Running Local

This Train of Thought Makes All Stops

Posts Tagged ‘Catholic’

A Light Fickers

Posted by Bob Kohm on September 20, 2013

This has been a week of hopeful words from unexpected sources, words that give succor to the soul but arouse unease in the intellect.

From Pope Francis I we hear words of hope, words that say that the Church has buried itself for far too long in doctrinal small sightedness which has made cynical the flock. A religion founded on the principles so well expounded in the tale of the Samaritan– tolerance for difference, kindness in the face of prejudice, the universality of the human condition and the amelioration of its woes– has submerged itself in fights over the denial of earthly rights and heavenly rewards to people over matters pertaining to their love and its physical expressions. From John Boehner we hear rumblings that the nihilistic campaign being waged by the Tea Party isn’t what is right for America, that being elected to govern does not equate with mothballing the government. From as unlikely a source as the President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, we hear words of conciliation and mutual respect in a call to welcome Iran back into the community of nations as a full fledged partner, and end to, as he refers to it, an age of blood feuds.

Three disparate sources, one overarching theme– reconciliation. It is impossible for people of hope not to be at least momentarily inspired by words such as these coming in a time as divisive as the one we now populate. Our minds, those cynicized organs so conditioned by the events of the past quarter century to ignore hope in favor of a darker coalescence of possibilities, for a moment lighten as we glimpse that flickering ember and wonder if it can be kindled into a generator not necessarily of heat but still of  tactile reality. The possibility can’t be denied, if even out of sheer desire for it to be real.

The reasons to think it is not real are, sadly, easy to enumerate. Francis is at the helm of a vast doctrinal bureaucracy heavily invested in the teachings of the previous Pontiff, Benedict, whose march to undo the moderatel influence on the Church of John Paul II and John XXIII became the hallmark of his pontificate.

Like the legendary grey men of the permanent British Civil Service, those doctrinally orthodox Cardinals, Bishops and functionaries understand that they will outlast the temporary leadership of their nominative leader; Benedict’s labors to restock the Curia and its various functional apparatuses with younger men are rewarded in that way. They know that they must publicly toe the line drawn by their Pope, but will they rush to enact his decrees or let them linger under study, under “timely” implementations and half hearted directives to the pastoral network, playing the waiting game in hopes of a new, older direction from the next Pope?

Francis and “His” Curia

I discussed yesterday with an old friend, a man of faith, character and intellect, whether the Pope’s words were actually aimed at the doctrinal staff or rather lower, at the grassroots network of parish priests and the faithful. Upon reflection I believe my friend to be correct, that Francis is trying to do an end run around his governing structure and enact change from the bottom by seeing his message preached from the myriad pulpits, thus forcing the Bishops into acceptance and then the structure all the way back to those supposedly closest to the Pope’s direct control in Rome. It strikes me as a desperate play by Francis, although not a hopeless one– my main hope in it is that he acknowledges that the system is broken and that he cannot fix the damage by decree, but must invest his power in the organizationally powerless and ask them, through faith and numbers, to right what is wrong with the Church.

Mr. Boehner faces a problem similar in theme if different in mechanics. Boehner finds himself the nominal leader of a Republican caucus not only badly divided but acting in a manner that is nearly unprecedented in the leadership structure history of his party, While the Democrats have always been a somewhat fractious coalition, earlier of Northern liberals and Dixiecrat conservatives and later of Blue Dogs, liberals, moderates, fiscal conservative/social liberals and various and sundry other ideologues practicing vaious and sundry different ideologies, the GOP has been a much more rigid, lockstep caucus. In the years since the Eisenhower Administration, with the slight aberration of the Gingrich speakership, the GOP in Congress has existed under the tight control of their Speakers and Minority Leaders with strong and able whipping by the lower leadership. It has reliably supported their core themes (at least in the way they’ve been somewhat misleadingly packaged)– lower taxes, smaller government, fiscal responsibility measures, the curtailment of the social safety net, opposition to abortion and the extension of civil rights, sometimes with the abetment of the fractious Democrats and sometimes without. The “Hastert Rule”, which stated that no bill be brought to the floor unless it met with the approval of the majority of the Caucus, seemed absolute.

