Sunday night (4/24): "On the dignity of women" discussion, 6:30 & 8:30 pm, Parish Hall.
------------------------------------
We have a Pope!! I hope you all followed the election process of the new Pope. What hit me yesterday was that we have been witnesses to the work of the Holy Spirit. Ratzinger may not be the youngest or most popular candidate, but he is who the Spirit has chosen. Praise God and thank you, Holy Spirit!
An American interviewed by NBC in Rome yesterday apparently said, "I wish the Holy Spirit was more creative (in whom He selected as Pope)". First, it is good that he acknowledged that this election was run by the Spirit through the cardinals. Second, my goodness, what an arrogant thing to say, on national television nonetheless. If "fear of the Lord is the first stage of wisdom" (Proverbs 1:7), then doubting God is the first stage of foolishness.
And yet, many people in the US and abroad are doubting the Holy Spirit's choice of Benedict XVI. Why? Because he is not THEIR choice. They see him as someone who is too "conservative" and who won't change certain Church doctrines or disciplines. What he is is traditional; he will preserve the 2000-year-old teachings and practices of the Catholic Church, which originated and are based in Jesus Christ, and will apply them directly to our lives.
If you choose to be Catholic, you follow the Church's teachings. If you're Jewish, you follow the Jewish teachings, and so forth for each faith. Why, then, should the leader of a Church stray from his Church's teachings?
In Benedict XVI, we have a Pope who will not stray and will not lead others astray. He is a man of great humility, intelligence, and courage. He will continue much of JP II's vision, and may even improve it in some areas.
Here is an excerpt from his bold homily on Monday before he was elected (please click on the link for the full text):
How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth.
Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.
However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an “Adult” means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today’s fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth. We must become mature in this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith. And it is this faith – only faith – which creates unity and takes form in love.
8 comments:
Once a Cardinal is elected Pope, why does he change his name?
I remember reading something about there being a pope whose name was that of a Roman god, I think it was Mercurius, and he felt it would be inappropriate to have the leader of Christ's church be called by the name of a pagan god. Consequently, he changed his name to something more Christian, which I don't remember either. However, I am not sure how this became tradition after that particulr pope.
I found this on a website (www.popechart.com); hope it helps!
-Greg
There is some speculation that the early Popes may have changed their names to Greek names, as Jesus had done to St. Peter. This is based on the fact that most of the early popes were Italian or Roman and yet have Greek names.
The first known pope, after Peter, to take a new name was John II in 533. His given name was Mercury, the name of a pagan god, and hardly suitable for a pope, so he adopted the name of the martyred John I instead.
There wasn't another papal name change until John XII (originally Octavian) in 955. Name changes became common after that, but not every pope took a new name. Several eleventh-century Johns kept the name John, for example.
It's possible that some very early popes took different names. We know almost nothing about many of the popes (then called bishops of Rome) who served during the church's first centuries, so tidbits like given names could easily have been lost.
Can a pope chose any name he wishes?
Yes, the choice of name is the first decision after accepting the Papacy. Once elected , the pope is asked by the Cardinal Dean:
Do you accept your canonical election as supreme pontiff?
And, as soon as he has received the consent, he asks him:
By what name do you wish to be called?
A pope may choose any name but will generally choose a name with religious significance.
I would like to begin by saying that I appreciate what you are doing for the students of GW and the Newman Center in opening up a forum for students to voice their opinions about the many issues of the Catholic Church. However I myself have some issues regarding your commentary on the election of Pope Benedict XVI that I would like to address.
To start, people are neither doubting God nor the power of the Holy Spirit in choosing the new pope and enacting future church policy. They are rather doubting the hierarchy of men – humans - who are given the job of interpreting the supposed will of the Holy Spirit.
This is true: it is not their choice. And yet, it directly affects the way their religion is to be conducted now and in the future. The speculation that Benedict XVI will most likely preserve the 2000 year old teachings with little consideration of implementing change in the Catholic Church, an institution which itself is largely based on Paul, a human’s, interpretation of Jesus (and not Jesus’ own written word, for the sake of argument), is very frustrating, even scary, for many Catholics. The church as an institution has done much good by leading people spiritually towards a deeper sense of themselves and the world around them, through faith in God and according acts of selfless service towards others. However, the church is also an institution based on laws created by and interpreted by humans, who are as such inherently prone to sin and will thus not always be right. I have no doubt that Benedict XVI is a man of “great humility, intelligence, and courage,” however the idea that he may be unwilling to make changes in the church is, again, frustrating and scary for the many people who have witnessed the problems that the failure to enact changes in the presumably infallible tradition have been a result of.
Take, for example, the widespread abuse of young children by priests, and the failure of their superiors to address the issue. This issue directly affected several members of my home parish, Our Lady Help of Christians in Newton, Massachusetts, who were subjected to the abuse of Rev. Paul Shanley while he presided at our neighboring St. Jean’s Parish. Perhaps if changes were enacted, such as the greater involvement of women in the church - including permitting women to become priests, and even perhaps permission of priests to be married - so that their repressed sexuality was not instead projected into the lives of innocent children, maybe this sexual abuse would not be/have been such a large problem in the Catholic Church. This maintenance of “tradition” has been especially trying for women who have a desire to take on more substantial roles. However, even in the role of alter server, which has only been eligible to girls since 1994, women are not seen as equally deserving in the eyes of the Holy See, strictly due to their gender and the tradition of compliance associated with it. According to the Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on possible admission of girls, adult women and women religious to serve alongside boys as servers in the Liturgy (Notitiae – 421-422 Vol 37 (2001) Num/8-9 – p. 397-399) of July 27, 2001, “In accord with the instructions of the Holy See such an authorization may not, in any way, exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar, nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since ‘it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar’ (Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conference, March 15, 1994, no. 2)” (http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html). This makes clear that even the decree of ’94 that girls are allowed to be alter servers is in no way mandatory, and, in fact, it is still preferable that boys serve instead.
