Red mozzetta? Coat of Arms?

[JReducation]

I had to laugh when I read this. In my diocese, it was AB Fulton Sheen who decided that the “Bishop’s Mansion” was just too much. Even though he seemed to have a flair for the dramatic, he felt that living “simply” was the way to go. He sold it off and moved into an apartment in the “downtown” area of our city. It was a very nice apartment, but much smaller that the huge mansion that had been the episcopal residence.

Now, our Bishop has a suite at the rectory of our Cathedral where he (actually he is our Bishop Emeritus, we are waiting for a new Ordinary to be named) lives with 3 other priests. The Bishop could be “self-sufficent” if he wanted- there is a full kitchen, living room, bedroom, study, private bathroom, and guest quarters for when he has them.

You’re always going to find simplicity. My point is that a secular priest who becomes a bishop is not bound to such simplicity. Another secular bishop that comes to mind as a very simple man is Bishop Thomas Wenski of Miami. Then rides a motorcycle. He didn’t own a car when he moved in. His manner of dress, travel, work, and even how he speaks to people is that of a very simple man. He’s awesome. I’m told that Cardinal Dolan is also a very simple man. I’ve never met him. But he does look like a simple person.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation: I respect your view. I think it has some truth to it.

But you’re missing an axis. It’s not like these impulses–the stripping-down of papal frippery, making the liturgy as “popular” as possible—are new or confined to secular vs. religious dynamics. Pope John Paul I didn’t ditch the “sedia gestatoria,” a coronation and the tiara because he was a religious. Pope John Paul II didn’t ditch the red shoes because he was religious. And Benedict didn’t bring BACK the red shoes and even the (perfectly absurd) camauro because he wasn’t a religious.

There is an angle of this traditionalists don’t get. You can say that wearing royal Renaissance fashion has “deep meaning” for the Papacy till you’re blue in the face. That’s not how many, on many level of the church, see it. Indeed, many see it quite the other way–as symbols of decadence, pedantry and irrelevance.

I doubt that Francis will move against the Tridentine Mass, but the sort of people who think it silly for a pope to wear the Borgias’ Santa-Claus hats feel the same way about modern Americans or Burundians celebrating the mass in a dead language.

The part that many are missing is that faithful Catholics would not cease to be faithful, if the pope dressed in a back clerical shirt and collar every day. Those who are anti-Catholic will find the regality (is that a word?) something to criticize.

The simplicity is not going to drive away the faithful and the splendor is not going to convert the enemies of the Church.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You’re always going to find simplicity. My point is that a secular priest who becomes a bishop is not bound to such simplicity. Another secular bishop that comes to mind as a very simple man is Bishop Thomas Wenski of Miami. Then rides a motorcycle. He didn’t own a car when he moved in. His manner of dress, travel, work, and even how he speaks to people is that of a very simple man. He’s awesome. I’m told that Cardinal Dolan is also a very simple man. I’ve never met him. But he does look like a simple person.

I have met Cardinal Dolan, and yes he seems to be very simple and down-to-earth. He is actually very funny & witty, too! He was my first choice for Pope (not that I have a say ), and I couldn’t be happier with who the Holy Spirit chose for us. If it couldn’t be Cardinal Dolan, a Jesuit named Francis is the next best thing!!

 

[TimSpalding]

The part that many are missing is that faithful Catholics would not cease to be faithful, if the pope dressed in a back clerical shirt and collar every day. Those who are anti-Catholic will find the regality (is that a word?) something to criticize.

This is Catholicism-at-a-crouch—a defensive, pessimistic Catholicism.

Look, even “faithful” Catholics can be discouraged. Or they can be encouraged. As for the rest, while the church will always have enemies, people do respond to holiness. As the reporter John Allen recently noted:

“Heard from cabbies, clerks and other ordinary folk in Rome: ‘I haven’t been to church in years, but this pope makes me want to believe’” ( twitter.com/JohnLAllenJr/status/313526649037672448 )

I myself have heard it from non-Catholics and lapsed Catholics around me. Francis is having an impact, and his personal humility and simplicity, his outward orientation and his hitting of basic, central truths of the Christian faith are the cause.

Meanwhile, traditionalists are alarmed that the “liberal” media is falling for the guy—if they like him, surely there’s something wrong with him! I find that a very grouchy, uncharitable response.

 

[McCall1981]

This is Catholicism-at-a-crouch—a defensive, pessimistic Catholicism.

