Two Years

Exactly two years ago today, Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and former Jesuit Provincial, was elected Pope - the first Latin American to occupy the throne of Saint Peter, perhaps an overdue acknowledgement that the Church's demographics have definitively shifted from "North" to "South." From his first appearance that evening on the loggia of St. Peter's, Pope Francis has seemed different in ways both easy to describe and difficult to describe. In the process, he has improbably become perhaps the most popular public person on earth, lionized by a media establishment that has little understanding of the Church Francis rules or indeed of religion, and widely popular among non-Catholic Christians. Within the Church, the jury is still out on what the long-term impact of his pontificate will be. Meanwhile, he remains enormously popular among rank and file Catholics, while something of a sign of contradiction among elites who analyze the Church's present and try to make predictions about her future.

Of course, none of that internal squabbling can counteract the enormous growth in prestige Pope Francis has brought to the papal office and the consequence opportunities for global influence that prestige provides. The fact is that the modern Church (thanks largely to the globalized nature of modern society and communications) is inevitably  more and more Pope-centered. Pope Benedict may have tried to dial back some of the popular preoccupation with papal personality that had been so evident during his predecessor's pontificate. Watching him at World Youth Day in 2005, it seemed evident to me that he was attempting to focus attention more on the papal office than on the person who happens to occupy it. But under Pope Francis we have obviously returned to a more John Paul like situation in which the Pope's personality dominates. My guess is that this Pope's personal style and outreach will continue to set the tone for most Catholics and most non-Catholic observers of the Church.

For that reason, an appreciation of this Pope's formative influences and earlier experiences is especially desirable. For that reason, I would highly recommend reading Austen Ivereigh's book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, which - despite its somewhat provocative title - actually offers a very thorough and balanced appreciation of Francis's Argentine and Jesuit background and how he got from there to here, so to speak.

This is not the place to dig deeply into the controversies and even possible opposition the Pope may be generating in certain quarters. Today's NY Times has an excellent article by Ross Douthat (Who Are Pope Francis's Critics?) identifying some constituencies that may display varying degrees of opposition. He identifies three such groups. The first are the so-called "Traditionalists," whose identity largely revolves around advocacy of pre-conciliar approaches to liturgy - not just a desire (which many may share) for a more faithful, dignified, and devout liturgy but an almost visceral rejection of the very principle of liturgical reform. But, for all the noise that they may make in the blogosphere, such "traditionalists" are, as Douthat correctly notes, relatively few in number - at least the more extreme and shriller among them who increasingly seem to dominate discussions of the subject. Not only are their numbers really rather few, but I suspect that their increasing extremism and shrillness precludes their really having much to offer the larger Church. Their extreme stance and hostile rhetoric is doing more to marginalize them than the actual issues.

The second group Douthat identifies are "economic conservatives" and "libertarians." Largely American, these generally do not overlap much with "traditionalists." Also, as Douthat notes, the debate they are part of is a long-standing one in American Catholicism. "Under John Paul the balance in that debate (arguably; it’s a long argument) tipped a little bit more in democratic capitalism’s favor than had previously been the case; under Benedict the papal perspective arguably tipped back in a more explicitly social democratic direction (to some overt criticism from neoconservatives in the United States); under Francis it has taken on a more developing-world, Latin-American flavor, which has tipped things leftward in certain ways and also put a new complexion on the discussion." Douthat also correctly notes how little overlap there may actually be between this group with its political and economic concerns and other critics - or between this group and much of the actual leadership of the American Catholic Church.

The third group, Douthat terms "doctrinal conservatives," whose concerns focus more on doctrinal issues such as have surfaced in the controversies surrounding last fall's Synod of Bishops. This group, which is also the most international of the three, does not necessarily have any problem with the Pope himself or with his economic or political stances (and may indeed be quite sympathetic to them). In any event, regardless of what happens in the short term, the contrast between Eurocentric concerns and priorities and those of, say, the African Church will be with us for the long haul. In any case, one inevitable consequence of the Pope's orientation to the "peripheries" will be to hasten the growing influence of voices from the Church in the developing world, the "global south," which is demographically growing and religiously vibrant, while the West appears to be in apparent demographic decline and shows much less religious vitality.

All these issues - and others - will certainly remain important, but what will be most significant in most people's perception will be how this Pope has captured the popular desire for the Church to speak authentically about the love and mercy of God in a way that addresses the deepest aspirations and longings of contemporary men and women. 

By its nature, the Church has always been the "field hospital" the Pope likes to describe it as. But the fact that he does so describe it and that he so explicitly challenges all of us to live that image more effectively in our lives and ministries is what is making such a big difference.

A Place to Die, a Place to Live

Sequels are always inherently problematic, and so they seldom live up to the expectations generated by the original.  For one thing, we already know the principal characters. So, rather than watch them develop, instead we are more likely watching them behave and act in already quite predictable ways. On the other hand, if we really like them, if we liked the original film, then we will want to keep liking them and the familiarity of the setting, story, and characters may be comforting. All of that seems true of The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, which I saw this afternoon. It is a sequel to the 2012 hit film, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, which I enjoyed so much that I never thought twice about wanting to see its sequel. 

With the addition of Richard Gere, who plays an American hotel inspector, masquerading as a novelist, the cast is largely the same super-talented, predominantly British ensemble that made the original such a success. And, as I noted above, they continue to behave more or less as one would expect them to. Indeed, they sequel even brought back Penelope Wilton (now perhaps better known as Cousin Isobel on Downton Abbey), whose somewhat unhappy character had returned home to England in the first show. She reappears in the sequel, remaining largely unchanged in her character (although, apparently, a bit older and wiser). So there is not all that much that is really new in the sequel. The utterly improbable story continues in the sequel more or less along the same lines set out in the original, with Maggie Smith and Judi Dench performing particularly poignant roles.

On the other hand, it is a wonderful story, and the characters are enormously endearing. So their return is quite welcome. I was quite happy to continue to follow Dev Patel's professional and personal struggles and successes, and the continued adventures of his hotel's elderly residents. Now that they have all settled into their new lives, it is interesting and enjoyable watching the subtle ways they have adapted and are being affected in turn.

It's a good film and an entertaining one, but what moved me both in the original and in the sequel is how it portrays not just the problems associated with aging but its opportunities. A bunch of British old-age pensioners who had very little left to live for find a whole new life - and even romance - in a foreign land. What seems on its face just a somewhat cheaper place to die becomes a place to experience new life, new work (and renewed value in one's work), and, inevitably, new opportunities for romance and even love. For all its comedic elements, the two The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel movies mount a serious challenge to the contemporary cult of youth and health. And they do so in the best possible way - by making the elderly residents not only rediscover work and romance, but by integrating their stories with the story the young couple who operate the hotel. Their wedding is not just the principal episode around which everything else ends up revolving. Thanks to the participation of the hotel's senior community, the wedding becomes what every wedding in theory ought to be - a celebration of how the human story continues, with each generation building on what it has received from the previous ones, in the process enabling the older generation to face leaving the scene with a renewed sense of self-worth and with peace..

More on the Moneychangers

Preaching on the Gospel reading for yesterday's Mass, John's account of Jesus' "cleansing of the Temple" (John 2:13-25), I quoted from FDR's famous 1st Inaugural Address on March 4, 1933, when he said: Yes, the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit. 

In the context of preaching, I mentioned FDR's speech mainly to recall a time - a much more religiously literate age - when virtually everyone who heard that speech would have immediately recognized the biblical reference that the President was making. But, if the reference harked back to what was obviously a better time in respect to religious literacy, it quickly occurred to me that it also harked back to what was perhaps also a better time in terms of public figures speaking straightforwardly about important issues. 

In contrast, today I watched a TV talk show (actually, one of the better of such shows), a disproportionate amount of which was devoted to inside-the-Beltway scandal-mongering trivia concerning putative presidential candidate Hilary Clinton's emails. Admittedly, this issue highlights her longstanding and justifiable distrust of our intrusive, scandal-mongering media. I suppose that may be something which would be worth talking more about (although in that case more about journalism's failings than about hers). But surely there are some really serious issues facing our country and the world, any of which which should deserve more attention than this sort of stuff. And surely the issues FDR was addressing in that famous speech are among them. Indeed, by comparison, almost any attention at all to such substantive concerns would be welcome!

