Power, Vocation and Charism
- Mon 14th July 2008, 1:42 pm
When challenged by a freshman, a sophomore in my high school seminary cited the delegation of authority to him from the Pope, by way of the Cardinal, through the school hierarchy. After a pause to gain his breath, the “authority” figure was startled to hear the freshman’s riposte. “Oh yeah, I’m a temple of the Holy Spirit! So top that.”
As I recall, a summary detention seemed to end the matter. Lesson #1: Speaking truth to power doesn’t necessarily trump power. As Max Weber, one of the 19th century founders of social science said, “Power is the ability to make other people do what they do not want to do.” It is a primary feature of any human organization. However, power operates in a set of patterned relationships, such as parent-child, teacher-student, and pastor-parishioner. These are social institutions, just as marriage (husband-wife), family (children-parents), and church (preacher-followers) are.
The wreck of a couple’s life when they were expelled from their small evangelical church is one of the most devastating expressions of power of which I have heard. In our secular society, banishment by a church doesn’t normally affect our social standing or ability to earn an income. In fact, if there is a factional split in these free-church tradition organizations, generally the dissident group merely sets up another church. If you are with a group, the sanction is muted or rejected all together as an unjust act with no moral force.
Patterns of dominance and submission characterize human interaction. In American culture the rule of law is superior to all. However, some are more equal than others, since the law as an instrument of power generally reflects the interests of those who have the most influence with legislatures and individual law makers.
Even within the Church, equality as children of God is not always seen in practice. Traditionally, in Christian communities, women are to be submissive to men. St. Paul’s admonition that men are supposed to give their lives for their wives has not been a primary emphasis. Lay people traditionally, are supposed to “pray, pay, and obey.”
The celibate clerical vocation and the consecrated vocations of clerics and lay men and women as members of religious orders have been seen for a very long time as a more perfect state and something to be aspired to. We only have a couple of married couples who have been canonized, and in both cases they were celebrated for living together as “brother and sister.”
According to traditional Catholic philosophy, theology and folk culture, popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, nuns, and brothers were all part of the “Great Chain of Being” in a world which emphasized the essence or fundamental nature of things over their actual existence. Occupying a higher plane in the world of vocations indicated an intrinsically higher status, with a concomitant increase in moral and social power.
With the collapse of rigid social structures after World War I, the emergence of the United States, with its Calvinist secular religion, paved the way for notions of capitalist economic success legitimized by and representative of moral achievement. Personal prosperity was indicative of Divine blessing on one’s life and activities. The existentialist philosophies of Camus and Sartre focused on different responses to the absurdity of reality. Camus gave us the opportunity to create meaning by conscious choices. Sartre said that there was now way out. Hell is other people.
By and large, the Christian churches and their teaching organs held to their traditional view of the world and rejected existentialism and the early psychology of both Freud and Jung. All of the social and power relationships in Christianity were seen as divinely ordained for both Catholics and Protestants.
However, Catholicism harbored a hidden shame. The psychological, physical, and sexual abuse of minors has been the elephant in the room since the second century. Sex abuse is first documented in the Council of Elvira in 309. St. Peter Damien graphically described and protested it in the mid-eleventh century. Various attempts were made to deal with the issue with varying degrees of success.
As a boy at Catholic boys’ camp, there were a number of rules to make sure that we would be protected, which were basically the same as for Boy Scouts. The high school seminary also had similar rules. Parents like my own, who were not cowed by the status of priests and nuns, conferred a special protection on their children, since those in power and those who were predators knew which parishioners were not sheep. However, the ultimate institutional guardians of minors were the bishops and the civil authorities. Much has been said and written recently about the role of the bishops and I won’t go into that here.
Yet, there is a larger set of occasions and causes for sexual abuse and they are related to our concept of vocation. In my high school seminary, when one student asked a respected older priest about how you know if you have a vocation, the answer was “You have a vocation if you can keep the rules.” In my training as a Jesuit novice, the emphasis was on charism and discernment. “Do you have the gifts?” “Does the life bring a sense of happiness and peace?” In essence the focus was on discerning how and where we were being called.