The brashness of that lockstep record emboldened the Boehner/Cantor leadership to overplay their hand at the close of the first decade of the new century, legitimizing and deploying the proverbial war elephant of the Tea Party Republicans as a force they hubristically thought they could control and whose dynamism they never fully understood. War elephants, as I’ve written in the past, are funny things from a historic perspective– massive, intimidating juggernauts that can scare the enemy off of the battlefield, yes, but more often than not they proved to be unreliable forces of nature as apt to trample their own lines into dust as they were to scatter an opposing army. The elephantine presence of the Tea Party electees of 2010 has done precisely that to Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor’s leadership in the House and to a slightly lesser extent Mr. McConnell’s leadership in the Senate.

That leads us to the horns of Mr. Boehner’s dilemma this week– a caucus so out of control as to be characterized by its own members as being on a legislative kamikaze mission to hole the hull of our government. Mr Boehner has made a very poor secret of his attempts to rein in the caucus and to get them to focus on governance rather than on the destruction of the same– his sometimes tiresomely bellicose verbiage has moderated to calls for governmental foresight and moderation. Even speaking as someone who shares very little governing philosophy with Mr. Boehner, I respect his desire for moderation and sanity displayed this past week despite the typhoon of immoderation his previous actions have unleashed. I hope that he can somehow restore the genie to the bottle by force of will and backroom deals among the more pragmatic members of his party, but that hope is again, as is the case with Pope Francis’ hope, limited by the empirical evidence before us to the contrary. It is hard to undo a system that is behaving in a manner so optimally that it has subsumed the governors placed to control it.

Last is the letter delivered to the American people and to the world by newly elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. In a world set reeling by actions coming from the Middle East since the mid 1960s, what words could be more welcome than those calling for a legitimate peace from one of the nations that have so greatly fostered that reeling instability? Rather than suing for peace, President Rouhani asks for something even more intellectually appealing– and end to the “zero sum game” of lingering Cold War thinking, a new compact founded on a return to (or perhaps, truthfully, a novel) respect for the needs of other nations in the pursuit of the “win-win” scenarios that we all know are possible if the principals would moderate their definition of “wins” away from the absolutism of Berlin or the deck of the USS Missouri. An eminently rational appeal from a nation reputed in the West to be the home of irrationality, a land who sacrificed its children in the 1980s as human minesweepers and who has suckled nascent terrorist movements until they were ready to leave the house and wreak havoc internationally has a seductiveness of the mind almost too tantalizing to ignore.

Is this a deliverable promise–  or even premise– from an Iranian President, however? Is it a simple ruse to take advantage of American war weariness to further complicate our effort to deny Iran nuclear weaponry? Is it a truthful statement of Rouhani’s personal desires but ultimately a meaningless gesture as it is the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, in whom all power is really vested by his control of the theocratic infrastructure, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and, especially, the nuclear apparatus?

In Rouhani, again we see the problem of a putative ruler who may have no control over his supposed domain– a rump ruler, a ruler in name only. In the cases of Boehner and Francis I, the issue is those whom they supposedly represent and speak for; in the case of Iran, it is those whom exist on a plane above the public face of the ruler. Same problem, different ladders. Can the conciliatory words of Rouhani, even if they are delivered with sincerity in the man’s heart (an open question), really amount to anything when Khameini’s IRGC and its al-Quds terrorist network are openly waging war in Syria in support of the Assad regime? Is it possible that, like Francis, Rouhani is trying to inspire the Iranian people to see a better path and institute change from below, perchance by a reinstitution of the Green Revolution that we saw in 2009-2010, a revolution that the US didn’t materially support despite our clear interest in doing so? Could Rouhani be seeking US support for its resurgence? A possibility.

We live in a world where institutions are breaking down and a trend towards anarchy is emerging, a problem illustrated, I believe, by this week’s hopeful words. The superficially unifying theme behind them is reconciliation, yes, but perhaps another darker unification emerges upon consideration of them as an interlocked whole rather than as discrete conversations– the recognition by our leaders that their leadership is in jeopardy and with it so too are our societal institutions. Are the leaders calling on the led to, in effect, dispose of the middlemen– the power of the institutions that have gone rogue, the power of the Curia and its apparatus, the Tea Party, the Iranian Supreme Leadership– in an effort to save not only themselves but their societies as they are currently defined? If so, what are the ramifications of these grasps at newly ethereal power?

