The Pope In The USofA

I've been following a bit of the live coverage of the visit of Pope Francis to the United States -- live coverage as provided by the US Council of Bishops rather than what's been on commercial TeeVee.

The US Bishops, of course, have some issues with His Holiness, in part because he has shamed them.

There's nothing particularly radical about Francis's theology or message; instead, the bishops have been carrying on a radical crusade of their own to "purify" the Church of its taint of inclusion and spirituality and transform it into a reactionary and hostile social/political entity standing in opposition to any movement toward a better future for all.

Pope Francis has not only told them they are on the wrong path, he's used his authority to retire and/or replace particularly recalcitrant and bull-headed bishops in the US and all over the world. He is no slacker when it comes to enforcing his sway over the Church.

He has even gone so far as to suggest the bishops are obsessed...

Indeed, during the past few decades, the Church's obsessions, particularly with abortion, contraception, and control of women's bodies and other people's sex lives, have been idees fixe and often seem to be the only things that matter to the Church hierarchy. Under the circumstances, the Church has had a tendency to drive away members and has self-limited its presence in secular society.

The Church became a rejectionist force in the world. And Francis says, "No." Don't reject, withdraw, antagonize, denounce, or delimit. Go forth with joy. Proclaim the Gospel, do good and be holy.

For Heaven's sake. Who'd a thunk it?

With the bishop's negativity as a backdrop, Francis's presence and message is seen by some observers as a threat to the hegemony of radical rightist power that characterizes the United States and much of the English speaking world.

A threat because the Pope ("of the Holy See" as he was introduced to Congress yesterday) doesn't buy into the crap and the bullshit and the nonsense that have come to dominate the political and social dynamic of the United States. No way.

He sees things so much more openly and inclusively. And he has no fear at all.

Good heavens, when I saw him wading into crowds in Washington and New York, it was astonishing. American politicians and celebrities do not mingle with the common people. At all. Ever. They live and breathe a separate existence, as cut off from you and me as it is possible to get -- as cut off as any imperial potentate of yore.

And of course they live in holy terror of the rabble.

That may be because they know they are doing bad and bringing untold harm to the masses.

But that would imply a conscience, and I'm never sure the high and the mighty possess such a quality.

On the other hand, His Holiness simply does what he believes to be right, including mingling and presenting a simple and humble appearance, as if he were, perhaps, the servant of the servants of God. Oh. What a concept.

His motorcade, for example, marks the contrast between the humble Pope of the Holy See and the Titans of Security who accompany him. Pope Francis is driven hither and thither in a tiny Fiat 500 -- with the windows down -- whereas his security detail provided by the US Government travels in huge armor-plated and bomb and bullet-proof SUVs, the kind we've come to expect the higher ranks of pols and celebs to travel in as well.

They are so frightened, after all, of you and me.

I noticed the same phenomenon during the Queen's visit to Germany earlier this year. She was quite fearlessly riding around in a non-bullet-and-bomb-proof Daimler whereas Fraukanzler Merkel was surrounded with security forces while being transported in an armored limousine which probably nothing short of a nuke could penetrate.

So it is with the Pope. He's not afraid.

Just the fact that he fears not has the effect of shaming the Powers That Be.

I'll be eager to see the Pope at the prison tomorrow.

He has dared to say that hope must be part of any effort at punishment.

And he has repeatedly declared the necessity for Dignity, Justice, Community and Peace throughout his American journey.

His references to Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton in Congress yesterday must have stunned the assembly. How. Dare. He.

Indeed.

Let Us Reason Together -- The Pope In Rome and Other Things of Interest and Import (3)

I gave up on the Catholic Church too many years ago to count, as have many nominal Cat-licks. There's just no way to maintain one's faith in the face of an institution so rotten to the core.

And then comes Francis, Pope in Rome, to seem to say, "Well, what is to be done, then? What are we to do about it, eh?"

Left to their own devices, institutions -- whether the Church (yes, I still call it that) or governments or major market enterprises -- fail. They fail themselves, they fail their duty, their communities, and in the case of the greatest institutions, they fail the world.

I've written fairly extensively since about 2000 on the topic of The Failure of Institutions in the post-modern era. The Catholic Church seemed to be leading the way, demonstrating daily how to fail monumentally... and yet survive. Hollowed out, perhaps. Irrelevant. But still there.

So here we had a case of a Nazi-Pope retiring... and a new fellow from Argentina, well known around the Curia but hardly known to the public outside Buenos Aires, being elected Pope and all of a sudden he's out there using his bully pulpit not so much to condemn and denounce and demean and discourage (Benedict, creature of the Inquisition, never could get over that part of his "ministry") as to uplift and encourage and call out the real evils that have for too long been tolerated if not actively undertaken by his Holy Institution. It's time for change.

And so, millions of people around the world, Catholic and no, have hope again, whereas many of those who have given up on the Church are in wonder at this man and his humility, his humor and his good cheer. Hope that he will reform the Church? No. Not that. But at least he might put a more human face on it. Somewhat less ghoulish is always good, yes?

Meanwhile, the mean people are OUTRAGED!!!!™ It's hard to explain what a big change this is, for until very, very recently, it was the good people who were constantly seething with impotent rage at the blindness and cruelties of their Betters. That the good people should be in a constant state of rage and rebellion at the depredations of the Overclass, but would never be able to do anything about it was taken for granted as the way things were supposed to be. The Overclass laughed at the impotence of the masses, remember? It wasn't all that long ago.

And then comes Francis and says, "You know, this has got to change." The world turned upside down.

Behold.

The cruelties haven't ended, but the Overclass isn't laughing any more. And more and more, governments are once again wondering if they should actually pay attention to their people rather than continue to rule contrary to the public interest.


-----------------------------------------------------
"Other things to come."

Francis

St. Francis of Assisi by Cimabue (detail) c. 1280

This Pope in Rome continues to cause a ruckus by speaking out about the heretofore Unspeakable matters of inequality, money and greed, destruction of the planet for profit, and so on. Matters best left to those who Rule us, not to those who merely Reign.

This Pope is a Jesuit who took the regnal name of Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi, the saint for whom I have long expressed a certain affinity.

Now that I'm in New Mexico full time, I discovered it was sometimes difficult to find images of the Umbrian saint for devotional or decorative purposes, for he seemed often to be absent from shops and museums. Even at the Cathedral Basilica of Saint Francis in Santa Fe, where we often go -- though not generally for religious purposes -- it's surprising how low-key representations of the Saint are. There are a few statues of St. Francis and a ceramic tile mural, but they are off to the side, out of the view of parishioners and tourists who come up the steps to the magnificent bronze doors of the Cathedral. There are a handful of statues of St. Francis scattered around the city of Santa Fe, but unless you're eagle eyed, you may miss them.

One finds San Pasquale, San Ysidro and of course the Virgin of Guadalupe practically everywhere, but St. Francis? Not so much.

It took me a while to realize some of the reasons why.

St. Francis, and particularly the Franciscan missionaries who came to New Mexico with the Conquistadores, have at best a mixed reputation in these parts. At best. In some respects they are widely admired, but just as surely, they are likely to be despised and held in contempt. The Catholic order in charge of my local parish is Carmelite. Franciscans tend to be almost in the shadows.

Part of the reason has to do with the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 triggered in part by abuses committed by Franciscans against the Pueblo Indians, abuses which I won't catalog here but which were too frequent, too horrifying, too often inexcusable. Franciscans did this to the Native Peoples? Yes they did, and they were rewarded with massacre when the revolt came. A monument to the martyred Franciscans stands on a height above the city to this day.

But after the reconquest of the territory from 1691 to 1695 or so, the Franciscans, while returning to minister to their savage flock, stayed out of the spotlight and ultimately lost power over the Natives, as their continued resistance and the mood of the Spanish Crown toward the Franciscans led to their decline and near-demise in the New World, not just New Mexico.

Other saints were far more immediate for the Spanish colonists, and the Indians had little regard for Francis thanks to the depredations of the Franciscan missionaries. Only fairly recently have Franciscans returned to New Mexico in significant numbers. Most of them serve the poor and dispossessed.

We pass by a Franciscan friary in Albuquerque practically every time we go to town, so today I made a modest donation to their work. The least I could do.

Meanwhile, His Holiness continues to ruffle Vatican feathers and American bishops face a dilemma.

"Francesco vai..."

Francesco vai, ripara la mia casa!

Someone was carrying a huge banner with that phrase on it at the Papal Installation yesterday. The crucifix at the ruined church of San Damiano near Assisi where St. Francis had gone to pray is said to have spoken to Francis, saying, "Go, Francesco, and repair my house."

Francis is said to have interpreted this to mean that he should repair the ruins of the church of San Damiano where he was, something he set out to do forthwith. The church which stands today is said to be the one Francis repaired with his own hands. A replica of the crucifix that spoke to him hovers over the simple altar at San Damiano. The original one is now in the basilica of Santa Chiara (St Clare) in Assisi, she being the founder of the Order of the Poor Clares, ordained by Francis himself.

We have a bulto of St. Francis here in what we call the "Jesus Room," and there is a larger statue of him (with animals) at the front door. Were I inclined to the Church in my dottage, it would be in honor of St. Francis, with whom I may share a certain spirit. But I am not so called at this point of my life, the Church and I having parted ways too long ago now for a rational reconciliation.

St. Francis, though, I hardly consider a churchman at all. He's a spirit of nature.

This Pope has taken Francis's name, the first to do so, and I'm cynical enough about Vatican politics to think he's intentionally committed a sacrilege. After all, Francis shamed the sacred and secular institutions alike in his own day, and he preached to the birds and animals.

On the other hand, at least in the first few days of his reign, this Pope Francis seems to be doing everything right -- and sincerely, too.

Maybe he will repair his spiritual house.

Liberation?

Francesco, Il Papa

Liberty for whom? To do what?

"I demand the liberty to impose my authority on you."

It seems that Il Nuovo Papa was selected for the Triple Tiara from among such an august conclave of worthies in part due his excellent service on behalf of the fascist military dictatorship that ruled Argentina during the Unpleasantness often referred to as "The Dirty War." Which was part of the murderous rightist dictatorships and rampages throughout much of Latin America during a particularly unfortunate period of history. Not so very long ago.

I don't have all the details by any means, but the outline of Bergoglio's complicity in the disappearances, torture and murder of thousands of Argentinians is crystallizing, and it ain't pretty. Oh no. Not a bit.

Say what you will about Ratzinger's Nazi associations -- Hitler Youth and all, but of course renounced after the War when he went into the priesthood. This Bergoglio was not committing the typical youthful indiscretions. He was apparently actively upholding "liberation" -- of the Argentine military and its dictatorship in order to stamp out the Evils of Leftism, the Very Devil Himself as it were, in Argentina and wherever else on God's Green Earth it was to be found.

No matter its cost in the blood and treasure of the innocent. They will, after all, receive their reward in Heaven.

Yes, he loves the poor, every one of them, let there be more of them, let the Church Itself be Poor, world without end, amen.

Liberation? For whom? To do what?

It is being bruited about in rather appalling detail how opposed Bergoglio has been to the error and heresy of Liberation Theology, once embraced by the Church, especially in Latin America, but now renounced in no uncertain terms. When priests at mass, bishops on their rounds, nuns in their cloisters, and Catholic laypeople of all sorts are brutally shot down, their bodies dumped where the feral animals can feed on them, and when civilians are tortured and murdered en masse, entire villages put to slaughter, it seems to concentrate the minds of hierarchies of all sorts, not solely that of the Church, to dwell on the errors of their ways, and for the Church Universal, the error identified was the very Liberation Theology that had done so much and gone so far to raise up the People from their abject state toward the Light of Heaven.

Liberation? For whom? To do what?

When I witnessed the rapturous crowds in St. Peter's Square cheering the sight of white smoke pouring forth from the Sistine Chimney, then screaming accolades to their new and relatively unknown Pope, simply because he had been chosen, I reflected on the summer of '63, and the first papal transition I remember witnessing (I probably saw the television coverage of the transition from Pius XII to John XXIII in 1958, too, but for some reason I don't recall it.) The pomp and ceremony was mesmerizing. I'd never seen anything like it. The wildly cheering crowds of Faithful. The full pageantry of the Church on display. Those were the days when the Pope was still carried around in his gilded and red velvet throne by husky young Italian Men of Faith,  fan bearers on either side slowly wafting their ostrich plumes to cool His Holiness's tiaraed brow and ensure the ample distribution of the Holy Spirit among the multitudes (so I interpreted it, anyway).

John XXIII had been a champ, but this Paul VI, eee, what a sourpuss. Not the same at all, and his benedictions didn't carry nearly the warmth and charity of his predecessor. From his throne carried high on the shoulders of his litter bearers, he seemed to be a throwback to the Church of yore, a Church full of cobwebs, empty ritual, and corruption. In those days, one never mentioned the unmentionable goings on in the sacristies and cloisters. You mean it was happening then, too? Ohfergawdsake, yes.

