Friday, January 19, 2018

Please fasten your seatbelts

Whenever Pope Francis gets on an airplane, interesting things seem to happen.  But the Holy Father's flight yesterday from Santiago to Iquique may have broken all previous interesting-pope-flight records, and shattered the awesome-Pope barrier for good measure.   CNN has the report:

As far as Catholic weddings go, it's pretty hard to beat being married by the Pope. On an airplane.  But that's what happened Thursday morning when Pope Francis married two flight attendants in an impromptu ceremony on his papal plane some 36,000 feet over Chile.



The article explains that the flight attendants already were civilly married, but their planned church wedding was derailed back in 2010 when an earthquake destroyed their church venue.   So the pope took care of it, on the spot.  He pulled over a witness from among the passengers, and personally did the honors as presider.  A cardinal in the Holy Father's travelling party hand-wrote a certificate of marriage, which can be seen here:



The teeny-tiny signature over "Celebrante" appears to simply say "Francisco".

A few miscellaneous thoughts:

My initial reaction, which I'm sure many people will share, is: "How cool is that?"  On its own merits, it's a wonderful story.

My second reaction is sort of perplexed admiration.  Not to go all chancery-bureaucrat on the Holy Father, but the fact is, Francis cut about a hundred corners, and broke one or two rules, in this little spur-of-the-moment tying of the knot.  If I were to run into a civilly-married couple at a ball game or in a tavern, or even on an airplane, they may wish me to marry them on the spot, and I may wish to do so, but I'm not permitted to do it right then and there.  The rule is, Catholic weddings have to take place in a Catholic church.  And for that to happen, a whole series of preparatory and paperwork hoops must be jumped through.  Any sort of dispensation from those rules has to come from an authority higher than me.  Now, if the pope doesn't have that dispensing authority, nobody does.  So no gripes from me if he gave himself a waiver.  But it would be even cooler if your humble servant and his fellow poor schlub deacons, not to mention priests, could have a little more flexibility, too.  Some people want to have their wedding in a Scottish castle, or on a Pacific beach as the sun sets, or in Disney World.  But, as a general rule, they can't, if they want it to be a Catholic wedding.  Certainly, rules tend to be in place for sound reasons.  But meeting people where they are also can be a sound pastoral strategy, and sad to say, among the places where young people likely aren't these days is inside a church.

My third reaction is that a damn-the-rules-full-speed-ahead approach, occasionally observable in Francis, is something that many people find admirable,  but which drives other people up the wall and around the bend - I suspect this difference in attitude is a big reason that so many other church officials clearly find Francis unsettling.  I suppose it depends on one's attitude toward rules.  Francis doesn't seem to get too hung up on them.  I wonder if he's sending a signal about rules and flexibility to clergy around the world?

At any rate, congratulations to the happy couple, Paula Podest Ruiz and Carlos Ciuffardi Elorriga.  And may God continue to bless the Argentinian independent thinker and instinctive media genius whom the Holy Spirit placed on Peter's chair - which on this particular flight presumably was somewhere in the first-class section.  As for us, we should put our tray tables upright and in the locked position, because when you get on a plane with Francis, turbulence is pretty much guaranteed.  You just might disembark a changed person.  Even married.

47 comments:

  1. I saw that news item, too. That will be a story to tell their grandchildren! Like you, I would like to see a little more flexibility on some things. For instance, yesterday evening my husband and I were discussing the latest deacon inservice he had attended. Seems one of the topics was giving a blessing if someone comes up in the Communion line with their arms crossed indicating they are not going to receive. The Word was, absolutely, positively, you may not give them a blessing! Not even the archbishop is allowed to, that is not the time for a blessing. And Lord help you if you are a lowly EMHC, you have no faculties for a blessing anyway. I always thought the blessing had been a nice way to finesse situations such as a Protestant relative who came with one to Mass, or a way to include those people who have situations such as a civil marriage. Of course the pope did that one better, he just convalidated the civil marriage. But we were talking about evangelization in the previous thread. Doubling down on picky rulz and regs like blessings in the Communion line is not good evangelization. It's a good way to turn people off of wanting to know more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know which (arch)diocese you are in (Madison? Rockford? Lincoln? Hades?) but out here on the left coast, even in Sal the Pal's hegemony, this kind of a blessing by clerics and EHMCs is very commonplace.

      Delete
    2. Jim McC., we're in the Omaha archdiocese. This blessing was also very common here until lately. I don't know why all of a sudden it became an issue. A lot of deacons and priests do a "work-around", they pronounce a non-blessing such as "May God be with you".

      Delete
    3. Apparently the directive originates from a document of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium:
      " 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
      2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
      3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority."

      Delete
  2. Katherine - I couldn't agree more. We need a lot less finger-wagging and a lot more freedom to meet the moment. Francis's example is powerful in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Didn't we just have the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath and Jesus correcting their critics? We did. It was Tuesday. And of course if the pope witnesses the marriage of two people who are civilly married but not (through no fault of their own) in church, won't the skydiving priest witness midair weddings with flying photographers and the whole nine yards? Won't we have priests transubstantiating a bakery (the welfare queen of post-Vat II urban legends)? Surely we will.

    But look at it this way: Civilly married, and therefore together in their own eyes, they were probably going to sin that very night if the pope hadn't intervened so they could have their sex with benefit of marriage. He was ensuring the keeping of Church Law, not flouting it. Even Fr. Z would have to agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom - Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that Carlos the flight attendant was married previously and didn't have a decree of nullity. That's one of the corner-cutting items I had in mind. So then, in that hypothetical set of circumstances, what would we make of the pope's pastoral improvisation?

      Delete
    2. Well, I am not a deacon -- although, like you, I can hear confessions. But it seems to me that it would be Carlos's sin if he married without a decree of nullity. I imagine there will be a lot of sacraments that have to be performed without benefit of a baptismal certificate as a result of the earthquake if it took out churches. Sometimes we have to take people's word for it.
      Like when we hear confessions. Too bad we can't give absolution. Yet.

      Delete
    3. There are a lot of times when people are on the honor system. Confession and Communion are two sacraments where that is true. If they don't act with honor, I'd agree with Tom that the sin is on them.

      Delete
  4. Well when it comes to rules, I suspect that Francis learned what I learned when I was in Jesuit Novitiate about the same year.

    You always presume permission! Nothing should get in the way of the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tom: "Well, I am not a deacon -- although, like you, I can hear confessions."

    I have not been to confession in 30+ years, so I am definitely out of date on the practice.

    But I was not aware that anyone other than a priest could hear confessions in the RCC. Has that changed?

    Tom, are you a priest? I know Jim is a deacon, but while deacons can do some things priests do, I had not thought that they can hear confessions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anne, your understanding is correct. Tom was being wry, or tongue-in-cheek, or something :-). Although people do say the darndest things to me ...

      Delete
    2. Anne, As soon as I got engaged I started hearing confessions. People who won't tell their sins to a priest tell their sins to me. Unfortunately, I cannot give them sacramental absolution, and neither can Jim. Actually, if he could, I think it would be almost worth it for me to make a trip to Chicago.

      Delete
  6. What do you all make of another Francis story:

    "Pope Francis accused victims of Chile’s most notorious pedophile of slander, an astonishing end to a visit meant to help heal the wounds of a sex abuse scandal that has cost the Catholic Church its credibility in the country.

    "Francis said that until he sees proof that Bishop Juan Barros was complicit in covering up the sex crimes of the Rev. Fernando Karadimas, such accusations against Barros are “all calumny.”

    http://religionnews.com/2018/01/18/pope-shocks-chile-by-accusing-sex-abuse-victims-of-slander/

    Francis has asked for proof of a cover-up or complicity. Is there any? Other than the guilty till proven innocent that wracks so many sexual assault/ harassment cases these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there any proof? I don't know. But do false accusations ever happen? We know that they do; think of Cardinal Bernardin.