Look, even “faithful” Catholics can be discouraged. Or they can be encouraged. As for the rest, while the church will always have enemies, people do respond to holiness. As the reporter John Allen recently noted:

“Heard from cabbies, clerks and other ordinary folk in Rome: ‘I haven’t been to church in years, but this pope makes me want to believe’” ( twitter.com/JohnLAllenJr/status/313526649037672448 )

I myself have heard it from non-Catholics and lapsed Catholics around me. Francis is having an impact, and his personal humility and simplicity, his outward orientation and his hitting of basic, central truths of the Christian faith are the cause.

Meanwhile, traditionalists are alarmed that the “liberal” media is falling for the guy—if they like him, surely there’s something wrong with him! I find that a very grouchy, uncharitable response.

The media will cease to like him when they realize he’s Catholic. And yes, if they did continue to like him it would be a bad sign.

 

[JReducation]

The media will cease to like him when they realize he’s Catholic. And yes, if they did continue to like him it would be a bad sign.

Why would it be a bad sign?

The media loved Bl. John XXIII and Bl. John Paul II. There were many people who disagreed with their positions and with the Church, but they were never hostile to either one of them. On the contrary, the media was always cordial to them and very curious about them. It was a good thing. It gave both of them that little crack in the window that the needed to say what they wanted to say without being bullied by the media. I have to admit, that both of them knew how to work the media too. If there is such a term as “media savvy,” that was them.

 

[JReducation]

A friend of mine sent me this link. I guess that answers our question about the mozzetta, as least for today.

youtube.com/watch?v=EDICaY5xLJg

On the flip side, I have to ask myself, why can’t these folks teach their people to be as courteous and well behaved as they are when they’re all together.

 

[TimSpalding]

The media will cease to like him when they realize he’s Catholic. And yes, if they did continue to like him it would be a bad sign.

This strikes me as the flip side of Schadenfreude—disquiet at the joy of ones enemies. The world is not such an evil place that it’s joys must be the church’s sorrow. If non-Catholics respond to his message, that’s a GOOD THING. If some lapsed Catholics go back to church that’s a GOOD THING.

The media loved Bl. John XXIII and Bl. John Paul II. There were many people who disagreed with their positions and with the Church, but they were never hostile to either one of them. On the contrary, the media was always cordial to them and very curious about them. It was a good thing. It gave both of them that little crack in the window that the needed to say what they wanted to say without being bullied by the media. I have to admit, that both of them knew how to work the media too. If there is such a term as “media savvy,” that was them.

Exactly. Pope John Paul II certainly drew some ire, especially in his later years, but on the whole his press coverage wasn’t bad. His obvious personal holiness protected him to some extent. That Benedict’s coverage was bad may have to do with his being Catholic, or it might have to with his bizarre, off-the-cuff attack on Islam, his rehabilitating a Holocaust denier and generally running his office as if it he were the scholar-in-chief, not as the focus of unity and—let’s admit it—something of the public face of the Catholic faith.

 

[McCall1981]

Why would it be a bad sign?

The media loved Bl. John XXIII and Bl. John Paul II. There were many people who disagreed with their positions and with the Church, but they were never hostile to either one of them. On the contrary, the media was always cordial to them and very curious about them. It was a good thing. It gave both of them that little crack in the window that the needed to say what they wanted to say without being bullied by the media. I have to admit, that both of them knew how to work the media too. If there is such a term as “media savvy,” that was them.

I honestly don’t think there is any way he could be faithful to Catholic doctrine and be liked by the mainstream/pop culture media at the same time.

I’m very anxious about how orthodox he’ll be, but I’d love to be shown that my worries are misplaced and that he’s orthodox to the core

 

[McCall1981]

This strikes me as the flip side of Schadenfreude—disquiet at the joy of ones enemies. The world is not such an evil place that it’s joys must be the church’s sorrow. If non-Catholics respond to his message, that’s a GOOD THING. If some lapsed Catholics go back to church that’s a GOOD THING.

Exactly. Pope John Paul II certainly drew some ire, especially in his later years, but on the whole his press coverage wasn’t bad. His obvious personal holiness protected him to some extent. That Benedict’s coverage was bad may have to do with his being Catholic, or it might have to with his bizarre, off-the-cuff attack on Islam, his rehabilitating a Holocaust denier and generally running his office as if it he were the scholar-in-chief, not as the focus of unity and—let’s admit it—something of the public face of the Catholic faith.

If non-Catholics and lapsed Catholics respond to him, that is a great thing, but I’m not contesting that. I’m saying that the mainstream media hates Catholicism. If Pope Francis teaches about the Truth of the Catholic Faith, speaks against abortion, gay marriage etc, he will be hated by the media that wants him to ‘modernize’ the Church.

From Jesus Himself to the martyrs and the Saints, its pretty easy to see that “the world” (as in worldliness) tends to hate holiness.

And please dont speak badly of Pope Benedict. He was a tremendous Pope and we have been blessed to live during his Pontificate. I only pray that Pope Francis can live up to the example Benedict provided.

 

[JReducation]

This strikes me as the flip side of Schadenfreude—disquiet at the joy of ones enemies. The world is not such an evil place that it’s joys must be the church’s sorrow. If non-Catholics respond to his message, that’s a GOOD THING. If some lapsed Catholics go back to church that’s a GOOD THING.

Exactly. Pope John Paul II certainly drew some ire, especially in his later years, but on the whole his press coverage wasn’t bad. His obvious personal holiness protected him to some extent. That Benedict’s coverage was bad may have to do with his being Catholic, or it might have to with his bizarre, off-the-cuff attack on Islam, his rehabilitating a Holocaust denier and generally running his office as if it he were the scholar-in-chief, not as the focus of unity and—let’s admit it—something of the public face of the Catholic faith.

I think what happened between the media and Pope Benedict was caused by two realities that are not bad in themselves. They’re just not helpful for a public figure. Reality #1 – the man is very shy. He does not handle the media well. He’s a dynamo in the classroom. If one could sneak a camera into a class when he was teaching, one would have come away in awe. I saw him in action in a classroom, a very energetic professor.

Reality #2 – he is a scholar. He often speaks way above the common man’s comprehension. Even the average Catholic who claims to understand him usually gets him wrong. I lost count of the number of times that people on CAF, who are among the better read Catholics often said that he said X and when we looked, it was not what he said at all. Many people tend to forget that Bonaventurian theologians speak in riddles. You have to approach every statement they make as a riddle to be solved. This is simply Bonaventure’s pedagogy. Pope Benedict is very much a Bonaventurian, not a Thomist. He does not like Thomas’ style. He has said so publicly. The Thomistic style is much easier for the common man to comprehend, because it’s almost like a cooking recipe. It follows steps. That’s not the Franciscan and Augustinian method. Pope Benedict was trained first in Bonaventure and then in Augustine. This was a disadvantage that he had.

Pope Francis is very much the Ignatian. Ignatius brought to qualities to the table, something old and something new. If he had had something blue we could have had a wedding.

The old was Franciscanism. In his autobiography, St. Ignatius himself speaks about the life and ministry of St. Francis and how Francis’ austerity, love of the poor, identification with the common man, and his love for the cross inspired him. He passed this on to his sons.

The new was Ignatius is Ignatius personal gift of teaching. He is a master teacher, better than Aquinas. Aquinas was a master theologian. But Ignatius is very much the classroom teacher. He focuses on one point, avoids being dogmatic so as not to intimidate his audience. Instead, he goes for the practical and the spiritual, thus pulling his audience in by a certain charm, mystique, and common sense. We see this in all of Ignatius’ writings. We’re seeing this in Pope Francis.

 

[JReducation]

I honestly don’t think there is any way he could be faithful to Catholic doctrine and be liked by the mainstream/pop culture media at the same time.

I’m very anxious about how orthodox he’ll be, but I’d love to be shown that my worries are misplaced and that he’s orthodox to the core

If you have any doubts about his orthodoxy, you’re in trouble. First of all, there is not such thing as an unorthodox pope. Popes can have their personalities and they certainly have their gifts and their agenda. But orthodoxy is about fidelity to the faith. The pope is protected against infidelity to revelation and moral truth.

If you’re looking at his past history, you may enjoy listening to talks and lectures that he has given on some very serious moral and pastoral subjects. There are many of them on YouTube, EWTN and Salt & Light TV.

One can say that one likes this pope’s style better than that other one. But to question or doubt a pope’s orthodoxy is very risky for a number of reasons.

First, one runs the risk of spiritual pride. This begs the question, “How do you compare your knowledge of orthodoxy with that of a pope?” I’m using the universal you, not you personally. I don’t hear you crossing that line yet.

Second, one can become a parallel magisterium. That’s not safe either.

Third, one can confuse style with substance, external with internal, and essential with accidental.

If a pope is standing on his head while explaining the Immaculate Conception, he is still orthodox as long as he does not tamper with the doctrine. I may prefer that he stand on his feet and he feels more comfortable on his head. That’s a difference in accidentals. But I would not find anything in the essential, the teaching itself that is objectionable.

To make it more real, one can say that one does not like the way that he worded this or that. The wording may still be well within parameter of fidelity to the truth. The person is orthodox. I’m reminded of St. Maximilian Kolbe who refused to use the term Immaculate Conception when preaching to the Japanese while he was superior there. He always used the term “She who was conceived without sin.” The brothers once asked him why not just say Immaculate Conception. His answer was very simple. “It sounds silly when you say it in Japanese.” To him, who loved the Immaculate, anything that sounded silly and was remotely connected to the Immaculate was to be avoided. The other brothers couldn’t see what there was to it that sounded silly. To this day, no one can. But it sounded silly to him, so he did not use the term. That did not make him unorthodox.

My point is that orthodoxy and manner are not the same thing.

Finally, I should also so that we must avoid imposing our orthodoxy on the pope. Today, I finished a Lenten series that I have been preaching to a Dominican priory. The final lesson was precisely on this point. St. Dominic taught his brothers to teach the truth, but not to impose their understanding on others. He said that truth did not require force. He who was ready for it would embrace it and he who was not, would die resisting. I explained to the frairs that it is better to wait for the conversion of the man who is not ready than to kill him in the process and have him die outside the truth. We have a tendency to impose our version of orthodoxy on others and then lean on the Church. In truth, if we look at the Church very closely, she does not impose. She is very humble.

But do go and listen to those videos. You may find that he’s quite orthodox.

 

[TimSpalding]

1. Compare

And please dont speak badly of Pope Benedict

with

I’m very anxious about how orthodox [Francis] will be

I didn’t criticize Benedict’s orthodoxy. I criticized his management and public relations. I’m glad you liked him, but the Regensburg Speech, the rehabilitation of Bp. Williamson and the Vatileaks scandal were disasters for the papacy. I’m confident history books will take note of them as such. While his Papacy was a mixed bag overall, these really stood out.

If Pope Francis teaches about the Truth of the Catholic Faith, speaks against abortion, gay marriage etc, he will be hated by the media that wants him to ‘modernize’ the Church.

I think this is where we differ. When I start listing the truths of the Catholic faith, I don’t START with abortion and gay marriage. These may well indeed follow from Catholic moral principles, but they are hardly the start of them. So many in the US have turned away from the Catholic church because, far from seeing a message of love, repentance and forgiveness, they see scolding and hostile political agitation for a set of bedroom issues. I suspect you’re going to get them back more easily by talking about Christ crucified than your plan to roll back gay marriage.

 

[TimSpalding]

First of all, there is not such thing as an unorthodox pope. … The pope is protected against infidelity to revelation and moral truth.

This isn’t Catholic theology. The theology is that the Pope may not be pertinaciously officially a heretic. He cannot proclaim heresy ex cathedra. But he can hold unorthodox opinions, and even teach them in non-infallible contexts. And, like Liberius, he can flirt with unorthodoxy for a time.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

I honestly don’t think there is any way he could be faithful to Catholic doctrine and be liked by the mainstream/pop culture media at the same time.

I’m very anxious about how orthodox he’ll be, but I’d love to be shown that my worries are misplaced and that he’s orthodox to the core

May I ask why you say that?

And why the worry that he may not be completely orthodox?

It’s very early days of course, but the Pope seems to have a manner that is attractive to a lot of people, the media included. There’s nothing wrong with being a good communicator, being down to earth, being able to ‘connect’ with people, and being gentle in word and deed. It’s probably the best way to attract people to your message.

I really don’t understand the concern that some are feeling.

 

[JReducation]

If non-Catholics and lapsed Catholics respond to him, that is a great thing, but I’m not contesting that. I’m saying that the mainstream media hates Catholicism. If Pope Francis teaches about the Truth of the Catholic Faith, speaks against abortion, gay marriage etc, he will be hated by the media that wants him to ‘modernize’ the Church.

From Jesus Himself to the martyrs and the Saints, its pretty easy to see that “the world” (as in worldliness) tends to hate holiness.

And please dont speak badly of Pope Benedict. He was a tremendous Pope and we have been blessed to live during his Pontificate. I only pray that Pope Francis can live up to the example Benedict provided.

Here is your problem. No pope should be expected to live up to the example of his predecessors. Every pope is gifted with his own gifts. Every pope is inspired with his own vision.

The continuity of the Church rests precisely on the diversity between the pontiffs, not the duplication of pontificates. It’s not a matter of this pope being better than that one. There is no such thing.

Take for example a question like, “Who is better, Mother Angelica or Mother Teresa?”

The answer is that this is null question.

The same is true about the popes. To say that one should follow the example of his predecessor is a null statement. It sounds as if one is trying to handcuff the Holy Spirit. Grace builds on nature. The Holy Spirit builds up the Church by gifting each individual with what the Church needs at that time.

Whatever gifts this pope brings to the table are from the Holy Spirit and he has a moral obligation to use them for the good of the Church. He should not build his pontificate on the gifts of a predecessor and ignore those that God has given him. That would be a great loss for the Church and immoral for him to do.

Along the way, each pope also makes mistakes. Pope Benedict made mistakes and I’m sure that Pope Francis will also make mistakes. However, mistakes are also a gift. If we stop to pay attention, we can learn from them. If we don’t pay attention, then there is a missed opportunity to learn.

Let’s never hope that one pope will emulate another. That’s the same as hoping that one pope become not a successor, but a student. Popes are not supposed to be students. They are teachers.

 

[JReducation]

This isn’t Catholic theology. The theology is that the Pope may not be pertinaciously officially a heretic. He cannot proclaim heresy ex cathedra. But he can hold unorthodox opinions, and even teach them in non-infallible contexts. And, like Liberius, he can flirt with unorthodoxy for a time.

Only when he speaks as a private individual. When he speaks as the pontiff, even the ordinary magisterium is protected. Pope Paul VI made this very clear.

 

[TimSpalding]

Only when he speaks as a private individual. When he speaks as the pontiff, even the ordinary magisterium is protected. Pope Paul VI made this very clear.

Depends what you mean by “as.” If you mean in clear, ex-cathedra pronouncements, you’re right. But if you mean “in the course of his job”—say, in an interview, in a speech, in a homily, in an encyclical without an ex cathedra application—he certainly can.

I would add that “orthodoxy” is often too narrowly defined in this group. Mention celibacy, for example, and you have people telling you it was degreed by Jesus from the start.

Pope Paul VI made this very clear.

Infallibly?

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

JReducation, I’ve seen a lot of your posts over the past few days and wanted to say how interesting I’ve found them, and how much I’ve learned from them.

Thank you!

 

[McCall1981]

If you have any doubts about his orthodoxy, you’re in trouble. First of all, there is not such thing as an unorthodox pope. Popes can have their personalities and they certainly have their gifts and their agenda. But orthodoxy is about fidelity to the faith. The pope is protected against infidelity to revelation and moral truth.

If you’re looking at his past history, you may enjoy listening to talks and lectures that he has given on some very serious moral and pastoral subjects. There are many of them on YouTube, EWTN and Salt & Light TV.

One can say that one likes this pope’s style better than that other one. But to question or doubt a pope’s orthodoxy is very risky for a number of reasons.

First, one runs the risk of spiritual pride. This begs the question, “How do you compare your knowledge of orthodoxy with that of a pope?” I’m using the universal you, not you personally. I don’t hear you crossing that line yet.

Second, one can become a parallel magisterium. That’s not safe either.

Third, one can confuse style with substance, external with internal, and essential with accidental.

If a pope is standing on his head while explaining the Immaculate Conception, he is still orthodox as long as he does not tamper with the doctrine. I may prefer that he stand on his feet and he feels more comfortable on his head. That’s a difference in accidentals. But I would not find anything in the essential, the teaching itself that is objectionable.

To make it more real, one can say that one does not like the way that he worded this or that. The wording may still be well within parameter of fidelity to the truth. The person is orthodox. I’m reminded of St. Maximilian Kolbe who refused to use the term Immaculate Conception when preaching to the Japanese while he was superior there. He always used the term “She who was conceived without sin.” The brothers once asked him why not just say Immaculate Conception. His answer was very simple. “It sounds silly when you say it in Japanese.” To him, who loved the Immaculate, anything that sounded silly and was remotely connected to the Immaculate was to be avoided. The other brothers couldn’t see what there was to it that sounded silly. To this day, no one can. But it sounded silly to him, so he did not use the term. That did not make him unorthodox.

My point is that orthodoxy and manner are not the same thing.

Finally, I should also so that we must avoid imposing our orthodoxy on the pope. Today, I finished a Lenten series that I have been preaching to a Dominican priory. The final lesson was precisely on this point. St. Dominic taught his brothers to teach the truth, but not to impose their understanding on others. He said that truth did not require force. He who was ready for it would embrace it and he who was not, would die resisting. I explained to the frairs that it is better to wait for the conversion of the man who is not ready than to kill him in the process and have him die outside the truth. We have a tendency to impose our version of orthodoxy on others and then lean on the Church. In truth, if we look at the Church very closely, she does not impose. She is very humble.

But do go and listen to those videos. You may find that he’s quite orthodox.

I’m glad to hear you say he’s quite orthodox

I do try to distinguish between personal style and orthodoxy. I’m not one to care if he wears the mizzetta as long as his doctrine is rock solid. I guess it just comes from not knowing much about him yet, a fear about the unknown kind of thing. I’d be more than happy to embrace his humble, unimposing style if I just knew more about his doctrinal stances.