858 has thus become part of the fabric of American history. But Jesus’ eloquent retort to His critics is not what I find most interesting about this passage.



Note that the “others” who ascribed Jesus’ power to the devil were the same people who had been constantly asking for a sign earlier in the gospel. And one can understand the demands for a sign; Jesus was expounding some radical ideas, ideas that would change Judaism and shake up the leadership in Jerusalem. When a guy speaks this big, he’d better have something to back up the big talk. So Jesus gives them the sign they seek, though clearly His motives were healing the possessed person, not satisfying the demands of the Pharisees.



What do the leaders of the day do in response to the sign? They dismiss it as the work of the devil. It was as if they were ancient versions of Jake Blues. Jake, as you will recall, was complaining that his brother Elwood had traded in the Bluesmobile (a Cadillac, no less) for a microphone and had replaced the Bluesmobile with a used Des Plaines (I think Des Plaines; it may have been Mt. Prospect.) cop car. When Elwood explains that the car’s



“…got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch mill. It’s got cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks”



and demonstrates the new Bluesmobile’s prowess by leaping over an open 95th Street Bridge, Jake’s only response is



“Fix the cigaret lighter”



when he finds the lighter doesn’t work.



There was nothing Jesus was going to do to satisfy the authorities of the day, just as there was nothing Elwood could do to satisfy Jake.



To further illustrate the obstinacy of the Pharisees and “others,” Luke recounts, right after the Beelzebub comment



And still others to test him, asked him for a sign from heaven. Luke 11, 16



Wait; hadn’t Jesus just performed what certainly looked like a sign from heaven in driving out the demons? The demands just kept coming, and the demands could never be satisfied.



Many of us treat God the same way. Ascribing to the popular theory that God is some kind of cosmic Short Order Cook, we make demands on Him. “Give me this, this, this, and that. And throw in something for my Uncle Bruno and Aunt Bernice.” When He doesn’t give us what we want, we complain, feel cheated, and maybe even challenge His existence. And when He does give us what we want, we aren’t satisfied and ask for more.



Like the “others” in this Gospel, we don’t listen to Jesus’ message, or we do listen but don’t like its implications. So we demand that God “prove” His message by some miracle or gift. If the miracle doesn’t come through, we can continue to ignore the message. If it does come through, hey, our order has been filled and we can go ahead and order desert in the form of something else we think we need. There is indeed limited downside to such a practice of Christianity, or such an approach to God, and plenty of upside. We don’t have to do anything or heed any message, and there is plenty of potential for goodies to come our way.



Things don’t change much over the centuries.

“DO AND OBSERVE ALL THINGS” THESE HYPOCRITES TELL US?

2/25/13




Tomorrow’s (Tuesday, 2/26/13’s) Gospel reading comes from the 23rd chapter of Matthew, in which Jesus says to His disciples:



“The scribes and the Pharisees

have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.

Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you,

but do not follow their example.

For they preach but they do not practice.

They tie up heavy burdens hard to carry

and lay them on people’s shoulders,

but they will not lift a finger to move them.

All their works are performed to be seen.

They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.”



Jesus goes on describing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, but you get the idea from this portion of the reading.



This is one of the most troubling and demanding of the teachings of Jesus, or at least it is for me.



One can easily see Jesus speaking not only of the Pharisees of His age, but of hypocritical elements of the religious leadership of all ages. For us, of course, the most relevant application of this teaching is to the religious leadership of this, our, age. Though obviously amplified by the mere fact that we are living through it, the hypocrisy, the pride, the obtuseness, and the utter poltroonishness of our many of our religious leaders seems to match that of any age. Just read the papers, which, of course, our hypocritical and vainglorious religious leaders tell us not to read because they are on some kind of campaign to “get” the Church. I don’t doubt that many, or at least some, elements of the press are hostile to the Catholic Church, and some are antagonistic toward all churches. But if the Church’s tone deaf, generally out of touch, and full of itself leadership didn’t give its enemies so much ammunition, perhaps the Church wouldn’t be pounded as hard and as often as it is currently being pummeled, generally deservedly so. But I digress.



