Are you bleeping kidding me?

A (melo?)drama in several acts...

ACT ONE:  

Father Anthony Spadaro, a Jesuit priest and prominent Pope Francis advocate, authors with Reverend Marcelo Figueroa an extensive post in La Civilta Cattolica detailing the surprising ecumenism between Protestant fundamentalists and Catholic traditionalists, particularly in the United States.  Normally the response for this would be:

*yawn*

Not for the topic itself but rather the level at which this discourse proceeded.  Let's get it straight:  one of the Pope's closest Jesuit buddies and an Argentinian Presbyterian minister hand-picked by Pope Francis himself to edit the Argentine version of L'Osservatore Romano, co-author a piece about ecumenical cooperation in a continent neither of them come from or live in. (Let's put aside for a second the rather curious fact that there's a Protestant minister playing a prominent role in disseminating a Catholic publication...)  OK, got it--now what are the National League Central standings?  On the surface it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

But you know where this story leads--of course it's a big deal.  Spadaro and Figueroa waste no time in alleging a "ecumenism of hatred" between the two groups.  Both harbor deep hostilities about modern life, seeking instead to reassert a baldly theocratic order wherein many elements of progress would be reversed. The authors mention Lyman Stewart's funding of The Fundamentals in 1910-5 (overlooking the complexity of this phenomenon) and John Rushdoony's Christian reconstructionism.  These figures contribute to an apocalyptic world view wherein anything leading to dialogue is suspect and anything validating conflict with the forces of (modernist) evil are celebrated. The Scriptures say a big fight with evil is coming, so let's get to work, good guys.  Spadaro and Figueroa finger George W. Bush as particularly susceptible to this thinking.

They then name Breitbart chairman and Trump cabinet strategist Steve Bannon as a fomenter of this "ecumenism of hatred." They seem unaware that Bannon's religiosity is questionable or that in 2014 Bannon gave a now-well-publicized talk beamed to a Vatican audience.  Of course the Vatican is not a monolith (as John Allen Jr has so ably detailed in his books), but still--is a little awareness too much to ask?  Linking anything Catholic with Rushdoony and/or Stewart is, on the face, just plain wrong.  It is an anachronism for which any undergraduate scholar would be scolded.  Furthermore, the authors posit "Integralists" as if we all know what that means.  Just as the authors themselves are a little fuzzy on what exactly constitutes a "fundamentalist," the same could be said about Sparado and Figueroa's Catholic counterpart.  Google "Catholic integralism" and you get first the Wikipedia entry on the 19th and 20th century anti-Modernist movement.  (And their own article link comes up third.)  That's important because the authors never define "Integralism," nor do they distinguish what that means in the post-conciliar Church.  Instead "Integralists" loom like boogeymen in the dark recesses of the Church where the light of Vatican II just hasn't yet shone.  Again, if an undergraduate student submitted a paper with these unsubstantiated claims, a rather low grade would be forthcoming.  It's not a well-crafted argument.

No matter.  For Spadaro and Figueroa, Catholic traditionalists suspect Pope Francis of closet Marxist sympathies, while evangelicals, when they're not damning Catholic liberationists for confusing social justice with salvation, throw their weight behind alt-Right fantasies and the morally corrupt leadership of figures like President Trump.

Read all the original post here.

When the Levee Breaks Amoris Laetita version

When the levee breaks, got no place to stay...

Yes, it's important to remember the classics.

When reading R. R. Reno's reservations about Amoris Laetita, the image of resisting an apparently impending flood kept recurring.  Given my previous post about the AL tidal wave--an apt image for all the reactions it has generated--I wondered if Reno trying to stop the leaks by sticking thumbs in dyke walls or whether he, having seen the first floor of home flooded, decamped to the second or third or higher floors.

Reno recognizes the face value of the new document;  nothing has changed.

Francis doesn’t actually say that divorced and remarried Catholics can receive communion. Amoris Laetitia explicitly affirms the church’s teaching on marriage. But in long digressions into the complexities of moral and pastoral discernment, Francis provides plenty of justifications for others to say that, yes, in particular situations, divorced and married Catholics can receive communion. All the while, Francis insists that the Catholic teaching on marriage must be affirmed. The ambiguity seems intentional, designed to increase scope for pastoral discretion.