I've been told since then that Paul VI was actually quite a forward thinking progressive prelate -- at least compared to more recent heirs to St. Peter -- and that while he may have lacked the common touch and charisma of John XXIII, he was no slouch when it came to opening up and airing out the mustier corners of the Church. There have even been claims that it was he who put the Imprimatur on Liberation Theology, though my own recollection was that he was not in favor of it and tried to suppress its growth and development.

Well. It was a long time ago, and as one ages, one's memories fade and combine with unrelated snippets of this or that occurrence or story from times gone by.

Liberation?

In the context of the Church? One must think it through. So many millions have given up the Church, consciously separating themselves from its tender mercies and for good reason, one of which is their dawning liberation from its stultifying embrace.  My father was excommunicated for daring to defy his bishop and marrying my mother (A Divorced Woman), but he thought of his dismissal from the Bosom of the Church as his own liberation from its more ridiculous strictures. "Picking and choosing" as it were. A Cafeteria Catholic -- as most typically are. When a priest was sent to administer the Last Rites after his heart attack, my father is said to have revived and practically drove the poor man out with a stick. At any rate...


There has been much to-do over the fact that Bergoglio is a Jesuit, something no Pope has ever been, but I wouldn't make too much of it. The Jesuits and all the rest of the many Orders have long since been absorbed into the Borg (to coin a phrase), and there is no independence of either thought or action among them, especially not at the level of Cardinal. They are a unit.

No, what seems to make Bergoglio the unique and chosen one to be Pope is his antipathy toward anything modern, let alone anything "leftist."

From the World Socialist Website, we have this:

But some of Bergoglio’s harshest critics come from within the Catholic Church itself, including priests and lay workers who say he handed them over to the torturers as part of a collaborative effort to “cleanse” the Church of “leftists.” One of them, a Jesuit priest, Orlando Yorio, was abducted along with another priest after ignoring a warning from Bergoglio, then head of the Jesuit order in Argentina, to stop their work in a Buenos Aires slum district.

During the first trial of leaders of the military junta in 1985, Yorio declared, “I am sure that he himself gave over the list with our names to the Navy.” The two were taken to the notorious Navy School of Mechanics (ESMA) torture center and held for over five months before being drugged and dumped in a town outside the city.

Bergoglio was ideologically predisposed to backing the mass political killings unleashed by the junta. In the early 1970s, he was associated with the right-wing Peronist Guardia de Hierro (Iron Guard), whose cadre—together with elements of the Peronist trade union bureaucracy—were employed in the death squads known as the Triple A (Argentine Anti-Communist Alliance), which carried out a campaign of extermination against left-wing opponents of the military before the junta even took power. Adm. Emilio Massera, the chief of the Navy and the leading ideologue of the junta, also employed these elements, particularly in the disposal of the personal property of the “disappeared.”

Yorio, who died in 2000, charged that Bergoglio “had communications with Admiral Massera, and had informed him that I was the chief of the guerrillas.”

Yes, well... It gets much worse.

The collaboration with the junta was not a mere personal failing of Bergoglio, but rather the policy of the Church hierarchy, which backed the military’s aims and methods. The Argentine journalist Horacio Verbitsky exposed Bergoglio’s attempted cover-up for this systemic complicity in a book that Bergoglio authored, which edited out compromising sentences from a memorandum recording a meeting between the Church leadership and the junta in November 1976, eight months after the military coup.

The excised statement included the pledge that the Church “in no way intends to take a critical position toward the action of the government,” as its “failure would lead, with great probability, to Marxism.” It declared the Catholic Church’s “understanding, adherence and acceptance” in relation to the so-called “Proceso” that unleashed a reign of terror against Argentine working people.

This support was by no means platonic. The junta’s detention and torture centers were assigned priests, whose job it was, not to minister to those suffering torture and death, but to help the torturers and killers overcome any pangs of conscience. Using such biblical parables as “separating the wheat from the chafe,” they assured those operating the so-called “death flights,” in which political prisoners were drugged, stripped naked, bundled onto airplanes and thrown into the sea, that they were doing “God’s work.” Others participated in the torture sessions and tried to use the rite of confession to extract information of use to the torturers.

This collaboration was supported from the Vatican on down. In 1981, on the eve of Argentina’s war with Britain over the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands, Pope John Paul II flew to Buenos Aires, appearing with the junta and kissing its then-chief, Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri, while saying not a word about the tens of thousands who had been kidnapped, tortured and murdered.

