Guess who's coming to America...

The pope is coming! The pope is coming!

It's official, according to the Associated Press: B16 is coming to the U.S. of A. in April, visiting Our Nation's Capital and Our Nation's Other Capital (New York). On the docket are meetings with President Bush, meetings with other religious leaders, and, interestingly, meetings with Catholic university presidents. (Hmmm ... university presidents?) And an address to the United Nations.

The press is focusing heavily on the pope's visit to Ground Zero, linking it to the possible candidacy of Rudy Giuliani--a thrice-married Catholic-who-doesn't-go-to-Mass (as the press has been describing him). Not sure what the connection is there--something about abortion and gay marriage or something. No one seems to mention that about half the Democratic field is Catholic.

But I have to wonder: Why is the pope coming to the U.S. during a presidential election year? The nominations will probably be decided by April, of course, but still...

Of course, we're going to be treated to not one but two baseball stadium Masses--yuck! The homes of the Washington Nationals and the New York Yankees will play host to liturgical extravaganzas, which, I have to say, I find to be the most bizarre invention of John Paul II. A mass with 30,000 people is kind of silly, liturgically speaking.

Sorry, all you JPII lovers, I know you love those things. But I think they're liturgical nightmares. My humble opinion... I wonder if it will be in Latin...

Benny gets a B

From American Catholics in general that is, though not from me. A new poll from the Pew Forum shows Pope Benedict with an 86 percent approval rating among Catholics, though only 38 percent said he was doing a good job on the ecumenical front. Forty-six percent said his efforts were fair or poor, according to Catholic Online. The snarkily-though-cleverly-titled pro-Benedict blog "The Cafeteria Is Closed" has a full breakdown.

If I was asked, I'd give him poor marks on relations so far with Islam; he still hasn't overcome the Regensburg stumble as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not happy with the broad restoration of the Latin liturgy; though I have no huge problem with making it available, I don't think that decision should be left up to individual priests. And the reiteration of Dominus Iesus--with its insistence on the "gravely deficient" situation of other religions and churches--doesn't win points for me either. I am also a little weary of the constant tirades against gay marriage, but that's just me.

More positively, moves to resolve the situation of Chinese Catholics--with their two hierarchies, etc.--seem like positive steps. And relations with the Orthodox are starting to improve again. And I can't fault B16 for his new emphasis on the environment.

So I guess I give the Benedictine administration a solid C, maybe a C-. Anyone want to disagree?

Do you think he could say ths infallibly?

Coming to the end of his summer holiday, Pope Benedict is emphasizing environmentalism.

"We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive," B16 said, according to MSNBC. "This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness . . . than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive."

Could the pope soon be exchanging white for green in his daily attire? If there's one thing you can say about B16, he's fashion forward.

Of course, I'm not a big fan of randomly invoking infallibility, but climate change is a planetary emergency--and a major moral issue.

Liturgical revisionism

I just can't pass this up, from Summorum Ponitificum, which, incidentally, the Vatican website has not made available in English:

I just can't pass this up, from Summorum Ponitificum, which, incidentally, the Vatican website has not made available in English:

"In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman Pontiffs have operated to ensure that "this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony."[4]"

What a bunch of nonsense! Vatican II did not "express a desire"; in a near-unanimous vote, the bishops ordered a "general reform" of the liturgy. And nowhere does the phrase "respectful reverence" appear; their phrases were "full, conscious, and active," and "right and duty of the baptized." B16 makes it sound like Paul VI issued the new liturgical books on a whim.

This is an amazing piece of papalizing theology, and an amazing exercise of papal power. The repudiation of the council is not only liturgical but ecclesiological as well. Collegiality has flown right out the window.

Pope dumps Council

As expected, Pope Benedict XVI has issues is motu propio (meaning "on his own initiative, and this surely is), Summorum pontificum, liberalizing the use of the pre-Vatican II liturgies for all the sacraments, save Holy Orders, it seems. The old Roman Missal is being styled the "Missal of Blessed John XXIII," which is rich indeed, since all J23 did to the liturgy was add St. Joseph to the Roman Canon.

Though the pope insists this is not a repudiation of Vatican II, one has to wonder if the liturgical principles of "full, conscious, and active participation" as the "paramount concern" of the reform of the liturgy will be observed as the old liturgy is resurrected. Those principles were, after all, taught by an ecumenical council called by the pope. And what about the lectionary? The liturgy constitution says that the "treasures of the scriptures" should be opened for the faithful in the liturgy. Will the old lectionary also be used, which has only a single cycle of readings (epistle and gospel) and as opposed to the vastly superior three-year cycle (Old Testament, epistle, and gospel reading) of the reformed liturgy. I doubt it.