Why is this reading so troubling? Because Jesus tells us to “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you,” despite their hypocrisy, greed, pride, and general display of those attributes that will surely separate us from God. Therefore, if Jesus is talking to us through the ages, He is telling us to “do and observe all things whatsoever” (Matthew, 23, 3) the Church leadership tells us despite, in the eyes of many Catholics (and in the eyes of many Christians of their own church leadership), the many shortcomings of many in that leadership.



I, for one, do not want to “do and observe all things whatsoever” I am taught by elements of the Church’s (and other Christian denominations’) leadership who are silly, two-faced, out of touch, full of themselves, pompous, fatuous, mendacious, falsely pious, criminal…or worse. This is indeed one of those passages in which I hope that Jesus doesn’t mean what He appears to mean. Can you imagine the abuse to which these words can be put? Oh, wait…we’ve already seen the abuse to which such words can be put.



He can’t mean this; can He? Perhaps it is a question of who holds true teaching authority, the latter day equivalent of the “seat(s) on the chair of Moses.” Perhaps many who think they occupy such seats occupy them only in their own minds. Or at least I hope so.

THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS YOU, POPE BENEDICT

2/12/13




Yesterday, the 266th Pope, Benedict XVI, became the first successor of St. Peter to resign since Pope Gregory XII stepped down as part of schism 598 years ago.

On hearing the news, yours truly’s first thought was that the 85 year old pontiff was resigning so he could still have some, perhaps extensive, control over the choice of his successor. Benedict may have wanted to insure that he was replaced by a conservative in his ideological mold, only younger and stronger so that the Church could accelerate to a sprint what seems to many of us to be the its current brisk jog back to pre-Vatican II days.



But about two minutes of reflection shot that theory down. After 27 years of Pope John Paul II and eight years of Benedict XVI, who differed in personality and temperament but not in their approach to the faith, the College of Cardinals is filled, nearly exclusively, with conservatives. Short of a miracle, there is little chance of anyone who thinks much differently from Benedict becoming his successor. The new pope, in all likelihood, will be a younger, more vigorous, perhaps more charismatic, and maybe even more conservative version of Benedict XVI. That would have been the case whether Benedict resigned or died while holding the Chair of St. Peter.

The Pope stepped down for the reason he said he stepped down: he was too tired and sick to continue serving his God and his people. There was no more to it than that.



As my regular readers know, I am no fan of Benedict XVI, primarily because of his tendency to “reinterpret” Vatican II to irrelevance or meaninglessness and his near obsession with Papal authority, the latter of which manifested itself most dyspeptically in the Vatican’s crackdown on large swaths of the American sisterhood for “radical feminist themes inconsistent with the Catholic faith.” The expensive designer shoes didn’t help, either. Regardless of what I or you think about him, though, the Pope’s resignation is perhaps his finest hour. The Pope is 85 years old and in poor health. He is, of course, concerned about his own health, as all of us are. However, he is more concerned with the health of the Church. Benedict realizes that he is no longer capable of providing the leadership that the Church needs at any time, and especially at this troubled juncture in its history. This decision was doubtless made after extensive prayer and meditation with the Boss...and it was a very good decision.



For the good of the Church, the Pope stepped down to hand the reins to a younger man. That in itself would be a gracious, magnanimous, faith filled gesture. But to the extent it sets a precedent, that it tells future pontiffs that it is okay to step down when they are no longer capable of leading the world’s 2.25 billion Catholics, it was an even greater, more enduring step that should serve the Church well for centuries.

THE WOMAN WITH A HEMORRHAGE: WHATEVER YOU DO, DON’T MAKE JESUS MAD! ?

2/5/13




Today’s Gospel reading is Mark’s account of the “two miracles,” the cure of the woman with a hemorrhage and the cure of the daughter of Jairus, the synagogue official. (Mark 5, 21-43)



Like most Gospel stories, even in Mark’s fast-paced, and short, narrative, this one is dense with meaning and lessons. Perhaps the most obvious is the power of Jesus to work miracles and the evidence such power provides that He is indeed, the Son of God. Just a bit deeper, and maybe more important, is the role of faith in the saving mission of Jesus Christ. While both the woman with a hemorrhage and Jairus, and certainly those who observed these miracles, may have thought that the miracles were effected by contact with, or the actions of, Jesus, it was the faith of recipients that resulted in the miracles. Both the woman and Jairus believed that Jesus could save them; they didn’t doubt and they didn’t hesitate. Neither thought “What the hell, nothing else has worked, so I’ll give this Jesus guy that everyone is talking about a whirl. What have I got to lose?” No. Each was convinced that Jesus could, respectively, cure the hemorrhage that had been afflicting the woman for twelve years and save Jairus’s daughter from what looked like certain death.