Now of course, Bergoglio was only the Jesuit Provincial back in the day, he was not even Archbishop of Buenos Aires, a mitre he did not receive until 1998.

A Provincial takes orders, you see.

Whatever could he do?

Liberation? For whom? To do what?

Habemus Papem -- Placeholder?

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From what little I've been able to learn about His Newly Minted Holiness, he's a nice man who lives simply, speaks well, observes the pieties and tells the rest of us to do likewise -- and who does not stand in the way of Bad Things

During the Dirty War and military dictatorship in Argentina, where his Italian family had previously emigrated, Archbishop Bergoglio was quiet as a mouse; nay, some are saying he was actively supporting their bloodthirsty rule of torture and murder and disappearance -- and advising his flock to do thou likewise. Others point out that the Good Archbishop assisted parishioners, priests and others to escape the clutches of the State, so no matter what he and the rest of the Church said during those dark years, what he and others did is what matters. And what he did was protect the vulnerable, shelter the hapless, and win release for the persecuted. Well, some of them.

What a mensch.

From reports (whose veracity is unknown)  he may well have been a good man acting on deeply held values of charity and mercy who occasionally intervened on behalf of persecuted Argentinians, but as an Archbishop, he was bound to the political positions and teachings of his Church, and in those days -- today as well -- the Church reserves its harshest criticisms for "leftist" regimes, generally tolerating when not actively assisting the death squads of rightist regimes -- even when its own people are gunned down, put to the screws or dumped out of airplanes.

The fact is, the Church has long maintained a kissing-cousin/cozy relationship with some of the worst human rights violators and neo/proto-fascist dictatorships on earth, while virulently excoriating "leftists" of all stripes. The political ideology of the rightists almost never elicits a rebuke from the Church (economic ideology sometimes does) while socialism and communism are treated as the Devil's Workshop to be denounced and destroyed forthwith.

Oh, but Bergoglio took the name of Francis! So there is that! Stop saying those things! Francis was a saint, for doG's sake!

Yes, well. Which Francis are we talking about here? Francis of Assisi or Francis Xavier? People are quite naturally thinking Francis of Assisi, patron saint of Italy and the very most wildly popular saint among the People world-wide. But Bergoglio is a Jesuit, and Francis Xavier is a founder of the Jesuit Order. Ahem.

Surely even non-CatLicks understand that they are very different characters in Church history, and their legacies are quite different as well. On the whole, I'm very fond of Francis of Assisi and his message (though not that "obedience" part). Except for some episodes of unpleasantness in the Americas, the Franciscans have been far and away the most appealing cloistered order the Church has going for it.

As for the Jesuits, well.

I don't have quite as high an opinion of them as some people do. Let us say they are far more worldly than the Franciscans (again, by and large), and they tend to be far more conscious of their role as leaders (or indeed, shapers) of men rather than followers of God.

It's the old "Jesuits I have known" issue.

So which Francis is Bergoglio evoking with his choice of Papal Name? My bet? Francis Xavier. But he and the Vatican certainly want you and me to think of Francis of Assisi when we hear the name of the Pope. And of course the Holy Father can shift back and forth as he sees fit.

Whatever the case, it seems to me that Bergoglio was chosen to play a public role as the Church undergoes an internal revamp of some sort. Exactly what sort of revamp is hard to tell. For many years, the Church in Rome has appeared to be under the spell of Opus Dei, as have many governments world-wide. Certainly JPII and Ratzinger were creatures of the cult, and who knows how many of them have wormed their way into the Vatican and Church hierarchy? The recurring scandals of corruption and abuse and wild sexual escapades that have characterized the Church for the past thirty years and more might make one suspect that the institution itself is rotten to the core. What institution isn't, though?

But the sex scandals, the financial corruption, and much of the other peculiar business that has come to characterize the Church in modern times, let alone its abandonment of Liberation Theology and the Church's absurd positions on questions of women's reproductive health (not just abortion) and the Homosexual Peril, among so many other things, have driven many tens of millions out of the Church, to the point where -- at least in the West -- its presence and future are in some doubt. Of course we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church here, the oldest and one of the largest institutions in the world. It's been through many episodes of relative decline only to revivify somehow. I have my theories, but I won't go there just yet.

On the one hand, we have Giotto's image of St. Francis (of Assisi) holding up the corner of the church in Pope Innocent's Dream:

On the other, there is the sight of lightning striking the dome of St. Peter's soon after the announcement of Ratzinger's "retirement:"



Let us pray...