It took me some years to internalize that second view. When I did, I knew that I was not being called to be a Jesuit. I remember very distinctly that one of my classmates asked me why and I said that it was not my vocation. I said that we are most truly ourselves in God’s holiness when we choose to accept our gifts and our true calling in life. I was surprised to hear an honest and pragmatic reply. “If what you say is true, religious life is not an objectively higher state.” I wasn’t really prepared for what came next. He said, “If I were to leave, I wouldn’t be able to pursue my graduate studies.” I didn’t say anything, but the look of bewilderment in his eyes left me shaken.
A couple of weeks later, I saw Jason (not his real name). I was heading to my apartment and something told me to take him with me; to somehow extricate him from his life with the Jesuits. Yet I also knew that he had to come to his own decisions and there was no moral justification for me to interfere. Many other scholastics had left and, by and large, friendships endured and the men looked out for each other. Still, something was amiss.
A couple of months later the news came swiftly and shockingly. Jason had committed suicide. He was a brilliant student, a promising poet, a cellist, and a young man in an existential crisis. His teachers and fellow students were disconsolate. The older, stoic, Jesuits openly wept. I became emotionally convinced of what I had known to be academically true. Philosophy and theology are more than academic matters. They are matters of life and death.
Why did we make such different decisions? Why did I see new horizons and feel fresh energy? Why did Jason feel that there was no exit? Obviously, we will never know. However, a big part of it has to do with what my mother told me as a small child and what I heard from my fellow freshman classmate. “I am a temple of the Holy Spirit.”
It is the only reason I can think of for having the disposition of leaving something that isn’t working; of leaving a life and setting a course by a pillar of fire. It is the only way to be free of the power and intimidation of success and the pathology of the institutional norms we have swallowed whole. It is the only way that we can free ourselves and our children to make a ruckus; to hold others accountable regardless of their status and power. It is the only way to live “in the freedom of the children of God” in our lives as members of the Christian community and of our secular communities. “I am a temple of the Holy Spirit.”
Old and New Inside St. Peters.
- Mon 30th June 2008, 9:05 pm
This past Sunday’s celebration of the Feast of Sts Peter and Paul and the imposition of the Pallium in Rome was quite striking in terms of its inclusion of both the old and the new. While it was mass according to the standard form we are used to, it had a number of things different from how we might be accustomed to. One of them was the presence of the Patriarch of Constantinople at the Liturgy of the Word even with the gospel being read in Greek. Another, which will become a feature of future Papal masses, is that communion will now be distributed in two different ways. Those that receive from one of the many priests that distribute communion at Papal events will still have the choice of receiving the Eucharist on the hand or on the tounge, standing, kneeling, etc. Those who receive from the Pope however, must kneel and receive only on the tounge – just as one did before the Second Vatican Council. The Vatican points out that while receiving on the hand is legal, albeit by special indult that nearly everybody has, it is not the ordinary, or normal method for reception of the sacrament, others have complained that it represents a return to the past by an old man looking for some comfort. While part of that may be true, the fact that the Pope did not celebrate according to the Tridentine suggests something that others have mentioned, namely that he’s looking for reconciliation. Not only with traditionalists, by insisting that people kneel to receive communion, but also with the Eastern Orthodox churches by celebrating certain events with their clergy and including the Gospel in the original language of Christianity, Greek.
Both the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches have ancient foundations. As Christianity spread, it went from Palestine in all directions. It was articulated in Greek because that was the common language for that part of the Roman Empire. Because of that, all of the Christian Scriptures are written in Greek as well as all of the early letters we have. Before Christianity, they even translated the Old Testament into Greek as Hebrew had fallen out of use and Jewish people living outside of Palestine were speaking mostly Greek anyway. Over time, conflicts of culture and translation of the creed from Greek to Latin and the like ended the fellowship, or communion between these two ancient churches. Even so, the cry Kyrie, Eleison, (κυριε ελεησον), or Lord, Have Mercy, still remained. The Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritus, given during World War II allowed Catholic Scholars to view the Greek texts to be viewed as authoritative.
Today, there are certain occasions in Papal masses where the Gospel is read in Greek after it is read in Latin. Not only was it read at Pope Benedict’s Inaguration as Pope, but it was also read at this Pallium mass with Patriarch Bartholomew present. The cry of “Wisdom! Stand and pay attention to the good news!” and the responses that follow before the reading sound strange to us in the west. Even so, it opens a different yet equally ancient and valid way of looking at the good news, what the Greek word for Gospel, evangelia (ευαγγελια) of our Lord and Master is.