There is something else about the story that has long caught my attention. The first of the miracle stories recounts the woman’s touching the cloak of Jesus and being cured. Jesus “aware at once that power had gone out from him, turned around in the crowd and asked ‘Who has touched my clothes?’” (Mark 5, 30) Note that the story does not indicate that Jesus was disturbed or angry; He simply asked who touched Him. But then the story goes on



“The woman, realizing what had happened to her, approached in fear and trembling. She fell down before Jesus and told him the whole truth.” (Mark 5, 33)



This woman was conditioned, perhaps from the teachings of the Old Testament conveyed by the rigid, stern, rules-obsessed teachers of the day (the Pharisees, but does this sound at all familiar?), to believe that Jesus would be angry with her, perhaps for seeking His mercy without His explicit permission or the permission of the religious authorities or for the temerity she, a woman, displayed in touching a man, or even his clothes. But what does Jesus do?



“He said to her ‘Daughter, our faith has saved you. Go in peace and be cured of your affliction.’” (Mark 5, 34)



He wasn’t angry. He wasn’t appalled that the woman had broken some kind of man made rule. He was delighted to have been able to cure her and was amazed, and marveled, at her faith.



That’s the way God is; He wants to help us and to cure us because He loves us. He doesn’t hand out favors and cures as rewards for slavishly following “the rules” somebody claims to have made in His name. We don’t have to beg God for His miracles; He wants to perform them for us. All He asks is faith and, in a sense, permission to do those things He does so well and so lovingly.

DO YOU REALLY NEED ME TO PRAY FOR YOU?

1/21/13




I have long had ambiguous feelings about praying for people or asking for prayers from people. I spend a lot of time praying for friends, public figures, and even for random strangers. I’m not at all shy about asking people to pray for me. (In fact, while I’m on the subject, please say a prayer for me and my family and I will say at least one for you and yours. Thanks.) Catholics regularly ask the saints to pray for us. One of our most beautiful prayers is the Memorare, a prayer of petition to the Blessed Mother that concludes



“O Mother of the Word Incarnate,

despise not my petitions,

but in your mercy, hear and answer me.

Amen.”



So why am I do have such ambiguous feelings about mutual prayer?

Leave aside for a moment, as grist for another mill, whether we should be asking God for anything beyond knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. God is, after all, not some kind of cosmic short order cook. See my 12/30/12 LBJ AND THE INSCRUTABILITY OF THE LORD. I still have problems with praying for people and having people pray for me, even though I still believe that prayer for others is one of our most important jobs in life and an activity in which I regularly and enthusiastically engage and I ask people, all of you included, for your prayers. Why?



Praying for others seems to assume that God has to be talked into doing good things for us. We sometimes have an image of God as some kind of almighty curmudgeon, or worse, who really is looking for an opportunity to flick us into hell, or otherwise wreak havoc on our lives, at the slightest provocation. He must be appeased…or else. And what better way to appease Him but to request that someone, especially someone on His good side, ask Him to do something nice for us, or at least to go easy on us? As Christians, and especially as Catholics, we consider Mary to be as close to Him as one could possibly get. He can’t refuse His mother, right? So let’s ask Mary to bring our requests, permissions, etc., to Him, and maybe He’ll accede to our requests.



This whole notion seems absurd. God is, after all, love. He wants to do what is best for us and is always striving to do what is best for us. The problem is our cooperation and the cooperation of other people with His plans for good for us, but I digress. He doesn’t have to be talked into inundating us with manifestations of His love; that’s what He does as a loving Father. And He’s not going to do what is bad for us or give us things we shouldn’t have, no matter how much we ask His mother to nag Him about it. And, by the way, Mary is not going to nag her Son to do what we want simply because we want it.



