J. Peter Nixon
By this author
Pope Francis’ recent speech in Bolivia has rekindled the debate over Pope Francis’ views on economics and inequality. Francis’ defenders have argued that the pope is merely offering a robust presentation of Catholic social teaching. His more fevered critics see him as a herald of a resurgent Marxism.
The frustrating thing about this debate is that it usually operates at a level of abstraction, as if the choices facing policymakers really did boil down to a choice between capitalism and, well, something else. To a great extent, this reflects the penchant of American conservatives branding even modest efforts to redress economic inequality as “socialism.”
As fond as I am of Francis, however, I think the pope also bears some responsibility for this. Phrases like an “economy that kills” and “an economy of exclusion” remind me of John Paul II’s “culture of death” and Benedict XVI’s “culture of relativism.” In none of these cases do I find the phrases adequately descriptive of the phenomenon in question or analytically helpful in developing remedies.
Caitlyn Jenner’s “coming out” in the pages of Vanity Fair this week caused a stir, well, pretty much everywhere. Much of the commentary I saw was positive. There were some on the left, particularly feminists, who raised questions about Jenner’s decision to embrace a highly sexualized image of femininity. Some religious conservatives expressed sympathy to Jenner personally but joined most of their colleagues in criticizing her decision to live as a woman and undergo gender reassig
A close friend of mine recently finalized his divorce. He and his wife had been separated for a year and the last few years of their marriage had been difficult. They were very active in our parish. He no longer attends Mass here. I’ve continued to meet and pray with him as he walks this journey.
Given this experience, one might suppose that I would be among those hoping for some change in the Church’s discipline regarding divorce and remarriage. To be honest, however, I find myself torn in multiple directions and unsure about what I would do if I was a bishop attending the upcoming Synod.
Altar servers are in the news once again as a priest in the neighboring Archdiocese of San Francisco has decided to eliminate female altar servers. This follows a recent interview with Cardinal Burke where he suggested that female altar servers have contributed to a loss in priestly vocations.
While it’s possible that a decline in altar serving among young men has played a role in the decline in vocations, it is almost certainly dwarfed by other causes: widening professional opportunities for Catholic men, smaller families, a shifting sexual culture, secularism, and the rise of an active and engaged laity to name just a few.
More fundamentally, however, Vatican II’s reform of the liturgy changed the role of the server in ways that make it harder to play the role as a seedbed for vocations that it played in the past. In the pre-conciliar liturgy, servers actually had a fair bit to do. They prayed certain prayers after the priest (ostensibly on behalf of “the people”), rang bells during the consecration, and held a paten under a communicant’s chin to catch fragments of the host. Most masses--even daily Masses--had at least one server and the work of the server required fairly close collaboration with the priest throughout the Mass.
In most parishes where I’ve attended Mass during my life, however, the servers usually have a much more limited role. They usually bear the candles (and sometimes the processional cross) during the entrance and the offertory; hold the Missal during the collects; and assist the priest during the lavabo. In cases where the parish still rings bells at the elevation, this is also one of the server’s duties. Very rarely have I seen servers prepare the altar.
So it has come to this. We are now debating the doctrinal authority of papal tweets and phone calls.
As David Gibson reports, the latest controversy in papal communication was a three-word tweet in Latin--Iniquitas radix malorum--that has been translated into English as “inequality is the root of social evil.” This followed only days after the dustup over the pope’s phone call to a divorced and remarried woman where he allegedly encouraged her to receive communion.
Younger Catholics may find this hard to believe, but there once was a time when the vast majority of Catholics did not hang on every word spoken or written by a pope. Admittedly, this was a relatively short period covering only the first 1,800 years or so of the Church’s existence, so it is understandable how some may have missed it.
During the first millennia and a half of Christian history, popes did not commit themselves to paper (at least not paper that was mean to be widely disseminated) very often. It sometimes surprises people to learn, for example, that the bishops of Rome played only a marginal role in the great 4th century councils that gave us the Nicene Creed. In the Middle Ages, doctrinal disputes were more likely to be settled by the faculty of the University of Paris than by Rome.
This is not to say that the papal office was unimportant. Far from it. Popes such as Leo I, Gregory VII, and Innocent III had an enormous impact on both the Church’s inner life and the society and politics of their age. But the popes shared the stage, as it were, with equally towering figures such as the Cappadocian Fathers, Augustine, Benedict of Nursia, and, of course, Francis of Assisi.
The Republicans have finally gotten serious about health care reform. The bad news for them is that they are four years too late.
Earlier today, Senators Hatch (R-UT); Burr (R-NC); and Coburn (R-OK) released the details of their Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment Act (a.k.a. “Patient CARE Act). Hatch, in particular, is no stranger to health care issues, having co-sponsored the State Childrens Health Insurance Program back in 1997.
The bill largely follows the outlines of a health care reform proposal developed by a group of conservative policy wonks dubbed the “reformocons.” In an article published in Commonweal’s print edition in December, I questioned whether the wonks would find Republican politicians willing to carry their water. I am happy to have been proved wrong, as the return of Republicans to the actual work of legislating is a welcome development.
Adam Shaw (he of the "Pope Francis is the Catholic Church's Obama" fame) has posted another column attacking Francis, which is sure to go viral. Here is how it starts:
Pope Francis has declared war on those who aspire to provide a better life for themselves and their families, expressing the misguided snobbery of a man for whom money has never been an issue.
In the first week of his papacy, when briefing the media, the pope exclaimed:
Like Eduardo and Mollie, I was disappointed to read this story about a wealthy Catholic donor who may decide not to contribute to the restoration of St. Patrick’s Cathedral because he is upset about some of Pope Francis’ comments about wealth, poverty, and capitalism.
God help me, I’m still rooting for Walt.
I’m certainly not blind to the evil he has done: the killings he has committed or ordered, the way that lies--even the ones he tells himself--have come to define his life, the destruction his “product” has wreaked on the lives of thousands of people he has never met. I understand why many viewers are taking, if not pleasure, then a certain degree of righteous satisfaction in the judgment being visited upon him. What goes around comes around. Ye reap as ye sow.
- 1 of 30
- next ›