Bergoglio and Giussani

A few weeks ago I read an article on the CL website entitled Bergoglio and Giussani. It was by Massimo Borghesi, and explained not only why Bergoglio like Giussani so much, but also showed some of the influence Giussani has had on  then Cardinal Bergoglio's (and now Pope Francis') thought.

Cardinal Bergoglio's esteem began back in the nineties when he first started reading Giussani's works. In 2001 Bergoglio publicly offered two main reasons:  "The first, more personal, is the good that this man has done for me, for my life as a priest, in the last ten years, through my reading of his books and articles. The second reason is that I am convinced that his thought is profoundly human, and reaches even the most intimate part of human yearning. I would daresay that it is the most profound, and at the same time, most comprehensible phenomenology of nostalgia as a transcendental fact." 

 Bregoglio was explaining and deepening what had said in 1999, when he commented on The Religious Sense "For many years, Monsignor Giussani's writings have inspired my reflection...The Religious Sense is not a book for the exclusive use of those who are part of the movement, nor is it only for Christians or believers. It is a book for all men who take their own humanity seriously. I dare say that today, the question that we must primarily face is not so much the problem of God - the existence of God, the knowledge of God, but the problem of man, the knowledge of man, and finding in man himself the imprint that God left there, in order to meet him...If a man has forgotten or censored his fundamental 'whys' and the longing of his heart, the fact of speaking to him about God proves to be an abstract, esoteric discourse, or a push toward a devotion with no bearing on life. One cannot begin a discourse about God without first blowing away the ashes that suffocate the burning embers of those fundamental 'whys'. The first step is to create the sense of those questions that are hidden, buried, perhaps suffering, but that exist." 

Brogoglio found in Giussani's writings a God whose grace, ( i. e. whose  unpredictable, always new, action in man), comes first. Grace is always the source, as well as the sustenance,  follow-through, and fulfillment of  man's hunger for the Infinite. Man today doesn't see Christ as the satisfaction of his human aspirations because his religious sense has been blunted. 

 

Bregoglio continues his commentary on The Religious Sense: "...in order to interrogate ourselves when faced with signs, a extremely human capacity is necessary, the first one that we have as men and women: wonder, the capacity to be amazed, as Giussani calls it, ultimately , the heart of a child. Only wonder knows. ... The cultural opiate tends to obliterate, weaken, or kill this capacity for wonder. The beginning of any philosophy is wonder. There is a phrase of John Paul II that says that the drama of contemporary Christianity lies in the fact of putting categories and norms in place of wonder. Wonder comes before all categories. It is what brings me to search, to open myself; it is what makes my response possible, and it is neither a verbal nor a conceptual response. Because if wonder opens me as  a question, the only response is the encounter - and only in the encounter is thirst quenched." 

When Bergoglio presented  Giussani's book The Attraction of Jesus, he confirmed: "Everything in our life, today as in the time of Jesus, begins with an encounter, - an encounter with this man, the carpenter from Nazareth, a man like all others, and at the same time different. The first ones, - John, Andrew, Simon, - discovered that they were looked at in their very depths, read deep down, and a surprise was generated in them, a wonder that made them feel tied to Him, a wonder that made them feel different. ... One cannot understand this dynamic of the encounter that arouses wonder and adhesion without the "trigger" of mercy. Only those who have encountered mercy, who have been caressed by the tenderness of mercy, get on well with the Lord. ...The privileged place of he encounter is the caress of the mercy of Jesus Christ toward my sin."

In Borghesi's article, Bregolio  then cites another book by Giussani, Something that Comes Before, to explain what an unmerited gift the encounter with Christ is: "the 'something that comes before' is the encounter with Christ, even if unclear, not truly aware - as for John and Andrew, it was something astonishing, not definable by them. The thing that come first, grace, is the relationship with Christ: Christ is the grace, it is this Presence, and it is your relationship with it, your dialogue with it, your way of looking at it, thinking about it, focusing on it."