In returning to the issue of problems within the hierarchy of the church and the decisions its leaders have made, particularly concerning the sexual abuse crisis in Boston, it is important to note how humiliating it was to the over 400 victims of the diocese alone to hear about the consequent appointment of Bernard Cardinal Law, who as archbishop oversaw and hid from the public the ongoing abuse, to a new position in Rome. Seeing him appointed to the position of archpriest of St. Mary Major Basilica, one of the four most important basilica’s, and given an extravagant apartment to reside in along with the stipend of $12,000/month was no less than a slap in the face to these victims and the many who sympathize with them. The physical and psychological damage caused by Law’s failure to revoke abusing members of clergy, such as John Geoghan and Paul Shanley, from active duty and, instead, reassign them to other parishes with youth, only continued the despicable cycle of abuse. It is also a testament to what the stringent maintenance of “tradition” and consequent fear of holding Catholics in positions of authority accountable, such as Cardinals and priests - often seen as possessors of a sort of divine will of the holy spirit - can do.
To answer your question, the leaders of a church should stray from his church’s teachings and traditions when they are perpetrating the degradation of the human soul. Don’t get me wrong, I too wish to give our new pope the benefit of the doubt and not judge him as a leader until I have seen the way he leads. But if, according to Pope Benedict XVI, being “‘adult’ means having a faith that is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ that is adult and mature,” then we should be mature enough to question the many problems that the institution of the Roman Catholic Church faces today, in the year of our Lord 2005.
you said it sister
I appreciate very much both of your well thought-out comments and the time you took to write them. It would have been cool to have seen this all year!!
However, the person who seems to be forgotten in all of these discussions - both in your comments and in our discussion on the dignity of women Sunday night - is the Holy Spirit.
If the Church consists of mere human beings who make their own interpretations of what Christ revealed to us, why follow Her leaders? They could be as wrong, and as 'prone to sin' as Kerry wrote, in interpreting Him and His Gospel as you and I. It would be sheer foolishness to be Catholic if it's merely a human institution.
The Truth is that the Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit from the start. Jesus promised the Apostles He would send the Spirit of Truth (John 14:16-17) to them. Ten days after Christ ascended into Heaven, the Holy Spirit came down on the Apostles as tongues of fire: "They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak different languages as the Spirit gave them power to express themselves" (Acts 2:4).
There were devout Jews there from every nation, and they were amazed to hear the Apostles speaking in their native tongues. "That very day about three thousand were added to their number" (Acts 2:41). Thus, the Church officially began her mission.
We read many actions of the Holy Spirit in Acts of the Apostles (which is commonly referred to as the 'Gospel of the Holy Spirit'). He speaks in 13:2, then sends Barnabas and Paul on a mission in 13:4, for example. His presence is not an external presence only; the Apostles are described as "filled with the Holy Spirit".
This is the Spirit of Truth which Jesus promised: "the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you" (John 14:26).
"For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them" (2 Peter 1:20-21). For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has spoken for God under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has moved the Church to interpret and teach without error what Christ taught.
For many of us, this is an awesome reality and comfort! Thanks to the Holy Spirit, the doctrines of the Church -matters of faith and morals - are the Truth about God. In Its fullness. That is the guarantee of our faith. That is the tradition of our Church.
The Holy Spirit guided the Second Vatican Council to define this as 'infallibility', which is extended to the Pope and the bishops in communion with him on matters of faith and morals. Outside of that, they are fallible. This is where the human element of the Church (a human and divine institution) comes into play most clearly.
Many people who are so ardently opposed to the Body of Christ, the Church, are so quick to point out the human failings of Her leaders. Kerry mentioned the sex abuse scandals and the subsequent handling of them by the Vatican. To an extent, it's fair game because of the high standards set by the Church and Her leaders, the successors of the Apostles.
Also, it would be foolish for me to say anything other than how extremely sorrowful I am for the victims of the sins of the Church's leaders. The scandals make me sick to my stomach; I cannot fathom what the victims have endured. There are other failings over the course of 2000 years of the human leaders of the Church that have caused great pain to our Lord and his people.
On the other hand, there have been far more heroic and virtuous acts by the leaders of the Church for 2000 years. They have been some of the greatest people who have ever lived. John Paul II is one of them. Also, the vast majority of priests are faithful to their promises. While one unfaithful priest is too many, the percentage of unfaithful Catholic priests is at or below that of other religious leaders.
The visible Catholic Church is a divine institution led by human beings under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. "Christ is the Head, the Church is the Body" (Ephesians 1:23). Christ continues to teach today through his current Apostles: "whoever hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16). This is the teaching authority he gave to the first Apostles, and this authority has been passed down for 2000 years. Jesus promised that He would be present throughout: "I am with you always; yes, to the end of time" (Matthew 28:20).
From "Papal negative campaigning and the role of the Holy Spirit"
By John L. Allen, Jr.
National Catholic Reporter Online, 4/15/05
Perhaps the final word on the subject should belong to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Joseph Ratzinger. He was asked on Bavarian television in 1997 if the Holy Spirit is responsible for who gets elected pope, and this was his response:
"I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope. ... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined."
Then the clincher: "There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit would obviously not have picked."
enough said
Thanks for the clarification, Kerry!
Post a Comment