The Catholic teaching on marriage is clear: It is permanent and cannot be dissolved. This is not a merely canonical matter, as though church officials at some point resolved to make indissolubility a feature of Catholic marriage. Christ warns us not to put asunder what God has put together. St. Paul associates the covenant of marriage with the unbreakable bond of God’s love for us in Christ. Then, in a move characteristic of Catholicism, the Church teaches that in our wedding rites, the sacramental promise of permanence becomes real, just as Christ’s promise to be with us until the end of the age becomes real in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine on the altar.

Marriage's reality--beyond the mere psychological or emotional apprecation--is where the trouble starts.  

radical Pope Francis is more radical than your political radical

So argues Kathryn Lopez and she's exactly right.  Lopez:

Mercy. Mercy. Mercy!

It seems all Pope Francis is capable of talking about, whatever the issue.

Then Bernie Sanders announces the pope’s more radical than he is on Morning Joe on MSNBC Friday morning, and that seems to drive the story line where hopes and dreams and Rolling Stone covers are invested in the Holy Father up-hauling Church doctrine and announcing one day soon same-sex marriage and any-/every-thing else is A-Okay.

That didn’t happen, of course, in “The Joy of Love,” released Friday from Pope Francis… and don’t miss the joy and the love in the frenzy of sound bytes and commentary.

But Sanders is right. Pope Francis is more radical than the socialist senator from Vermont. He’s radical in the ways of the Gospel.

How about that?  Even Sanders recognizes Pope Francis' challenge to world comes from sources far deeper and broader than anything Sanders himself use or references.  More Lopez:

I like to call Pope Francis the Jesuit spiritual director for the world. Of course, the problem with doing that is it unintentionally encourages all types of recycled Jesuit jokes.

Why I do it anyway is he is often a Jesuit at his best—making use of the great gift of St. Ignatius Loyola, his Spiritual Exercises. If you listen to Francis – especially in his daily Mass homilies at Santa Marta – you hear a good shepherd guiding the people of God in an examination of conscience.

I can’t remember a time where he didn’t call me out on something I needed to be called out on. He draws you deeper into prayer.

You often hear his prayers, which are so often focused deep on the suffering of those who are most overlooked, ignored, cast aside, and forgotten. And, yes, that includes the impoverished, the sick, the prisoner, and those vulnerable and seen as disposable often under false and confused banners of mercy and freedom and flourishing.

pendulum swings

So, amidst the Amor Laetitia reactions came this news:  Bernie Sanders is going to the Vatican...just days before the New York Democratic Primary (April 19). From the NY Times:

Mr. Sanders tried to move beyond the controversy and stressed his fondness for the pope and the importance of his visit. In an interview on Friday, he said Pope Francis had played a “profound role in raising consciousness throughout the world, not just within the Catholic community but within all communities.”

“To me, this a source of real pride and excitement that I have been invited to speak to a major conference at the Vatican on how we can create a world economy that is moral and how we address the massive levels of wealth and income inequality that exist around the world, how we deal with unemployment, how we deal with poverty and how we create an economy that works for all people rather than the few,” Mr. Sanders said.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Mr. Sanders explained that while he disagreed with Pope Francis on issues relating to women’s rights and gay rights, he admired the pope for speaking about income inequality and the need for people to help one another.

“He has played an unbelievable role, an unbelievable role of injecting a moral consequence into the economy,” said Mr. Sanders, who would become the first Jewish president in the United States if elected. “He is talking about the idolatry of money, the worship of money, the greed that’s out there, how our whole culture is based on: ‘I need more and more and more.'”

Read it all here.

OK, at first I will admit being surprised.  It seems clear Sanders sought this for political advantage, and while this blog hasn't tackled the issue, other Catholic bloggers have considered the ramifications of "Can Catholics vote for Bernie Sanders (or Donald Trump)?"  That sort of question always seems to devolve into the usual Catholic left/right dichotomies bedeviling both the Church itself and our contemporary discourse.

Then it dawned on me.

Pope Francis already met with--however briefly (thank God!)--Kim Davis, she the Kentucky county clerk who briefly went to jail for refusing to sign same-sex marriage contracts.  She ran across Pope Francis' path during his US visit in September, 2015.  Steps have since been taken to reprimand the Vatican official who arranged the meeting unbeknownst to Pope Francis.  In other words, the Holy Father got surprised, didn't like it (understandably), and quietly communicated that.

