« From the mouths of babes | Main | Cuomo, (Jeb) Bush, and Conscience »

April 26, 2005

Good Words

Two people have sent me this, and it's been mentioned in the comments - this past Sunday's homily by Msgr. Peter Magee at St. Matthew's Cathedral in DC. By the way, a collection of Msgr.'s homilies is being published soon.

“Habemus Papam!” We have a Pope!

Through the humble means of voting Cardinals, the Lord has confirmed for us the ministry of Peter in his Church. As Simon Bar-Jona became Peter, so Joseph Ratzinger has become Peter.

Simon dies, but Peter remains. For it is not the man as man on whom we depend, nor is it the man as man on whom Christ builds his Church: it is the perennial faith of Peter, a faith given by God the Father, focused on God the Son and sustained by God the Holy Spirit. The history of the men who have held the petrine office shows only too clearly that it is not those men as men upon whom Christ builds his Church.

Nor then should we indulge in human respect by paying attention first and foremost to the man who happens to be Pope. Rather, by faith we must first and foremost renew and revitalize our loyalty to, and our love for, the Pope who happens to be this man, Joseph Ratzinger. We thank God for this man, but we thank him above all for this Pope.

I say this because, human as we are, we are inclined to “root” for this or that man. In doing so, however, we risk many things. We risk above all looking at the Papacy as if it were a mere human institution with a merely human purpose. In recent weeks, we have seen the conclave viewed as an object of gambling and as a political election campaign. The press coverage has been unprecedented, and often very good, but the accompanying commentaries often viewed the election through the looking glass of polarized politics: left versus right, liberal versus conservative, progressive versus traditional. 

An objective look at how a conclave is prepared and executed would show how far removed it is from such polarizing constructs. We have allowed our thinking in almost everything to be dictated to by power and party politics, including our faith and the Church. To the ears of Christ, talk of a liberal or a conservative wing in the Church, talk of a progressive or regressive Pope is meaningless. He would be exasperated and exclaim: “Do you still not understand?”

We need to be liberated from looking at everything in terms of right and left. It does not just polarize the house and the senate: it polarizes and therefore seeks to destroy the Church. If we think in terms of polarizing politics within the Church we have handed the Devil a golden opportunity to do what he does best: divide, conquer and destroy.

Our concerns for ourselves and for the Pope should not be on what end of the political spectrum we and he stand. It should be: how near or how far are we from oneness with Christ, from his kingship and his kingdom? It is not the politics of the horizontal, but the loving obedience of the vertical which should preoccupy us.

It would be as wrong for those who consider themselves politically right-wing to look to Pope Benedict XVI to promote their agenda as it would be for those on the left to dislike him because they consider he won’t do what they want. Such thinking is alien to authentic Catholicism; indeed it is reprehensible and irresponsible. The Pope cannot be manipulated either to be the promoter or the spoiler of special interest groups: he is the center of the unity of the whole Church.

St. Paul had to discipline with strong words the early Christian community at Corinth for its factions, when some were saying, “I am for Apollos”, others, “I am for Paul”, others still, “I am for Cephas.” He asked them: “has Christ been parceled out that you cry out such slogans?” Today he might well have asked the same, “has Peter been parceled out, that some of you are saying, ‘I am for Martini’, ‘I am for Daneels’, ‘I am for Ratzinger’?” We should all be for Peter, this Peter, because this Peter is for Christ and Christ is for the Father!

If we play politics with the Papacy we are failing miserably as Catholics. Politics has its role to play, but not in the Church. We would be allowing a matter which belongs to the fleeting reality of the world to trump our membership of the living and everlasting, mystical Body of Christ. We would have lost our senses, our Catholic senses, and replaced them with unadulterated mundanity.

You may object that there have been progressive and traditionalist Popes. I would respond that you are still thinking in terms of politics. Our concern as Catholics should be two-fold: whether or not the Pope and the College of Bishops, with and under him, are preserving intact the deposit of faith given by Christ to the Apostles and handed on to us by their successors; and whether or not, while preserving it intact, they are being open to the ways in which the Holy Spirit is leading them to develop the riches pregnant within it.

The Pope and the College of Bishops, with and under him, must by definition conserve in fullness the deposit of faith; likewise, by definition they must let that deposit develop according to the Holy Spirit. In other words, they are by definition, that is, by the divine will, simultaneously conservative and progressive, and they are both, not by their own judgment or preference, not by the judgment or preference of the world, but by the judgment and the timing of the Holy Spirit, who blows where he wills.

In terms of real-life politics, a Catholic can be whatever he chooses to be, provided he does so in a way that is coherent with the demands of Catholic doctrine and morals. But in terms of religion, it does not make sense for a Catholic to be either conservative or progressive. He must be both! He must have the maturity to live with the tension of both, and the faith and trust that the Lord will be faithful to his promises.

The truth of the faith cannot be parceled out. It must be welcomed and lived in its integrity. Someone who is open only to the past is only half a Catholic. Someone open only to the future is, likewise, only half a Catholic. But Catholic means “whole”: it does not make sense to be half a Catholic! It has as much sense as a square circle! So those who, by their own judgment, pick and choose from the past or from the future must ask themselves if in reality they are, in the present, truly Catholics.

The Pope is the rock on which Christ builds his Church. The Church is still being built, and those who say it’s all over are simply wrong. The Church is still being built by Christ, not by factions or fractions of the Church herself! Whoever heard of a building building itself? But unless what is built is built on Peter, it will be built on sand. It may look good, it may feel good, but it is not the Church. Some may wish to build their own church, or add to it extensions of their pleasing. But unless Christ builds, the builders labor in vain. And Christ will build only on Peter. Unless, therefore, Peter is at the foundation of whatever is new, by definition that newness is not of Christ.

The Catholic must embrace the genuine, living tradition of the Church and, because it is living, also the truth which will gradually unfold from that same tradition. A Catholic must be both conservative and progressive because Christ is ever ancient and ever new.

The election of our new Holy Father is an opportunity for us all to see beyond, to reach beyond, to live, love, labor, believe and hope beyond the petty factions which do such damage to the Church and cause such bitterness and disappointment in our hearts. How will the young find the Church attractive if we are fighting over special interests?

The Church must engage with the world and must therefore understand what is happening in the world. However, she must engage the world, not in the world’s terms, but in the terms of Jesus Christ. What a poor image of the Church it is to think of her as one political force among others! What an insult it is to the crucified and risen Lord to empty the Gospel of salvation of its power to transform the world, if we would have the Church transformed by the world and play the games of the world!

The Holy Father comes, not to play party politics, but, like Christ, to show us the way to the Eternal Father. Personal opinions are all very well, but, in the end, as long as we are shown the way to the Father, none of them matters. The way to the Father is for everyone, but everyone must leave behind whatever there is in their lives which does not obey the will of the Father. The sinner cannot keep sinning and come to the Father; the rigid legalists must melt and soften if they are to know the Father’s compassion and tenderness; the lax and those always itching for novelties must find discipline and order if they are to know the truth of the Father.

“Habemus Papam!” Through him we must listen to what the Spirit is saying to the Church. With the freedom and joy of the true Catholic heart, let us cry out “Deo gratias!” and pledge him our loyalty, our obedience and our love!

Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink

Comments

WIT-NESS!

Posted by: Chris-2-4 at Apr 26, 2005 9:38:00 AM

Does anyone know what parish Msgr. Magee is from? I don't think he's on the staff at St. Matthew's.

Posted by: Cornelius AMDG at Apr 26, 2005 10:13:51 AM

Great stuff.

Posted by: Cathleen at Apr 26, 2005 10:16:06 AM

He is a priest of the Diocese of Galloway, Scotland. He worked in the Apostolic Nunciature (sp?) in the Vatican Diplomatic corps and now is going to be teaching at Georgetown's School of Diplomacy on papal diplomacy. He says the 10 am Novus Ordo Latin Mass at St. Matthew's (not ever week but regularly).

Posted by: Cheeky Lawyer at Apr 26, 2005 10:20:54 AM

Msgr. Magee is an excellent preacher.

Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Apr 26, 2005 10:32:10 AM

No doubt some who still insist on seeing the world through political lenses will take umbridge with some of the Msgr.'s comments, but I say - he who has ears, let him hear!

Bravo, well said!

Posted by: Chris at Apr 26, 2005 10:55:31 AM

Cornelius AMDG --

What Cheeky Lawyer said. He's currently at St. Andrew Apostle parish in Silver Spring, MD, but might be moved once he starts teaching at Georgetown. He's trying to schedule two Sundays a month (the first and third, usually) to say the Latin mass at St. Matt's, but that might change, too, depending on where he's moved in the fall.

Posted by: InAGlassDarkly at Apr 26, 2005 11:00:23 AM

Word.

If I had the e-mail addresses of every parish priest in America, I would send the text of this homily to them with the following note:

"Go, and do thou likewise."

Posted by: Kevin at Apr 26, 2005 11:04:56 AM

Excellent! This is in stark contrast to Fr. Andrew Greeley, on NBC before the election, who was poking fun at the thought of the Holy Spirit blowing through the cardinals' residence, inspiring them. He insisted, "It's all political." Yeah, right.

Posted by: symdd at Apr 26, 2005 12:00:23 PM

He's a "priest in residence" at St. Andrew's, rather than pastor or vicar, and so can move to a location with a shorter commute to Georgetown without too much fuss. Still, if and when he leaves, it will be a great loss to the parish.

I am delighted to hear he has a book coming out. He is a wonderful homilist, and some of his homilies are perhaps better read than heard.

Catching him at Mass every other week is one of the reasons I don't join in the complaints about watered-down preaching.

Posted by: Tom at Apr 26, 2005 12:13:18 PM

Wow -- great homily! Thanks for sharing this Amy.

Posted by: Regina at Apr 26, 2005 3:37:38 PM

Wonderful, so eloquent and clear -- thanks, Amy. Another gem for the "downloads" folder!

Posted by: Pat Gonzalez at Apr 26, 2005 5:10:25 PM

While there is truth in Mgr's remarks, I must say the emphasis leaves me a little unsettled.

It is true that the press has been disappointingly superficial in its characterization of the struggle within the Church – and within the Conclave in particular – as one of merely “liberal” v “conservative”, or “left” versus “right”. On the other hand, as far as we can tell, there was political manoeuvring going on in the conclave to elect Benedict, as there are in most conclaves. A group gathered around Cardinal Martini in an effort to oppose the groundswell for Cardinal Ratzinger. No-one disputes this. Cardinal Martini is, relatively speaking a “liberal”, which I guess makes Cardinal Ratzinger a “conservative”. It’s difficult to know how to put this in any other terms – it’s not enirely accurate but does communicate a degree of relevant information about the two.

What is dangerous about these classifications, though, it that they imply that “liberal” and “conservative” are equally legitimate alternatives in matters of the Church. This is erroneous. Most of what distinguishes “liberal” Catholicism is, quite frankly, not Catholicism at all, but heresy and schism. Conversely “conservatism” is, roughly speaking “Catholic”. I am not being “conservative” when I uphold the teaching of Humanae Vitae. I am just being a faithful Catholic. The “Liberal” Catholicism of today is by and large an oxymoron. I say this, not as one of a “conservative” party, but as a Catholic. Or, put it another way: If a liberal like Fr Richard McBrien or Fr Charles Curran is a “Catholic”, well, fine - I’m not! I’m something else – along (I believe) with St Thomas, the Fathers at Trent, St Augustine St Peter….and Jesus Christ Himself. The notion that “liberals” and “conservatives” can come together under the big tent of the Catholic Church and “dialogue” happily together is itself a liberal plot. One is not being excessively “partisan” or unfair to Liberals in saying this … one is merely calling a spade a spade.

So let us not forget that a lot of what is called “conservative” politicking in the Church is just healthy Catholic activity. There are heretics and dangerously erroneus elements operating in our Church and for the last thirty odd years the hierarchy has been frankly, appallingly lacklustre in its response (or worse in some cases). We have no brief in Church doctrine to say that this woeful failure to address the evil is a movement of the Holy Spirit. (Note: I’m not at all charging the good Mgr with holding that it is.) Perforce, many who are not in the hierarchy have had to step in and attempt to right the wrong in whatever way they saw appropriate. As a result, they come to appear as a “faction” or a “party” and they attract a label, such as “traditionalist” “integrist” “fundamentalist” “nostalgic” “conservative”, and so on. In fact, they are no more a “party” in some overly “political” sense than was Athanasius when he and his allies manoeuvred day and night to rid the Church of Arianism. Whether one wishes to dub this as political activity or not doesn’t really concern me. The point is that at various times in the history of the Church those with a zeal for truth have found it not only legitimate, but imperative, to act in this way. Needless to say, I think we are in a much worse situation today in the Western Church than Athanasius was in the East all those centuries ago. I mean, Arians only disputed one or two items of the Creed, not the whole box and dice!

So, notwithstanding the ever present tendency for us as sinners to allow ego and bias to silence the voice of God within us and overpoliticise our endeavours, it is perfectly healthy ( indeed I would say obligatory at present) for us as Catholics to agitate for decisions from the Papacy, in the great tradition of saints like Catherine of Sienna vis a vis the Avignon Papacy, for example, and also Hildegard of Bingen who constantly chastisedc the Pope for not persecuting heretics more zealously. (Heaven knows what these two have been saying to each other over the last few decades.)

I as a Catholic will personally continue to do all I can through prayer and argument to convince Benedict to rid the Church (especially the hierarchy) of liberals of all shades as soon as possible. As a traditionalist I will also urge him to say the Traditional Mass as soon - and as frequently as possible, because I think this will be a great thing for the Church (I suspect Benedict does as well, having read his thoughts on matters liturgical.) I’ve already emailed His Holiness this and some other matters … he must be thinking very hard on my suggestions, as I have yet to receive a reply.

Other “Conservatives”, while they will agree on the need to reestablish orthodoy, may disagree with me on the need for the Traditional Mass. That’s fine – we are still operating within the same basic parameters. We can have dialogue on these matters. If I were to treat my “conservative” opponents as outside the Church due to this disagreement, well, then, that would be making the error that Mgr rightly warns against.

And while I would have accepted Cardinal Martini, for example, as a Pope, I know I would have been very worried as to the direction he would have taken the Church. Though he was pastorally effective in many ways in Milan he was all over the place re. women priests and some other issues. He is a moderate “liberal” - which means, on some matters (eg women priests) he is out of step, not with me as such, but with the Church. Of course the Holy Spirit would have prevented any promulgation of error on these matters of faith and morals in his (hypothetical) papacy, but I think we all would have been entitled as Catholics to feel edgy about the future. There have been a few ineffective popes in the past, just as there have been a few who were morally reprehensible.

But let us thank God that at this time, we have not only the marvellous gift to the Church of the Papacy as an office, but also a holy and brilliant man as Pope - Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning.

Posted by: Hugh Henry at Apr 26, 2005 9:18:42 PM

But how is that at odds with the "emphasis" in the homily, which is on the "conservation" as well as the legitimate development of our understanding of the deposit of faith?

I mean, see again the paragraph beginning: "The Pope and the College of Bishops, with and under him ..."

Posted by: Kevin Miller at Apr 26, 2005 10:06:13 PM

Thanks, Kevin.

My concern was the feeling it left me that those of us who hoped and prayed that Cardinal Ratzinger would be elected, and hoped and prayed that Cardinals in the conclave would lobby furiously to bring about this result, and who rejoiced mightly because he was elected and certain others weren't are operating out of an overly political, "factionalist" perspective. If that is a corollary of Mgr’s thesis, then I certainly don't think it's true (to that extent). When John Paul II was elected, Cardinal Pell stated that he heaved a great sigh of relief because he knew the Church was going to be in “safe hands”. He repeated this with the election of Benedict XVI. His relief stemmed from knowing who Karol Wojtyla was and who Joseph Ratzinger is. This human side of the issue coexists perfectly consistently with Cardinal Pell’s (and our) certainty as a Catholic that, of course, no matter who is pope, the Church will always be in “safe hands” as far as its essence is concerned.

When Mgr says that the church is “simultaneously conservative and progressive” we can agree with him because of what he, an orthodox and intelligent Catholic means by these terms. But given that this proposition or some variation thereof is frequently in the mouth of liberals these days, and means something completely different and erroneous, it behoves us to point this out lest people feel unjustifiable guilty about opposing these wolves.

When Paul is denouncing divisions, it isan excessive emphasis on one party as if its position almost the criteria for being loyal to Christ that concerns him. This he deplored simply because Apollos, Cephas and Paul were ALL orthodox Christians and it was ridiculous to choose between them in this way. But if Paul found that the dispute was between a faction of Catholics and one of heretics, we can bet it wouldn't have been factionalism that would have drawn his ire, but the errors of the heretic faction. So what I'm saying is that while there may be some excessive factionalism going on in the Church today (and I’m sure there is!), a lot more of the struggles going on are not between Apollos/Cephas/Paul alternatives, but between Catholic and non-Catholic tendencies. I used the example of Cardinal Martini in the earlier post. But here’s one much more serious. Cardinal Daneels of Belgium is very suspect on a number of points in moral theology and other areas. If I am saying “I am for Ratzinger” in opposition someone who is saying “I am for Daneels”, it is, I submit in no way analogous to the Paul/Apollos/Cephas struggle. It is about much more radically opposed viewpoints, and I believe we should have no scruples about factionalism when we take our stand here.

In the hope that this is all entirely consistent with Mgr’s thesis…

Cheerfully yours

Posted by: Hugh Henry at Apr 26, 2005 11:21:00 PM

An updated link for Monsignor's new book is here -- you can place a pre-order and read more about the book: http://catalog.americancatholic.org/product.aspx?prodid=T6568

Posted by: InAGlassDarkly at Apr 27, 2005 11:48:54 AM

Post a comment