Young Adult Catholics

YoungAdultCatholics – a blog of CTA 20/30

Complaining is holy

Posted by Justin Sengstock on June 17, 2013

Sarah Kendzior, writer, anthropologist, social critic, recently published a piece at Al Jazeera English entitled “In defence of complaining.” In it, she critiques the inviolable American orthodoxy of positive thinking:

When the bubbles popped, and the jobs disappeared, and the debt soared, and the desperation hit, Americans were told to stay positive. Stop complaining – things will not be like this forever. Stop complaining – this is the way things have always been. Complainers suffer the cruel imperatives of optimism: lighten up, suck it up, chin up, buck up. In other words: shut up.

What really struck me was her introduction. It was a snapshot of one clergyman who happily galloped toward the new order:

In 2006, the Reverend Will Bowen launched a movement called A Complaint Free World. The goal of the movement was to get people to stop expressing ”pain, grief, or discontent”.

The best way to stop expressing pain, grief or discontent was to buy purple bracelets from Bowen’s website. The bracelets serve as a sartorial censor for those compelled to discuss their problems. Every time you complain, you must switch the bracelet to the other wrist. If you go 21 consecutive days without complaining or switching the bracelets, you are rewarded with a Certificate of Happiness.

“Our words indicate our thoughts,” the certificate says. “Our thoughts create our world.”

Kendzior isn’t the first to call B.S. Acid-tongued author Barbara Ehrenreich, of Nickel and Dimed fame, exposed Bowen’s bracelet bonanza in her 2009 book Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America:

Within a few months [since mid-2006], his church had given out 4.5 million purple bracelets to people in over eighty countries. He envisions a complaint-free world and boasts that his bracelets have been distributed within schools, prisons, and homeless shelters. There is no word yet on how successful they have been in the latter two settings.

If Bowen’s method is extreme, his general idea is not. From what I’ve seen, avoiding “bitterness” and staying “tempered in one’s speech” is a powerful American Christian motif. It’s more Protestant than Catholic, more megachurch than mainline, and more suburban than urban or rural, but still bizarrely unavoidable.

To all this, I say: no. Complaint is sacred, holy, Christian. Complaint is the moral core of our tradition.

The enslaved Israelites in Egypt “groaned and cried out” to God. Because of this, God “was mindful of his covenant” and “saw the Israelites and knew” (Exodus 2:23-25). The prophets were full-blooded complainers, whom kings and subjects alike mocked for their “negativity.” In Jeremiah, “terror on every side!” (20:10) was a dismissive nickname, like “Mr. Doomsday” or “Chicken Little.” But ruthless truth-tellers like Jeremiah and Amos survive in our canon, not their mealymouthed counterparts from the royal court.

Jesus was a razor-tongued critic, comparing hypocritical leaders to whitewashed tombs full of rot. The psalmists did not “stay positive”: they wondered why God had abandoned them, why God made them a reproach in the eyes of their friends. Job, the inexplicably-afflicted just one, lamented until God had to answer, even if God’s answer was enigmatic and lofty.

Complaint is truth, calling suffering and oppression by name. As Kendzior points out, complaint is not the opposite of action: it is the indispensable beginning of action, because you cannot change what has no name, and people ashamed of their burdens don’t name them. Complaint is a way for otherwise unnoticed persons, who have never claimed their dignity, to do so for the first time. Complaint exposes the lies that cast down the lowly, while establishing the powerful in their thrones. Complaint acknowledges that even in this life, people deserve to be somehow concretely united with Jesus’ Resurrection. Complaint courageously affirms a reality we try hard to evade, namely that God is not a wizard, prayer is not magic, and faith does not mean hitting the easy button. To remix a saying I’ve seen variously ascribed to Augustine and Desmond Tutu: without God, we can’t. But without us, without our confronting wrong as wrong, God won’t.

So complain. Do not stop naming injustice just because everyone–and at times it seems like everyone–decides you are too negative, too shrill, too depressed, too touchy, too jealous, too sensitive, too weird, too naive, too impatient, et cetera. If you annoy people today, annoy more people tomorrow. You have an unimpeachable heritage: Israelites, psalmists, Amos and Jeremiah, Job, Jesus Christ.