In terms of kneeling and only receiving communion, that is an extremely reverent way to do it. It initially started in the latter part of the middle ages when everybody was required to receive on the tounge, as dirty, non consecrated hands could not touch the body of Christ. Therefore to make it easier, everybody was required to kneel. Over time it became a gesture of reverence and so it remains today. While some may see only those receiving from the pope required to kneel as being inconsistent and extremely irreverent if not inconsistent, having attended a Papal Mass in St. Peters, I can honestly say that it’s just the way things are there. As I said in an earlier posting about my experience, away from the Pope’s giving communion, it is utter chaos. This is because most congregants are seated on the other side of a system of barricades and kneelers. Come communion time, the priests carrying the sacrament come to the barricades and rails and go up and down them as well as the aisles when they get access while everybody else scrambles over stackable chairs and other people’s personal effects to get communion. Also, when they get there, they often stand, or kneel and receive both on the tounge and in the hand and the priests just go with it quickly and methodically. Therefore it’s no big deal for the pope to want to do it one way for people he gives communion to, but have others do it their own way.
This sort of diversity in language and custom is going to be integral to any sort or reconciliation that is to come. Even more appropriate was the fact that it came during a Pallium Mass, where the Pallium, a symbol of further fellowship amongst the major Bishops is given to newly appointed Metropolitan Archbishops. While these are baby steps towards unity after centuries of separation and alienation, they are welcome and should be lauded whenever they occur.
Archbishop who started US Communion Wars Appointed to Rome
- Sat 28th June 2008, 7:22 pm
Archbishop Burke
Archbishop Raymond Burke, the one who effectively excommunicated Governor Kathleen Sebelius, John Kerry and Rudolph Giuliani and who has the reputation in the US as an arch-conservative has just been named the new head of the Apostolic Signatura, the Supreme Court of the Vatican. With this appointment, the American clergy now hold more power than they ever have. While there is no question that Burke is eminently qualified for the post, as he knows canon law cold as well as the tradition of case law derived from the code, his actions as Archbishop in the cases of these politicians and others – including the dispute over St Stanislaus parish potentially adds a disturbing element to this appointment. Even so, this could just be the case of Pope Benedict putting him in a place that is better for both him and the church overall.
Burke’s effect in the US, especially in the Archdiocese of St. Louis, has been mixed and has left Catholics sharply divided. In addition to excommunicating the aforementioned politicians, he further stated that anybody who voted for Kerry in 2004 should not receive communion until they had confessed – another effective excommunication. Additionally his actions in the dispute over the assets of St. Stanislaus parish, as well as his resignation from the board of a children’s hospital to protest the Cheryl Crow benefit in 2007 and his urging of St. Louis University to act against basketball coach Rick Majerus over the issues of abortion rights and stem cell research among other things, while grounded in canon law have often not been the most pastoral thing he could have done. Most American bishops do not agree with his actions, as evidenced by the fact that he lost the race within the US Bishops conference to head the Committee on Canonical Affairs, gaining just 40 percent of the vote. This is largely because while few bishops question the need to defend church teaching, many disagree with publicly refusing communion to somebody as a method, as it politicizes what is supposed to be our supreme moment of unity – mostly by reducing it to a legal point.
While sticking to legal points may not fly well when running a diocese, it is exactly what is needed for being a judge in a court. In the Vatican there are three courts, the Roman Rota, the Apostolic Penitentiary, and the Apostolic Signatura. The Rota is an appeals court that generally handles requests for annulment of marriage and the like. The Penitentiary handles delicate cases that cannot be resolved through the normal process. The Signatura generally handles things like conflict between two Vatican offices as well as appeals against decisions by bishops and Vatican offices and appeals of decisions by the Rota. As head of the Signatura, Burke’s job will be to apply church law to the cases which come before the signature – a far less public role than what he had as an archbishop.
While his role as head of the signature may not be as public as his role of archbishop was, the fact that he got there by alienating as many people as he did is troubling. This is because in his position, it’s very likely that he will be created a cardinal and therefore be eligible to elect if not be the next Pope – with a major anti abortion agenda. Fr. Tom Reese, SJ put it best when he said “Every pro-choice Catholic Democrat politician should be very nervous, he made his name in the US by denying Communion to pro-choice politicians.” Even further he added “If he gets that view articulated strongly in Rome, he could become the voice for having that position for the universal church.” Adding to the specter of this is his age, 60. Since all cardinals under 80 can vote, “He will have the chance to run for pope two or three times in his lifetime,” according to Fr. Marek Bozek, the priest at the center of the fracas over St. Stanislaus.
