#411: Cover-Up

Ever Since Watergate, Americans have believed that “The cover up is worse than the crime.” Has the U.S. Catholic hierarchy STILL not figured that out?

Two events this week remind us that not only is the Church’s sex abuse crisis still with us; it is also still cause for worry.  For there is fresh evidence that, even now, some members of the hierarchy just don’t get it.  In particular, this week’s events--one in Chicago and one in Geneva--show a hierarchy still torn, among its own members, between apology and denial. 

The denial came to the fore when Bishop Francis Kane, vicar general of the Archdiocese of Chicago, held a news conference concerning Wednesday’s court-ordered release of documents relating to cases against 30 priests accused of child abuse.

Bishop Kane began by apologizing for the abuse itself, and admitted that the archdiocese had been wrong not to act more forcefully, but then denied any cover-up by Chicago bishops:

It was just they didn't realize that it was such a terrible thing, and so I think they did relocate people, but it was not intended as a way of covering up things.

But Marc Pearlman, a lawyer representing 200 of the victims, took exception to the Bishops claim:

The issue is not when the abuse happened; the issue is what they did once it was reported….I think that the files will show a systemic plan over decades in this diocese, along with many other dioceses, to conceal sexual abuse, to conceal who the predators were, and to put the interests of the predators and the institution above the interests of innocent young children…Until there is public disclosure and transparency ... there is no way people can learn about it and make sure it does not happen again,"

Bishop Kane also said, “It's humiliating as a priest to know there were other priests who did something like that."

In both of his remarks, Bishop Kane speaks for many bishops (past and perhaps even present) who find it “humiliating” to acknowledge that priests abused children but impossible to acknowledge that bishops and others covered it up.  Of course, it was precisely this “humiliation” that induced bishops to keep such matters quiet—they were too embarrassed to admit the truth.

What they still don’t get is that, for the vast majority of Catholics who were not touched by the abuse itself, the cover-up is a much greater scandal, and denying it continues to damage the Church’s credibility.

So the question arises: how could Bishop Kane say there was no cover-up?  Perhaps it is a matter of definition. Perhaps he and others think that, if previous bishops underestimate the problem, the result was they did nothing about it—and that was not, at least intentionally, a cover-up. To me, such a view is disingenuous at best.

To clarify, it may help to use a concrete example, so let me tell a story.  A true story.

This happened more than 60 years ago in a small town in the Archdiocese of Boston.  One fine day the pastor of the local parish took a group of altar boys on a field trip.  At some point during the day he sexually accosted one of the boys.  The boy broke away, and had the presence of mind to hitchhike home, where he told his father what had happened.

On his return with the rest of the group, the pastor found the boy’s father waiting for him at the rectory--with a shotgun.  No violence resulted, but the diocese was contacted.  That night, a limo arrived at the rectory carrying the archbishop’s minions, who removed the pastor to the limo, thence to Logan Airport, and finally onto a night flight to exile in Ireland, where he arrived the very next morning.

A team of three priests was assigned to the parish, with instructions to calm the family involved and “avoid any scandal” over the event--that is, keep things quiet (one of those priests told me this story years later).  So the parish never knew what had happened or why their pastor had disappeared literally overnight.

Three years later, he returned from Ireland and became pastor of a parish in another part of the diocese.  No one there ever learned the story either.

Now this story, while dramatic, is not at all unusual.  In fact, it reflects a pattern that was remarkably consistent from diocese to diocese in the U.S. throughout the 20^th century.  In case after case where abuse was charged, the Church’s managers--the bishops--dealt with accusations by taking the following steps:

1. They removed the priest, usually on short notice, with either no public explanation or a phony one.

2. They bargained or bribed to prevent victims and their families from exposing the priest, often in the name of “avoiding scandal.” In many cases, families were promised the priest would never deal with parishes or children began.

3. The priest was sometimes sent away for “penance” and/or for “treatment,” often to a facility operated for that purpose.

4. The priests who remained or who replaced the abuser did not inform the parish about anything that had transpired.  In some cases, they themselves were not informed.

5. The accused priest was generally recycled to another parish or even diocese, either immediately or on his return from exile.  The new parish was told nothing of his record.  If he was assigned under a pastor, even the pastor himself was often not informed of the man’s history.

6. Of course, in a large percentage of cases the recycled priest repeated his offense, abusing more children in his new setting.

One is tempted to say: if this is not “cover-up,” what is?