I can only echo the words of the Italian bishop Luca Brandolini as reported by the Washington Post: "A reform for which many people worked, with great sacrifice and only inspired by the desire to renew the Church, has now been canceled."

Of course, now we can only wait and see if the introduction of a second Roman rite into use will indeed bring greater unity. I doubt it, especially since Bishop Fellay of the schismatic Society of Pius X has already said that there can be no further steps to unity until Rome lifts the excommunications imposed in 1988.

What is it that they say about giving a mouse a cookie?

Making your own rules

Pope Benedict has changed the rules for the election of the next pope, restoring the requirement of a two-thirds majority for election according to the Associated Press. Pope John Paul II's change to election rules allowed for a simple majority to elect a new pope after several days of balloting.

Changing these rules is nothing new--every modern pope has done it at some point in his career. B16's change corrects a problem with JPII's in that it guarantees a compromise candidate. Many feared under JPII's rules, the strong conservative camp would hold out for one of their own. They probably thought they had one in Ratzinger, but he's proving to be a little bit harder to pin down.

Of course, it's a bit odd that the pope can establish the rules for electing their successors. Glad our politicians can't do that!

Pope gets "frank" with PM

Tony Blair's last foreign trip as head of government was no cakewalk. Rather than embrace the man most sources say will soon be a Catholic, Pope Benedict evidently had hard words for Blair, though no one's sure what they may have been about. One possibility is the Iraq war and Britain's involvement in it. Or perhaps it is the Labor government's recent laws funding embryonic stem cell research and a new law prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians in matters of adoption.

What we do know is that the Vatican's press office, according a story on the U.K.'s Guardian website, that the PM and the pope had a "frank exchange of views," which is diplo-speak for "they had an argument." Ouch--would love to have been a fly on the wall in that room. What's the pope like when he's "frank"?

One wonders what we can expect with our own elections looming, especially as Giuliani gets raked over the coals for pulling the old "personally against but publicly for" position on abortion.

From red Guccis to flip-flops

In kind of a big deal, the Vatican is restoring its Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, which was folded into the Pontifical Council for Culture back in 2006, according to the International Herald Tribune. At the time, its terrific Muslim expert, the English Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, was sent packing as the papal envoy to Egypt and the Arab League, a move some saw as a demotion (and a rebuke?). Many commentators (this one included) judged the change as a huge mistake--a sign that the Vatican was going to try a hard line with world Islam--and it seems the Vatican has seen the light. No word yet on whether Fitzgerald will make a triumphant return to the Curia, but in light of the pope's still-delicate relationship with Islam, let's cross our fingers.

Good thing B16 doesn't have to face reelection. We'll never forget how that flip-flopping thing stuck to another Catholic. But let's hope he sticks to the Guccis for his actual footwear. It is nice to know, however, that at least the papal administration can admit a mistake, unlike some others I could mention.

A hard right from Ratzinger?

An Associated Press commentary is alleging that Pope B16 is starting the church on a new rightward course as the third year of his papacy opens up. Citing his strong opposition to any recognition for unmarried couples in Italy, his refusal to relax clerical celibacy, and the recent censure of liberation theologian Jon Sobrino, writer Victor Simpson argues that "Pope Benedict XVI is hardening into the kind of pontiff that liberals feared and conservatives hoped for."

Though I was not among those dancing in the streets when Ratzinger was made pope, I do have to admit to being somewhat more positive lately. It's true the Benedict hasn't budged on button issues like homosexuality and ordination, but that's hardly a surprise. No one expected him to. There is no doubt that he has disappointed many--those looking for a reform of ordination and gay and lesbian Catholics in particularly don't have much to celebrate--but he hasn't been as heavy-handed as he might have been. In fact, like John XXIII before him, I think his hands may be at least encumbered (if not tied) but the Curia that surrounds him, which is the true church body that needs reform--or outright elimination--with rare exception.

Take the notification on Jon Sobrino: Though it raises issues with Sobrino's understanding of the relationship between Jesus' divinity and humanity, it doesn't require his works to be withdrawn, doesn't explicitly discourage Catholics from reading his works, and doesn't forbid Sobrino from teaching. As a Jesuit, Sobrino could have been more strongly pressured, yet he refused to sign the notification, arguing, as many have, that the process is biased and unjust. Yet there has been no further action taken against him. Besides, there can be no doubt that the fundamental principles of liberation theology--the option for the poor, the demands of solidarity, and so forth--have been accepted by a large and growing segment of the people of God.

It may be true that many hoped for a more liberal pope, but that outcome was incredibly unlikely given that Pope John Paul II had chosen nearly all the electors--and he was no liberal. Those cardinals definitely went with a "stay the course" candidate, which many would argue is not what the church needs right now. At the same time, Benedict has already surprised many with his more pastoral papacy, and he may have something more up his cassock sleeve.

Time will tell.