Makes you wonder what will happen when Sanders' clear support of abortion rights becomes known, if not already, through the Vatican halls.

Amoris Laetitia Tsunami

Science tells us tsunamis (tidal waves) have clear warning signs before impact.  Two examples within recent memory exemplify this:  the 2004 Indonesian tsunami that resulted in at least 230, 000 deaths and the 2011 Fukushima tsunami which continues to plague Japan.

Friday, April 8, saw the release of Amoris Laetitia  ("The Joy of Love"), the Synod on the Family's final report.  You'd think we were experiencing the ecclesiological equivalent of a tsunami.  All sorts of folks--Catholic and not--weighing in on what Pope Francis did or did not say.  Not worth reposting here, but I saw at least one Twitter calling for Francis' resignation due to heresy.  Kind of like this:

H/T Mollie Z. Hemingway of The Federalist

To survive a tsunami, head to higher ground!  With that in mind, here are two, relatively differing, opinions from sources I respect.  First, Dr. Ed Peters' Canon Law Blog:

Holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Francis does not approve this central assault tactic against the permanence of marriage, but neither does he clearly reiterate constant Church teaching and practice against administering the Eucharist to Catholics in irregular marriage situations. And, speaking of ‘irregular marriage’, nearly every time Francis uses that traditional phrase to describe what could more correctly be termed pseudo-marriage, he puts the word “irregular” in scare quotes, as if to imply that the designation is inappropriate and that he is using it only reluctantly.

...

‘Same-sex marriage’. Francis leaves no opening whatsoever that ‘same-sex marriage’ can ever be regarded as marriage. AL 251.

Among the problems Peters sees these:

4. In AL 297, Francis writes: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” To the contrary, it is precisely the logic of the Gospel that one can be condemned forever. CCC 1034-1035. If one meant, say, that no one can be ‘condemned for ever’ by earthly authority, one should have said so. But, of course, withholding holy Communion from those in “public and permanent adultery” is not a “condemnation” at all, so the point being made is not clear.

5. In AL 280-286, directly discussing sex education for youth, I did not see any acknowledgement, indeed not even a mention, that parents have rights in this important area. Perhaps that is to be gleaned from comments about parents made elsewhere in AL.

Peters also links to Father Schall, SJ's comments, so I will, too:  read them here. 


Then here's Bishop Robert Barron's initial reflections:
In regard to the moral objectivities of marriage, the Pope is bracingly clear. He unhesitatingly puts forward the Church’s understanding that authentic marriage is between a man and a woman, who have committed themselves to one another in permanent fidelity, expressing their mutual love and openness to children, and abiding as a sacrament of Christ’s love for his Church (52, 71). He bemoans any number of threats to this ideal, including moral relativism, a pervasive cultural narcissism, the ideology of self-invention, pornography, the “throwaway” society, etc. He explicitly calls to our attention the teaching of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae regarding the essential connection between the unitive and the procreative dimensions of conjugal love (80). Moreover, he approvingly cites the consensus of the recent Synod on the Family that homosexual relationships cannot be considered even vaguely analogous to what the Church means by marriage (251). He is especially strong in his condemnation of ideologies that dictate that gender is merely a social construct and can be changed or manipulated according to our choice (56). Such moves are tantamount, he argues, to forgetting the right relationship between creature and Creator. Finally, any doubt regarding the Pope’s attitude toward the permanence of marriage is dispelled as clearly and directly as possible: “The indissolubility of marriage—‘what God has joined together, let no man put asunder’ (Mt 19:6) —should not be viewed as a ‘yoke’ imposed on humanity, but as a ‘gift’ granted to those who are joined in marriage…” (62).
And more:
The second move—and here we come to what will undoubtedly be the most controverted part of the exhortation—is to employ the Church’s classical distinction between the objective quality of a moral act and the subjective responsibility that the moral agent bears for committing that act (302). The Pope observes that many people in civil marriages following upon a divorce find themselves in a nearly impossible bind. If their second marriage has proven faithful, life-giving, and fruitful, how can they simply walk out on it without in fact incurring more sin and producing more sadness? This is, of course, not to insinuate that their second marriage is not objectively disordered, but it is to say that the pressures, difficulties, and dilemmas might mitigate their culpability.  Here is how Pope Francis applies the distinction: “Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace” (301). Could the Church’s minister, therefore, not help such people, in the privacy of the rectory parlor or the confessional, to discern their degree of moral responsibility? Once again, this is not to embrace a breezy “anything-goes” mentality, nor to deny that a civil marriage after a divorce is objectively irregular; it is to find, perhaps, for someone in great pain, a way forward. - See more at: http://aleteia.org/2016/04/08/bishop-barron-first-thoughts-on-amoris-laetitia/#sthash.LnwLcjCE.dpuf

Read more of Bishop Barron here.

It will take time, of course, to sort through all that Amoris Laetitia gives, but right now the tsunami seems an awful lot like last summer's first experience of Laudato Si'.  We had to read throughout it a few (hundred) times to ascertain its arguments, strengths, and weaknessess.  Amoris will be no different.  The problem, as Scott Eric Alt notes, is that often Pope Francis' style leaves even his most ardent defenders (which Alt and Bishop Barron both are) confused.  So let's seek the highest ground possible, let the tsunami damage flow through, and then descend to start the inevitable clean-up.

New York Times Attempts to Read Tea Leaves Ahead of Amoris Laetitia

New York Times Attempts to Read Tea Leaves Ahead of Amoris Laetitia


Latest post by Scott Eric Alt at Patheos, wherein the intrepid Mr. Alt assesses the NYT and finds it wanting.  Namely, it wants--wants Pope Francis to finally get with the program and deliver the liberal goods promised at his 2013 election.


The Synod's final report Amoris Laetitia has been rumored/feared (depends on whom you ask) to do this.


Alt's not buying it and nor should we.  A sample, starting with the Times quoted:

For the past two years, Francis has guided the church through a sweeping exercise of self-examination that some scholars have compared to the Second Vatican Council.

Really? Methinks “some scholars” doth exaggerate too much—perhaps the result of their own private fantasies of hope and change.

Having led Catholics into such delicate terrain, Francis has stirred hope and fear. Some religious conservatives warn he could destabilize the church and undermine Catholic doctrine. [The sky is falling.] Some liberals, though, are hoping Francis will directly address same-sex marriage and contraception in a way that would make the church more responsive to today’s realities.

By “responsive,” read “obeisant.” That is what the Times hopes. But the conservatives and the liberals are both wrong. (That will not stop either of them, after tomorrow, from claiming vindication, but wrong they are.)

Earlier this year Alt addressed with equally calm demeanor and sharp logic what he has correctly labeled "Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome" among the Church's right-wing.  The left and its secular support staff (i.e., the NY Times) doesn't have derangement syndrome as much as "dissatisfied irrational hope syndrome."  They--the left--keep thinking we're just days away from the Francis-inaugurated Eschaton wherein Vatican II will be restored authentically.  That, Alt notes, isn't going to happen any time soon.  The Right, though, suffers from its own maladies.  As one of Alt's friends cross-posted on Facebook from Catholic Memes (who, in turn, received it from Greg Hillis):







As Alt notes, maybe we should, y'know, read the document before commenting.  Well said.

surrender cobra

from an ESPN report on a familiar scene in sports television:  a player or team makes an amazing play to win the game at last possible second and the opponents' fans stand, dumbfounded, with their hands on their heads.  It often looks like this:

Image courtesy Reddit.

A fitting image, especially when Catholic colleges make decisions and announcements like The College of Saint Rose did Friday, December 11, 2015:  twenty-three faculty positions cut and several programs and majors cut from across the curriculum.  Some of these were professional and graduate programs (e.g., Bachelor's program in Art Education and the graduate program in Communications), while others covered liberal arts subjects like Economics, American Studies, and....Philosophy and Religious Studies.  These last three are/were the majors my department offered.

The Sisters of St. Joseph, the women's order that founded Saint Rose in 1920, issued the following statement about the cuts:

Nearly 100 years ago, Sister Blanche Rooney, CSJ, and other brave Sisters of Saint Joseph of Carondelet saw a need and acted.

Inspired by the legacy of the original Sisters of Saint Joseph, who as women in 1650 took the radical step of going into the world to minister to the poor, the sick and the desperate of Le Puy, France, Sister Blanche envisioned a college that would teach and empower young women to be citizen leaders grounded in faith and dedicated to excellence and service.

In founding The College of Saint Rose, the local Province of the Sisters of Saint Joseph of Carondelet recognized that, just as they were responding to a need, fulfilling its mission would forever require the college to be alert and amenable to a changing reality in the larger society, and especially among its current and prospective students.

This is a TU+ story. Click for more information.

In other words, to meet and serve people where they are.

This founding principle is why we support President Carolyn Stefanco, the Board of Trustees and all those on campus working diligently to lead our beloved Saint Rose in updating academic programs and priorities to meet the changing needs of students who count on the college to prepare them to succeed in a world they will inherit.

and then a bit later:

Change is upsetting for many in all walks of life, including our own. It creates anxiety and uncertainty, and can leave some feeling overlooked, forgotten, left behind. That is why it is so important in times of change to extend grace, love and affirmation to all in our community. Change also is an opportunity for renewal, and renewal is empowering. Responsible leaders are obligated to recognize the need for change and act carefully but resolutely.

Read the statement and you'll soon note what is absent:  any reference or indication of the College's founding as a religious endeavor.  It's utilitarian endeavor now;  what serves the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  A principle that many, including the Sisters themselves, would argue is not part of the Catholic social justice tradition.  And that is correct.

the Dickey lick in Catholic theology

Not a dirty-minded title! This post does not involve clergy sexual abuse....but you sure thought about it, didn't you?

"lick" -- a particular musical phrase, rhythm, or melodic pattern; not quite a hook

"the Dickey lick"  -- a particular chord or passage in an Allman Brothers Band song written by, played by, or performed in the style of, founding member and guitarist Dickey Betts.  The phrase comes from Derek Trucks and Warren Haynes, the band's guitarists and musical directors for the group's final decade.  Haynes, who joined the group in 1989, and Trucks, who joined in 1999 and the nephew of founding drummer Butch Trucks, faced a conundrum perhaps common to many who perform classic songs written by another hand. Do you remain faithful to the song's original format and style, and to what extent are you, the current performer, allowed to improvise?  Haynes and Trucks, both exceptionally accomplished musicians, recognized the necessity--for the band's fans as well as the band's own legacy--to perform "the Dickey lick" as Betts crafted wherever it might appear in a song, even though they themselves might want to, and could quite easily, play it differently.  "The Dickey lick" is part of what makes particular Allman Brothers songs what they are.

  Thus an old-school entry:

 and a more recent example:

 Betts wrote and sang both songs (and that's him in the second video tab)

All this comes courtesy of the 2014 book One Way Out: The Inside History of the Allman Brothers Band.  In oral history format--the band's members and agents speak for themselves--the book covers the band's entire history except its final concerts in October 2014 in New York City. An interesting read if you're a fan of the band or that type of jamming-Southern rock.  It is interesting to recall that "Rambling Man," containing perhaps some of the most recognizable "Dickey licks," was recorded after the death of founder, spiritual guide,and lead guitarist Duane Allman.  In fact, the band played for several decades after Duane Allman died, expanding and changing all the while yet maintaining spiritual and stylistic ties. From pages 371-3:

HAYNES:  It was really different to record an Allman Brothers album without Dickey, and playing in this band without him has led me to alter my style quite a bit. His playing is marked by a very clean tone and a beautiful melodic sense, so I tended towards a nastier approach playing with him. The melodic thing and the clean-versus-dirty tone contrasts both have to be there to sound like the Allman Brothers, so I've taken some of things on myself. To go too far against the grain just wouldn't be right...which is why you hear those ascending lines on songs like "Firing Line" and "The High Cost of Low Living."

TRUCKS:  "The Dickey lick."

HAYNES:  If Gov't Mule [blogger's note:  this is Haynes' side-project formed in 1994] was recording the song we probably wouldn't put that lick in there.  It's there because it's an Allman Brothers riff, and you need things like that to keep the thread going from 1969 til now--though I must say that Gregg [Allman] wanted it out.  He said, "We've been doing that shit for thirty years.  Can we take that lick out?"

TRUCKS:  A lick like that is the band's sound.  The rhythm section and Gregg's organ sound lend themselves to certain guitar lines and you play them almost without realizing it. When you're playing a tune, you think "This is what the Allman Brothers would do."  You just happen to be in them.

And that, folks, summarizes basically the story--tensions, crises, and triumphs--of American Catholic theology since the Second Vatican Council.  To what extent do we, who did not write the songs we play, remain truthful to "the Dickey lick"--a particular melodic strain--to keep the thread going?  To what extent do we create and continue a tradition even as we criticize it?  Because we are in the song we're playing.