So it seems nonsensical to ask people to ask God to do things He already intends to do and pointless and harmful to ask people to ask God to do things He doesn’t want to do because they are not in His loving plan for us. As St. Peter tells us (1 Peter 5, 6)



“Cast all your worries upon him because he cares for you.”



and the author of Hebrews tells us (Hebrews 13, 5)



“…for he has said ‘I will never forsake you or abandon you.’”



And he means NEVER, but I digress.





And yet…



Those who have heralded God’s message often, almost characteristically, ask us to pray for each other. St. James (James 5, 16) writes



“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.”





The author of the letter, or the homily, to the Hebrews says (Hebrews 13, 19):



“I especially ask for your prayers that I may be restored to you very soon.”





St. Paul tells us in his second letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 1, 11):



“…as you help us with prayer so that thanks may be given by many on our behalf for the gift granted us through the prayers of many.”



And again in his first letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 5, 25):



“Brothers, pray for us, too.”



These are only two of the many instances in which Paul asks for prayers; the ends of his letters are filled with such requests.





So if prayers to a loving God to do loving things are unnecessary, why do His heralds frequently ask for prayers and advise us to pray for each other?



I, like all you, don’t know. But, as usual, I have a theory. Prayer for others is a gift not to the person prayed for but for the person doing the praying. Prayer benefits primarily the prayER not the prayEE. God is already taking care, or trying to take care, of the person prayed for. But the person who prays for someone else grows in love not only for the person for whom s/he is praying but also for God Himself…or Herself.



Any reason to talk to God is a good reason. But talking to God on behalf of someone else is living out His command of love of and service to each other.

“YOU ARE MY BELOVED SON, WITH YOU I AM WELL PLEASED.”

1/13/13




Today’s Gospel recounts Luke’s rendition of the baptism of our Lord. As Luke recounts (Luke 3, 21-22):



“After all the people had been baptized and Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son, with you I am well pleased.’”

As I have read that passage through the years, I have often felt that somehow those words of the Father were intended not only for Jesus but would some day, perhaps even now, be intended for me, or for any reader of this passage. But then I come to my senses and think that couldn’t be possible; how could God be so pleased with me that he would actually say so, as He did with His Son. After all, He had plenty of reasons to be pleased with Jesus; with me, not so much. Surely, it is the height of vanity to think that God would come out and say He is pleased with us; after all, compared to what Jesus did, or even what the great saints and holy people of history have done, most of us, or at least I, have not done much, or at least not much that was good and worthy of note or recognition by God.



But then I dispense with the filter of reason and pick up the filter of faith.



God is indeed pleased with all of us. Those of us who are parents can see, maybe not at all times easily, but we can see, how God could be pleased with all of us who are in communion, even remotely in communion, with him. What parent is not pleased with his or her children? Of course, we are not always pleased with what our children do, the decisions they make, or how they live their lives, but we are pleased with them, we delight in them. Perhaps the only caveat I would thrown in here is that we can’t be pleased, or at least not well pleased, with those who have cut off contact with us. How can we be pleased with those we don’t know, who have chosen not to know us? Likewise, God is pleased with all of us who let Him have access to us. He wants to be pleased with all of us and strives to establish the contact that would make this possible; all we have to do is let Him establish that contact. That doesn’t mean we have to follow a bunch of rules, join a religion, or even publicly profess our faith, though the latter two may, or may not, come later. It just means that we have to be open to the love of God…to enable us to please Him simply because we are His, or Her, children and want to know Him, or Her, to be with Him, or Her.



Is He “well pleased” with us? I suppose He is, and the degree of his pleasure with us doesn’t matter all that much. Again, those of us who are parents know that our degree of pleasure with our children tends to vary, though our love never does. I still, however, cannot get over the thought that if the Father was “well pleased” with Jesus, all of us have a long way to go on our journey of faith before we reach that pinnacle. But that is the point of life.



The next time you hear or read this passage from Luke, or its parallels in the other Gospels, imagine God’s speaking about you when S/he says “This is my beloved son (or daughter), with him (or her) I am well pleased.” It’s not only comforting; it’s true.