Let’s grant that bishops honestly failed to recognize that a crime have been committed, so civil authorities were not notified.  Let’s even grant that bishops failed to understand the deep damage done to the children and their families.  The fact remains that no attempts were made to protect future victims, for that would have required notifying others--other parents, other families, other priests, as well as pastors (and sometimes other bishops) under which the recycled abuser was assigned.  Instead of taking steps to prevent further abuse, bishops acted to end each incident quietly and then keep the problem itself quiet.

In a 2010 novel that Robert B. Parker wrote as part of his celebrated “Spenser” series, private eye Spenser interviews a university police officer about the way the university handled the case of a professor named Prince, who had been seducing his students.  Spenser says, “So the university decided to do nothing about Prince.”--and the campus police chief replies: “No, they decided to keep it quiet…That’s doing something.”

Indeed, keeping abuse quiet is doing something--something called covering up.

Bishop Kane seems unable to acknowledge that, whether they “intended” a cover-up or not, bishops managed to cover up the problem so effectively, in diocese after diocese, that the history of abuse was kept quiet for decades (and probably generations) before it finally exploded into public view.  Over the years, dozens of bishops knew the facts and kept them secret.

One of the released Chicago documents, for example, includes former archbishop John Cody telling a priest not to worry about one girl’s 1970 accusation of prior abuse: “The whole matter has been forgotten,’’ he told the priest. “No good can come of trying to prove or disprove the allegations.’’

Sorry, Bishop Kane.  “Cover-up” is the right label for such behavior.

Meanwhile, Vatican officials were appearing before the U.N. Commission on the Rights of the Child in Geneva, where they had been summoned to explain their compliance with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (which the Holy See signed in 1990).

While attempting to persuade the U.N. panel of their resolve to fix things, the Vatican’s envoy nonetheless refused to accept a “buck stops here” responsibility.  Instead, he passed the buck for responsibility back onto the local bishops, insisting:

Priests are not functionaries of the Vatican…Priests are citizens of their own states, and they fall under the jurisdiction of their own country.

Yet a U.N. Committee investigator pointed to cases where priests were transferred from one diocese to another, with Vatican approval.  And Vatican guidelines only require notifying local authorities if local laws require it.  Many bishops in the United States led efforts to prevent such reporting laws, including a 10-year legislative campaign to prevent clergy from being designated as “mandated reporters” under the Massachusetts law--a campaign which failed only after the Boston scandal broke in 2002.

The Vatican denials of responsibility ring hollow for one simple reason: while not responsible for the management or discipline of individual priests, the Vatican is responsible for the performance of local bishops.  And since the practice of recycling accused abuses was so widespread, we might ask: by failing to remove or even discipline bishops who covered up, did not the Vatican become complicit in enabling abusers?

In short, both local bishops and Vatican officials fell prey to the same failure: because they did not act to be part of the solution, they made themselves part of the problem.

As the U.N. Committee chairperson said:

The view of committee is that the best way to prevent abuses is to reveal old ones--openness instead of sweeping offences under the carpet…It seems to date your procedures are not very transparent.

Transparency, accountability--these are the hallmarks of a solution.  The failure to employ them is the failure of those who remained part of the problem, not by abusing children but by covering up the abuse by others--and in doing so, enabling abusers to abuse again.

It is high time to stop denying that cover-up happened and enabled abusers.  It is time to begin the long process of rehabilitating the crippled credibility of the U.S. hierarchy.

The last thing we need now is a cover-up of the cover-up.

  © Bernard  F. Swain PhD 2014

#410: Who Wants Peace On Earth?

Pope Francis is first and foremost an evangelist, not a politician.  But Catholic Social Doctrine has always carried political implications. And the politics imbedded in Francis’ statements so far are quite clear, especially when it comes to committing ourselves to a realistic program for peace.

For Christians, peace is always a timely topic, but especially so now, as the 12 days of Christmas unfold.  The Christmas narratives themselves tell the birth of Jesus bringing the promise of “peace on earth,” and on January 1 the church also observes World Day of Peace.  In addition, Christmas 2013 ended the 50^th anniversary year of Pope John XXIII’s landmark encyclical “Pacem in Terris.”

Pope Francis thus finished his first calendar year in office by issuing a message (dated January 1) entitled “Fraternity, the Foundation and Pathway to Peace.” This document, together with Francis’ November message “The Joy of the Gospel,” offers a broad view of this pope’s vision for the world, as well as a powerful challenge to the world’s leaders.