This encounter is the essential form in which Christianity has to manifest itself today! The Cardinal's understanding of this profound insight is what  influenced him to say a  some years later as Pope Francis that "The dogmatic and moral teachings of the Church are not all equivalent. The Church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focus in essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts us more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall as a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow." Without the encounter, the moral behavior has no foundation.  If it is Christ that attracts us first, and encountering Him comes before all else, there is no danger of falling into moralism, dogmatism, or any form of Christian fundamentalism which reduces Christ to an ideology!

Bregoglio wrote  in 2001 :"This Christianly authentic conception of morality that Giussani presents has nothing to do with the seemingly spiritual quietisms of which the shelves of today's religious markets are full. And neither does it have to do with the Pelagianism that is so popular in its various and sophisticated manifestations. Pelagianism, at bottom, is a new version of the tower of Babel. Seemingly spiritual quietisms are efforts at prayer or immanent spirituality that never go beyond themselves." 

Pelagianism and Quietism are two ways we can reduce Christ and Christianity to a this-worldly equivalent but still deceive ourselves into thinking we are  being religious and spiritual. In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis continues and deepens his explanation of how and (more importantly) why we still  try today to reduce Christ to what our Ego can control and manipulate instead of losing ourselves in the wonder of who He is.  The pope says: "This worldliness can be fueled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of Gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neo-Pelagianism of those who ultimately trust in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyses and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are the manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuinely evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity," (94)

 Wow! After reading that a few times and chewing on it over again, I have to conclude that Pope Francis is every bit as deep a thinker as Pope  Benedict! Praise God that in his everyday preaching, Francis knows how to say profound things in an evangelical, missionary style! 

 All quotations are from the article Bergoglio and Giussani, by Massimo Borghesi, which can be read in its entirety on the Communion and Liberation website.

 

Zaccheus encounters Christ

          In our second reading today, St. Paul talks about people who are overly concerned about the Second Coming of Christ as well as the end of the world. Both events certainly will happen someday but, as the second reading says, there are always people always think the end is just around the corner. Paul tells them (and us) not to believe every exciting tidbit that they hear. Paul tells them not to over-react to everything that is allegedly from him and other authorities of the faith. Be careful of what you get second  or third hand.

          To me, this seems incredibly appropriate for our own day. People hear something that allegedly our Pope has said, but it has been twisted like a pretzel by whomever they are hearing it from. Yet people are likely to take it as gospel more than the actual Gospel. In our culture, we are often getting a second or third hand account from some organization whose purpose it is to constantly attack our Church. The organization claims to be conveying a brand new message from our pope, and this misinformation is believed more readily than the truth the pope said, because his whole message in context is not accurately quoted. People get excited over misinformation all the time.

          This is what happens to me practically after every news report about the pope: I get a phone call or an email saying, “Hey I heard the pope is changing what the Church teaches on A, B, or C. As soon as I hear someone say that phrase, “changing the Church’s teaching” without giving an explanation how the change fits with everything that came before, I know something got mis-communicated. When you read (or hear somewhere) just a few sentences without context claiming to be some new church teaching or policy, and your inner alarm system goes off, because this new message is completely out of character with the Church, what do you do, what should I do, - check it out!

          This is exactly what Zaccheus does in the gospel today. Zaccheus had heard of Jesus. We don’t know exactly what he had heard about Christ, but whatever it was, Zaccheus know he had to check it out for himself, and not believe the interesting but contradictory stories. To his joy and surprise, Zaccheus discovered that Jesus was new and different. Jesus saw through him at a glance! Not only that, Jesus did not turn away from him in disgust, but looked on him with love! Incredible! That had never happened to Zaccheus before!

       Everyone in town who knew Zaccheus looked at him with hate, because he was gouging their money out of them, sending the legislated tribute to Rome, and living most comfortably off the surplus he, Zaccheus, had milked them out of. People would spit on the ground and turn away in scorn rather than exchange cordial greetings and engage him in small talk, never mind visit him or invite him to their homes! As a tax collector Zaccheus was a pariah, and he knew it.

      What was it that moved him to make a fool of himself in front of everyone by climbing a tree to see Jesus?  Maybe it was curiosity, or perhaps Grace stirring his soul, but experienced by him as curiosity? Whatever moved him, what Zaccheus did was surprising and inexplicable to the rest of the crowd around him. He sought a personal encounter with Christ, He wanted to see the face of this Jesus, see him as close up as he could. He had no idea what the results would be.

      He didn’t know beforehand that Christ’s glance would penetrate him, make him feel naked, yet not naked and ashamed,  but not just naked and exposed in all his sinfulness, but loved and forgiven, called and pardoned! It was unbelievable, but it was real. This was a look of love that cleansed him and accepted him even as it exposed him to himself. Christ also put that cleansing look of love into words and called him by name: “Zaccheus, come down! I must stay at your house tonight. I want to pay you a visit. Will you put me up? Will you let me in? Can I come and dwell with you?”

The crowd was stunned. So much so that they voiced their shock: “Birds of a feather flock together. If he is going to the house of that scumbag, well, just what does that tell you about him?!" They didn’t know what had taken place in the encounter between Christ and Zaccheus. But Zaccheus knew. He had been made new. That’s why he unashamedly speaks with a changed heart and promises to give his ill gotten gains away. He has to witness to the merciful love he has just received.

So do I; so do you. So do all of us who call ourselves followers of Christ. We need to take a page from the book of Pope Francis, and speak out of the love Christ has poured into us. Perhaps it would be a good thing for us to take the necessary step to have an in-your-face, personal encounter first?

Pope Francis on Gay Priests

What's your opinion of Pope Francis' infamous statement about gay priests? Actually that is not a fair question for me to ask, because most people have not read his statement, but what the Media has said about his statement. Everyone and his brother has sounded off on this topic,  so I feel no obligation to restrain myself. After so much ink has already been spilled, on paper and on-line, my remarks may be seem like overkill. In fact,  at this late date, I doubt there is any great interest about what the pope actually said. Even so, since the secular press has widely distorted and  misinterpreted his message,  I believe my attempt to add  a pinch of honesty and accuracy is justified.  

To begin with, here is a piece of advice that I followed and found helpful: watch a partial video of the pope's news conference (available at romereports.com.). The pope is speaking in Italian, but he is not that difficult to understand, especially if you have a little familiarity with Spanish, French, or Latin. And even if you do not, the nuances, his tone of voice, and his gestures add a great deal of meaning to his message. The video is much better than only reading the typed manuscript to get a proper sense of what he said. If you have to settle for a typed translation of the the interview, however,  the most accurate one I have found is at Zenit.org. , in two parts. The transcript covers the whole one hour twenty-two minutes session.

 Here's a sentence of the pope that went around the world: "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" His next statement got less attention: " The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons; they must be integrated into society". His third received as much attention as the first, but also out of proper context: "The problem isn't this [homosexual] orientation - we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else - the problem is lobbying, either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby."

All in all, the Media made it sound like the Pope didn't have much problem if a priest was into a gay life style, so long as he was trying to behave himself most of the time. The Media's misinterpretation of the first statement was meant to create the assumption: Sure, any  gay priest might have lapses now and then, and engage in homosexual sex, but so what? Gays are only human after all, and as long as they are trying to be good, God understands. However, the second statement of the pope with its reference to the Catechism develops and clarifies the meaning of the first. It is possible for a priest to experience sexual attraction to the same sex, not submit to the temptations, summon all the good will he can muster, bring the temptation to the Lord in prayer, and work successfully to remain faithful to his calling. In such a case, who indeed would the pope be, or anyone else, to judge such a man? Judging or condemning people who have same sex attraction for the fact of attraction is unjust and makes matters worse. The real answer is to help them address the issue, give them help and support they need in order to deal with the attraction,  and integrate them into the communal life of the Church and society.  Isolating and attacking people of good will  only alienate them and sour their good will. It makes no sense for the Church to presume bad will and insincerity on their part, especially when they are seeking to live as her sons and daughters.

I believe that is what the pope was trying to say, but he did not have the linguistic tools to say it. He spoke Italian in the video I saw, and so far as I know, neither Italian nor Spanish makes a distinction between homosexual and gay the way English does. Homosexual in English generally means someone who has same sex attraction, while gay means someone who actively embraces and lives the lifestyle. But many men who consider themselves homosexual because of same sex attraction do not want to have anything to do with the gay life style. The one does not equate with the other automatically, no matter what the gay lobby says. However, in his interview with the press, Pope Francis uses the terms homosexual and gay interchangeably, because he is speaking Italian and Spanish. Given all the other observations he made in the interview, and the faith context of all his remarks, I believe the media's superficial reporting will result in much misunderstanding for all who assume their news reports to be accurate and honest.

Acceptance of  same sex attraction does not imply approval of a gay life style Acceptance is simply the human and Christian basis for dialogue and ongoing support. In this country, given the confusion and lobbying in our culture,  people who have gender identity conflict as a result of same sex attraction need assistance to deal with the issue. Such assistance is precisely what the Courage organization is designed to offer. Their website (www.couragerc.net) is a treasure trove of Pastoral wisdom drawn from the rich Tradition and Spirituality of the Catholic Church. Since the Church has to speak out clearly out against the gay lifestyle, it also has to offer its ongoing support to its sons and daughters who have same sex attraction and help them to lead a chaste Christian life. Many instructive talks, conferences, books, CD'sand DVD's are available on the Courage website. (The Director of Courage, Rev. Paul Check, was recently interviewed online by Catholic World Report). Catholics, especially deacons and priests, need to be made aware and informed of the resources the Church has to offer. The problem isn't this homosexual orientation, the pope said, because he "must be as brother ans sisters" in Christ's Church.

The problem is the lobbying. That remark certainly got the Media's attention. Like a hound dog sniffing for the scent of the rabbit it is after, the reporters had a possible whiff of something scandalous. A scandal in the Curia!  A homosexual lobby there!? They must have been disappointed when the pope didn't wash any dirty  laundry in public for them. Very few reporters picked up on the positive remarks the pope went on to make about all the dedicated, even saintly, men and women who work quietly and unobtrusively in the Curia for the good of the Church. Nothing newsworthy in that! No scoops or Pulitzer Prizes!

The problem is lobbying of any sort, the pope said. Lobbying cannot be ignored because it can become a concerted effort to promote error as truth, evil as good, and wrong as right. Lobbying can take the special interest of a minority and pushes with all its resources to promote that interest of a segment over the common good of society as a whole. By lobbying, a small segment can gain power and influence out of proportion to what is rightfully theirs, and even go so far as to entrench its power by having its interest legislated into the law of the land. Of course the pope can not be so naive as to let the errors of the gay life style be confused with the splendor of Sacramental Marriage in the Church, the true nature of human sexuality in the plan of God,  and the beauty of the Catholic Theology of the Body, no matter what any lobby says to the contrary!

Pope Benedict on Homosexuality (continued) Part Two

This posting continues the reflections begun in the posting of 7/26/13.

Sewald  responds to Pope Benedict’s comments on homosexuality with the observation :"It is no secret that there are homosexuals even among priests and monks. Just recently there was a major scandal on account of the homosexual passions of priests in Rome.” Pope Pope, being honest and humble, admits the truth of Sewald’s statement, but surprises me, because he does not say what I expected. I was anticipating something along the lines of the need for active homosexual priests to repent, just as priests who were heterosexual would have to repent of being unfaithful if they had sexual relations with women. Instead, the pope spoke out forcefully against homosexuals in the priesthood. This is what he said: “Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation”.

 I had been thinking, Well, just as a heterosexual has to renounce marriage with a woman, a homosexual would have to renounce sexual activity with men.  He would have to be celibate in his own way.  But the pope is not considering two kinds of celibacy, one for homosexuals, and another for heterosexuals. He views celibacy in relation to marriage,  and marriage of course between a man and a woman. He continues: “It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway.”  That makes sense to me. Being a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom does mean giving up marriage to a woman, and more than that. It means more than being a bachelor who wears a clerical collar. It means being fruitful and multiplying the sons and daughters of God in the new family his Son has established, the Church.  I interpret the pope as meaning that the refusal of, or indifference to, spiritual fatherhood is the big problem. If a man is not interested in sacrificing being a father through marriage to a woman  for the sake spiritual fatherhood, he should not be a priest.  There are certainly bachelor heterosexual priests who are not interested in spiritual fatherhood, only in the priesthood as a career or a profession. But, ultimately, spiritual fatherhood is the natural responsibility of every male no matter what he labels himself, nor what his state in life. Without spiritual fatherhood, even if he is called to be single,  he is a “barren fig tree” or a “dead branch.”

How does a man usually mature as a man, or grow and develop into his potential as a male?   Usually by getting married to a woman, having a wife and children, by working hard to earn a living, by living for the family he has, giving himself for them, raising the children, and leaving sons and daughters behind him.  If all a man had to do was impregnate a woman and then disappear, fatherhood would be easily accomplished. But a male becomes more of a man by being a husband and father, or to say it more simply,  by fathering. Celibacy is a huge sacrifice since everything in a man is directed to finding fulfillment in and through a woman, the children, and the family he will establish with her. Fathering is his natural reason for being. The responsibility he accepts in marriage is what gets him out of bed in the morning and keeps him going. If a man has no desire for a woman and no desire to marry, and therefore becomes a priest, his renunciation of marriage is no renunciation at all. By becoming a priest he embraces fathering in a different form.

Pope Benedict continues:  “The Congregation of Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful. The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.”

Of course the “greatest attention is needed”, but I am afraid that no amount of care and attention that can completely eliminate the problem.  When it comes to psycho-sexual identity, there are as many possible scenarios as there are individuals, because every person’s psycho-sexual development has its own pace. Same sex attraction may be discovered during adolescence, before or after entry into the seminary, as well as before or after ordination to the priesthood. There are no absolutely perfect protocols, nor any foolproof procedures. The basic issue, I believe, is to face that same sex attraction is a disorder and to deal with it in a healthy way, instead of presuming, as our culture does, that homosexuality is normal and natural, and that the gay life style is as valid an option as marriage or the single life.

Here in the Northeast and East Coast, it may be already too late to head off the situation the pope speaks of,  “where celibacy would….end up being identified with homosexuality”. Maybe it is different in some parts of the South, and in the West, and Midwest, where I am told the Church is much stronger. I doubt the situation is different on the West Coast, however. It may even be worse out there, for all I know. Perhaps demographers and sociologists can explain how our culture and values vary according to geographical location here in the United states. Maybe the situation is to fluid for any national snapshot to be taken.

Some concluding thoughts on "same sex attraction" occur to me in light of Pope Benedict’s resignation and the election of Pope Francis, which I hope to use as the basis of the next posting on this topic. I do not see the term “same sex attraction” in the writing, nor in their conversations of either pope. As far as I can tell they both use the word “homosexual” and “gay" interchangeably.  Here in the United States a distinction between the two is made. A man who struggles with same sex attraction is said to be “homosexual” whereas only those who “come out” and embrace the gay life style with its culture, are classified as “gay”.  I think this is an important distinction to make. Doing so would contradict the popular assumption that “gays are born that way” and also help explain how  a good number of men who suffer from same sex attraction successfully deal with the disorder, and  go on to successfully  become fathers in the sacrament of marriage, or spiritual fathers the priesthood. Some, I daresay have even been canonized saints.