As I noted yesterday, it seems that FDR may have spoken both too soon and too confidently about a future from which the money changers sadly seem never to get completely evicted. Thankfully, we are not in a Great Depression, but many of the ills that FDR identified remain still as problematic today, when the economic system is increasingly in the service of the infamously super-wealthy, while the political system seems simultaneously both out of touch with the real-life situations of so many citizens and also at the same time is itself a part of the problem of the disproportionate power of money.

As FDR recognized on that memorable occasion, but as so many of us have since seemingly forgotten: Recognition of that falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, and on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Imagine what American politics would be like if political figures again spoke that way - and if the commentariat cared to challenge them to do so!

Being God's People

Today’s gospel account [John 2:13-25] is a familiar one. It appears in some form in all four gospels, and has had influence far beyond its original setting and significance.  For example, some 82 years ago this week, on March 4, 1933, during what we now call the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated the 32nd President of the United States. Everyone remembers his famous line about fear. But that same speech also included the following words: Yes, the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than monetary profit.

In retrospect, it seems FDR may have spoken too soon and too confidently about a future from which the money changers seem never to get completely evicted. But, in an era much more religiously literate than our own, he could at least be confident that almost everyone would recognize his reference to the story told in today’s Gospel.

The “cleansing of the Temple,” as the incident is often called, was certainly a provocative action on Jesus’ part. It has been suggested that it was one of the principal provocations precipitating Jesus’ eventual arrest and execution, which would certainly add significance to our retelling it during Lent.

The original Jerusalem Temple, built by King Solomon and completed around 960 BC, had been destroyed by the Babylonians in 586. A reconstructed second Temple was completed in 515 BC and lasted until its destruction by the Romans in 70 AD, after which Judaism has had to adapt and make do without any Temple.

Around 20 BC, King Herod the Great had begun a grandiose renovation of the Temple Mount, making the Jerusalem Temple one of the most impressive shrines in the ancient world. Herod was a great builder. He built palaces and pagan temples for his gentile subjects, but his grandest project was his renovation of the Jewish Temple, one of the largest construction projects of its time.

In the process, however, the classical, pagan model of a temple as a cultural, commercial, and social center seemed to creep in from the surrounding secular culture. Jesus’ strong reaction to the various activities taking place in the Temple precincts perhaps reflected his identification with more traditional Jewish notions, which got him into trouble with the Temple’s priests (known at that time for a more accommodating approach to secular society).

In effect, what Jesus was fighting for in the Temple was Israel’s core national value – faithfulness to God alone, God who had made  Israel a nation and given it his Law, transforming a semi-nomadic mob of ex-slaves into an actual nation.

Like that exodus generation, we too are wanderers in life’s desert, desperately in need of direction. We may wander far and wide, with only the vaguest idea at times of where we may be heading. Along the way, however, God has given us the road-map (or, if you prefer, the GPS) we require – the familiar one he gave the Israelites in the desert – what Jewish tradition refers to as God’s “10 Words” and which we commonly call his “10 commandments.”

The 10 commandments [Exodus 20:1-17] constitute the core of the Law that was God’s gift to his people. The key to understanding the 10 commandments is contained in how God identifies himself in the very 1st commandment: I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall have no other gods besides me. The Lord himself, the Lord who has shown himself to be God by liberating his people, is the rational for this and every subsequent commandment.

The 10 commandments spell out in daily life the consequences of becoming God’s people. Living morally is our response to God’s covenant with us, our cooperation with the plan God has been pursuing through all of human history – from creation to Christ, from Christmas to the end.  In our moral lives we reflect our gratitude to God and our commitment to remain faithful over the long haul.

According to an ancient legend, at Mount Sinai God made the wombs of all of Israel’s women as clear as glass – so that all future generations could see for themselves what was happening and personally commit to the covenant. I suppose that’s poor biology, but it’s a great image! It makes the important point that the commandments are addressed to each of us individually, which is why they are phrased in the singular. (Those of us above a certain age will remember having learned them in the old singular form – “thou shalt … thou shalt not.”). We are all each responsible to respond to God with what we do and the way we live.

The 10 commandments constantly call and challenge us to commitment and fidelity:

- commitment and fidelity, first of all, to God himself, who has revealed himself to us, above all, in Jesus his Son;

- commitment and fidelity to God’s world, which God has entrusted to us and which we done so much damage to;

- commitment and fidelity to one another, our companion wanderers in the desert, whom we have been commanded to care about and to care for, whether we like it or not, whether we like each other or not, both when war or economic hardships make us more conscious of our shared condition and common need, and in times of peace and prosperity when wealth and security tempt us to go it alone and leave others behind;

- commitment and fidelity, finally, to God’s holy Church, by being part of which we are united with one another in Christ’s body, the true and eternal Temple, and become God’s people in this world.

Commitment is never automatic, and fidelity does not come easily or cheaply – not for the folks at Mount Sinai and not for anyone else either. But the commandments teach us that the fast food of individual fulfillment and personal autonomy just can’t compare with dining with one another in God’s kingdom.

For, as we just heard form Saint Paul [1 Corinthians 1:22-25], the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Homily for the 3rd Sunday of Lent, Immaculate Conception Church, Knoxville, TN, March 8, 2015.

+ Edward Cardinal Egan (April 2, 1932 - March 5, 2015)

Edward Cardinal Egan, New York's 12th Bishop, 9th Archbishop, and 7th Cardinal, and a good friend of the Paulist Fathers' "Mother Church" and of the Canonization Cause of Paulist Founder Isaac Hecker, died yesterday. Ordained a priest for Chicago in 1957, Egan was one of the six canonists chosen to review the new Code of Canon Law with Pope Saint John Paul II prior to its promulgation in 1983. From 1985 to 1988, he served as Auxiliary Bishop of New York and Vicar for Education. From 1988 to 2000, he was Bishop of Bridgeport, before returning to New York as Ordinary after the death of John Cardinal O'Connor. In 2001, he was created Cardinal Priest of SS. John and Paul (the same title held by his 3 immediate predecessors, Cardinals Spellman, Cooke, and O'Connor, and before them by Pope Pius XII as Cardinal Pacelli). He served as Archbishop of New York until his retirement in 2009 at age 77. 

I was Parochial Vicar at the Paulist "Mother Church" from August 1, 2000, through July 2010. So almost all my tenure at our New York parish coincided with his leadership of the archdiocese. The above photo shows Cardinal Egan preaching at Saint Paul the Apostle Church at the Mass for the Opening of the Canonization Cause of Servant of God Isaac Hecker on January 27, 2008. 

Cardinal Egan was a great friend of our New York parish and a great support to our ministry there, continuing to visit and celebrate Mass there on occasion even in his retirement. He was also very devoted to Servant of God Isaac Hecker, whom he famously lauded as "a man of the Church" in Catholic New York, prior to the opening of Hecker's Cause. His devotion to Hecker was obvious in his occasional private visits to the church to pray at Hecker's tomb. Like Hecker, he too had suffered severe childhood illness - in Egan's case polio, which left him with a life-long limp.

The first decade of the 21st century was a turbulent time. (What time isn't turbulent in New York?) On top of everything else, just a year into his (and my) term in New York, we all experienced the traumatic shock of the terrorist attack on that terrible Tuesday, September 11, 2001, an event that made the Church into one of the city's centers of mourning. (Indeed, I can well remember how Saint Patrick's Cathedral was quite literally draped in the traditional emblems of mourning for two sad months of seemingly non-stop funerals.) In that tragic time, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Cardinal Egan also served as relator at the October 2001 Synod of Bishops. Also at that synod was Argentina's Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, who filled in as relator while Cardinal Egan was absent from Rome, having returned to New York to observe the Month's Mind for 9/11. Pope Francis' recent biographer Austen Ivereigh (The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope), has cited Egan's successor, Cardinal Dolan (Praying in Rome: Reflections on the Conclave and Electing Pope Francis, 2013) on how after that synod Egan apparently spoke "glowingly of this archbishop of Buenos Aires."

Towards the end of his tenure as Archbishop, Cardinal Egan got to preside over New York's bicentennial as a diocese in 2008 and that year also got to host Pope Benedict XVI's visit. Concelebrating Mass at Saint Patrick's Cathedral with the Pope was one of those really once-in-a-lifetime special occasions in this priest's life. 

As a personality, Cardinal Egan was sometimes unfairly compared to his media-star predecessor, Cardinal O'Connor. But every bishop - like every other individual - has his own personality, and Egan brought to New York his own distinctive gifts, which God's grace employed there effectively in the service of the Church.