While the calls of “Ding Dong the archbishop’s gone!” that Fr Bozek has been receiving reflect one reality, namely the tensions we have between the conservative and progressive wings of the church, another variable that we tend not to consider very often in the US is the effect of working in Rome, surrounded by Italian culture – something I experienced for two and a half weeks in January. In Italy, the main right to life issue is the death penalty, not abortion. Also, the pace of life and culture are radically different than they are here. Therefore, while he may have made his name excommunicating pro-choice politicians here, there is a chance that once he gets settled in the Vatican, it may not be his primary issue. Even further, Canon Law does not tend to use precedent the same way American or English Common Law does – narrowing the opportunity for judicial activism. Therefore, it could be that the Pope promoted Burke to a better position where he could still serve the church, but allow for a more pastoral presence in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. Therefore, while his reassignment is cause for Joy amongst his detractors and sadness amongst his supporters, the variables of Italian culture and the actual practice of Catholicism on its home turf in Italy throw too many wild cards into the picture. I know I returned from Rome with a far different view of Catholicism than when I arrived. I imagine something similar may happen to Archbishop Burke, allowing him a broader view of the church as a whole as well as softening and fulfilling him more than anything else.
John Allen`s Article
Yahoo (Via Associated Press)
A Young Californian in Pope Benedict`s Court
Postings by Rafael Pozos during his sojourn in Rome
January 4, 2008-January 19, 2008
It`s Been A Long Way, But we`re here
The Sheer Scale of Things
Mass At St. Peters -- What EWTN Won`t Show You
Italian Standard Time
Ostia Antica
Vatican Cancels Visit by Pope due to Scholarly Ire
Culture and Cultus in Modern Italy, how the Vatican Still looms large
Book Review: Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church, Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus
- Sat 21st June 2008, 3:11 pm
Geoffrey Robinson, Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church, Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN 2008) Pp 1-304. Paper $24.95
Robinson offers a candid and honest assessment of the current environment in the Catholic Church. This unhealthy environment in his opinion is what allowed the sex scandal to take place and also had a direct impact on how the church responded to these revelations when they came to light. Therefore, anything that has contributed to this unhealthy environment that has caused this abuse must be on the table and up for negotiation. This includes things like papal power and mandatory priestly celibacy. Only then can a true solution be found.
Starting from the reality of abuse and the unhealthy environment, Robinson examines first what a healthy relationship with and view of God might look like. From there he turns to the bible, which he views as the story of a journey, and does a remarkable exegesis of several of the New Testament texts – including a contrast between the Jesus of the synoptic tradition (Matthew, Mark, Luke) who is pretty human and the all knowing all powerful Jesus of John. From there, he proceeds to examine the broader tradition of the church as well as the history, including it’s tradition of authority and sexual morality. After that, he offers a renewed vision of the church, which has among things, the freedom to be wrong coupled with a certainty of faith and a government where all can participate, consistent with the visions of Vatican II. Through it all, he offers anecdotes about specific situations he has encountered in his own ministry as well as the environment of the seminary. Additionally, he offers an interesting insight into the mystique of the priesthood and shows how it came about as a result of a mistranslation of the letter to the Hebrews.
The only real weakness to his work is a theological one if it could be called one at all. Specifically, he does not spend as much time on the divinity of Jesus much less use standard Christological formulas, as other works at this level tend to do. This is a result of his following where his investigation into the conditions that lead to the abuse came from. While this is theologically unorthodox, overall it works here because what he is spelling out is totally unconventional yet refreshing.
Despite this Robinson very clearly illustrates the unhealthy environment of the Catholic Church and lovingly offers a new vision for what the church can be. This is powerful as it comes from a bishop. Even further, it comes from a bishop who has grappled with this problem firsthand as he was on a committee of Australian bishops who were coordinating a response to the scandal in Australia. A frustrating task considering the level of support they had from the Vatican. Yes this book is controversial. Yes, this book is unconventional. However, it is written from a standpoint of love for the church – including its human imperfections and seeks to remind everybody, from the Pope to the lowliest lay person, from the curia to the chancery, from Rome to the furthest reaches of our planet, of the divine caring that we are all called to and aspire to every day in our own way.
Book Avaliable at Amazon.com