I’m tempted to see these as the penultimate gestures from leadership– a rational, constructive and coalition based approach to restoration of the societal norms we’ve become accustomed to over the past centuries. Should they fail, the tumult of the ultimate gestures to retain power– gestures we’ve seen throughout history’s darkest times– seem to be likely as the leaders of our institutions all retain executive powers that they will surely try to use to maintain their power.

Are our societies so flawed that we should allow them to go through a period of painful redefinition at the hands of middle men, or should we hope for an enlightened leadership emerging from those who were perhaps responsible for those middle men attaining so much power in the first place? We’ve seen “middle men” take power so many times in so many nations in the personage of the ambitious Colonels, but this is a different scenario; this time it’s not a jumped up military officer looking to take power but maintain the institution, it’s a fundamental dismantling of the institution by the “Colonels” that is sought, perhaps not unlike the tumult of the move from Feudalism to Limited Constitutional Monarchy or Imperialism to Mercantile Democracy.

The world contemplates change subconsciously this week in the guise of hopeful words that hide situations redolent of the loss of faith. A flickering light burns, but whether or not to nourish the ember to fire– and what we feed that fire with– is becoming the central question of our time.

Advertisements

Posted in American Politics, Christianity, CongressCritters, Cultural Phenomena, Economy, Foreign Affairs, History, Iran, Middle East, Religion, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Franciscan Legacy?

Posted by Bob Kohm on March 14, 2013

In the seemingly endless list of Catholic saints and holy people, there is one who has always stood out to me– St. Francis of Assisi, friend of animals, lover of nature, a wealthy man who gave it all up to live a simple life of poverty and service. He irked the Vatican by rejecting the wealth and worldly power of that day’s Church while he aspired and prayed for the ability to spread the peace that is embodied in God and the life of Jesus. Francis railed against the mystification of our personal relationships with God and wanted the people to know God in their own languages rather than in the closed world of the Latin liturgy, an idea that took nearly seven hundred years to come to fruition. He was, to my jaded and strayed Catholic eyes, one of the very few heroes of the Church that got it. St. Francis was a guy who lived a Christ-like life for the simple fact that he saw in simplicity and service the embodiment of Christ’s message and rejected the complexity and wealth that his message had been twisted to justify by the Church and its clergy.

Today the Church met its new leader, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis, the first Pontiff to take the name. Over the years I’ve grown skeptical about

Trying on some mighty fancy duds for a disciple of St. Francis...

Trying on some mighty fancy duds for a disciple of St. Francis…

the Church as I’ve applied the lessons of Jesus taught to me as a boy– love, acceptance, peace, respect– and seen the Church and the other Christian sects abandon them in favor of bigotry and stodgy dogmatism. The fact that finally a man has come along bold enough to take the name of Francis and wear it into the very palaces and gilded halls that represent everything that Francis rejected– well, I’m just not sure how to process that. Hypocrisy? Reform? Megalomania? Courage?

I can see a case for any of those attributes and a heck of a lot of others. Bergoglio is a member of the Society of Jesus, an order that delights in intellect and notoriously doesn’t give much thought or regard to what the rest of the Church thinks. He’s the first of his order to be elected Pope as the Jesuits in general eschew the high offices of the Church and the Church in turn had been delighted to keep an order that it never seems quite able to trust away from the keys to the Popemobile. Why now, when the Church is in the throes of so many problems and scandals, would the de facto ban on Jesuits be lifted by the Curia?

Seemingly a man of firsts, Francis is also our first Latin American Pope. Famously hailing from Argentina albeit by way of an Italian heritage, Francis is seen as a change agent by the simple virtue of not being European. I question whether or not this is simple a case of geographic diversity (in the words of my friend Brian Fleischer) or if it is something greater; is geography destiny or meaningless happenstance in this instance? Does he represent substantive change or has the Curia simply added another of its standard issue?

The writings and public statements of the former Bergoglio don’t give me much cause for hope. His reputation is that of strict conservatism in terms of the social issues that dog today’s Church; he is fervently anti-gay, has spoken out against the expanded role of women in the Church and opposes the lifting of celibacy as a requirement of the priesthood. The unorthodoxy of the Jesuits seems lost on him; he was an early and vocal opponent of liberation theology and as the Jesuit Provincial of Argentina was known as a “man who never smiled”. It is said that he alienated many of his fellow SJs by allegedly collaborating with the military junta during the Dirty War, a claim he denies and which I don’t see sufficient evidence to believe or disbelieve at this point. What I do believe is that a man who can state that allowing loving gay parents to adopt and provide a home to orphans is “a form of discrimination against the child” is a man who has been blinded by his dogma.

His record and people’s opinions of him lead to contradictions. The “man who never smiled” is also known as a warm and humorous man. He supposedly sided with an authoritarian regime that robbed Argentina and its people blind but he is revered as a fervent defender of the poor; from what I have read he most assuredly seems to deserve that reverence. He had a palace and chauffeured limousine in Buenos Aires at his disposal by virtue of being the Archbishop, yet he lived in a small apartment, cooked his own meals and used public transportation– unquestionably displaying Franciscan values. He has managed to ascend to the heights of power in Rome while being renowned for being a guy who stayed at home in Buenos Aires, focusing on his pastoral duties and keeping Argentina’s parishes running, its priests ministering to the people.

It is that last idea, that somehow he has become the chosen of the Curia despite his lack of Roman bona fides at a time when there appear to be deep divisions in the body borne of very secular issues– banking, money laundering and plays for power– that worries me. According to some of my readings today, Francis is not known as a guy to rock the boat in the organizations he’s a part of; match that with the allegations that he might have been too accommodating to the brutal Argentine regime during the Dirty War, his advanced age (76) and that his Papacy will therefore be relatively short and I have to wonder if the Curia didn’t select a man they thought they could control or simply ignore. That’s a tricky calculus, creating a man of power and then thinking that he can be broken to the will of his electors. As Pontiff he would seemingly be a man beyond control, although that appearance has in the past been false. Whether Francis has the strength to effectively defy the Curia may actually be the central question of this Papacy.

All Papacies start with more questions than answers, but I think that the Papacy of Francis is uncommon  in the sheer volume and import of the questions presented at the beginning of this road. The Church itself seems primed for change out of necessity. Is Francis doctrinally suited to changing it? Does he even want to? Is he strong enough to effect any change at all, or can he be controlled by the Curia? Is he a cold technocrat or a warm man of the people? Is he a true disciple of Francis of Assisi? Can he maintain that amidst the silks, gold and artworks of the Vatican?

The empirical evidence– the writings and statements Francis– say that he will be another Pope in the Benedict mode, a stodgy conservative who will continue to press for the doctrinal purity of the religion despite the will of the Catholic people for a more relatable and modern faith. On paper he’s a Pope who represents the false diversity of geography, an orthodox prelate who is simply interested in maintaining the status quo.

There’s something there, though; something that as I think more about who he is makes me wonder if the paper Pope might be something more. The man chose to become the first Pope to ever take the name Francis and he has lived a life that at least in some ways echoes that of Francis. There’s cause for hope there; no, not hope that he’ll end the official bigotry against gays, not too much hope that he’ll reverse the Church’s teachings on contraception that have killed so many in Africa. There is hope, though, that he might be the Pope who starts the ball rolling towards “reform” no longer being something that the Vatican is terrified of.  I wonder if he doesn’t represent the tentative progressivism of the early 1960s in America, a time in which desegregation was germinating as policy even as those who backed it still wouldn’t want to sell their home to “those” people.

Does this Francis echo the Prayer of St. Francis as a channel of peace borne of justice and growth? Is he merely a channel of peace in the style of simply getting along with power? Worse, will he be a cause of strife as the Church continues its rudderless flight into scandal and contradiction? I wish I knew; heck, I wish I knew whether to even hope for something good or to accept that we’re going to have more of the same.

Clarity has never been a tangible benefit of Christianity.

Posted in Christianity, Human Rights, Religion, Social Justice, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: