Reflections of Pope Benedict XVI's papacy and his name choice

Happy New Year and best wishes for 2011!

My last blog posting reflected upon Pope Benedict XVI’s Urbi et Orbi address where he spoke about the world’s suffering while dressed in ermine trimmed wraps.  According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website, the pope chose the name Benedict inspired by St. Benedict, the founder of Benedictine spirituality in addition to Pope Benedict XV’s example as a peacemaker and reconciler.

So far, in the “reconciler” category, the pope has some successes, making small steps reconciling with clergy abuse victims.  However, thus far in his papacy, I see an increase in tension with other religions due to things like the pope re-instating a holocaust denying bishop and making gaffs about Islam.  I see a decrease rather than increase in Catholic unity.  I see a decrease in dialogue between differing opinions within the church and an increase in hierarchical assertions, commands and judgments.  Consequently, I see an increase in neo-Pharisees believing their piety rituals and dogmatic barking on a few issues make them better than others and make their sins less severe than others.  I see an increase in arrogance and false pride about Catholic identity and a decrease in humility, compassion and service.  Are these signs of peace and reconciliation?

I am reading a book about St. Benedict’s spirituality, specifically about the Rule of St. Benedict.  When I learned of the pope’s speech made while dressed in fur-trimmed robes, I was reading the chapter on humility.  In his rule, St. Benedict outlined 12 degrees of humility.  Briefly, the degrees are:

1.  Fear (love) God.

2.  Love not your own will.

3.  For love of God and in denying self-will, submit yourself to a human superior.

4.  Be patient and meet difficulties, contradictions and injustice without growing weary or running away.

5.  Confess everything; hide nothing.

6.  Be content with the worst and poorest of everything.

7.  Consider yourself lower and lesser than everyone else.

8.  Follow the “Rule” and the advice of elders.

9.  Restrain your tongue and keep silent.

10.  Don’t be quick to laugh lest you make folly of something serious.

11.  Speak in few but sensible words.

12.  Maintain humility inwardly and outwardly, in heart and external appearance.

I struggle seeing a connection between St. Benedict’s directions on humility and his papal namesake’s actions as well as the greater church’s tone set by Pope Benedict XVI.  In particular:

• How would St. Benedict view infallibility doctrine and its use to justify one’s opinion, in light of the 1st, 3^rd and 7^th degrees of humility?
• How would St. Benedict view the hierarchy’s indignation over cries for bishop accountability, in light of the 4^th, 5^th, 7^th and 12^th degrees of humility?
• How would St. Benedict view demonizing the press for airing stories about clergy abuse, in light of the 4^th, 5^th, 7^th, 9^th and 12^th degrees of humility?
• How would St. Benedict view handling of clergy abuse, enshrouded in secrecy, in light of the 1^st and 5^th degrees of humility?
• How would St. Benedict view the absence of women from church hierarchy and governance structures, in light of the 7^th degree of humility?
• How would St. Benedict view threats and use of ex-communication to try controlling other people’s behavior, in light of the 4^th and 7^th degrees of humility?
• How would St. Benedict view using an ermine-trimmed cape and related clerical fashion trends, in light of the 6^th, 7^th and 12^th degrees of humility?
• How would St. Benedict view prolific writings and the establishment of a foundation to promote one’s own theological thought, in light of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 9^th, 11^th and 12^th degrees of humility?

Perhaps more people would “know and hear” the pope’s voice as a shepherd if he dressed more like one?

I don’t usually write multiple blog postings in a day.  Today I must make an exception after reading the following passage about Pope Benedict’s Christmas 2010 papal address, Urbi et Orbi (Latin for “To the city and the world”).   His address focused on Christian suffering around the world due to recent violent attacks on Catholics in places like Baghdad, as well as China’s church and state conflict. 

“Bundled up in an ermine trimmed crimson cape against a chilly rain, he delivered his assessment of world suffering from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica.” 

Likely the pope also wore his red shoes, cobbled by his personal shoemaker.

How credible does a multi-millionaire author with his own personal shoemaker seem discussing world suffering while dressed in ermine (a fur costing $30,000 - $60,000), standing on a balcony, in a walled city, 1,800 miles from the sufferings in Baghdad and over 5,000 miles from the strife in China?

Vatican City is one of six remaining absolute monarchies in the world.  The others are Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Swaziland.  That’s an interesting list of countries sharing similar governmental structures.

Vatican City’s 2008 annual revenues were approximately $351 Million, averaging well over $425,000 for each of its 826 citizens.  This compares with the U.S.’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $14.834 Trillion or an average of about $48,000 per its 307 million citizens.  The U.S.’s material blessings pale in comparison to that of the Vatican.

Perhaps more people would “know and hear” the pope’s voice as a shepherd if he dressed more like one?  Perhaps people would more easily see Christ in him if he conducted himself more like Jesus, a homeless, itinerant preacher who lived amidst the world’s sufferings, rather than as a monarch with his own city-state, fleet of private vehicles, personal shoemaker and fur wraps who must schedule appointments periodically to gain exposure to the world’s sufferings? 

Granted the pope does donate some of his book royalties to charity, his own foundation, "Vatican Foundation: Joseph Ratzinger - Benedict XVI".  The foundation’s, “goal is to promote the study of Joseph Ratzinger's theology and spirituality, propagating his ideas in the Church and society, and ensuring they are absorbed.”  Maybe people would find the Vicar of Christ more credible if his foundation’s stated goal focused on theology in the “spirit of Christ” instead of himself?

Can we and should we model our families after the Holy Family?

Today is the Feast of the Holy Family.  In a few hours I will attend Mass and likely hear again from an unmarried, childless priest how I should model my family after the Holy Family.  My question today simply is, why?

In marriage preparation I learned the foundational elements of marriage include husband and wife sharing common views on faith, family, finances, sexuality and child-rearing.  Let’s examine what scripture actually tells us of the Holy Family’s views in these areas.

Mary and Joseph raised their son in the Jewish faith.  The 2009 U.S. Bishops’ pastoral letter “Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan” acknowledges and extols Jesus being raised in the Jewish tradition.  Should I follow Mary and Joseph’s example and raise my children in the Jewish faith tradition, one lacking a Magisterial authority? 

As an aside, if you are not familiar with the aforementioned pastoral letter it is a 60 paged treatise on marriage written by the U.S. bishops.  I found the bishops’ marital advice very reflective of their context as unmarried, childless men, detached from family constructs and often lacking intimate interpersonal relationships, especially with women.

Anyway, we know little of Mary and Joseph’s views on family and child-rearing:

1.  Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth during their pregnancies.  However, Jesus and John the Baptist’s unfamiliarity upon meeting as adults might indicate a weak familial bond. 

2.  Mary and Joseph traveled to Jerusalem with relatives annually for Passover.  When traveling, my parents ritually “counted noses” to ensure they retained all nine of their children.  However, Mary and Joseph once traveled unconcerned for an entire day without missing their one child (LK 2:41-52).    

3.  At the Wedding of Cana, Jesus told his mom that his hour had not yet come when she correctly instructed him to perform his first miracle (John 2:1-12).  

4.  Jesus once denied his mother and brothers an audience (MT 12:46-50). 

5.  Their child was sinless and the son of God.  Mine are not; neither are anybody else’s.

There’s not a lot there upon which to model my family’s views on family or child-rearing. 

We know even less about Mary and Joseph’s views on finances.  Joseph was a carpenter so on a low economic rung.  Mary and Joseph seemed to respect civil tax law, going to Bethlehem for census enrollment.  They also paid for the modest temple sacrifice of two turtle doves.  Again, there’s not a lot upon which to model my family’s views on finances.

This brings us to Mary and Joseph’s views on sexuality.  The Catholic Church believes Mary remained ever-virgin.  It also teaches that conjugal love is essential to marriage for the purposes of unity and procreation.  Most of the 60-paged pastoral letter focuses on this.  Furthermore, doctrinal writings such as Humanae Vitae teach that the faithful should do nothing to render conceiving children impossible.  Thus the church considers physical intimacy a marital duty, not a privilege or optional activity.  It is considered so critical to marriage that refusal to have marital intimacy or to conceive children are grounds to nullify a marriage.  

Should Catholic couples really model their sexuality after Mary and Joseph by never having sexual relations?  Never having sex seems to interfere greatly with conceiving children. The only child they welcomed into their union was conceived out of wedlock.  Therefore, does the church consider Mary and Joseph’s marriage invalid since they never embarked upon their marital duty for purposes of unity or procreation? 

When you strip away romanticized, idealistic folklore inferred about the Holy Family, I see little practical example to follow and some examples to not follow.  Rather than chasing an idealized image of what God called somebody else to do, shouldn’t we focus on discerning what God actually calls each of us to do?

Was it through an umbilical cord that God intermingled with humanity?

Merry Christmas!  At Christmas we celebrate the incarnation, remembering when Jesus was born fully God and fully human. 

Being all-powerful, God could have just whipped up a god-man without involving the human biological processes of conception, pregnancy or neo-natal development.  But both the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds speak of Jesus being conceived through the union of the Holy Spirit with Mary.  The Nicene Creed further emphasizes human biological processes by adding the phrase “genitum non factum” or, “begotten not made”. 

The process of Jesus being “begotten not made” is so pivotal that Catholics weekly profess this belief while reciting the Nicene Creed.   Therefore, Catholics firmly believe Jesus was born because Mary’s egg was fertilized by the Holy Spirit, implanted into her uterine wall, nourished by Mary and grew into a baby over a normal nine-month human pregnancy.  Anything else would be “made not begotten” rather than “begotten not made”.

Catholic tradition also asserts Mary is the “Ark of the New Covenant”.  In the Old Testament, the ark housed the stone tablets containing the covenant and manna (bread).  Furthermore, the presence of God overshadowed the ark.  Because the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and her womb carried Jesus, the new bread of life and new covenant, Catholics refer to Mary as the “Ark of the New Covenant”.  This title is intended to be very respectful of Mary and her special role.

Referring to Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant dates back to at least the 3^rd century A.D. Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213 – 270) in his “Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary” called Mary, “the ark of thy sanctuary”. 

Athanasius of Alexandria (c.296-373) also wrote of Mary, “For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word?  To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin?  You are greater than them all O Ark of the Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold!  You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Though early theologians’ understanding of human reproductive biology (begetting) rivaled a toddler’s comprehension of nuclear physics, today’s Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2676) borrows words from these early writers. "Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is ‘the dwelling of God . . . with men’”.  To church leaders, Mary’s motherhood is as a “dwelling place”.

My questions arise when I consider a mother’s role in neo-natal development versus an ark’s role as a detached, inanimate box, a “dwelling place”.  Mary wasn’t an inanimate object nor was she detached from the child she carried.  That’s because a mother doesn’t just “carry” her child.  She contributes to the child: 50% of its DNA and 100% of its in-utero physical development.  The child she nurtures is literally a part of her. 

Not only does the mother nourish the child through the umbilical cord, her body will nourish her growing child first, leaving whatever nutrients remain for her own body.  If nutrition falls short, the mother will suffer first and the most.  Jesus fed the world but first he was fed by Mary.

Therefore, to me, it is degrading to Mary, motherhood and women to reduce her pregnancy to that of a passive receptacle, a “dwelling place”.   Detaching Jesus from the integration and intimacy between him and his mother that occurred during pre-natal development also seems to dehumanize Jesus. 

This teaching provides insight into church leaders’ views on women and their role in pregnancy.  They fixate upon the uterus passively housing a growing child and overlook the life-giving umbilical cord actively connecting mother and child, actively feeding and forming the child.  Perhaps it seems a subtlety, lost to someone who has never been pregnant, such as the entire Magisterial body of church hierarchs.  But a mother knows she actively interacts with and contributes to her in-utero child.  She is not a “dwelling place”.

Why do church leaders reduce Mary’s pregnancy to a passive “dwelling place”?  The Ark of the Covenant contributed nothing to the covenant itself yet Mary contributed significantly to Jesus, albeit all things she gave originated from God.  Why do church leaders seem to ignore the umbilical cord feeding Jesus from Mary’s own body?  Was it through the umbilical cord that God truly intermingled with, versus resided within, humanity during Jesus’ pre-natal formation?

A dwelling place is dispensable and replaceable because the living body inside the dwelling place surpasses it in importance.  Do church leaders believe women are dispensable, replaceable dwelling places of lesser importance than their in-utero children?  Have they reflected upon what it means to be “begotten not made” in light of modern understanding of human biology?

Thank you to the readers from all 16 countries that follow this blog.

Merry Christmas! 

Glædelig jul og godt nytår! (Danish)

Fröhliche Weihnachten! (German)

Joyeux Noël!  (French)

Prettige kerstdagen!  (Dutch)

Meri Kirihimete me ngā mihi o te tau hou ki a koutou katoa!  (Maori)

Karisama te nawāṃ sāla khušayāṃwālā hewe! (Punjabi)

Maligayang Pasko, Manigong bagong taon (Tagalog)

С Рождеством Христовым (Russian)

Selamat Hari Natal (Malay)

聖誕快樂 新年快樂 (Chinese)

Christmas matrum puthaandu vaazthukkal (Tamil)

Vesel božič in srečno novo leto (Slovenian)

Geseënde Kersfees  (Afrikaans)

jeulgeoun seongtanjeol bonaesigo saehae bok manhi bateusaeyo (Korean)

Schöni Wienachte (Swiss German)

Buon Natale (Italian)

Legreivlas fiastas da Nadal (Rumantsch)

Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda (Welsh)

Nollaig chridheil agus bliadhna mhath ùr (Scottish Gaelic)

Feliz Navidad! (Spanish)

Have delusions of self-virtue blinded church leaders from recognizing Jesus’ selection of a female apostle whose reputation resembles the early apostles’ … and their own?

My last blog post discussed logic fallacies used by the church, one of which was the “Red Herring” or introduction of irrelevant information into debate.  I cited this Red Herring used by church leaders: “Because Jesus didn’t appoint his mom, the most virtuous woman in history, as an apostle, he never intended any female apostles.” 

As I mentioned in my previous blog entry, accepting this Red Herring as relevant to the female ordination debate requires one to ignore Jesus selecting males who were despised (Paul and Matthew), denied him (Peter), disobeyed him (all of them) and betrayed him (Judas).  In that article, I forgot to mention he selected men who doubted him (Thomas, Nathanael), repeatedly misunderstood him (all of them) and were revolutionaries (Simon the Zealot).  He also selected men who were deluded with their own self-importance (James and John).

I think church leaders’ introduction of this Red Herring may provide insight into their opinion of themselves.  They assume that if Jesus appointed a female apostle, he would have chosen an extremely virtuous woman.  Do they believe themselves extremely virtuous men, to the point that only the most virtuous woman in history could be their equivalent?  This might lend some insight into church leaders’ true sense of humility.  Do they believe they are so “humble” as to equate themselves with the Virgin Mary’s greatness of humility, obedience, grace, perfection and purity? 

That might explain their indignation rather than abject humility as the world cries for their accountability.  It might explain their ruling and commanding like royalty rather than teaching as humble equals and servants.  It might explain decline in vocations as the truly humble might be repulsed by their attitudes and actions.  It might explain their unwillingness and inability to listen to the laity, especially women. 

Keep in mind the Apostle Paul was hated and feared by early Christians because he systematically, relentlessly and vigorously persecuted them for straying from orthodoxy.  In the eyes of early Christians, Paul’s character fell far below their standards. In a way, he represented the antithesis of Mary.

There is no male or female comparison in today’s society for someone as dangerous to Christians as Paul was in his day.  Perhaps Jezebel in the Old Testament is the closest to a biblical female version of Paul as she systematically, relentlessly and vigorously persecuted the prophets of Israel (1 Kings 18).  In the New Testament, the early apostles have a background more akin to Mary Magdalene, a reformed sinful woman than to Jesus’ mother Mary. 

Therefore, perhaps Jesus would have chosen to send as a female apostle someone more resembling Mary Magdalene than the Virgin Mary.  Oh wait, he did send Mary Magdalene with the most important news in salvation history: tidings of his resurrection.  However, church leaders choose to discredit this example of Jesus directly commissioning a female apostle by labeling her with the non-descript apostleship of “apostle to the apostles” (Mulieris Dignitatem).  Why?

Have delusions of self-virtue blinded church leaders from recognizing Jesus’ selection of a female apostle whose reputation resembles the early apostles’ … and their own?