We don’t need your positive thinking. It is escapist, void, useless. We need your truth. We do not sing about a God who treasures the silence of the poor, a God who affirms the positive thinking of the poor. We sing: The Lord hears the cry of the poor; blessed be the Lord. Get up. Make noise. In this place. Today.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

To the Catholic Church: Thanks to You, I Can Write This. What’s Next?

Posted by Lacey Louwagie on June 12, 2013

Right now, I’m listening to Professor Thomas Madden’s Modern Scholar lectures on the Medieval Church. In one lecture, he talks about how difficult it was for Pope Leo IX to make the necessary reforms to the Church. At the time, secular lords were appointing bishops not because of their qualifications as clergy, but because of their relationships to the lord. In other words, lords put bishops in place that they felt would “go along” with whatever they wanted to do with and in their lands. This led to a rash of corruption, of bishops uninterested in the position for its pastoral significance, who thus disregarded many of the religious rules that were supposed to govern their lives. Pope Leo IX told them that the bishops must stop practicing simony (buying their holy offices) and that they must return to the requirement for celibacy (as many of them kept wives).

Pope Leo’s calls for reform met with great resistance, and Professor Madden cites the illiteracy of the general population as significantly contributing to this resistance. In illiterate societies, traditions and customs become paramount sources of authority. This makes sense to me; if a population cannot read, the best way to maintain order is to keep things the same, so that it’s easy for everyone to retain in memory “the way things are.” Once literacy enters the picture, things understandably change. A written record means that, if laws or customs change, the population has a place to reference these changes; they no longer need to keep all the requirements of their culture within their own minds, and thus a more complex, nuanced society can emerge.

I could relate to Pope Leo’s frustration as the primary reason he encountered for the bishops’ refusal to accept his reforms was, “But this is the way we’ve always done it around here.”

Sound familiar?

One of the things I love about the Catholic Church is its rich, long history (although that history is not always glorious). But now that so many Catholics are literate, the same, tired response of, “This is the way it’s done” loses its power–and the Catholic church loses its adherents. We can read the Bible ourselves and see that there’s no good Biblical justification for barring women from ordination; we can read theologians and scholars who help us understand Biblical context, and the likelihood that passages about homosexuality have little to say about same-sex love as we understand it today. We can read St. Augustine, and his understanding, still so relevant, that if science contradicts the Bible, we must read those contradictory Biblical passages as metaphor, not as fact. This is especially important as it relates to our GLBTQ sisters and brothers, as science has shown us time and again that same-sex attraction and behavior are not “unnatural” or “intrinsically disordered.”

Ironically, it’s because of the Catholic Church that many of our European ancestors became literate, as the Church is responsible for setting up universities in Europe, and many private tutors were clergy. This is one of the things our church has given us of which we can be truly proud. And largely thanks to the Church, we are no longer illiterate. We can handle change. We’re ready for change, or we’re poised to leave. We’re no longer satisfied to retain tradition merely for the sake of tradition. We need better reasons now for traditions that are unjust, reasons that go beyond “Jesus was a man,” or “Men care about leaking roofs.”

The Church helped us become literate, and for that we can thank them. Now, it’s time for them to finish the job and welcome us more fully to the conversation and the examination of our traditions, and what they mean for us today.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Grandma’s bread, and other horrors

Posted by Justin Sengstock on June 3, 2013

Sometimes, when I think about my childhood, I realize it’s a wonder that I’m religious at all. For instance.

I was about four years old. It was a springtime Sunday. Dad and I had been outside, but a thunderstorm threatened, so we came back in. And in the living room, while the sky turned dark as night, Dad told me about how Jesus was killed by the bad men.

We didn’t go to church in those days except for Christmas and Easter, but Dad still tried teaching the basics. He’d already explained how I actually had two fathers, both him and another in heaven. I’m sure I had no idea what he meant. Even so, Dad thought it was time to move on to the next part: Jesus. And the bad men.

I assume the Cross was part of the narrative. Yet somehow I gleaned the impression that, like in the ’80′s crime dramas we watched, Jesus had been overtaken in a city alley by leather-jacketed enforcers bearing knives. My eyes got wider; the leaden sky grew more ominous. Finally I made Dad stop so I could take a bathroom break.

As I toddled down the hallway, lightning exploded right behind the house. I screamed and ran back to Dad. Such was my first conscious introduction to Christianity: Jesus, murder, and thunderbolts of biblical smiting.

Then there was the Easter Vigil when I was traumatized by blood-spattered artwork. I think it was actually the same year, the same month. We arrived and took our pew. Curious, I pulled a book from the rack. I immediately started wailing.

It was a Holy Week-themed missal. The cover image was a pale, stylized hand, affixed to a wooden beam by a spike. Fountains of blood gushed out of it. Red. Lurid red.

I squeezed my eyes shut for the rest of the three-hour Mass. Later, I distinctly recall laying in bed at night, dreaming that my parents said it was okay not to go to that church anymore.

By First Communion time, I was less allergic to Catholic imagery. Crucifixes were almost cool. But then it came to pass: besides regular CCD, we had special sacramental prep sessions. In one, we watched a film entitled “Grandma’s Bread.”

It opened with a child sitting in the kitchen with his elderly Italian grandmother. She was making bread dough. She told the boy all about her special family recipe, how it was prized by relatives in the black-and-white photos she pulled from a wallet.

The scene was familiar, reassuring. My mom’s parents were immigrants, Polish and Russian. My grandma didn’t bake, but she famously kept her house stocked with store-bought Gonnella bread and chleb mazowiecki, from which she sawed great hunks with a butcher knife.

These people felt just like my family. So I was terribly stricken when out of nowhere, as Grandma brought the finished bread out of the oven, her legs started shaking. She heaved herself onto a chair, putting her head in her hands. She cried, “Get your mother! I need her!”

The film abruptly cut to a shot of paramedics wheeling Grandma away, frantically fitting her with an oxygen mask. Then the boy sat stunned in a living room as his parents laid their hands on his shoulders. I held my breath as they intoned: “Grandma is with Jesus now.”

My stomach swerved over a cliff. Perhaps tomorrow my real-life grandma would fling a loaf of rye down on the kitchen table and shout: “Justin! I’m dying! Get your mother!” (As it happened, she lived another seventeen years.)

The point of the movie, the reason CCD kids were obliged to watch it, was still to come: before Grandma randomly died, she had promised to bake her bread for the boy’s First Communion celebration. So he and his mom figured out how to do it themselves, and “Grandma’s Bread” ended with luncheon guests adoring a fresh loaf while the father proclaimed: “We are family!” Like Jesus, Grandma was unseen, yet still present and gathering her people via baked goods. But I remained deeply disturbed. Why kill Grandma? Why?

I could tell more tales of the borderline Catholic macabre, though after First Communion such tales would be increasingly self-inflicted. Long story short: my faith life did not have an auspicious beginning. That I emerged from it a would-be theologian is a surprise.

“In the beginning was the Word,” writes the author of John’s Gospel. Christianity is a story, one we tell each other and our children. It contains sharp edges and volatile imagery. It requires skillful handling. Told well, the story brings us life. Told badly, it oppresses and repels us, especially when we are vulnerable and young. We who tell the story need to do so with great care.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Marriage Equality, “Morality” Laws, and the Convenient Minority

Posted by Lacey Louwagie on May 28, 2013

Recently, my home state, Minnesota, legalized same-sex marriage. All the money spent by the Knights of Columbus, all the directives from the bishops, all the petitions littering pews in my hometown church … in vain. In the end, marriage equality passed with surprising rapidity, sending a message loud and clear: the majority of us feel no need to control who other people are allowed to marry.

Knowing that a handful of very vocal Catholics and other religious conservatives are convinced Minnesota is headed straight to the devil has me chewing on issues of sexual morality again. I’ve made it no secret that I fully support marriage equality. And although I disagree with it, I also respect a church’s right not to bless a same-sex marriage. That’s where the separation of Church and State comes in. And that’s why it makes me so angry that people want to make secular laws based on their personal religious convictions, without any demonstrable benefit to the state or to the secular society the state is entrusted with regulating.

Feeling that same-sex marriage is immoral is not justifiable grounds for making it illegal. Imagine what might happen if religious conservatives tried to enact legislation around other issues of “sexual morality.” Catholicism teaches that sex before marriage is immoral, but is anyone agitating to make it illegal? What about cohabitation? What about birth control? (Yes, the bishops made a big stink over whether Catholic organizations had to cover it in their health insurance, but no one suggested that the whole secular state must ban its use. No one petitioned to make contraception illegal — or if they did, they sure didn’t get much traction.)

So, why are we so fixated on same-sex love as a sexual morality issue, to the exclusion of all others, to the point that we think it’s okay to enact legislation about it?

I think the answer lies in the numbers.

Now the question becomes — do Catholics and other conservative Christian groups focus on same-sex love because it’s somehow more “immoral” than other forbidden sexual behaviors, or is it because the lower numbers make GLBTQ people a handy scapegoat?

After all, if Christian groups agitated to make premarital sex, cohabiting, or contraception illegal, there’d be public outcry because so many people are engaged in these behaviors. Almost everyone, in fact. No one would stand for a religious minority deciding what a secular majority is allowed to do with their private lives.

Why do so many people stand for it when it comes to same-sex love, then? Because there are fewer people identified that way, fewer people engaged in the “forbidden” behaviors. It’s a classic case of going after the little guy.

Except it’s not going to work much longer. 4% might be the official number right now, but that number doesn’t take into account each person who has a loved one who falls within the GLTBQ spectrum. And the more sexual minorities feel comfortable coming out, the more we realize that nearly everyone has someone in their life who is not straight. And more and more people are realizing that just because one sexual orientation is in the majority doesn’t give them the right to make sexual decisions for everyone.

Back when Massachusetts was the only state to legalize same-sex marriage, I didn’t dare dream that Minnesota would follow suit in less than ten years. I wrote letters to some of my closest gay friends before my wedding affirming that my prayer for them was that one day the world would give them the right to have their love publicly acknowledged, too. Just over a year later, they have that right in Minnesota. I look forward to the cascade of equality continuing, as more and more states say no to discrimination, as more and more citizens realize that, regardless of your own religious beliefs, it’s not okay to deny rights to your fellow human beings. Soon, those who think they have the right to make laws that have no direct effect on their life (that is, straight people thinking they have the right to decide whether GLBTQ people have the right to marry) will be in the minority. It won’t feel great. But being uncomfortable isn’t illegal. That’s their right. In the meantime, let’s continue to fight for our GLBTQ sisters and brothers have theirs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Church of the Poor

Posted by rhonda80 on May 28, 2013

In an address given on May 16, Pope Francis said that “we have created new idols” and challenged his audience to transform the “cult of money” which creates grave inequality.  “While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling,” he stated.  “Human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away.”

            On May 18, Pope Francis spoke again of the poor, challenging us to “step outside of ourselves” and seek those most in need. “It breaks my heart to say it, finding a homeless person who has died of cold, is not news…this is grave. We can’t rest easy while things are this way,” he said to the crowd gathered at St. Peter’s Square. 

These are two of several occasions when our new pope has spoken powerfully and prophetically about poverty. His first encyclical will be on the same these and will likely be titled “blessed are the poor.”  Pope Francis’ focus on poverty and concern for the poor have deep roots in the life of St Francis as well as in Jesuit spirituality.  Francis is famous for his zealous embrace of poverty and rejection of wealth, dramatically shown in grand personal gestures, as well as through his teachings forbidding his brothers to touch money or to own personal possessions.  St Ignatius wrote of seeing “Jesus standing in the lowly place” in his meditation on two standards, a challenge to seek God on the margins rather than in the center of privilege and power. 

However, Pope Francis’ focus on poverty grows not only out of his Ignatian and Franciscan roots, but out of his pastoral experience visiting the slums of Argentina, which serve as a mirror of our current global reality.  The richest 20% in the world receive 82.7% of global income, while the poorest 20% receive only 1.4%.  The countries that were once referred to as “third world” are now called by some the “two-thirds world,” which recognizes the reality that two-thirds of the world’s more than seven billion people live in poverty.  The human cost of this income inequality is mind-boggling.  Lack of access to basic health care, education, and security lead to shortened life spans and severely compromised quality of life for so many of our fellow human beings on this planet. 

Pope Francis has accurately described the reality as follows:  “the majority of the men and women of our time continue to live daily in situations of insecurity, with dire consequences… People have to struggle to live and, frequently, to live in an undignified way.” These are realities which are relatively easy to ignore for those who us who live a middle-class American existence.  We don’t have to think about the young Chinese factory worker who assembled our iPhone, of the undocumented Mexican farm worker who harvested the produce we buy at the supermarket, of the Bolivian campesinos who picked the coffee that we drink each morning, of the laborers who are behind the “Made in Bangladesh” label on our clothing.  While our lives are more and more connected in a global economy, we in the American middle class can reap the benefits of low prices while closing our eyes to the human cost. Theologian Gustavo Gutierrez has rightly described the poor as no-persons or non-persons.  They are seen merely as providers of cheap labor in the world market, if they are seen at all.   

For those of us who endeavor to follow Jesus, Pope Francis’ words are a reminder of both our faith tradition’s call to concern for those on the margins as well of the stark inequalities of our world today.  Francis’ words are an invitation to grow in solidarity, opening our eyes and our hearts rather than throwing up our hands in despair.   Another Jesuit, Greg Boyle, has said that “the beatitudes is not a spirituality, it’s a geography.  It’s about where you stand.”  To stand with the poor, to recognize their humanity, to see them as persons rather than non-persons, is a profoundly courageous counter-cultural stance.  Only three months into his papacy, Francis has consistently shown himself to be a leader who stands with the poor both in his words and his actions.  We can hope and pray that his bold example will inspire leaders within and beyond the church to take a similar stand, and can discern what practical steps each of us can take to stand with the poor as well. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

So long Easter, and thanks for the 50 days; I needed them

Posted by Dave Montrose on May 20, 2013

“Great and glorious God, my Lord Jesus Christ! I implore thee to enlighten me and to disperse the darkness of my soul! Give me true faith and firm hope and a perfect charity! Grant me, O Lord, to know thee so well that in all things I may act by thy light, and in accordance with thy holy will!” – St. Francis of Assisi

This year was the first time that I observed Easter in the purpose for which it was intended: a 50-day celebration of Jesus’ sucker-punch into the face of death; a 50-day party at the end of a three-day test match that ended with the score, Jesus 1, Death 0. The joy that comes with a true Easter has carried me through one of the most difficult times of my life.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Eternal City

Posted by Justin Sengstock on May 19, 2013

Almost exactly seven years ago, I packed a big black bag, boarded my first-ever airplane, and flew to Europe with a friend. I hyperventilated, sure I would drown somewhere in the Atlantic. I didn’t.

Our trip lasted three weeks. We picked up more friends as we moved from Rome to Paris, from Burgundy to Dublin. But Rome was the inaugural and, for me, most important stop.

The first day was hellish. After many cramped hours, we emerged onto the blazing asphalt of Fiumicino Airport. We got into a hot bus that hurtled down a hill, toward a mass of graffiti-bombed walls and knots of umbrella pines. We disembarked at Termini, the Roman rail hub.

My non-Italian-speaking buddy then stared at me hopefully while I, nearly crying from exhaustion, dredged up rusty word combinations I hazily remembered from college. Due panini, per favore. Get us two sandwiches, please. Mille grazie. Thanks so much. Cinquantatre Via Napoleone Terzo, per favore. Please take us to 53 Napoleon III Road. That was our hostel.

Suddenly we were in an elevator that smelled like lavender, rosemary and dust. Then we were in a silent and stuffy dorm room with big old Italian shutters. I had a headache. I went to bed.

The next morning, we got bread and espresso at the neighboring bar. In Italy, when you go to a bar, you go for coffee. Then we walked. Excluding our Wednesday general audience with the pope, for which we had chairs, and our limited hours of sleep, we basically walked for three days.

Rome is not entirely old: we made much use of an internet kiosk on the Via Barberini populated by hipster types. But American cities have nothing like the Pantheon and the Colosseum, the Forum and the catacombs, all impressing upon you the mind-boggling antiquity of everything. Perhaps it was my imagination, but I also sensed the city’s oldness in its merchants, those sellers of red-pepper pizza and chocolate gelato and Pope Benedict bottle-openers, who so blandly and efficiently took away our money. They seemed to say: You are mere tourists. You pass away quickly. Rome does not pass away. Rome is forever.

And, while the great Roman forever stretches back to the Caesars, it is mostly the forever of the Catholic Church. You quickly grasp this even while perusing piles of pre-Christian ruins. Stones in the Forum bear relatively fresh Latin inscriptions announcing that Pope Gregory XVI restored the area in the 1830s. And when you enter the Pantheon, emblazoned with the name of Marcus Agrippa and formerly dedicated to all the gods, you immediately glimpse pews and altar, candles and crucifix, reminding you that this is officially the church of Santa Maria dei Martiri, so you should genuflect just as in your neighborhood parish.

Churches. Like Thomas Merton, who gave a wide-eyed account of his trip to Rome in The Seven Storey Mountain, I soon found myself cataloging the endless series of churches I visited, churches that haunt me still. Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri, discreetly tucked into the Baths of Diocletian. Santa Maria sopra Minerva, which has really creepy organ music. San Giovanni in Laterano, the papal cathedral, where I attended evening Mass. The Gesu, mother church of the Jesuits. San Pietro in Vaticano, or St. Peter’s to you. Santa Maria Maggiore. San Carlo al Corso. San Paolo fuori le Mura, which boasts portraits of every pope ever, though many are conjectural: who knows what Linus, who came right after Peter, looked like?

I once thought I knew something about omnipresent Catholic culture. I grew up Polish in a small suburb that used to have six Catholic churches and still has three. I have mostly lived and worked in what author Eugene Kennedy called “the thickly Catholic stretches of the [Chicago] archdiocese.” But Rome was another level altogether.

Above all, in Rome I was in constant communion with the dead. I crossed one church threshold after another to find multitudinous slabs bearing the funerary inscription D.O.M., for Deo optimo maximo (“to God, the best, the greatest”). These were usually the graves of cardinals. Pope Innocent III was, rather weirdly, interred directly above the Lateran gift shop. I almost tripped over the tomb of Catherine of Siena. At Santa Maria Maggiore, I paused in a chapel to get my bearings and was jolted to find myself right next to Pope St. Pius V, whose wizened, twisted body was enshrined in glass, protected by silver mask and gloves. More deliberately, I sought out the gold casket of Ignatius Loyola at the Gesu so I could pray there. Rome’s centuries upon centuries of dearly departed are as close, as real, as matter-of-fact as any of the living.

After years of processing Rome back stateside, I realize how much the city molds the church in its own image. The impermeability of the Vatican to outside voices has various reasons, ranging from the theological to the venal, but its physical location matters. Pope Paul VI reportedly once said that 1,500 years was a “brief interval.” It is the sort of observation that makes sense in Rome as almost nowhere else. When you live and breathe Romanita, it is easy to brush off the petitions of progressive American Catholics as myopic and irrelevant: You are mere tourists. You pass away quickly. Rome does not pass away. Rome is forever.

We must indeed demand justice. But we must know the lay of the land first. We need it to inform us as we move forward.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Catholicism: The Basement in My House of Faith

Posted by Lacey Louwagie on May 7, 2013

After my last post, I received a question that’s fairly common when it comes to my dissatisfaction with the Church: Why do you stay?

I’ve been attending a UCC church for over a year now, so the easy answer to that question would be, “I don’t.”

Of course, it’s not as simple as that, which is why I put off answering.

In my personal essay “Where I First Met God,” slated for publication in Unruly Catholic Women Writers, I wrote about how, despite my dissatisfaction with the Church, it was where I first came to have an understanding of the Sacred, and that wasn’t something from which I could turn easily away. The essay was written four years ago, back when I was still a “practicing” Catholic. Somehow, explaining why I “stay” feels a little disingenuous to me now, when Catholic service is no longer part of my weekly rhythm.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

Nameless in the name of God

Posted by Justin Sengstock on May 6, 2013

Timothy Cardinal Dolan’s April 25 blog post is entitled “All Are Welcome!” But the irony in the New York archbishop’s already-infamous reflection is that all are really not welcome in his Catholic Church. Unless, like the grammar-school Timothy and his boyhood chum Freddie, we remember to “wash our hands” before joining the family for dinner.

Dolan lists six categories of folks who had best clean up before appearing at God’s table: active alcoholics; businesspeople who deny fair wages to migrant workers; young unmarried couples who cohabit; women who have abortions and male partners who encourage them; people who act on “homosexuality” or “same-sex attraction” (note those terms, because they’ll be important later); and wealthy folks who ignore principles of charity and justice.

It’s a clever list, superficially diverse, careful to include social sins about which progressive Catholics often speak. But Dolan gives himself away. Three of his six “dirty hands” categories are sexual/reproductive, and he treats them with minimal nuance. (Another “dirty hands” category, alcoholism, is awkward because it’s at least as much a physical and psychological illness as a moral lapse.) And, among his sexual/reproductive bullet points, the most space is reserved for “homosexuality,” for “same-sex attraction.” In fact, it’s the longest point of the entire list, constituting 60 of 191 words, almost a third. (I used Microsoft Word for a tally.)

Local Catholics who sensed Dolan’s underlying point, and didn’t like it, announced a silent protest for Sunday, May 5. The protest contained but one element: participants would attend Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral after rubbing their hands with charcoal. But alas, Dolan was evidently quite serious about soap and towels: the ten protesters were promptly greeted by an equal number of NYPD officers, who said they could not enter. A cathedral staffer confirmed it, telling the protesters that attending Mass with dirty hands would be treated as criminal trespassing. Therefore they remained outside, and one protester, Joseph Amodeo, wrote eloquently about his experience for the Huffington Post.

Better scribes than I have already spilled enough ink analyzing Dolan’s loaded rhetoric of “dirty hands,” as well as the ways Jesus deliberately transgressed the boundaries of clean and unclean during his ministry. My own insight is more of an aside.

I said to note my citation of Dolan’s terms “same-sex attraction” and “homosexuality.” When I read them in his piece, they reminded me of something I’d seen awhile back. But I didn’t know where to find it. So I employed brute force, typing my vague memory into Google: catholic bishops don’t use word gay. And, on page 3 of my search results, I found something familiar: an NCR article from January.

It began: “San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has said Catholics opposed to same-sex marriage should limit themselves to even using the term ‘only sparingly,’ as the idea, according to him, is an impossibility.” Almost what I remembered, but not quite. Then I scanned further down, and bingo: “Cordileone also prefers that Catholics do not use the terms ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian,’ but instead ‘persons with a homosexual inclination.’”

I can’t claim to know for sure whether older terms like “homosexuality” or “inclination” or “same-sex attraction” are indeed being painstakingly retained in ecclesiastical PR messaging, apparently as pushback to the acceptance of “gay” and “lesbian” and “bisexual.” But even so, powerful hierarchs like Cordileone and Dolan certainly do set an example for other church authorities. And they are brushing aside not just the lingua franca of the wider culture, but also the ways most LGBTQs speak of themselves and their relationships.

As a straight ally, I have to take a long moment to ponder the implications. I have to imagine what it’s like to not only belong to a group singled out for “dirty hands,” but to be simultaneously stripped of the right to claim my own name: to be, paradoxically, both a scapegoat and a whozit. Because when you can’t say your own name, when everybody else calls you whatever they want, then you have no name.

Think hard about that: people kept nameless in the name of God.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Francis and John

Posted by Justin Sengstock on April 26, 2013

A couple days ago at work, I took a call from someone who wanted to know what I personally thought of Pope Francis. I knew what she meant. She didn’t mean what I think of him in general. She meant what I think of him now.

Now, because Francis recently reaffirmed the Vatican “reform” of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the largest umbrella group for U.S. sisters. In April 2012 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith put LCWR under the control of three U.S. bishops. Vatican concerns included “certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

I thought for a second and said yes, I was disappointed by Francis’ response to the LCWR issue. But I added that I still like him. Francis has open contempt for power and careerism, for triumphalism and money. Inasmuch as reform begins with the pope, I’m not sure he could change anything else unless he starts with those problems anyway.

I also pointed out that someone we now consider a liberal, John XXIII, really wasn’t the liberal of legend. It was John as catalyst, not John as progressive, that mattered. And with that in mind, lately I think a lot about John and Francis, Francis and John.

Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, who became Pope John XXIII on October 28, 1958, was then 76 years old. Although conversant with the socially-engaged Catholicism of his home diocese, Bergamo, he was also thoroughly steeped in traditional nineteenth-century Italian piety: Jesus and Mary and Joseph, devotions and saints, obedience and mortification. His diary and de facto autobiography, Journal of a Soul, reflects as much. His career was solidly bureaucratic, that of a consummate uomo di fiducia, or “reliable man”: three decades in low-key Vatican diplomacy and five quiet years as cardinal-patriarch of Venice.

When the conclave elected Roncalli, one of the qualities his brother cardinals appreciated was his obvious loyalty to his predecessor, the conservative Pius XII. And Roncalli continued some of Pius’ more overtly conservative policies. For example, John–or at least his Curia–would uphold Pius’ decision to shut down the French worker-priest movement, in which clergy took jobs as ordinary laborers to better connect with their flock.

John was also an old-fashioned church historian by avocation, devoted to classical and medieval literature, author of a series of books about the sixteenth-century St. Charles Borromeo. So it was really no big surprise when he issued the 1962 Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia (“The Wisdom of the Ancients”), which pointedly promoted the study and use of Latin. Catholic intelligentsia, riffing on a then-current anti-Communist slogan (Cuba si, Castro no), joked that here was a case of veterum si, sapientia no (“old men, yes; wisdom, no”).

I doubt all of what transpired in Catholicism later in the 1960s and 1970s would have met John’s approval.  You can make a strong case that, despite his now-infamous encyclical against birth control, the real liberal pope of the Second Vatican Council was Giovanni Battista Montini, Pope Paul VI. But Paul, while he would continue the council, also admitted that it simply wouldn’t have occurred to him to initiate it.

And there lay John’s great gift: just to know that something had to be done, that something was missing, that we needed a gust of wind, a new Pentecost, even if he could not precisely envision it. And he intuited that only a gathering of many others besides himself could envision it. By calling the council, which only completed one session before his death, John XXIII had a sweeping effect that far transcended him.

I can see Pope Francis fulfilling a similar role. I know he will never agree with me about many causes for which I work. But I also sense a man with a holy impatience: a pope who, to paraphrase his own pre-conclave words, cannot abide a self-referential church that gets sick choking on its own stale air.

He gives many signals that our self-referential, royalist climate is finished. There is his name, his emphasizing his local role as bishop of Rome, his refusal to move into the nineteen-room papal apartment, his paying his own hotel bills, his black pants and black shoes, his cheap iron pectoral cross, his insistence on constantly dialing up random friends and telling them “it’s Jorge calling,” his historic appointment of eight international cardinals as an advisory council (seven of them metropolitan archbishops, and only one Vatican official), his reported “unblocking” of Oscar Romero’s beatification, his celebration of Holy Thursday in a juvenile detention center. At the Vatican, in many ways a small village where symbolic gestures foreshadow programmatic changes, all this matters very much.

So for now I retain the hope that Pope Francis is himself a catalyst, that he too will have an  impact far transcending his own conscious intent.

(P.S. I’m not the only one pursuing this comparison: Historians ask: Is Francis a John XXIII? | National Catholic Reporter)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 85 other followers