Meet the New Pope. Same as the Old Pope?

I've been hearing this refrain all week: "Who cares who the next pope is?" I figure that those who don't care  who the next pope is probably don't care much about world politics either.  I'm writer who has written about 60,00 words on Roman Catholicism in the past three years--and that does not include the many poems I have written on the subject throughout the years, and I happen to be, Catholic, but my interest in who became pope yesterday is largely political.

When my 14-year old, who is not Catholic, asked me whether I "liked the new guy," yesterday, I told her I didn't l know yet, but that it was unlikely that any guy I liked would ever get that job.

But people change, and like Supreme Court justices, popes are in office for life (unless they exit prematurely for political--ahem--health reasons). A man in Francis I's position has great power to bring about change.

Look how the last pope changed over the course of time. In 1968, Joseph Ratzinger strongly supported the changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council. He emphasized the need for Catholics to embrace primacy of conscience. 

Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church.

("Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II", ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1, chapter 1.) Yet we saw how quickly that fell by the wayside when Ratzinger excommunicated of and defrocked Nobel Peace Prize-nominated, Viet Nam Purple Heart Maryknoll priest Roy Bourgeois for following his conscience in the context of the ordination of women. By the end of Ratzinger's stint, the pope emeritus appeared to think conscience a close second to obedience--to himself.

Much is now being made of the new pope's humility. I am always wary of talk of humility when it comes from a man on a throne. Humility. Teresa of Calcutta, promoted as a paragon of Roman Catholic humility, has been in the news lately. I'm one of those who does not see her as a such a paragon. I believe one can admire her personal courage and her desire to minister to the suffering while recognizing that Teresa of Calcutta allowed herself to be manipulated by a hierarchy that needed a woman to thrust to the forefront during a time when women were leaving the church and taking their (children) future tithers with them.

Indeed the gift of life is precious, but it is the antithesis of "saintly" to exhort women who can not feed them to give birth to children. It is neither saintly no by any stretch motherly to promote the eschewing of condom use amid an AIDS epicdemic. Nor is offering an agonizing patient a prayer in lieu of morphine (I would argue that a combination of both is optimal.) saintly. I think Christopher Hitchens' book aboutMother Teresa was, for the most part well-researched; I found its arguments credible and consistent with what I have heard from nuns and priests through the years. Yet because she was trotted out by Pope John Paul II and his consigliere Joseph Ratzinger as a female totem of humility, propped up front and center as a means of reminding Roman Catholics--women especially--that the apex of female godliness is to be humble in the extreme (which is, of course, often not very humble at all--but a martyr's narcissism) Mother Teresa became an unofficial saint--not just to Catholics, but to the world. John Paul II canonized her in 2003, which is the first step toward making her sainthood official.

Jesus was humble in the extreme. Being humble in the extreme is a charism--but not when it promulgates sexism and misogyny. Nor when it perches on a throne.

So far, we have reason to infer that Pope Francis I has aligned himself with his two predecessors on the matter of homosexuality.

Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio not only called the new law "a scheme to destroy God's plan"; he termed it "a real and dire anthropological throwback," as if homosexuality were evolutionarily inferior to heterosexuality.

Although we do not yet have his explicit statements and papal documents to go by, it is probably reasonable to extrapolate. It's not hard to guess where Pope Francis I will stand on the proper role of women in the church.

The world can be pleased with the idea of a Latino pope, but the world should also note that Penecostal Protestant churches have enjoyed immense success ion recent years, at wrenching Latinos throughout North, South and Central America from the grip of the Roman Catholic Church. Those who cast votes for the new pope knew a Latino pope has a better chance than a non-Latino pope of arresting Protestant evangelization in Latin America.

People living in the Americas can be pleased with the idea of a Latino pope but the world should care what kind of Latino pope we now have.

Bergoglio was ordained in 1971 in Argentina, the same year Peruvian priest and author of A Theology of Liberation coined the term "Liberation Theology," just under a decade before Oscar Romero, Roman Catholic Archbishop of El Salvador was assassinated by Salvadoran Death Squads (who trained in the United States) while celebrating mass in a hospital. School of the Americas graduate Roberto D'Aubuisson gave the order.

School of the Americas alum Argentine General Jorge Rafael Videlas (another SOA alum), with whom Argentine journalist and author Horacio Verbitsky claims (in his 2005 El Silencio) the new pope collaborated, is currently serving " target="_hplink">a life sentence for his many crimes against humanity.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI took bold steps, four years after Romero's assassination, to ensure that Roman Catholics knew that the Magisterium viewed "Liberation Theology" as essentially Marxist, and therefore incompatible with to genuine Roman Catholic doctrine, but they were wise enough to hedge, in this, by urging Catholics to embrace Archbishop Romero as a Catholic martyr.