One consistent theme emerges from these documents: peace is not possible using the current political and economic models that dominate world affairs.  In this, Francis echoes every previous pope of the last 50 years.  But if he (and they) are right, it means that the price of peace is to reject those models and replace them with something better.  But who among our leaders is willing to do that--or even suggest it?  In short, we must ask: who among them really wants peace on earth, and is willing to pay the price?

Specifically, Frances proposes that we will have to pay for peace in two ways.  First, we will have to reverse inequality.  Second, we will have to establish a culture of fraternity.

Inequality. In The Joy of the Gospel, Francis calls inequality “the root of all social evils,” and argues that peace will not be possible as long as inequality continues:

Until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence…This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root…Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve…In the end, a peace which is not the result of integral development will be doomed.

To be concrete, Francis argues further that our current system is unjust “at its root” because of its blind-faith belief that free-market growth will solve our social ills:

Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.

In light of this, the pope calls for urgent reforms to our current models:

 The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed…As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.

Fraternity.  In his January 1 message, Francis is equally clear that fraternity is essential to peace:

A lively awareness of our relatedness helps us to look upon and to treat each person as a true sister or brother; without fraternity it is impossible to build a just society and a solid and lasting peace…Fraternity generates social peace because it creates a balance between freedom and justice, between personal responsibility and solidarity, between the good of individuals and the common good.

He refers once again to the danger of living in a world marked by “the globalization of indifference,” and cites Benedict XVI on the paradoxical challenge posed by the new globalized economy: “Globalization, as Benedict XVI pointed out, makes us neighbours, but does not make us brothers.”

Francis laments that “contemporary ethical systems remain incapable of producing authentic bonds of fraternity,” and cites the Biblical story of Cain and Abel:

The story of Cain and Abel teaches that we have an inherent calling to fraternity, but also the tragic capacity to betray that calling. This is witnessed by our daily acts of selfishness, which are at the root of so many wars and so much injustice: many men and women die at the hands of their brothers and sisters who are incapable of seeing themselves as such, that is, as beings made for reciprocity, for communion and self-giving.

Only by fraternity, Francis argues, will we outgrow inequality and poverty.  Noting the need for policies which can lighten an excessive imbalance between incomes, Francis invokes a teaching that has been part of Catholic tradition for seven centuries:

One also sees the need for policies which can lighten an excessive imbalance between incomes. We must not forget the Church’s teaching on the so-called social mortgage, which holds that although it is lawful, as Saint Thomas Aquinas says, and indeed necessary “that people have ownership of goods,” insofar as their use is concerned, “they possess them as not just their own, but common to others as well, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as themselves”... In this regard I would like to remind everyone of that necessary universal destination of all goods which is one of the fundamental principles of the Church’s social teaching. Respect for this principle is the essential condition for facilitating an effective and fair access to those essential and primary goods which every person needs and to which he or she has a right.

Once again, this leads Francis to conclude that our current models must change:

The succession of economic crises should lead to a timely rethinking of our models of economic development and to a change in lifestyles

All this provides much food for thought.

For one thing, Francis is the first pope from the third world, where the gap between rich and poor, and the absence of a stable “middle class,” has been widespread since the colonial era in both Latin America and Africa.  Francis himself is eyewitness to such inequality, for until his election he lived and worked in the notorious slums of Buenos Aires.  Thus his condemnation of inequality strikes close to his home.

But it also strikes close to our home too.  For among all advanced industrial countries of the so-called “first world,” the U.S. has by far the greatest inequality--hence the now-familiar references to some Americans as “the 1%” and to the rest of us as “the 99%.” In this, the U.S. resembles most third world nations more than it resembles its peers in Europe and Japan.  This is not because we never had a middle class, but because the real income of most Americans has been falling since the 1970s, while a small percentage have enjoyed astronomical increases in income.

Yet if anyone suggests aggressive measures to redistribute income, cries of “socialist!” And “Marxist!” explode on the airwaves, the Internet, and in the press.  What the new pope is making crystal clear is that his call for reform is rooted, not in political theories or parties, but in centuries of Catholic tradition.

In fact, it every pope in the last 50 years has decried growing income gaps.  Even during the Cold War, pope after pope called for less obsession with East-West conflicts and more concern about North-South relations - - since the prosperity of the first world came largely at the expense of poverty in the third world.

The call for fraternity is also deeply rooted in Catholic tradition.  Catholic social doctrine has long taught that the common good trumps private interests and profits.  Christians have always believed the gospel notion that we are, in fact, our brother’s keeper.  We believe that if privileges exclude others, then privilege must be rejected.  We believe that love of neighbor is our second commandment, and is “like the first” (love of God).  We have always believed that the poor are blessed, and that caring for the weak is a hallmark of authentic Christian faith.

We Americans are proud to proclaim ourselves the world’s champion of “freedom,” but Pope Francis is saying that this is not enough to create peace.  Freedom can allow us to exclude others, to fail in brotherly love, and to promote competitive “survival of the fittest” systems that create winners and losers (Martin Scorsese’s new film The Wolf of Wall Street depicts the excesses this can produce).

Ironically, the pope’s view reflects neither Marxist-socialist perspectives nor America’s one-eyed focus on freedom.  If we must find a political partner, recall that the French Revolution proclaimed not only “Liberty” but also “Equality” and “Fraternity.” Without arguing the merits of that revolution and its legacy, it reflects this pope’s conviction that freedom untempered by equality and fraternity cannot bring us peace on earth. Francis is first and foremost an evangelist, not a politician.  But Catholic social teaching has always carried political implications. And the politics imbedded in Francis’ statements so far are quite clear, especially when it comes to committing ourselves to a realistic program for peace.

First, Francis has positioned the Catholic Church as the largest anti-capitalist voice in the world.  Second, he has positioned the papacy as the one public office capable of commanding a global audience for his inspiring vision. Third, he has challenged us to embrace fraternity and equality as the essential foundations of a peaceful world. 

Practically speaking, this means that peace on earth will only come if we alter the current capitalist model to reverse inequality and restore concern for the common good.  And it means placing concern for others above self interest. This is precisely the plea Francis makes for the world’s leaders:

I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots – and not simply the appearances – of the evils in our world!..I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor! It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare.

The question is: if this is what it takes to get Peace on Earth--who wants that?

  © Bernard  F. Swain PhD 2014

#409: Francis: Person of the Year—Part 2

Conservative complaints about Pope Francis continue to mount. This man must be doing something right! Here are more selections from his first major document, Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”).

In future CrossCurrents I will offer commentary on some of the issues in this document. But in this edition (and the last) I am simply sharing some of the key passages from this remarkable document, available here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html.

I’ve selected them to convey his central focus: motivating and equipping Catholics to take on the challenge of the New Evangelization.  Today’s citations are from the last half of the 90-page document.

Under the heading “The Social Dimension of Evangelization,” Francis immediately roots Catholicism’s social mission in our most basic core belief:

The very mystery of the Trinity reminds us that we have been created in the image of that divine communion, and so we cannot achieve fulfilment or salvation purely by our own efforts…Accepting the first proclamation, which invites us to receive God’s love and to love him in return with the very love which is his gift, brings forth in our lives and actions a primary and fundamental response: to desire, seek and protect the good of others.

Calling on all Catholics to live out “the Gospel of fraternity and justice,” he reminds us that “God’s word teaches that our brothers and sisters of the prolongation of the incarnation for each of us.” This means that our Catholic faith is never a private matter:

What these passages make clear is the absolute priority of “going forth from ourselves towards our brothers and sisters” as one of the two great commandments which ground every moral norm.

This implies the Church’s active role in social and political life.  Those who accuse Francis of playing politics or being Marxist seem blind to the truth: his position is rooted in the ancient core of Catholic tradition:

183. Consequently, no one can demand that religion should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without influence on societal and national life, without concern for the soundness of civil institutions, without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society…An authentic faith – which is never comfortable or completely personal – always involves a deep desire to change the world, to transmit values, to leave this earth somehow better that we found it…All Christians, their pastors included, are called to show concern for the building of a better world.

To exemplify what he means, Francis focuses on two principles social issues: poverty and peace. 

Paying his own bill to set a good example

Once again, he begins by rooting our view of the poor in faith itself:

87. Each individual Christian and every community is called to be an instrument of God for the liberation and promotion of the poor, and for enabling them to be fully a part of society…[This]means working to eliminate the structural causes of poverty and to promote the integral development of the poor, as well as small daily acts of solidarity in meeting the real needs which we encounter.

This leads to a distinctly Catholic notion about private property rooted in the concept of “solidarity” (made famous by John-Paul II, yet at odds with much of American culture):

189. Solidarity is a spontaneous reaction by those who recognize that the social function of property and the universal destination of goods are realities which come before private property. The private ownership of goods is justified by the need to protect and increase them, so that they can better serve the common good; for this reason, solidarity must be lived as the decision to restore to the poor what belongs to them.

Indeed, Francis finds that the priority of the poor in our faith is an unmistakable message in the Gospel texts:

Jesus taught us this way of looking at others by his words and his actions. So why cloud something so clear? We should not be concerned simply about falling into doctrinal error, but about remaining faithful to this light-filled path of life and wisdom.

It is no surprise that Francis, the first Jesuit pope, cites the famous Jesuit slogan: we are called to a “preferential option for the poor”:

201. None of us can think we are exempt from concern for the poor and for social justice…202. The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed…As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.

This in turn leads Francis to a critique of our dependence on the dynamics of capitalism:

204. We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality.

He then displays his celebrated humility: he apologizes for offending but still defends his critique:

208. If anyone feels offended by my words, I would respond that I speak them with affection and with the best of intentions, quite apart from any personal interest or political ideology…But the current model, with its emphasis on success and self-reliance, does not appear to favour an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak or the less talented to find opportunities in life.

Referring to himself as “the pastor of a Church without frontiers,” he notes that the welfare of migrants is a particular challenge, decries the prevalence of human trafficking, especially women, and then links these concerns to the defense of the unborn, clearly rooting the Church’s opposition to abortion in a consistent theory of human rights:

This defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be.

When he moves on to peace, Francis once again links faith and justice:

218. Peace in society cannot be understood as pacification or the mere absence of violence resulting from the domination of one part of society over others… Demands involving the distribution of wealth, concern for the poor and human rights cannot be suppressed under the guise of creating a consensus on paper or a transient peace for a contented minority. The dignity of the human person and the common good rank higher than the comfort of those who refuse to renounce their privileges. When these values are threatened, a prophetic voice must be raised…In the end, a peace which is not the result of integral development will be doomed; it will always spawn new conflicts and various forms of violence.

He then proposes four principles that could constitute “a genuine path to peace within each nation and in the entire world.” 1. Time is greater than space, 2. unity prevails over conflict, 3. realities are more important than ideas, and 4. The whole is greater than the part. Unfortunately, each of these requires lengthier explanation then space allows.

But Francis notes that no principles matter without a dialogue that includes the Church:

In a culture which privileges dialogue as a form of encounter, it is time to devise a means for building consensus and agreement while seeking the goal of a just, responsive and inclusive society…We do not need plans drawn up by a few for the few, or an enlightened or outspoken minority which claims to speak for everyone.

He gives special attention to ecumenical dialogue:

The credibility of the Christian message would be much greater if Christians could overcome their divisions …We must never forget that we are pilgrims journeying alongside one another.

If we concentrate on the convictions we share, and if we keep in mind the principle of the hierarchy of truths, we will be able to progress decidedly towards common expressions of proclamation, service and witness.

He also specifically mentions dialogue with Judaism and with Islam:

As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion…With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.

Francis clearly sees pluralism as an essential path toward faith’   s influence in modern culture:

255 A healthy pluralism, one which genuinely respects differences and values them as such, does not entail privatizing religions in an attempt to reduce them to the quiet obscurity of the individual’s conscience or to relegate them to the enclosed precincts of churches, synagogues or mosques. This would represent, in effect, a new form of discrimination and authoritarianism.

His final chapter is designed simply to “offer some thoughts about the spirit of the new evangelization.” First, he says, evangelizing requires both thought and action:

262. Mystical notions without a solid social and missionary outreach are of no help to evangelization, nor are dissertations or social or pastoral practices which lack a spirituality which can change hearts. These unilateral and incomplete proposals only reach a few groups and prove incapable of radiating beyond them because they curtail the Gospel.

Next he argues that all evangelizing must be rooted in a personal relationship with Jesus:

265. The Gospel responds to our deepest needs, since we were created for what the Gospel offers us: friendship with Jesus and love of our brothers and sisters.

But this conviction has to be sustained by our own constantly renewed experience of savouring Christ’s friendship and his message…We know well that with Jesus life becomes richer and that with him it is easier to find meaning in everything. This is why we evangelize.

Third, he calls us all to be missionaries:

272. We must constantly be missionaries…A committed missionary knows the joy of being a spring which spills over and refreshes others…We do not live better when we flee, hide, refuse to share, stop giving and lock ourselves up in own comforts. Such a life is nothing less than slow suicide.

Finally, he warns against fatigue and discouragement, and offers the Resurrection as our chief support.  We cannot, he says, be Christians who experience only Lent and never Easter:

276. Christ’s resurrection is not an event of the past; it contains a vital power which has permeated this world. …Such is the power of the resurrection, and all who evangelize are instruments of that power.

In a remarkable passage, Francis confides his own personal unsettling experience of the “interior certainty” the Resurrection offers in difficult times:

279. Because we do not always see these seeds growing, we need an interior certainty, a conviction that God is able to act in every situation, even amid apparent setbacks…It is true that this trust in the unseen can cause us to feel disoriented: it is like being plunged into the deep and not knowing what we will find. I myself have frequently experienced this.

In his final section, Francis explains why Mary is the star of the new evangelization:

288. There is a Marian “style” to the Church’s work of evangelization. Whenever we look to Mary, we come to believe once again in the revolutionary nature of love and tenderness. In her we see that humility and tenderness are not virtues of the weak but of the strong who need not treat others poorly in order to feel important themselves. …This interplay of justice and tenderness, of contemplation and concern for others, is what makes the ecclesial community look to Mary as a model of evangelization.

What I am struck by most in this document is how much it resembles the papacy of Francis to this point: relatively little of what he says is new; it relies largely on brilliantly synthesizing the work of his predecessors (John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul II, and Benedict XVI) and of Vatican Council II.  But his style brings a freshness, an energy, and--there’s no other word for it--a joy that is inspiring millions.

  © Bernard  F. Swain PhD 2013

#408: Francis: Person of the Year

Rush Limbaugh says the pope has Marxist ghostwriters, and claims his comments are “going beyond Catholicism.”  Pat Buchanan says he will cause the defeat of the culture wars. Stuart Varney calls him a neo-socialist.  And Time magazine has just made him the Person of the Year.

Pope Francis has made a stunning impact in the few short months since his election, and his latest work is no exception.  Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”) is a 90-page, single spaced tome that covers every possible aspect of evangelization from preparing homilies to environmentalism and international economics. It is an astounding tour de force, which takes a substantial effort to finish, not because the writing is difficult--in fact, Francis’s humble style has few papal precedents except, perhaps, John XXIII--but because he covers so much territory with so many rich insights.  In future CrossCurrents I will offer commentary on some of the issues in this document, but for the moment I would simply like to share some of the key passages, since most readers will not have the opportunity to read through the whole thing, available here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html.

Some of this has already been quoted, out of context, by the media, and while the interpretations of these comments have been largely accurate, the texts themselves have been wrenched from the larger document so that sometimes readers might get the impression that Evangelii Gaudium is primarily a political communication from the pope.

But this document is actually addressed to the members of the Church, with the aim of motivating them and equipping them to take on the challenge of what he calls the New Evangelization.  The passages that follow are examples of what he has in mind. I’ve selected them to convey his central focus, rather than his position on specific issues. For each, I offer a bit of context.

Francis starts by noting the difficulty of joy in our times:

2. The great danger in today’s world, pervaded as it is by consumerism, is the desolation and anguish born of a complacent yet covetous heart, the feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience. Whenever our interior life becomes caught up in its own interests and concerns, there is no longer room for others, no place for the poor. God’s voice is no longer heard, the quiet joy of his love is no longer felt, and the desire to do good fades. This is a very real danger for believers too.

He contrasts this with the Gospel message:

10. The Gospel offers us the chance to live life on a higher plane, but with no less intensity: “Life grows by being given away, and it weakens in isolation and comfort. Indeed, those who enjoy life most are those who leave security on the shore and become excited by the mission of communicating life to others”. When the Church summons Christians to take up the task of evangelization, she is simply pointing to the source of authentic personal fulfillment….Consequently, an evangelizer must never look like someone who has just come back from a funeral!

He insists on the need to reach out without judging or demanding:

14. Christians have the duty to proclaim the Gospel without excluding anyone. Instead of seeming to impose new obligations, they should appear as people who wish to share their joy, who point to a horizon of beauty and who invite others to a delicious banquet. It is not by proselytizing that the Church grows, but “by attraction”.

Pointing out his intention to offer “some guidelines” to encourage and guide others, he suggests that successful outreach may require decentralizing church operations:

16. Countless issues involving evangelization today might be discussed here, but I have chosen not to explore these many questions which call for further reflection and study. Nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound “decentralization”.

He acknowledges that church structures do not guarantee missionary outreach:

26. There are ecclesial structures which can hamper efforts at evangelization, yet even good structures are only helpful when there is a life constantly driving, sustaining and assessing them. Without new life and an authentic evangelical spirit, without the Church’s “fidelity to her own calling,” any new structure will soon prove ineffective.

And he shares his personal vision:

27. I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation. The renewal of structures demanded by pastoral conversion can only be understood in this light: as part of an effort to make them more mission-oriented, to make ordinary pastoral activity on every level more inclusive and open, to inspire in pastoral workers a constant desire to go forth and in this way to elicit a positive response from all those whom Jesus summons to friendship with himself.

He expresses his belief in  the importance of parishes:

28. The parish is not an outdated institution; precisely because it possesses great flexibility, it can assume quite different contours depending on the openness and missionary creativity of the pastor and the community. While certainly not the only institution which evangelizes, if the parish proves capable of self-renewal and constant adaptivity, it continues to be “the Church living in the midst of the homes of her sons and daughters”. This presumes that it really is in contact with the homes and the lives of its people, and does not become a useless structure out of touch with people or a self-absorbed group made up of a chosen few.

He points out that our message must be shaped carefully:

36. In preaching the Gospel a fitting sense of proportion has to be maintained. This would be seen in the frequency with which certain themes are brought up and in the emphasis given to them in preaching…if… an imbalance results…The same thing happens when we speak more about law than about grace, more about the Church than about Christ, more about the Pope than about God’s word.

The pope clearly insists that the gospel message must be centered on joy:

39.When preaching is faithful to the Gospel, the centrality of certain truths is evident and it becomes clear that Christian morality is not a form of stoicism, or self-denial, or merely a practical philosophy or a catalogue of sins and faults. Before all else, the Gospel invites us to respond to the God of love who saves us, to see God in others and to go forth from ourselves to seek the good of others. Under no circumstance can this invitation be obscured!

After surveying some “signs of the times” in our culture, especially the evil of inequity in our countries, Francis cautions that contemporary culture can hamper our mission by infecting our own members with “practical relativism”:

80. This practical relativism consists in acting as if God did not exist, making decisions as if the poor did not exist, setting goals as if others did not exist, working as if people who have not received the Gospel did not exist. It is striking that even some who clearly have solid doctrinal and spiritual convictions frequently fall into a lifestyle which leads to an attachment to financial security, or to a desire for power or human glory at all cost, rather than giving their lives to others in mission. Let us not allow ourselves to be robbed of missionary enthusiasm! 
  Otherwise, he warns, church-business-as-usual can breed death: “A tomb psychology thus develops and slowly transforms Christians into mummies in a museum.” This can be especially a danger for church leaders who prefer “closed and elite groups” and make no effort to reach out to others:

96. This way of thinking also feeds the vainglory of those who are content to have a modicum of power and would rather be the general of a defeated army than a mere private in a unit which continues to fight. How often we dream up vast apostolic projects, meticulously planned, just like defeated generals!

Evangelizing also requires putting the “good news” ahead of rules and requirements:

165. It has to express God’s saving love which precedes any moral and religious obligation on our part; it should not impose the truth but appeal to freedom; it should be marked by joy, encouragement, liveliness and a harmonious balance which will not reduce preaching to a few doctrines which are at times more philosophical than evangelical. All this demands on the part of the evangelizer certain attitudes which foster openness to the message: approachability, readiness for dialogue, patience, a warmth and welcome which is non-judgmental.

This non-judgmental attitude is a key to accompanying others on their faith-pilgrimage:

172. One who accompanies others has to realize that each person’s situation before God and their life in grace are mysteries which no one can fully know from without. The Gospel tells us to correct others and to help them to grow on the basis of a recognition of the objective evil of their actions (cf. Mt 18:15), but without making judgments about their responsibility and culpability (cf. Mt 7:1; Lk 6:37).

It’s worth noting that of all Francis has said so far, perhaps “Who am I to judge?” (speaking about homosexuals) has been the most controversial. The above passages prove that was no slip of the tongue, but a clear focus on the gospel message.

These quotes represent only the first half of Evangelii Gaudium. Next time I will share more texts from the second half.

  © Bernard  F. Swain PhD 2013