|
A couple of
weeks ago, many members of the media were in a full-tilt frenzy. Cable
television pundits and talking heads, in particular, busied themselves
for nine full days handicapping which of the cardinals (the “papabili”)
would emerge from the Conclave to succeed John Paul II as Vicar of
Christ on earth.
I was amazed
at the number of media types who identified themselves as Catholic and
amused as they opined and bloviated for hour upon hour and day after
day. They interviewed their favorite media-savvy theologians, canon
lawyers, diocesan chancery officials, priests (like Jesuit priest and
Editor of America magazine, Thomas P. Reese) and nuns, as well as
journalists and politicians, all with the hope of unearthing some new
tidbit of information that would correctly identify who would be
selected as the next Pope. Not to be overlooked were the many former
diocesan chancery officials as well as ex-priests and ex-nuns who the
pundits and talking heads invited to share a moment and their opinions
in the media’s limelight.
Because
cable television show hosts have high visibility, Chris Matthews and
Bill O’Reilly figured prominently in this full-tilt media frenzy, in so
far as I experienced it. In interview after interview, it was as if
each experienced himself being drawn nearer and nearer to the Oracle of
Delphi which just might be about to reveal―albeit in a coded message―the
new Pope’s name. All of this homage being paid to the Oracle of Delphi,
it should not be forgotten, transpired before the Holy Spirit checked in
to begin work at the Conclave!
What all of
this media frenzy made quite clear to me, at least, was that the Roman
Catholic pundits and talking heads were really not all that terribly
interested in who would be the next Pope. Lacking significant knowledge
and insight into the candidates and their beliefs, the pundits and
talking heads sought guests who would help to isolate where individual
papabili stood with regard to important issues concerning
Catholic Church teaching. Knowing nothing about the candidates but
auguring from their “special guests” where each papabili stood on
these particular issues, the pundits and talking heads then set about
promoting or denouncing individual candidates. That’s why individual
cardinals became known by most of us―the “people in the pews”―not for
who they are but by a label assigned to them by members of the media.
They’d begin by saying, “For
American Catholics,”
such and such candidate was either “a liberal” or “a conservative,”
which is their shorthand way of not saying “He’s one of us…a good guy”
or “He’s not one of us…a bad guy.”
For example,
the media talking heads and pundits frothed and foamed at the mouth with
the idea that Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria might be selected as Pope.
Coming from Africa, they reasoned, he’d be a “liberal” or, at least, a
“progressive” choice, who would democratize the Church and make it more
truly “catholic” (that’s a small “c”) by changing, in particular, Church
laws regarding human sexuality. Evidently, they did not know that
Cardinal Arinze has spent most of his adult life in Rome and is a
consummate insider when it comes to Church government and politics. His
speech at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, a year or so ago was
denounced by many in the audience as “ultra conservative.” But,
they reasoned when interviewed, Cardinal Arinze had to talk that way or
he’d never be considered papabili. Then, once elected and
installed as Pope, the “real” Arinze would save the Church from the
plague of the Wojtyla brand of conservativism that has done so much to
destroy the Church.
Likewise,
the media talking heads and pundits shook their heads and spoke with a
tone of angst each time a conservative guest, like Patrick J. Buchanan,
Peggy Noonan, Cardinal Christoph Schöborn, or Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ,
would introduce the name of Josef Ratzinger into discussion. Two labels
quickly emerged as the media’s favorites to describe this particular
candidate: “rigid conservative” and “the Pope’s Rotweiller.” “How could
they elect a former Nazi?” one pundit asked. “What message would that
send out?”
While labels
are helpful to position not only cardinals but also family members,
friends, neighbors, co-workers, and politicians on a continuum so that
we can better understand where they stand on important issues, labels
are especially dangerous in the life of the Church. Why? Because
labels like “too liberal” or “too conservative” provide only a vague and
oftentimes misleading caricature; in addition, these labels can be used
to pummel an ideological opponent by unfairly painting that person in
simple black or white tones when, we all know, human beings are far more
complex than that.
Take, for
example, those talking heads and pundits who saw Cardinal Josef
Ratzinger as “rigidly conservative.”
Here’s a man
who undoubtedly loves the Church and, as an expert theologian, has
written numerous books and articles as well as papal encyclicals. One
of his fellow bishops from Germany said that Ratzinger has “the mind of
fifteen theologians.” I wonder how many of his critics in the media
have actually read one of Cardinal Ratzinger’s book or articles? I have
read several and believe I can argue quite convincingly that Cardinal
Ratzinger’s theology is hardly “conservative.” Just read the first
chapter of his Introduction to Christian Faith where he writes
most eloquently about the role of a theologian. It’s actually an
inspiring statement about our role as thoughtful members of the
Church―the Body of Christ―who Jesus has sent to proclaim the Gospel “to
the ends of the earth.”
And yet,
possessing no first-hand knowledge or experience, the media pundits and
talking heads thought nothing about interviewing only those guests who
labeled him as “too rigidly conservative for American Catholics,”
as if the selection of a Pope is supposed to pay homage to American
Catholic values or, at least, to appease those espousing them. For me,
what really demonstrated their bias was the way they kept touting the
nickname, “The Pope’s Rotweiller.” If you think about it, this
particular nickname serves only to re-enforce subconsciously the image
that Cardinal Ratzinger could, at any moment, snap, lose control, and
become an ecclesiastical carnivore who would take delight in feasting
upon his liberal enemies as well as anyone who doesn’t toe the line of
his brand of theological and ecclesiological conservativism. For these
people, Ratzinger might prove to be an even worse nightmare for the
Church than John Paul II was! The latter had a Rotweiller on a
leash working for him while the former is the Rotweiller himself!
What the
media talking heads and pundits did was to transform the mystical work
of the Holy Spirit at the Conclave into a political game featuring
winners and losers―a game called “Hardball”―where the powerful reign
supreme and those out of power hide and lick their wounds. In that
game, it doesn’t matter what one’s political stripe may be because the
goal is to acquire and to hold onto power.
So,
conservatives rail against liberals because, as the label implies, all
that liberals want to do is to pick and choose whatever makes them “feel
good.” But, we all know, not every liberal seeks to remake the Church
and its teaching according to one’s personal preferences. I know many
orthodox liberals who believe it very important that we not become so
enamored with the spirit of the law that we overlook the letter of the
law, as Jesus himself taught: “I came not to destroy the Law but to
fulfill it.”
In the game
of Hardball, liberals also rail against conservatives. Why? As the
label implies, what conservatives desire is to go back to the way the
Church was during some particular era they believe constituted its
“Golden Age.” But, we all know, not every conservative seeks to
refashion the Church and its teaching according to one’s love for a
bygone era. I know many orthodox conservatives who believe it important
that we not become so enamored with the letter of the law that we forget
the spirit of the law. “You hypocrites,” Jesus told the Pharisees and
doctors of the law, “you’re like mausoleums, beautiful to behold on the
outside but full of rot and stench on the inside.”
In this
game, both liberals and conservatives err because each is trying to
remake the Church in one’s
particular image and likeness, not as the Holy Spirit constituted the
Church on Pentecost Sunday in God’s
divine image and likeness
and as the
Holy Spirit continues to constitute the Church in God’s
divine image and likeness
on this
Pentecost Sunday. Don’t
forget that this was such a problem in the Greek city of Corinth, that
St.
Paul himself had to remind the Corinthians about this very point:
As a body is one
though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many,
are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all
baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons,
and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
Liberals
err, then, when they craft a Golden Calf of their ideas while dismissing
obedience to Church teaching. As
Bernard Prusak, chairman of the Theology Department at Villanova
University, stated recently in the New York Times, there are
“concerns about the kind of theological dialogue that we should have in
the church. Catholic theology has to explain what the official
teaching is,” Dr. Prusak added, “but it also has the responsibility to
probe new data and raise new questions.”
For their
part, conservatives err when they craft a Golden Calf of obedience to ideas
that were popular at a particular time in the Church’s history while
dismissing as meaningless the progressive development of human insight
and theology. As the Rev. Joseph Koterski, SJ, who is the chairman
of the Philosophy Department at Fordham University in New York City,
said recently in the New York Times, “There’s a great desire for
clarity about church teaching. A religious magazine that offers
itself as a Catholic magazine does have to have clarity about what the
church holds and why it holds it, and not simply be a lobbying force for
changing position.”
On this
day―the Solemnity of Pentecost and birthday of the Church―it is
important for all of us, especially because we are Roman Catholic
citizens of the United States of America and not a brand of catholicism
called “American Catholics,” to remember that there certainly is such a
thing as “Church government.” It is run by human beings and, because of
this human dimension, “politics” do and will always exist in the
Church. Rightly or wrongly in any generation, there are winners and
there are losers.
At the same
time, however, we must remember that the Roman Catholic Church is not a
government or a political party. Nor is the Church defined either by
those who are aligned with liberal theology or by those aligned with
conservative theology. No, the Church is the mystical Body of Christ,
constituted by the power of the Holy Spirit on the first Pentecost
Sunday and present in and at work in the Church in every generation,
even our own. The Church is the community of the People of God who use
Scripture and Tradition to inform their consciences about what orthodoxy
requires, not what the media pundits and talking heads promote by using
political labels to pigeon hole liberals and conservatives who genuinely
love the Church with the goal of engaging them in a pugilistic game of
political Hardball where there are only winners and loser and players do
not love one another as Christ loves the Church.
Being a
Roman Catholic, then, is not about remaking the Church but inviting the
Church―through Scripture and Tradition―to remake us. The Church is the
place where we meet God in Scripture and Tradition. The Church is the
place where we learn about what is and is not orthodox as well as how
the Holy Spirit is calling us―the People of God―to holiness of life in
this era in which we live to effect the Kingdom of God.
In every
era, and especially in our era where technology offers as many promises
as it does dangers―think about cloning, in particular―new challenges
abound. As Roman Catholics, we begin our deliberations not by siding
with liberals or conservatives who tell us what we’ve already decided we
want to hear, but as we consult Scripture and Tradition with open minds
and open hearts. In this way, that we properly inform our consciences
with regard to what the Holy Spirit is calling us to be, as Roman
Catholics, in and for the world.
As we are orthodox Roman Catholics―not liberal or conservative
Catholics―the Holy Spirit fills us with many diverse gifts so that we
will speak in differing tongues for people today to understand the
holiness of life to which God is calling all of us.
The Church,
therefore, is not the place where liberals and conservatives beat one
another into submission or negotiate with one another to cobble together
some vacuous consensus what the word “Catholic” means. No, the Church
is the place where people who genuinely love the Church endeavor to
understand what it means to be authentically Catholic in the era in
which they live. For them, whether one is liberal or conservative, the
“Catholic” part is defined; it already exists. The “Church” part,
however, is a work in progress for which all of its members bear
personal responsibility. Scripture and Tradition provide the common
ground of orthodoxy upon which all of the People of God stand firm and
their love of the Church and of one another enables them to speak in one
voice to the ends of the world.
So, now we
have “conservative” Pope and perhaps his selection will prove itself to
be the authentic movement of the Holy Spirit in the Conclave, and
especially for American Catholics. In our society, we value “choice”
because we idolize “freedom.” We abhor “dictators” because we fear
“obedience.” In Pope Benedict XVI, many of our fellow citizens―indeed,
many fellow Catholics, including the media talking heads and pundits who
claim to be Catholic―see the new Pope embodying what they believe is the
self-destructive element in the Body of Christ. For them, the selection
of Josef Ratzinger doesn’t make sense.
But, this
selection does make sense if the Holy Spirit is calling Pope Benedict
XVI on this Pentecost Sunday to challenge us as Roman Catholic citizens
of the United States―whether
liberal or conservative―to
conversion of mind and heart so that we will grow together in love of
God and neighbor by consulting what Scripture and Tradition teach us
about authentic witness to holiness of life. Only in this way―what is
properly called the “orthodox” way, not the liberal or conservative
way―will we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit―especially the gift of
forgiving one another’s sins―to build the City of God.
“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And
when Jesus had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive
the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose
sins you retain are retained.” |
HOMILY