One can not look at the choice to elevate Jorge Mario Bergolglio without examining the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America which has, in the course of the new pope's time as a priest, been extremely polarized. It's interesting that people in the pews often see the Jesuit tradition itself as similarly (on a right wing-left wing spectrum) polarized.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio he has never publicly departed from the Magisterium's teaching on any issue, and his thinking appears, so far, to be in line with that of a pope whose most famous defrocking was that of the aforementioned Father Bourgeois. Bourgeois founded SOAWatch, an organization dedicated to closing down WHINSEC (Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation), formerly known as "School of the Americas" as a response to the brutal rapes and murders of four female friends/fellow activists--Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan, Ita Ford and Dorothy Kazel--who were killed by the SOA-trained Salvadoran death squads, while working in Christ's name. Their deaths occurred nine months after Archbishop Romero's under the same leadership.

I happen to be reading The Phenomenon of Man, written by Jesuit priest, theologian and paleontologist a Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who was born in 1855. In The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard de Chardin reconciles his metaphysical Catholic faith with scientist's knowledge of the "physical" world. The Jesuit order forbade Teilhard de Chardin from make his writing public. And thank God he did, for the book, as the great thinker, theologian and rabbi Abraham Heschel described it,is indeed "a most extraordinary book, of far-reaching significance for the understanding of man's place in the universe."

Teilhard de Chardin obeyed, but ensured that his work would be published posthumously. Teilhard's evolutionary vision has humankind evolving toward a convergence, in time, space and essence, with the divine. The Phenomenon of Man is a difficult, poetic and important work, for it not only offers a religious man's take on evolution, but it also addresses the crisis (I'd call it) which can be expected to ensue when the growth of technology exceeds (outruns?) the evolution of the human spirit. It's hard to imagine that an order so intellectually rigorous as the Jesuits would stand in the way of such a thinker, but Jesuit training emphasizes obedience to the pope.

About six years ago, I heard renowned peace activist Father Daniel Berrigan (who would have made a fine pope) give a talk about reading The Bible. At the time, Berrigan was working in ministry with people suffering from full-blown AIDS. A gay man sitting in front of me raised his hand during the Question and Answer period. He wanted Father Berrigan's thoughts on the Vatican's refusal to approve the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. Berrigan anguished, looked around the beautiful church as if inhaling its splendor. He took a long time to answer, and when he did, he equivocated. His truth was in the air, but Berrigan didn't speak it. He obeyed.

Much has been made of how the man who now called Pope Francis I rides the bus, a luxury Jorge Mario Bergoglio will no longer enjoy now that he is the Supreme Pontiff. Noting that this detail was one of the first to go viral yesterday, I could not help but remember the scenes in the film Habemus Papa, in which the new pope elect rides the bus. His wide-eyed odyssey in that film functions as an outward sign of the character's humility and humanity; as one watches the film's protagonist (who doubles, in a sense, as his own antagonist) one gets the idea that the character is too much of a man, or too good a priest, to serve as pope.

Much is currently being made of how the Jesuit called Francis I took the name of the riches-to-rags Francis of Assisi a humble and beloved saint (and poet!). But for a Jesuit, I must imagine, the word "Francis" conjures thought of one of stars of the Jesuits' hagiographical firmament, Francis Xavier, who brought Catholicism to Asia as the Spanish Inquisitions and Reformation were under way. Francis Xavier and Ignatius Loyola, founder and first Superior General of the Society of the Jesuits were contemporaries and comrades in the Counter-Reformation. Loyola, underwent conversion while recovering from a war injury he sustained while fighting in the Spanish army. Pope Francis I has said his choice is inspired by the man from Assisi--to whom first Superior of the Jesuits was also especially devoted, but not for nothing did the Jesuits acquire the name, "the soldiers of Christ." That's a far cry God's bird man. My guess is Francis recalls both, the soldier and the poet.

Historically, the Jesuit order has always stressed education and tolerated--even encouraged--debate on matters of doctrine within its "ranks." I think this still holds true today. It is for this reason that I, who do care who the next pope will turn out to be, like the idea of a Jesuit priest in Peter's chair.

I do not care, however, for the fact that, thus far, Pope Francis I seems poised to reaffirm emeritus Ratzinger's positions on homosexuality and contraception.

I don't care for the alacrity with with Bergoglio leapt when Joseph Ratzinger finally gave the orthodox fringe permission to reinstate celebration of the Tridentine (Latin) Mass, in which the priest faces the altar and the people in the pews pray for the redemption of the Jews. That is not a good sign.

And I don't care for "Communion and Liberation" a group with which Bergoglio has long been associated. Communion and Liberation is the latest creepy conservative religious (lay) cabalto be if not mired in, then at least tainted by scandal.

Most alarming however, is the possibility of Bergoglio's support for mass murdering, infant-stealing general and chief butcher Jorge Rafael Videla Argentine during Argentina's Dirty War. See what the U.K. Guardian's Hugh O'Shaughnessy has to say about that.

I was happy to hear that Bergoglio has a devotion to the poor. Like many bookish Catholics, I have a soft spot for Jesuits. I have great potential to be pleased to see a Latino become pope. I care very much that Cardinal Bergoglio, unlike his brother Cardinal Timothy Dolan, does not have a spot on SNAP's (Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests ) "Dirty Dozen" list of incardinated offenders. I care that Dolan, failed to make it to the chair of St. Peter.

I very much care that when same-sex marriage passed into law in Argentina in 2010, Jorge Bergoglio characterized the adoption of children by same-sex couples as "discrimination against children." Ironic? Yes, given the possibility he may have had an alliance with Videla.

I care that one of the most powerful men might have gone along with or looked the other way while a general stole newborn babies and killed their mothers.

I am not happy to have a pope who , and I very much care that "the new guy" as my 14 year-old calls him seems positioned to appears, at present, to be inclined to toe the status-quo Magisterium party line.

I care that Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio failed to embrace Liberation Theology when the need for it hit so close to (his) home.

In the context of global politics, the pope is possibly the single most powerful man in the world. That's why I care who the new pope is.

That's why I wait, anxiously, to see which side this Latino Jesuit is on.

The Christ side, or the other side?

Habemus Papam: Pope Francis I

First ruminations on Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis I.

He's an Argentine--from the Americans; hence, a break from the tradition of elevating European Cardinals.  He won quickly; he was elected within 24 hours.

My first thought, upon reading that a Jesuit priest would take the name Francis, was that choice of the name itself sent a hopeful message.  The Jesuits  have Xavier and the Franciscans, Assisi. Both Jesuits and Franciscans have strong social justice traditions.

A Latin American pope who would call himself Francis will have a broad view on immigration, but so far as we know at present, this expansiveness does not currently extend to progressiveness on reproductive freedoms, the role of women in the church or to the Vatican's current views on homosexuality. In 1968 Joseph Ratzinger emphasized the importance of "primacy of conscience" in his commentary on the Second Vatican Council. In 2001 he (figuratively speaking) threw off the St. Peter's balcony. Popes change.

Though I am normally one to look with disdain on conspiracy theories, I think it is naive to imagine that Ratzinger--skilled as he was at moving the bishops about the chessboard, who did not die in the papal  throne, but planned his exit carefully--did not exert some influence before heading over to Castel DGandolfo.

My 14 year-old just asked whether I "like the new guy." I told her I know, that a "'a guy' I 'like' would never get the job."

I like Francis of Assisi. I like the Jesuit and Franciscan traditions. Do I like the choice of the man who will call himself Francis I?

I don't need to know much about him to know I like better than the last guy.  

Timothy Dolan in St. Peter's Chair? Why the Hell Not?

Could New York's cardinal wind up as the next pope? As a Catholic who has been watching Dolan closely over the past few years, I suppose I would not be entirely surprised by such move--a strategy for hauling American Catholics back into good grace--so to speak. That Dolan so colossally blundered in his two-fold assignment to police "Sin City" and use his influence as the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to defeat same-sex marriage won't hurt him in the conclave; nor will his failure to prevail in limiting the reproductive rights of both his sheep (so to speak) and non-Catholics hurt his chances in Rome. Certainly the cardinal who sued POTUS during his campaign for re-election can hardly be accused of not trying.    

Dolan's transgressions against victims of sex crimes perpetrated by priests won't count against the cardinal either. If the emeritus pope was "God's Rottweiler," then Dolan could be seen as "God's Beabull," . <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-somerville/timothy-dolan-god-beabull_b_1276901.html" target="_hplink">a cross between a beagle and a bulldog</a>). Dolan has excelled at obedience, which the last two pontificates saw as paramount, taking precedence over all other virtues. 

Dolan was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/nyregion/cardinal-dolan-deposition-in-milwaukee-archdiocese-scandal.html?_r=0" target="_hplink">deposed in connection with his handling of abuse cases in Milwaukee a week before heading to Rome to take part in the conclave. <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22656093/cardinal-roger-mahony-gives-deposition-lawsuit-priest-who" target="_hplink">Later that week, the more flagrant accused sex abuse abettor, former Cardinal Roger Mahony, was deposed </a>in connection with 26 counts of sexual abuse of minors</a>. Unfortunately Mahony, a priest who looked the other way when priests under his charge were raping children, will vote for the next pontiff.  

No one knows, but if papacy has been in the cards for Dolan all along, it would be folly to imagine that his inability to muscle Catholics into electing Mitt Romney and loss of ground in the Vatican's expensive war (on which millions of Knights of Columbus dollars have been spent) on equal marriage might foreclose on his chance to be elevated. He can still be seen, by his "brother cardinals" as a latter-day David fighting the Goliath of secularism and godlessness. Such losses as that which had the communion-receiving governor of Dolan's own state militating to legalize same-sex marriage might play well in Rome, rendering the NY Cardinal's lost battle for the honor of church under seige all the more holy.  

Timothy Dolan served as Archbishop of the Diocese of Milwaukee before coming to New York on a mission to rein in New York's and United States' wayward Catholics. Dolan's predecessor, Edward Egan, having served in Bridgeport, Connecticut--one of the first dioceses in which the scope of the problem of pedophile priests came to light--was was mired in sex abuse scandal. Egan's successor was chosen to serve in New York, because was Egan's opposite. Egan was remote and charmless. Dolan was charming and had not actually appeared to shuffle any pervert priests from parish to parish. <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-01-31/news/outing-cardinal-egan/" target="_hplink"> Egan was accused of mishandling of child sexual abuse cases in Bridgeport, and was dogged by rumours that he was gay and that he kept silent about abuse in order to avoid being outed.</a> 

Relatively speaking, Dolan was squeaky clean. Dolan did not bear the kind of taint his predecessor or <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/21/cardinal-bernard-law-quits-rome-post" target="_hplink">Bernard Law</a> or a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/15/local/la-me-0216-mahony-deposition-20130216" target="_hplink">Roger Mahony bore--which isn't saying much. To be sure, Dolan is not remote, and he is not without charm. 

But the fish does, as they say, rot from the head down, and between 1981 and 2013, it fell to the pontiff and the prefect for the Confederation of the Faith (formerly "The Inquisition") to handle every credible sex abuse charge involving a Roman Catholic cleric in every diocese in the world. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection" target="_hplink"></a> Dolan took over a diocese that was particularly lousy with pedophile priests and had to make repairs while still maintaining the silence. (Watch the film, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2111478/" target="_hplink"><em>Mea Maxima Culpa</em></a> to learn more.) While acting as shepherd of Milwaukee Catholics, Timothy Dolan moved money around to prevent it from being used to pay damages in sex crime cases against his diocese. He also authorized the use of experts (attorneys and private detectives) <a href="http://documents.nytimes.com/anatomy-of-an-abuse-complaint-3" target="_hplink">to smear a plaintiff who had earlier sought pastoral support from Dolan</a>. In Milwaukee, <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/05/timothy-dolan-paid-off-sexually-abusive-priests.html" target="_hplink">while going after victims/survivors of sexual abuse, Dolan made $20,000 payments to sexually abusive priests</a>; he paid them to disappear. Dolan has failed to make clear whether these pedophiles were turned over to the authorities before the checks cleared. None of this will hurt his chances in the conclave for it all goes to obedience, obedience being paramount; Dolan's not being fluent in Italian is likely to be more of a liability. 

Dolan threw a tantrum in response to the Health and Human Services Mandate in the course of which histrionics he threatened to 'defund' Catholic agencies that serve the indigent. He blatantly but unofficially campaigned for Mitt Romney, stopping just short of technically violating "the letter"of tax law while flouting its spirit. In at least one of Dolan's parishes, pastors campaigned for Romney outright. In at least one case, explicit instructions for voting in the presidential election were <a href="http://stcatherinenyc.org/files/2011/09/Bulletin-2012-09-02.pdf" target="_hplink">disseminated through the parish's weekly bulletin</a>.) Under Dolan's watch, in New York State, his own practicing Catholic governor ushered same-sex marriage into law. 

Despite engaging in such risky maneuvers as actually filing suit against an incumbent presidential candidate, Dolan failed to stop same-sex marriage from gaining ground in the United States.  He tried to turn the war on "Obama Care" into a religious freedom issue but his ballyhooed Fourth of July (2012) "Fortnight for Freedom" crusade to defeat the Health Care mandate was a dud. Dolan may have blown his ruddy hail-fellow-well-met, luck-of-the-Irish hot-dog-eating, Golly-what-<em>me</em> pope?-cover, but that is what a burly Irishman does when his God is under attack. The cardinal's conniptions might read like the ravings of a kid on the supermarket line demanding a candy bar, or the righteous indignation of Jesus flipping over the moneylenders' tables in the temple. 

Dolan may wear a dress, but he acts like a <em>man</em>. He eats hotdogs, drinks beer and loses his damned temper. God's Beabull's failures in the United States could work in his favor in the context of the secret He-man woman haters' conclave. Dolan's "brother cardinals" may feel that his relative youth and common touch are just what is needed to bring Americans, and by association Western Europe back into active support and participation in the church. 

Timothy Dolan failed to defeat President Obama. He dropped the ball on stopping same-sex marriage from passing into law in his in his own state. He failed to defeat an American president in the matter of the health care mandate, and he failed to rein in a number of prominent Catholic leaders as well as the vast majority of American Roman Catholics. 

It is not likely, but I think it is remotely possible that the Irish pol in a mitre from New York might have a shot to replace the having-scurried-off-the-sinking-ship, Ratzinger. It would certainly be a bold move--and interesting to see. 

My money's still on Cardinal Peter Turkson a pope from Ghana a nation on a continent in which the Vatican is still widely seen as having moral authority. 

Pope Dolan in the papal <em>zucchetto</em> and fisherman's ring when the <em>habemus papam fumata bianca</em> goes up? Why the hell not?

If The Red Prada Shoe Fits: The Legacy of Benedict XVI

Roman Catholic writer Andrew Sullivan has suggested the pope is gay. The pope's companion will follow him to the refurbished convent behind St. Peter's where Joseph Ratzinger will live out his years. Perhaps this explains in part the contempt the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy has showed for LGBT people within and outside the church during the Ratzinger pontificate. Perhaps this bigotry is an outward sign of the long self-loathing many priests from those on the parish level all the way up the hierarchy suffer, with the Vatican itself, with its pomp and luxury, serving as a majestic closet.

I believe that the rule of celibacy (which, by the way, means no marriage--not no sex) has stayed in place, in part, as a means for keeping the hierarchy "safe" (for lack of a better word) for gay priests and fromwomen. Allow male priests marry or women to be ordained, and the boys' club is ruined. Were Catholics in the pews to know how many bishops are gay and sexually active, the entire anti-sex and anti-woman message would have to be revamped. The Magisterium would have to take a new look at their homosexuality as a "disorder" position. Implement a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in training and formation of seminarians, and the secret gay Vatican persists.

I have made much of the connection between the Roman Catholic hierarchs' misogyny and homophobia in my many essays on Catholicism. Ratzinger tried to quash the women's ordination movement, thus leading it to flourish. I believe that the rule of celibacy is as much designed to preserve a secret gay vatican subculture as it is to keep women out of power and busy spawning fresh Catholics. What happens to the woman-haters club for men in miters and gowns? Ratzinger made sure he'd never find out.

The Holy See does not oppose sex, premarital or otherwise, nearly so much as it opposes any change that would offer women official power within the hierarchy of the church. One look at how the Apostolic Visitation spied on nuns, finding them culpable of such sins as practicing yoga and Reiki, tells the story. Ratzinger made the mere discussion of the ordination of women a grave offense, and excommunicated at least one exemplary priest to prove he meant business.

Ratzinger's openness to non-celibate priests has been limited to ordaining married Episcopal priests so long as they vowed not to make love with their wives. This while teaching that sex between couples married in the church is a reflection of Christ's love. Under Ratzinger sex, for Roman Catholics, became sinful again.

A Catholic mother who is the mother of three Jews, I have never made all that much of Ratzinger's having been a member of Hitler's Youth. Young German men were required to serve. Ratzinger could have left his country, as so many men of conscience do when conscripted into unjust military service, but he was young. I think the soon to be ex-pontiff might have deserved a pass on his Hitler Youth history had his pontificate been less antisemitic. But Ratzinger's pontificate was hateful toward Jews.

Although Ratzinger stopped short of embracing the Lefebvrists, Joseph Ratzinger ushered the Tridentine Rites back into use and pandered to antisemitic traditionalists. In his capacity as consigliere to John Paul II he pushed for the acceptance of Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ founded and led by John Paul II's close friend Rev. Marciel Macial whose own son claims to have been raped as a child by his father. Ratzinger has supported the growth of these fringe Roman Catholic groups, most of whose worship contains explicit anti-Jewish elements.

I am old enough to remember the Latin mass. It is truly exquisite, and I do some praying in Latin regularly. However, Roman Catholics praying in Latin at a Tridentine (Latin) mass on Sundays pray for the conversion of the Jews. It was under team John Paul II/Benedict XVI that priests received permission to celebrate of these masses which the Second Vatican Council had rejected. To yearn for the old mass now, is to yearn to pray before the altar, for the conversion of Jews. Under Ratzinger and his predecessor, a church that had at long last begun to turn away from the hatred of Jews--a church which had finally grown up enough to see the moral and theological error in viewing the Jewish religion as Part 1 of Christianity--devolved. The man who should have dedicated his papal energies to living down his stint in Hitler Youth ushered into Catholic practice thousand-year old anti-semitic elements of our liturgy which Vatican II had rejected. Ratzinger made it safe for Catholics to officially incorporate anti-semitism into their sabbath worship.

When Ratzinger presided over the changing of the language of the mass in November of 2011, he pushed the liturgy (in subtle ways) back in time. The argument in favor of these changes had to to with achieving a more accurate translation of the Latin. The new Credo adopted (restored) sexist (and was willing to mistranslate Latin pronouns in order to do so) and exclusionary language. Furthermore, and the new liturgy, whether by design or accident, gave priests a not so friendly reminder that the pope, not God, was boss, just as the full scope of the sex abuse scandal was coming to light.

Joseph Ratzinger has been one of the most powerful men in the Vatican for more than thirty years. It fell to him in his capacity as Prefect for the Confederation of the Doctrine of the Faith to address all cases of child sexual abuse by priests. In 2001, Ratzinger increased the secrecy surrounding the handling and reporting (to secular authorities) of these cases. He rewarded one of the great child rape enablers, Bernard Law, with a big job and gorgeous basilica in Rome. More than a few cardinals who failed to protect children from rape by keeping silence will choose the next pope. Under Ratzinger a priest could be defrocked for attending a mass celebrated by a woman priest, and rewarded for aiding and abetting serial rapists off children.
I believe that if a man robs a bank, kills the teller, runs out the door and jumps into the getaway car, the driver is an accomplice to the murder. In the context of the vatican child rape crisis, Ratzinger was behind the wheel of the getaway car for thirty years.

Pope Benedict XVI will go down in history as a bad pope. A Catholic priest reminded me last week that Dante put the last pope who resigned in Hell for cowardice. If the red Prada shoe fits--

 

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYpoet

No One Knows Why Pope Benedict XVI Resigned

Since Joseph Ratzinger announced he would retire, the Catholic opinions have been flying. Everyone who has an opinion about his resignation agrees that Ratzinger's decision constitutes a dramatic break from tradition. Conventionally devout Roman Catholics are satisfied with the old age/pacemaker/Mexican fall/infirmity explanation, but this resignation flies in the face of a strong church tradition whereby a pontiff endures infirmity and old age without abandoning the call to serve as "the Holy Father."

Conventionally devout Catholics insist that such events as the recent "bust" of pedophile-enabler Cardinal Roger Mahony and the Vatican financial scandals have nothing to do with Ratzinger's decision to retire, but the don't-let-the-Apostolic Palace-door hit you in the papal rear-end set think otherwise.

Ratzinger's apologists believe Ratzinger should be taken at his word, but it is difficult to take a man who has been so disgracefully dishonest in the context of the Vatican sex abuse scandal at his word. Blogosphere chatter now suggests that Ratzinger has sought some kind of prosecutorial immunity in the wake of his decision to resign. This has the ring of truth, but it's not a truth anyone can prove. No one can prove anything because there's no transparency.

Ironically enough (at least for those of us who do believe Ratzinger's resignation is a defensive response to the sex abuse scandal) it is this utter lack of accountability and the secrecy which made the abuse of multitudes of innocent children, and the resulting coverup, for which Ratzinger was in great measure responsible, possible.

There is no transparency. The pope is accountable to no one. No one outside the Vatican can really know why the pope resigned. It's all conjecture.

I read something a few days ago by a writer who was critical of all the educated guessing about the soon to be former pope's motives and circumstances. He insisted that he had a bit of an inside line to the Vatican because he "knows someone close to the pope." I'm sure he does know someone close to the pope. Most people who care enough about the pope to write about the pope know someone who knows the pope. Most Catholics can, if they seek such a thing, manage two or three degrees of separation from the pope, but such proximity is unlikely to yield the full truth of what the man in the scarlet shoes intends, especially if those shoes are stomping out fires.

No one but Joseph Ratzinger and his closest colleagues knows what the pope's true reasons for stepping aside are. (I write "aside" and not "down" because I think the Pope Emeritus will be influencing heavily from the sidelines.) My hunch is that Ratzinger is stepping aside because he has become a liability. He is ultimately responsible for the thousands of incidences of rape and sexual abuse perpetrated against children by priests which came to light via the John Jay College and Cloyne Reports; his best shot at damage control is a "humble" and well-spun departure. If there is anything genuinely humble in this decision, it would be Ratzinger's willingness to remove a corrupt leader from a church he still loves.

But I don't believe Ratzinger will leave entirely. If you have visited the Vatican, you know how small Vatican City is. Both Ratzinger's temporary home and the convent being refurbished for his occupancy are within walking distance of St. Peter's Basilica. Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi was right when he said the following:

"It is a wise solution for Benedict to stay in Vatican City, where he can pray, study and have personal contacts," he said. "The successor and the cardinals will be happy to have very nearby someone who knows well what the spiritual needs of the church."

The truth is that although the Vatican is not very large, it is a sovereign nation. If Ratzinger leaves, I believe, he could find himself arrested. A Vatican official who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity explained the need for Joseph Ratzinger to remain in the Vatican:

Pope Benedict's decision to live in the Vatican after he resigns will provide him with security and privacy. It will also offer legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources and legal experts say.

The the Vatican has informed the public that Ratzinger will remain close to the Vatican, while Ratzinger himself has announced an intention to disappear into the shadows. Which is it? Will Ratzinger remain "nearby" to consult on the "spiritual needs of the church?" Or will he live a contemplative life? The model for Roman Catholic contemplative living has traditionally called for the contemplative to absent him or herself from worldly concerns.

Although Cardinal Pedophile Enabling Roger Mahony will have a vote in the conclave, Reuters reports thatJoseph Ratzinger will not. 

The Vatican has already said that he will not influence the election of his successor, which will take place in a secret conclave to start between March 15 and 20 in the Sistine Chapel.

If you believe that I have a bridge across the River Tevere to sell you.

I think reframing Ratzinger as a humble contemplative who so loves his church that he is willing to give up its most powerful position is a preposterous reach.

I believe and hope and pray that the International Criminal Court will eventually consent to try the Vatican for the systematic abuse of children. I don't think history will be kind to Joseph Ratzinger. I believe Benedict XVI will go down in church history as a "bad pope," and as a kind of Abraham who carried his Isaac up the hill ten thousand times, failing to listen when God called out "Stop!"

I believe the Vatican has hit the mattresses. I think the Godfather is taking the fall. Maybe Ratzinger is falling on his sword. Maybe there's some honor in that.

All we outside Vatican who cherish our church have to go by are hunches, beliefs, speculation, conjecture and opinions. We can examine the Ratzinger's legacy and theorize, but no one can know why he resigned.

The only people who know what goes on in the Vatican are the people who know what goes on at the Vatican.

The pope is the pope, accountable to no one. Not even God.

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYpoet

Deaf Ears and a Sinking Ship: Why Benedict XVI is Resigning

Why did Pope Benedict XVI resign yesterday? I'd like to imagine he took a sweeping look at his career as a priest and prelate, and while not discounting the value of this contributions as an intellectual, took note of the degree to which he, during the course of his own and the previous pontificates, permitted the "power" to snuff out so much of the "glory." I like to imagine remorse moves him to wish to go off and pray--for forgiveness, and for the broken church he leaves in shambles. As a practicing Catholic, I'd like to be able to "take" the "pope at his word," as Frank Bruni wrote (that he does) in his February 11th New York Times opinion piece. But I cannot. I do not.

Here's how the papal apologists will spin Ratzinger's resignation. They will frame the decision as a bold and enlightened step. They will emphasize the humility in Ratzinger's decision to relieve a church in turmoil of the liability of an aging pontiff. This lacks the ring of truth. For more than five centuries a system, the Roman Catholic hierarchs placed great faith in a system of electing, honoring and burying popes, whereby a cabal of papal advisors kept an aging pope for life propped up (Ratzinger personally handled much of such propping up even before John Paul was in his dotage!). This was the tradition the tradition-loving cardinals favored.

Ratzinger's stepping down constitutes a dramatic break with tradition in a church in which tradition-loving Catholics cling for dear life to any shred of tradition they can grasp. The papal Public Relations team will deflect any suggestion that departing the papacy in advance of bodily death is in and of itself a soft scandal, and will insist that Ratzinger's resignation is neither a sign nor a symptom of a Catholic hierarchy utterly compromised by corruption. Corruption among the Roman Catholic prelates is hardly something new, but today's active Catholics, wherever they stand on the degree of orthodoxy spectrum, still approach the altar in hope that our church might mature as it endures. Joseph Ratzinger's retrograde disposition with its overemphasis on secrecy and obedience has led a majority of active Catholics to turn a deaf ear to the pontiff.

Did Joseph Ratzinger ever think he'd see the day when divorce would be legal in Italy, Catholics in Ireland would abandon the church, and a Women's Ordination movement driven in great measure by male priests ordained in the apostolic succession working with rebel nuns would burgeon and thrive? No. These are Ratzinger's losses. LGBT people can marry in Spain. Women can obtain legal abortions everywhere in Western Europe. I don't know a single practicing Catholic who really believes that all abortions are truly "murders"--in the legal sense, though I know many who do oppose it.  

In the United States, Roman Catholic governors like Andrew Cuomo and Martin O'Malley, both men of strong Catholic faith, fought for marriage equality in their states and won. 50% of American Catholics recently re-elected a president while the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) was suing him over the Health and Human Services Mandate. Are today's Catholics listening to the pope? Sometimes, perhaps. Mostly not.

In Latin America, Protestantism is expanding rapidly, for which reason the next pope might be Latino.The hierarchy has been in a race against time to convert the so-called "developing world" wherein Catholics still listen, but those same regions are currently ravaged by AIDS, poverty and malnutrition; this, while the Magisterium holds fast to its teaching on the use of condoms--which is why I think the next pope will be an African.

The first thing I thought about this morning when I read the news, yesterday, was the the August, 2013 death of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, whom many Catholics viewed as our last chance for liberal pope. He died at the age of 85, long out of the running, but he had a strong voice. No one outside the College of Cardinals can know, but Martini's death may have made it safer for Ratzinger to step down confident that when the white smoke ascends, a cardinal well-groomed by Ratzinger (but not nearly so smart) might be elevated.

And I thought of Alex Gibney's documentary Mea Maxima Culpa which I'd seen two nights earlier. One of the most chilling moments in this film, is the moment when a survivor testifies that Lawrence Murphy, a Milwaukee priest who committed sex crimes against more than 200 children, made a special effort to select deaf (and mute) boys whose parents had not learned to communicate by sign language when picking victims--children who (literally) could not tell their parents.

I thought of how the CDF (Confederation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Office of Inquisitions) was in charge of such cases. While pondering the pope's reasons for stepping down, it's hard to push away the knowledge that Ratzinger was the man in charge of the CDF between 1981 and 2005, that the buck stopped with Ratzinger, and that in his capacity of CDF Prefect, he implemented policy designed to decrease transparency in the handling of sex crimes perpetrated against children by priests. I remembered that justice had finally caught up with alleged pedophile priest enabler Cardinal Roger Mahony only a few weeks ago and wondered whether that new development catalyzed Ratzinger's extraordinary decision to leave.

I thought of how Amnesty International has accused the Vatican of systematic torture of children. I thought of the complaint CCR (The Center for Constitutional Rights) and SNAP (Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests) have filed in the International Courts.

Before yesterday, I had thought Ratzinger would leave the papacy horizontally, amid funerary pomp. I sometimes even thought he might leave in handcuffs, and be carted off to the Hague. I don't believe age or infirmity have much to do with this strategic exit. Deaf ears is what I think of when I think of Ratzinger and his departure from the throne. Deaf ears and a Ratzinger scurrying off his sinking ship.

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYpoet

Tax-Exempt NY Archdiocese Church Publicly Endorses Mitt Romney--In Writing.

We are Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, but on this question we are united in faith and in action. We urge our fellow Catholics, and indeed all people of good will, to join with us in this full-hearted effort to elect Governor Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.

Such sentiments are not all that unusual to hear lately. The "Catholic vote" has been in the news and there has been much waxing prosaic on the partisanship of Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

But these are not the words of some Catholic individual on the stump. These exhortations were published (and widely circulated) in the weekly (September 2nd) bulletin distributed after each mass at St. Catherine of Sienna Church in Manhattan. Hit the link and see for yourself (Click 9/02 bulletin.) before Timothy Dolan's legal muscle forces the parish to take the online version down.

I, who have, of late, had much to say about Dolan's more subtle campaigning for Romney, am at a loss for words.

Except to say that this parish has clearly broken the law.

For those of you who do not attend Catholic mass weekly as I do, the church bulletin is a reliable constant in Catholic worship life. Even in the days of electronic connectedness, the paper bulletin remains the prime means of communicating with Catholics in the pews. Each parish has one. They have a uniform design --and Catholics read them. St. Catherine's is also available online.

So far Timothy Dolan's electioneering for Romney has been very thinly veiled. There's been a push for the appearance of partisanship of late, a push which I believe is a response to his fear that he is concerned about losing his diocese's tax-exempt status. I think also his show of non-partisanship has to do with a desire to hedge his bets and hold onto progressive Catholics.

There is nothing thinly veiled about this campaign speech which was disseminated, most probably, after each mass celebrated at St. Catherine of Sienna Church last weekend, and authored by one John Farren O.P., a priest affiliated with St. Catherine's Church, who cites a letter written by six former Ambassadors to the Holy See:

The Former Ambassadors write: "Fellow Catholics, "We are all called to advance the moral teachings of Christianity in the life of our country. Where the stakes are highest - in the defense of life, liberty, and human dignity - we have a duty to act that is greater and more urgent than allegiance to any political party. "In the election of 2012, this conviction has united all of us - each a former ambassador of the United States to the Holy See - in support of Governor Mitt Romney's candidacy for president. Whatever issues might dominate the presidential campaign from now until November, our concerns lie with fundamental rights, beginning with religious liberty.

"While the current administration has brought our first freedom under direct assault by imposing government mandates that completely disregard religious conscience, Governor Romney believes that freedom to live one's faith is essential to liberty and human fulfillment. And he has pledged himself to removing those federal mandates immediately.

"While the current administration has now put its weight on the side of those who propose to redefine the meaning of marriage itself, Governor Romney has stood firm in defending this sacred institution. In the White House, just as he did in the Massachusetts State House, he will defend the institution of marriage before the Congress, the courts, and the country.

"Where the current administration has shown its sympathy for the pro-abortion lobby, Mitt Romney will be a faithful defender of life in all its seasons. And he understands the special duty of people of faith to serve in this cause. As Governor Romney recently said, "From the beginning, this nation trusted in God, not man. Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution. And whether the cause is justice for the persecuted, compassion for the needy and the sick, or mercy for the child waiting to be born, there is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action."

"These are the words of a man we believe can be a great force for good in this nation. We are Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, but on this question we are united in faith and in action. We urge our fellow Catholics, and indeed all people of good will, to join with us in this full-hearted effort to elect Governor Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States."

Is this an endorsement for a political candidate or is it just my imagination?
Tax-exempt organizations are prohibited from endorsing candidates.
The Internal Revenue Service should investigate the Archdiocese of New York for this violation.
And the funny part is, all this risky Catholic behavior is for the benefit of a presidential candidate who won't lift a finger to revere Roe v. Wade.

Follow Michele Somerville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYpoet