Now I wasn't there, and it's possible that these quotes from Catholic News Service can be taken out of context, but the comments below betray a certain consistency with other recent episcopal responses to the physical and sexual abuse of Catholic children and the media and public reaction to same that I think is worth noting. Apparently it is modernism and a malevolent media to blame for all. Who knew?
Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, Okla., recently celebrated a two-and-a-half-hour pontifical solemn high Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception April 24, replacing Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the celebrant originally scheduled by the Maryland-based Paulus Institute for the event, meant to honor the fifth anniversary of Benedict XVI's papacy. The cardinal was forced to withdraw after a furor erupted over a letter he wrote in 2001 as the head of the Vatican's Congregation for Clergy, praising a French bishop for not reporting an abusive priest to authorities. (The Vatican had to then quickly emphasize that bishops are expected to comply with all civil laws that mandate reporting of sex abuse allegations and to cooperate in civil investigations.) The Mass was celebrated in Latin for the first time in decades at the basilica, according to CNS, "with ancient chants and with pomp, splendor and majesty" (take that novus ordo zombies!). In his homily Bishop Slattery noted the "enormous suffering which is all around us and which does so much to determine the culture of our modern age," pointing to "the enormous suffering of His Holiness these past months" as well as the suffering of those who face poverty, abuse, neglect, disease and heartache. Such suffering, he said, "defines the culture of our modern secular age."
Really, with all due respect, what exactly is this enormous suffering the Holy Father and similarly embarrassed episcopal leaders are enduring while they take every opportunity to fulminate about the dread effects of modernism and the dark sexual forces unleashed by our wanton secular age? It seems to me they're suffering their share (as we laypeople suffer ours) of a proper mortification served up by newspaper coverage that, however imperfect at times, is essentially doing the church a huge institutional service. Let’s try to perceive how that "suffering" compares to an 11-year-old child tied up and raped by his pastor and forced to carry that memory around for a lifetime while he bumps into his abuser at parish festivals and school fundraisers, then tries to concoct some semblance of normal physical and emotional intimacy as an adult . . . Hmm. I’m thinking not much . . . And it must come as a great relief to assign clerical psychosexual perversion and cruelty to Vatican IIish modernism, even if that doesn't properly square with the reality that the vast majority of the abusive clerics completed their formation years before Popes John or Paul began their efforts.
From CNS: Suffering, said Bishop Slattery, "yours, mine, the pontiff's" -- is "the heart of personal holiness ... It is the means by which we are made witnesses of his suffering and sharers in the glory to come. . . . Do not be dismayed that many in the church have not yet grasped this point, and fewer still in the world will even consider it . . . You know this to be true -- and 10 men who whisper the truth speak louder than a hundred million who lie."
I can't say I'm really sure what the good bishop is getting at there. Could be I'm just part of that 100 million (my hearing has grown awfully poor of late), but I'm thinking Jesus would have endorsed a pass on the suffering of so many children and their families and the children of these children, even as a pathway to personal holiness. Whatever the redemptive value such suffering may offer the church today, it really doesn't add up well.
Kevin Clarke
It's silly to pretend that clerical discipline was not greatly relaxed after the "aggiornamento" of John XXIII. It's like ignoring that a victim of lung cancer took up chain smoking in his 40s, even though he was "formed" as a human being long before that.
And be careful about how you depict suffering in the context of Christ. Are you saying he would not have endorsed a pass on genocide? Earthquake victims? His own Cross?
The Holy Father is our good shepherd in the world. When members of the flock suffer, he suffers and we all suffer. You do get that, right? As for comparative suffering, you are most likely correct. But that is a futile exercise because all suffering is subjective to the one suffering.
"Monothelitism made me do it."
"The post-Tridentine scholastic separation of nature and grace into two separate levels decried by Henri de Lubac in 'The Mystery of the Supernatural' made me do it."
"The Baianists made me do it."
"The post-Nicene gap between theologia and oikonomia in Trinitarian theology lamented by Catherine Mowry LaCugna in her award-winning 'God For Us'made me do it."
"'Dominus Iesus' made me do it."
"The manual tradition made me do it."
"EWTN's authentic femininity made me do it."
"Marty Haugen made me do it."
"Eighth-century Adoptionism made me do it."
Other ideas?
Yikes, way to scrape the bottom of the barrel on this one. While I don't agree with all of what Bp. Slattery wrote, it was theologically and rhetorically beautiful and the petty jab here is pretty disappointing.
"The moving of St. Catherine of Siena's feast day from April 30th to April 29th made me do it."
"Nicholas Ludwig Count von Zinzendorf made me do it."
"The removal of 'Mysterium Fidei' from the consecration of the Chalice made me do it."
This would have been a great homily to slaves in the early 19th century urging them to accept their lot. Obedience would earn them eternal life.
I see some value in the points developed in that homily, but what's missing is justice. Justice!
And only the ones who suffer the most have a right to talk about taking up the cross in my opinion. That means, in this context, only the people who have been abused as children.
True, Jesus died for the world's salvation/sanctification but that death was also incarnated in human reality - historically/politically, a result of a teaching and lifestyle that emphasized that the compassionate and inclusive heart of the Kingdom of God was for everyone - above all, for the little ones, the most vulnerable, marginalized, underprivileged, those considered ''sinful'' and ''far'' from God. In effect, Jesus went against a religious system/structure that claimed a privileged status in front of God either because it believed that only through perfect obedience to the Law and the host of other smaller ''laws'' (Pharisees) or because it believed that obedience to the cultic practices associated with the temple was of paramount importance (Sadducees). These powers-that-be wanted people to be obedient to their versions of God's will, convinced that their claims and God's will were one and the same. We know that Jesus didn't buy that and it was to be these ''powers demanding obedience'' who eventually contrived to put him to death.
Is Jesus' suffering then a good image for the pope and the hierarchy's present suffering as Bishop Slattery suggests? Absolutely not! The hierarchy makes up the powers-that-be. It is the hierarchy and its toxic culture of clericalism (read: privileged status) that victimized the ''little ones.'' A better image, I propose, for the hierarchy's present sufferings due to the sex abuse crisis is that of the First Temple's destruction. It was then that Ezekiel sees God leaving the temple; it was then that Jeremiah urges Israel to think of Babylon as God's purifying agent. The temple's destruction debunked a smug and triumphalist theology that considered Jerusalem and the Davidic line to be ''untouchable'' and ''impregnable'' because God, it was believed, would always dwell therein (something eerily like ''the impregnable foundation'' that Bishop Slattery proclaims). God's answer through the prophets? In effect God could be thought to have replied, ''Don't box me in your smug securities! There is NO 'impregnable foundation' - not even the temple! I will allow the temple to be destroyed in order to destroy such smugness and make you wake up to the truth that it is YOUR SINS THAT HAVE BROUGHT THIS RUIN UPON YOURSELVES.
In my opinion, homilies like Bishop Slattery's blunt the stark message from God that the sex abuse crisis is supposed to be. The hierarchy should start thinking of the harsh lashes from the media, from the world, from ''Babylon'' to be the stern voice of the one ''who disciplines those he loves.'' And please ... do not co-opt Jesus into the rotten and toxic culture of clericalism. Isn't it enough suffering for Jesus already to be claimed as the guest of honor in an assembly with yards of silk and lace and cappa magnas? I'm pretty sure being claimed as the patron of clericalism will make him ballistic .... Just a thought ...
Listen to some of these comments on Fr. Z's blog, interspersed with comments from this blog. Is there a way to... I don't know. Is there a way for the criticisms and praises of the homily to somehow ''speak'' to each other?
''It doesn’t get much better than this. A grand slam.''
''This would have been a great homily to slaves in the early 19th century urging them to accept their lot. Obedience would earn them eternal life.''
''I pray other bishops will follow his lead. He found the right balance in delivering these words. When was the last time you heard talk of obedience from the pulpit? And, explained in such a way?''
''An over-mystification of the suffering theme without making clear the historical/political reasons behind Jesus' death.''
''I was blown away…amazing. Honestly, I had been a bit upset by all the allegations of abuse/cover up in the news recently…Bishop Slattery’s sermon made me proud to be Catholic and to follow our Holy Father and unite our sufferings to his so that we can one day be saints- through what we suffer.''
''Let’s try to perceive how that ''suffering'' compares to an 11-year-old child tied up and raped by his pastor and forced to carry that memory around for a lifetime while he bumps into his abuser at parish festivals and school fundraisers, then tries to concoct some semblance of normal physical and emotional intimacy as an adult . . . Hmm. I’m thinking not much.''
''...this is one of those homilies that makes you want to jump up in applause afterwards...''
''Too smug and triumphalistic, two traits that Catholics (especially the hierarchy) least need at present.''
''Sermons like that don’t just happen—His Excellency brought his A-game to Washington.''
''The hierarchy makes up the powers-that-be. It is the hierarchy and its toxic culture of clericalism (read: privileged status) that victimized the ''little ones.'''
''I am so glad His Excellency reminded us of this. We forget our lives are hard at times and think it is our faoult or that God hates us. He is reminding us to be patient in suffering and be prepared for more. God is with us. He will not abandon us. He loves us. He will give the joy inside the pain. We can smile thru the tears and, thereby, merit a reward greater than the pain.''
''In effect God could be thought to have replied, 'Don't box me in your smug securities! There is NO 'impregnable foundation' - not even the temple! I will allow the temple to be destroyed in order to destroy such smugness and make you wake up to the truth that it is YOUR SINS THAT HAVE BROUGHT THIS RUIN UPON YOURSELVES.'''
''Bishop Slattery may not have been originally scheduled to do this Mass, but he was meant to do it.''
''And please ... do not co-opt Jesus into the rotten and toxic culture of clericalism. Isn't it enough suffering for Jesus already to be claimed as the guest of honor in an assembly with yards of silk and lace and cappa magnas?''
''Could even one of those attending yesterday have entered the Basilica Shrine expecting that he or she would be witness to something even rarer than a XXIst Century Pontifical Solemn High Mass, namely a sermon so profound and Spirit-filled that, published, it will claim a rank among the finest ever delivered by a North American churchman?''
In other words, the question of modernism has nothing to do with compromising with the world and everything to do with being open to evidence in matters of doctrine (and granting the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith less of a priviledged position in these matters than it likes to enjoy).
Often the criticism of liturgical outfits arises from a good and necessary concern for issues of whether we're doing enough to care for the poor, oppressed, and underprivileged, whether we're doing enough for social justice, etc. But I wonder if some of the animosity towards elaborate liturgical clothing is misplaced, or if it perhaps stems more from a sort of prejudice or dislike of something other than American styles of dress? I mean, I wonder if other cultures might look at the expensive suits and outfits we Americans wear for formal occasions (business, weddings, proms, etc.), and have similar objections? Is a wedding dress or a prom tuxedo any less offensive than elaborate liturgical finery? Do we need to re-evaluate the way we look at such liturgical dress, and see if it's colored by prejudices or cultural bias, the same sort of prejudice or bias that's behind, say, reactions to those pictures of Obama in traditional African garb, or whatever? To approach it from another angle, is there a way to do a "retrieval" of elaborate liturgical finery? Is there some way in which we could draw on language of the baptized and all humanity being called to a "royal priesthood" to say that a bishop's wearing such finery is meant to elevate all people, not just himself (herself)?
To put it all another way: is there something unhealthy, homophobic, or prejudiced about the way many Americans respond to the idea of priests wearing "dresses"? To what extent is a negative perception of Benedict as dressing like the Infant of Prague colored by a sexism/patriarchy/misogynism which sees infancy as connected with a womanliness from which men are expected to separate themselves?
I mean all of this seriously, though I also recognize that much of it sounds funny and bizarre.
I put this criticism in the category of the people who rail about all the magnificent cathedrals in the world, and all the gold and jewels they contain, and couldn't we sell them all and feed the world. Of course, it is the poorest of the poor who would be most heartbroken if that happened; they draw so much hope and inspiration from the great cathedrals and beauty inside of them.
Yes the White House is clearly more than what the President needs; why not sell it? You could apply this reasoning - - which is exclusively hurled at the Holy See - - to every other government and religious body in the world. And let's say there were someone willing to fork over $500 billion for Vatican City and everything in it, that would be about $200 for every human being on the planet. Maybe $400 for every poor person. What do we do after that? As Jesus said, the poor you will always have with you. And he wasn't just talking about material poverty.