Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

The Renewal of Vatican II: Distractions and Distortions

The Renewal of Vatican II: Distractions and Distortions | Douglas Bushman, S.T.L. | Ignatius Insight

Years of teaching courses on Vatican II and Ecclesiology have provided me the data of an ongoing survey that continues to produce amazingly consistent results. The question is simple: "What is the first word that comes to mind when I say, 'Vatican II'?" Invariably the response is "renewal" and "change." The same answer comes from countless groups of adults with whom I have reflected on the Council that Pope John Paul II described as "the gift of the Holy Spirit" to the Church of our time.

The follow-up question produces similarly consistent results, though it may be difficult to discern at first. To the question, "What kind of change?" people point first to the liturgy: Mass said in English, priest facing the assembly, laity serving as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, communion received in the hand. Often mentioned is the adaptation of the discipline of abstinence from meat on Friday. Others point to participation on parish or diocesan pastoral or finance councils, while some refer to institutional innovations such as the synod of bishops, the International Theological Commission, and the many new pontifical councils.

Seemingly widely diverse, these examples have something in common; they are visible and institutional changes. Observable changes such as these naturally draw our attention; they are the first things we notice. The Council, however, did not see changes as ends in themselves, but as means to something higher. The challenge is to look beyond them, or through them, to discover that more profound reality. Such a "looking beyond" is natural for Catholic faith, which perceives the Son of God in Jesus of Nazareth, and the bestowal of grace in the visible signs we call sacraments.

What is that more profound reality? It is holiness, as unchanging in its nature as doctrine, the essence of the sacraments, and the hierarchical constitution of the Church. Holiness, that is, life in communion with God in faith, hope and charity lived in the ongoing conversion that is an unending task for the Church, is fundamentally the same in all ages. The real challenge of Vatican II is the change or renewal of hearts that in the Gospels is called metanoia.

Read the entire article...

ABC News = "All Benedict Clichés"

This May 2nd ABC News piece goes looking for the "softer" and "gentler" Pope Benedict XVI, breaks out some burnt out clichés, and produces a vague "story" about how the media responds when the subject of a media-created stereotype fails to go along with that stereotype:

During his recent visit, Benedict showed a side the public had never seen before. He became the first pope to visit an American synagogue and noticeably doted on babies.

Benedict has, however, visited a synagogue in Germany (in 2005), and he has apparently doted on non-American children. If by "the public" is meant the "American public", then this makes some sense. But since this was Benedict's first visit to the U.S., I'm inclined to conclude that nearly everything would be a "first": Benedict takes his first step on U.S. soil. Benedict breathes his first breath of U.S. air. Benedict makes first visit to the White House. Benedict says his first Mass at Yankee Stadium. And so forth.

He's been pontiff for three years, but for many Americans, Benedict was still best known as the pope who followed John Paul II.

Hey, are Americans smart or what? (Raucous laughter.) I bet most Americans also know that Benedict is quite likely the pope who comes prior to the pope who follows him. This is very good stuff!

He seemed to be the very opposite of Paul, who was something of a rock star among Catholics and chipped away at the Iron Curtain and won over the hearts of Catholic youth with his very public warmth.

Seemed to be. Why? To whom? Really now, shouldn't a journalist be interested in getting past stupid caricatures that don't help explain, clarify, or demonstrate anything? Why, I can think of quite a few similarities between the two men: Catholic priests, intellectually gifted, well-educated, theological experts at Vatican II, dialogued with Jews and others, addressed secularism and relativism and numerous related problems, worked closely together for over 20 years, and so forth and so on.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- as Benedict used to be known -- was considered to be a stern hard-liner. He served John Paul II as "defender of the faith," responsible for protecting Catholic orthodoxy, earning the nickname of "God's Rottweiler."

Again, why? Seriously: who was it that labeled Ratzinger as "a stern hard-liner" and named him "God's Rottweiler"? Who is it who comes up with all of the negative, often infantile, nicknames? Who has promoted those nicknames heavily? And honestly, did anyone in the MSM really think that John Paul II wasn't a "hard-liner" who upheld Church teaching? Anyone?

But Benedict's first visit to the United States was one that portrayed him as cuddly and soft. This has led some to question whether the pope so many had written off as a tough guy is really a teddy bear in disguise.

What is this: a news report or a note in a high school yearbook? "hi jimmy. i'm so glad u and i got to no each other this year. at first i thought u were stuck on yerself. but yer actually really cool. yer like a teddy bare! yer friend. xxx ooo, beth." And how, I must ask, does a visit "portray" someone?

Now, however, the world stage has seen this warmer side. Many are watching and waiting, to see whether the soft side of the pope will emerge more frequently, particularly during his trip to Australia this summer -- now that he's seen how well it went over in the states.

What is this: a piece of journalism or a gossip column for People magazine? "The in-demand actor is considered warm and approachable, a spring personality with a summer wardrobe, whose presence melts hearts and brings smiles to the most hardened industry veterans. The emergence of his effusive, sunny side has been a welcome surprise, especially since it was only three years ago that he, in a fit of drunken rage, stormed off of the 'Tonight Show' after being asked if he still tortured small animals and listened to Rush Limbaugh."

Well, enough fun for now. The ABC piece was apparently the print version of a "report" given by reporter Claire Shipman. NewBusters.org has the full story, including audio and a transcript, of Shipman's shipwreck of a report.

"Theology matters!": On the need for true humility and theological conviction

Since June 2007 I've been teaching a weekly Bible study on the Gospel of John at my parish. Last night we finally made it to the "Book of Glory," chapters 13-20, which marks a key transition from Jesus' public ministry to his private discourse to his disciples prior to his passion, crucifixion, and Resurrection.

One of many themes or qualities that has often caught my attention during this study is how Jesus, far from being a meek, mild, and mellow fellow, is often downright confrontational, purposefully (and very strategically) entering into debate and argument with various religious leaders, including those intent on doing away with him. Anyone who opines about how Jesus is all about "love"—that is, a sentimental, sickly love based in non-dogmatic affirmation—has never seriously read the Gospel of John. It's not that Jesus doesn't talk about love (on the contrary), or that the Apostle John doesn't write about love; rather, the love that Jesus demonstrates is a clear-eyed, firm, and challenging love that has no interest in being comfortable, let alone avoiding confrontation.

In keeping with that fact, one of the great themes of the Gospel is of the separation of light from darkness: "In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (Jn 1:4-5). In John 8, Jesus declares, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (8:12). Put into modern parlance, this is rather dogmatic stuff; that is, Jesus is making definite, distinctive statements about who he is, and in doing so he is drawing a clear and emphatic line between those who follow him and those who reject him. Suffice to say, the man who a bit later states, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6) is not the sort of man who cares about winning brownie points for avoiding polarizing positions.

And yet Jesus also talks about and demonstrates humility and service. In chapter 13, having washed the feet of his disciples—a task suited for slaves or servants—Jesus said the following:

You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me." (Jn 13:14-20)

This is the sort of paradoxical language that can bring on a strong case of cognitive dissonance for a modern reader—if they don't misrepresent what Jesus said and did. For example, someone might say, "Hey, Jesus is simply saying, 'I'm just like you guys. So if I can be humble, so can you!" But, of course, Jesus has already spent time claiming that he is, "I AM"—that is, he is divine (Jn 8:58)—and that he is the Teacher and Lord of the disciples.

Or, we might be tempted to say, "Jesus is showing them that true love is about serving one another." That is true, but if we stop there, we might overlook these unsettling words from the next chapter: "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me" (Jn 14:23-24). An essential part of loving God is obeying God, and that obedience comes from believing the words of Jesus, including his claim that he is God, he is the way, the truth, and the life, he is the Savior of the world.

The point I'm getting at is simply this: contrary to what far too many people think, true humility and theological conviction are not only compatible, they will be evident in those who are most aware of who they are in the eyes of God and in relation to the person of Jesus Christ. Put another way, a true disciple of Jesus Christ does not have to decide between being attentive to doctrine or being concerned with serving others—he must do both. (Which is one reason why Pope Benedict's first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, had two part: the first on the theology of love, and the second on the practice of love.) The service and love that Jesus demonstrated in the Upper Room and on the Cross was part and parcel of Who he is and What he was sent by the Father to accomplish. If this simple but apparently upsetting truth was put on a bumper sticker or coffee mug, it might be in the form of "Theology matters!", or, "It's the theology, stupid!"

This false dichotomy between theological truth and lived humility informed a great deal of the media coverage of Pope Benedict's visit. It became something of a game as to who could create the most simplistic and misleading contrast: the gentle, loving John Paul II vs. the dogmatic, rigid Benedict XVI, or the old, harsh Ratzinger vs. the new, loving Benedict. It was all nonsense. But it reflects, I think, the very sort of "either/or" mentality with which many people see (or claim to see) in the Gospels: the harsh, condemning Jesus vs. the loving, meek Jesus. But if Jesus truly does love the world (Jn 3:16) and is the light of the world, sent by the Father, should we be surprised that he expresses displeasure when the world rejects him, his Father, his message, and his disciples (Jn 15:18-27)?

An example of this dichotomy, as it pertains to the Vicar of Christ, can be found in a column in today's Chicago Sun-Times, "More German shepherd than Rottweiler," written by Cathleen Falsani. There is, first, the obligatory contrast with John Paul II, along with all of the usual descriptives:

During the reign of the beloved, highly personable and thoroughly Polish Pope John Paul II, Ratzinger had been the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- the Vatican's doctrinal enforcer.

Many people were disappointed that the new pope was the man they knew as the austere, hyper-conservative cardinal nicknamed "God's Rottweiler."

In the three years since Pope Benedict assumed his role as shepherd of the world's more than 1 billion Roman Catholics, he has not ruled with the iron fist that some Catholics anticipated. But he hasn't entirely filled the shoes of Pope John Paul II -- an international superstar with the robust physique, artsy disposition and almost mischievous twinkle in his eye. (Although the fire-engine red loafers Benedict has taken to sporting are a step in the right direction.)

(I'm hoping that Falsani is simply trying to be cute with that last sentence; if not, it ranks very high on the Shallowness Meter.) Then, having created—or relied on, as it were—the stereotype of the Dogmatic, Iron-Fisted Ratzinger, Falsani contrast him with the new, loving Benedict:

Benedict showed the warmth and kindness that people who have known him privately for years insist is very much central to who he is. [Note: Yes, they keep insisting and wondering: "Is anyone ever going to listen to us?"] Even before he landed on U.S. soil, the new pope addressed the sex-abuse travesty head on, calling it shameful and incomprehensible.

After he landed, the pope continued to talk about the scandal and met face-to-face with victims of clergy abuse, a Christ-like pastoral move that was felt well beyond the few souls he met with privately.

How interesting and revealing is that descriptive: "a Christ-like pastoral move..." When Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the CDF, released the document Dominus Iesus, does anyone recall it being described as a "Christ-like teaching move"? Of course not, because we all know that Jesus would never make absolute statements, upset his listeners, condemn wrong beliefs and behavior, or confront those who denied him! Except, of course, that Jesus did all of those things—and quite often. Yes, Benedict's meeting was Christ-like and it was pastoral, but so are his talks and actions that are often dismissed as "harsh" or "rigid" or "dogmatic." There is not one without the other; they cannot be separated, no matter how hard some people want them thoroughly divorced from one another.

And then there is the word "move." I would let it go, but Falsani concludes her column with this:

While the pope prepared to preach in New York Sunday, I was at a church in Grand Rapids, Mich., where I heard a sermon that made me think of him.

The pastor spoke about St. Paul's Letter to the Philippians, where St. Paul talks about Jesus' tenderness and compassion and says we should treat each other likewise.

The Greek words St. Paul uses to describe the kind of encouragement and comfort Jesus offers paints an image, the Michigan pastor said, of someone walking alongside of you, slipping an arm around your shoulders and whispering in your ear, "It's gonna be OK. . . . Keep walking."

As he walked among his American flock, that is precisely what Pope Benedict XVI, in his understated way, did. Much more like the German shepherd that he is than any sort of Rottweiler.

Well played, Your Holiness.

Thank you.

And please remember that your soft side is also your best.

Ignoring, if possible, the cloying condescension, you have to wonder at the phrase, "Well played, Your Holiness." Another attempt at cuteness, but also indicating (along with the word "move" above) that Falsani cannot see the forest for the trees. Likewise, talk about Benedict's "soft side" is also foolish. Shall we also talk about the "soft side" and the "hard side" of Jesus?

Jesus, in the Upper Room, told the apostles: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me." The Holy Father, as a successor to Saint Peter, the first pope, proclaims the fullness of the Gospel, the entire Jesus, the complete story of salvation. If we pretend there is no darkness, we will not see the light of the world, but will, with the world, reject the light (cf., Jn 1:9-10). If we dismiss the teachings of Jesus, we also reject the loving person of Jesus. If we fail to acknowledge the Teacher and Lord, we fail to really serve one another; likewise, "He who does not love me does not keep my words."

USA TODAY continues its pathetic, stereotypical "coverage" of Benedict XVI

First there was this nonsense. And now there is this USA Today column by Stephen Prothero, chair of the Department of Religion at Boston University and the author of Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know  —  And Doesn't. If his column is any indication, Prothero's "religious literacy" is hackneyed, clichéd, and downright insulting (although it apparently goes over well with the critics):

It is a tough act to follow. John Paul II was the first pop pope, the first pontiff to marry the Vatican to the cult of celebrity. Pope Benedict XVI, who arrives in the USA on Tuesday for a six-day U.S. tour, possesses none of the telegenic ease of his charismatic predecessor. While John Paul II misspent some of his youth as an actor, the only role Benedict XVI seems comfortable playing is the geek. And while John Paul II was very much at home in the modern world, Benedict XVI seems to greet our age with a sneer.

Uh, the only person who seems to be sneering is Prothero; I believe this is known as "projection." The man relies upon—relishes!— nearly every meaningless caricature ( possible while making embarrassing attempts at what I assume is meant to be cleverness:

Benedict XVI has a full dance card from Tuesday through Sunday. He is scheduled to meet with President Bush. He will convene with Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and Jews. He will celebrate Mass in Yankee Stadium. He will pray at Ground Zero. But the big question is who precisely will show up at these gatherings. Will it be God's Rottweiler? Or will it be God's Poodle — a kindler, gentler pope who emphasizes spirituality over dogma, hope over fear, mercy over punishment?

And Prothero obviously prefers spinning over studying the accessible facts of recent history:

Young American Catholics treated John Paul II like a rock star. Yes, he was socially and theologically conservative, but at least they could relate to the guy with the "Popemobile" and the smile and the energy to travel to some 130 countries during his 26 years at the Holy See. But can they relate to Benedict XVI? And can he relate to them? What can a pope who is an academic theologian first and foremost offer young Americans, save for dogmas they don't believe in and rituals they do not understand? Is he coming to scold us? Or to hug us?

Did he miss the fact that World Youth Day in 2005 drew some 1,000,000 young people? Or that Benedict's papal audiences are drawing record crowds? That some of his books are best-sellers? That people who actually read his books, encyclicals, audiences, and other documents don't have to rely on sound bites that increasingly sound like regurgitated mind rot?

Really, this stuff isn't fit to print. If this guy can write a book about religious literacy, I'm sure I can write a far better book about, say, molecular gastronomy or French musical theory. Today. With my eyes close. And my keyboard tied behind my back.

Benedict XVI reflects on the life and death of John Paul II

From the Vatican Information Service:

MAY THE CHURCH FOLLOW TEACHINGS, EXAMPLE OF JOHN PAUL II

VATICAN CITY, 2 APR 2008 (VIS) - In St. Peter's Square at 10.30 a.m. today, Benedict XVI presided at a Eucharistic celebration to mark the third anniversary of the death of Servant of God John Paul II. Members of the College of Cardinals concelebrated with the Holy Father.

Addressing the more than 40,000 people present, the Pope in his homily returned to the hours following the news of John Paul II's death on 2 April 2005, recalling the innumerable faithful who prayed before his body and participated in the funeral.

"Among the many human and supernatural qualities" of the late Pontiff, Benedict XVI mentioned "that of an exceptional spiritual and mystical sensibility. It sufficed to watch him as he prayed: he literally immersed himself in God and, during those moments, it seemed as if everything else was foreign to him. ... The Mass - as he often said - was for him the focal point of every day and of his entire life. The 'living and holy' reality of the Eucharist gave him the spiritual energy to guide the People of God along the path of history".

After recalling how John Paul II died on the eve of the second Sunday of Easter, the Holy Father highlighted how the late Pope's pontificate, "both as a whole and in many specific moments, appears to us as a sign and testimony of Christ's resurrection. The paschal dynamism which rendered John Paul II's existence a complete response to the call of the Lord, could not be expressed without his participation in the suffering and death of the divine Master and Redeemer".

Pope Benedict pointed out that the words from the Gospel that figured in today's Mass - the "do not be afraid" addressed by the angel to the women at the empty tomb - "became, from the solemn beginnings of his Petrine ministry, a kind of motto on the lips of Pope John Paul II".

He always pronounced these words "with unbending firmness, at first while carrying his bishop's staff with its cross and later, when his physical strength was waning, almost while supporting himself on it, until that final Good Friday in which he participated in the Way of the Cross from his private chapel, holding the cross in his arms. ... That eloquent scene of human suffering and faith ... revealed to believers and to the whole world the secret of an entire Christian life".

As little by little the late Polish Pontiff "lost everything, in the end even the power of speech, his trust in Christ became increasingly evident. As it was with Jesus, so with John Paul II, in the end words gave way to the extreme sacrifice, to the gift of self. Death was the seal of an existence entirely donated to Christ, conformed to Him even in physical terms, in his suffering and faithful abandonment in the arms of the heavenly Father".

The Holy Father also reminded those present that today marks the opening of the First World Apostolic Congress on Divine Mercy, which aims to study Pope John Paul's "rich Magisterium on this subject.

"God's mercy", Pope Benedict explained, "is a good key to understanding John Paul II's pontificate. He wanted the message of God's merciful love to reach all mankind and exhorted the faithful to bear witness to it".

"Servant of God John Paul II personally knew and experienced the immense tragedies of the 20th century, and for a long time he asked himself what could stem the tide of evil. The answer could not but be in the love of God. In fact, only Divine Mercy is capable of limiting evil; only God's all-powerful love can overcome the arrogance of the wicked, and the destructive power of selfishness and hatred".

The Holy Father gave thanks to the Lord "for having given the Church this faithful and courageous servant" and to the Virgin Mary "for having incessantly watched over his person and his ministry". He also asked John Paul II "to continue to intercede from heaven for each of us, and particularly for me whom Providence has called to take up his priceless spiritual legacy.

"May the Church", Pope Benedict added in conclusion, "following his teaching and example, continue in her evangelising mission faithfully and without compromise, tirelessly spreading Christ's merciful love, source of true peace for the whole world".

• On the Papacy, John Paul II, and the Nature of the Church | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger | From God and the World
• Theologians, Authors Reflect on Pope John Paul II | April 3rd, 2005
• John Paul the Great | William Oddie | A selection John Paul the Great: Maker of the Post-Conciliar Church

Pope John Paul II-related resources from Ignatius Press:

• Love and Responsibility | Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II)
• The Jeweler's Shop | Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II)
• The Legacy of John Paul II: Images and Memories | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
• Pope John Paul II: In My Own Words | Pope John Paul II
• Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II | George Weigel
• Miracles of John Paul II | Pawel Zuchniewicz
• Covenant of Love: Pope John Paul II on Sexuality, Marriage, and Family in the Modern World | Fr. Richard Hogan and Fr. John LeVoir
• The Funeral Mass of John Paul II (DVD)

Yet another article about the "enigmatic" Pope

Here we go—and I quote, from another report about the Pope:

Ironically, however, it is at least arguable that his enigmatic combination of rigid doctrinal orthodoxy and political activism means.... <snip>

...clearly an enigma. An arch-conservative in theological terms, he was ultra-modern in his willingness to harness the tools of the age - television, air travel, even the Internet - for the purposes of his evangelical mission. No Pope has ever taken Christ's final exhortation to the Apostles more seriously... <snip>

When it comes to an assessment of the complex issue of ecumenical and inter-religious relations in his pontificate, we are again confronted with a divided, enigmatic picture....

Yep, all the usual stuff: rigid, enigmatic, dogmatic, orthodox, an enigma, political, arch-conservative yet ultra-modern, enigmatic, etc.

Oops. Sorry. The article, from The Irish Times, is about Pope John Paul II. Never mind...

Benedict XVI, International Man of Mystery!

What happens when an American journalist with a typically dualistic "conservative vs. liberal", politics-are-everything perspective tries to understand Pope Benedict XVI? He becomes a bit befuddled, as does Gerry Gary Stern, in a piece posted by USA Today titled, "Benedict still a mystery after 3 years as pope":

Those wanting to label Benedict can pick and choose from his actions.

If you want to see him as conservative, there's his Regensburg speech, his loosening of restrictions on the Latin Mass, a Vatican document restating the Catholic position that Protestant churches are not full churches, his approval of a policy that men with gay "tendencies" should not be priests, and his statement in Brazil last year that missionaries did not impose their beliefs on native cultures.

If you want to see him as surprisingly moderate, you can look to his many statements about protecting the environment, his meeting with dissident theologian and longtime nemesis Hans Kung, his desire to meet with Muslim leaders, and his overall desire to be a teaching pastor to all Catholics who want to listen.

Allen has coined the term "affirmative orthodoxy" to describe Benedict's papal approach. So far, the pope has chosen to explain and explore classic Catholicism in a positive light, rather than issuing warnings or sounding alarms.

Goodness, that is mysterious: the Pope is trying to explain the Catholic Faith to both Catholics and non-Catholics. Golly, if he ain't careful, he might end up believing in some of that Catholic stuff. In fairness, Stern's piece does have a few good quotes:

"He's not the charismatic rock star pope that John Paul II was," said David Gibson, author of The Rule of Benedict. "Part of it is age — he was 78 when elected. But he also wants to lower the profile of the person of the pope. He doesn't want the pope to be the object of people's faith or veneration. He wants that to be Jesus. John Paul tried to draw people to the faith through his own faith, his own personality. Benedict wants to get out of the way, to present the faith and step aside." <snip>

"John Paul had the mastery of facial expressions, the just-right gesture, soundbites," said John Allen, a leading Catholic analyst and author of a pre-papal biography of Ratzinger. "Benedict doesn't speak in soundbites but in tersely crafted paragraphs. To understand what he's trying to say, you actually have to listen from start to finish, which is very much a challenge to our soundbite culture. That's why there is a tremendous gap between what the Catholic insider knows about him and what the average person knows." <snip>

"In his first three years as pope, he has tried to bring the people of the church back to the basics of the faith, back to the Eucharist, back to prayer as the center of Christian life," said George Weigel, a Catholic theologian and senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

There seems to be the notion, on the part of some folks, that a somewhat shy academic cannot also be a vigorous defender of the Faith as well as a personable and eloquent pastor of souls. Why are these so incompatible? Likewise, why is loosening the restrictions on the Latin Mass considered to a "conservative" act when it is actually a liberating/liberal act (in the best sense of those oft-abused words)? And isn't the desire to be a proper steward of creation who properly conserves natural resources and acts responsibly re: the material world a conservative action? Not, of course, if you use the typical American Political Lexicon for such things. And therein, I think, lies much of the problem: trying to force what is Catholic and oriented toward the permanent things into the cramped, narrow confines of sectarian ideology. For example:

But how will this shy, scholarly, even-keeled pope play in Washington and New York, where memories of John Paul II are still fresh?

Sigh. If you insist on thinking in those terms, Pope Benedict XVI will continue to be a "mystery" to you.

Catholic reporter defends his support for Obama, stating: "bishops be damned"

UPDATE (Feb. 29, 2008): Joe Feuerherd sent me the following note re: my post: "As the identification in the Post makes clear, I am no longer with the National Catholic Reporter. Haven’t been for about 10 months. The praise, or in this case the blame, resides solely with me." I apologize to both Mr. Feuerherd and the National Catholic Reporter for the error.

Joe Feuerherd, former reporter for the National "Catholic" Reporter, is an angry man, as his February 24th op-rant indicates (ht: Dr. Ed Peters):

To Catholics like me who oppose liberal abortion laws but also think that other issues -- war or peace, health care, just wages, immigration, affordable housing, torture -- actually matter, the idea that abortion trumps everything, all the time, no matter what, is both bad religion and bad civics. It's not, for God's sake, as though we're in Nazi Germany and supporting Hitler.

Is it really "bad religion" and "bad civics"? Not according to Pope John Paul II, whose great encyclical Evangelium vitae provided a very careful and powerful explanation as to why abortion is such a key issue. Here are just a couple of pertinent quotes:

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34). [par 20]

Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable crime".

But today, in many people's consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as "interruption of pregnancy", which tends to hide abortion's true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth. [par 58]

Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [pars 72-3]

But, of course, all of this means nothing to Followtheherd:

This fire-and-brimstone approach to the ballot box is the long-term bequest of a conservative pope, John Paul II, enacted by a U.S. hierarchy appointed during his 27-year tenure and now by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. John Paul's key criterion in choosing the men who lead the United States' 194 dioceses was their vocal support for church teachings that have been rejected in whole (birth control) or in part (women's ordination and abortion) by many Catholics in the pews and the broader American culture. John Paul gave little weight to management or pastoral experience, as evidenced by the bishops' handling of the clergy sex-abuse crisis.

Well, goodness, if the broader American culture is for it, it surely must be the right thing! Anyhow, to cut to the chase, here is the conclusion:

There's little hope, unfortunately, that the bishops will adopt a more pragmatic approach to achieving their aims anytime soon. Younger American priests, the pool from which future bishops will be chosen, overwhelmingly embrace the agenda enunciated by John Paul II.

So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned.

There you have it: either be "pragmatic" or follow the Pope, the reality about the Democrats and abortion be, well, dismissed. (For the record, this is not to say that I am thrilled about the Republican Party. I'm not. Not even close. But that'll have to wait for another time.) As for the final sentence, Dr. Ed Peters offers some sobering observations:

Now, Canon 1369 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that "a person who . . . in published writing . . . expresses insults or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty." Canon 1373 states that "a person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry . . . is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties."

I believe Feuerherd has gravely violated both of these canons.

Read Dr. Peters' entire post.

"Christ ... fully reveals man to man himself...

... and makes his supreme calling clear." That statement from Gaudium et Spes is, as Marcel of "Aggie Catholics" writes, was dear to Pope John Paul II's heart:

What is the truth? It is that each of us are created in the image and likeness of God. Big deal, you might think. But, it is. It is our identity. We are adopted into the family of God (the Trinity) and made partakers of the divine nature. This means we that our nature is caught up into God, by our participation in God's divine life. A new-found identity in Christ means we can no longer look at ourselves or others in the same way. This is why the John Paul the Great quoted the following verse more than any other from Vatican II:

Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. (Gaudium et Spes 22)

If we want to know who we are, who others are, and the answers to the other questions that have been planted deep within us, then we need to understand who Jesus is and who we are in light of Christ. When God became man in the Incarnation, He didn't lower His own divine nature, which is impossible - because God is unchangeable, rather He raise up our human nature higher.

Marcel offers a fine reflection on these truths, especially as to how they relate to man's struggle with serious problems such as abortion and broken homes. A few years ago I put together some similar thoughts in a piece titled, "The Dignity of the Human Person: Pope John Paul II's Teaching on Divinization in the Trinitarian Encyclicals":

Man’s dignity is not rooted in his temporal existence, but in where he has come from and where he is called to go. This calling is found in the revelation of Christ. In his writings, the Pontiff refers often to a phrase in Gaudium et spes: "Christ, the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling" (GS 22, quoted in RH 8.2).
 
If man had no value in the eyes of God, Christ would not have come and taken on flesh and died. So man’s dignity rests in the Redemption and within the salvific economy man becomes a "new creature": "In this dimension man finds again the greatness, dignity and value that belong to his humanity. In the mystery of the Redemption man becomes newly ‘expressed’ and, in a way, is newly created" (RH 10.1). ...

The Incarnation and man’s divinization should be seen as part of a familial reality. Just as the Father sent his only begotten Son (Jn 3:16, Heb 1:5), the Son in turn sends forth adopted sons (Gal 4:4-7). Just as the Son came to do the will of the Father (Lk 22:42, Jn 4:34), adopted sons go forth to do the will of the Son (Jn 15:14-17). This spiritual procreation occurs by the power of the Holy Spirit, the giver of life (2 Cor 3:6, Gal 6:8). John Paul II writes:

For as Saint Paul teaches, "all who are led by the Spirit of God" are "children of God." The filiation of divine adoption is born in man on the basis of the mystery of the Incarnation, therefore through Christ the eternal Son. But the birth, or rebirth, happens when God the Father "sends the Spirit of his Son into our hearts." Then we receive a spirit of adopted sons by which we cry ‘Abba, Father!’" Hence the divine filiation planted in the human soul through sanctifying grace is the work of the Holy Spirit. "It is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ." Sanctifying grace is the principle and source of man’s new life: divine, supernatural life. (DeV 52.2).

By entering into human history and uniting Himself with mankind, God not only restored communion between the divine and the natural, He modeled divine sonship for us. By becoming united to humanity, he demonstrated that man can become one with God. Man can become by grace what the Son is by nature. Put another way, the Son of God became a Son of Man so that men might become sons of God (see CCC 460).

John Paul II's encyclical's, with study tools, can be read and studied on the Vatican site.

Cardinal Foley on the Church and the MSM

Tim Townsend of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch interviews Cardinal John Foley, who for 23 years (1984-2007) was President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications:

Q: What are the differences between John Paul and Benedict in terms of how they worked with media?

Foley: John Paul was a more dramatic figure, and given to dramatic gestures, which the present Holy Father is not. But the present Holy Father is very open to the media. He's very kind, gentle, and he has given interviews before he has gone to specific countries. He did for the Polish media before he went to Poland. He did for the German media before he went to Cologne for World Youth Day. So, it would be nice if he'd do that for the American media, too, but I don't know. He doesn't feel as secure in English. He speaks English very well, but I guess he just lacks confidence. He's a professor, so he like to get things right. …

And, summarizing why the MSM so often does a poor to horrible job of reporting on religion:

Q: When you received an alumni award from Columbia in 1985, what made you suggest a course in religion journalism, which the school now offers?

Foley: Unfortunately, many assignment editors confuse ignorance with objectivity, and they assign someone to cover religion who knows absolutely nothing about it, thinking that in that way they're being unbiased. I said, "If you did that in sports, imagine the riots in the street."

That's probably because for many people, sports are religion, while religion is just a private matter worth making sport of, but little else.

Molly Hemingway of Get Religion comments.