      Delete
    2. It's difficult to explain. Refusing to meet with victims? It just doesn't sound like Francis.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/world/americas/pope-sex-abuse-chile.html

      Delete
    3. Jim, I wish he had met with the victims, even if he didn't think they had a case.

      Delete
    4. Agree with Katherine. The problem here seems to what the victims of a priest think about the priest's bishop. I don't know what evidence they have, but the guy they are complaining about is one step up from the guy who victimized them. Being a victim does not give anyone the right to launch broadside attacks without evidence, and if there is evidence, you don't have to be a victim to attack. But what we don't know is the evidence.

      That said, a bishop or a pope is among last people in the world with standing to use muscle against victims.

      Delete
    5. He apologized to the victims. Did he not meet with them? Cites?

      Delete
    6. NYTimes: "Francis began his visit to Chile on Tuesday morning by publicly apologizing for the sexual abuse involving the clergy, saying he felt “pained and ashamed” over the “irreparable damage” done to their victims. But he refused to meet with victims of Father Karadima."

      Delete
    7. In a previous comment, I had stated that Francis refused to meet with victims. I had based that comment on what was reported in the NY Times story (link in the previous comment). That story stated the following:

      "Francis began his visit to Chile on Tuesday morning by publicly apologizing for the sexual abuse involving the clergy, saying he felt “pained and ashamed” over the “irreparable damage” done to their victims. But he refused to meet with victims of Father Karadima."

      However, please note the following notice from the Vatican Press Office (h/t CatholicCulture.org):

      "The Holy Father Francis met after lunch today in the apostolic nunciature of Santiago with a small group of victims of sexual abuse by priests. The meeting was of a strictly private nature. No-one else was present: only the Pope and the victims. This was so that they were able to recount their sufferings to Pope Francis, who listened, prayed and wept with them."

      http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/01/16/180116c.html

      Are these two reports contradictory? They can be squared with one another if we note that the NYT reporters stated that Francis refused to meet with victims *of Fr. Karadina* (who is the most notorious Chilean abuser). Perhaps Francis met with other victims.

      Delete
    8. Peggy, looks like we covered some of the same territory in our recent comments - I hadn't refreshed my screen before typing my most recent, so didn't see yours until I had hit the Publish button.

      Delete
  7. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/19/pope-shocks-chile-accusing-sex-abuse-victims-slander/1047179001/
    “Isn’t the pastoral problem that we’re living (in Osorno) enough to get rid of him?” Claret asked. The reference was to the fact that — guilty or not — Barros has been unable to do his job because so many Osorno Catholics and priests don’t recognize him as their bishop. They staged an unprecedented protest during his 2015 installation ceremony and have protested his presence ever since.

    Back in the old days a bishop was elected by people shouting "He is worthy!" In my view there are two things that make a bishop legitimate: one is the pope's nomination letter, and the other is the assembly's applause during the installation Mass, signaling that the people find that "he is worthy". In the case of Barros, that second thing is missing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The first paragraph was a quote, the second was my comment

    ReplyDelete
  9. "When reports of sexual abuse and other scandal surrounding Father Karadima surfaced, Bishop Barros was among the prelates who did not believe the accusations. "(http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-chile-visit-revives-allegations-against-bishop)

    What does that suggest about his discernment for being a good bishop?

    Pope Francis intensely dislikes gossip, rumors and calumny. He lacks the sensitivity towards the sex abuse scandal that is needed in a church that has been traumatized.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Canonist Ed Peters writes at the canon law blog In the Light of the Law. In this post, he raises, in a much more scholarly and systematic way than I did (or could have) the schoolmarmish concerns I mentioned about corner-cutting and rule-breaking in the original post.

    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/thoughts-on-a-mid-air-marriage/

    In a follow-up post, he further pursues some of those canonical concerns, and also reports that the event may not have been as spontaneous as suggested in the initial news stories.

    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/19/the-mid-air-marriage-gets-muddier/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I misread your first sentence and thought it said "Cartoonist Ed Peters," so I am scrapping my original comment. :p

      I have to say the whole thing sounds like a "stunt" to me. One doesn't expect the pope to pull stunts. The story is clickbait fodder.

      I also agree with Claire that "he lacks the sensitivity towards the sex abuse scandal that is needed in a church that has been traumatized."

      Delete
    2. I am sorry to miss your original comment - I think a cartoonist canonist could make that field a good deal more interesting.

      If I were in Francis's shoes (God forbid!) I would skip all dicasteries and special committees. I would delegate responsibility for investigating sex-abuse allegations and making recommendations for further action to a handpicked lieutenant whose own background on matters of sex abuse is irreproachable, who has investigatory and prosecutorial skills, who has credibility with the law enforcement community, and who has zeal for pursuing miscreants, bringing them to light, removing them from church positions, and helping to bring about healing. He would have the kind of personality and approach that would make church officials tremble when he appears at their door. It doesn't have to be a bishop or priest, but it should be someone with experience navigating the church. A lay Catholic, perhaps with a background in law enforcement or prosecution, could work.

      I would make it known to church officials and leaders around the world that this lieutenant has my full faith and confidence, and any lack of cooperation on their part will be reported to me and would have immediate repercussions. Then I would unleash him and let the chips fall where they may. And I'd get on with the business of running the church.

      Delete
    3. Yeah. That's the way to go. I can see you, Jim, stepping out onto the balcony after the dean says "habemus papam." Don't forget to wave.

      Delete
    4. From Peters: "If I have to say it, I will: I hope Podest and Ciuffardi are married and that they live happily ever after, but I worry whenever momentous life decisions are taken on a minute’s notice and under circumstances bound to contribute to one’s being carried away by events."

      They have been married civilly for several years. They hardly made a life decision on the spur of the moment. I realize that the rules are different for those of us married civilly BEFORE turning Catholic than those who are married civilly AS Catholics.

      Someone in our RCIA group was converting. Her husband was baptized a Catholic to mollify his grandparents, and hadn't been taken into a church since he was an infant. They were married by a Methodist.

      The Church Ladies went haywire, saying that she could not have the kids baptized nor be received because her husband was a Catholic and therefore the marriage invalid. And if they could not be baptized, they could not raise their children in the faith.

      Is there a way for Catholics to accommodate the mess of real life without sacrificing the spirit of their teaching about marriage?

      Delete
    5. Maybe the way is to be as Catholic pope and not as anally retentive as the local canon lawyer.

      Delete
  11. Question: I wonder if Francis's demand for evidence about Bishop Barros reflects his own experience of being accused when a Jesuit provincial of conspiring with the Argentine government to arrest two young Jesuits? The two refused his order to leave the country and instead stayed in a community center in (Buenos Aires?) where they were arrested and subsequently tortured. As I recall, Bergoglio's (Francis) innocence was later established and he was said to have worked to free the two. They then left the country. There may still be people (including Jesuits) who believe he was guilty of collusion. Does Francis still feel the sting of the charges?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I bet it does. So what can we do about it?

      Delete
    2. "WE" don't know about "we." I know that it makes me think about the problem of "guilty until proven innocent."

      The whole Chile episode is news to me, so I have no basis for choosing one side or the other (or even a third side, if there is one!). The perverse editorial part of my brain is struck by the readiness of Francis-loving-Catholics to accept the media view that he has betrayed the victims and his "liberal" tendencies. My local paper editorializes in high dudgeon today as well as repeating the "fact" that he refused to meet with victims. We have had info on this site that he did meet privately with some victims. That doesn't count? It isn't true? The Times might at least have said as is its wont: 'Francis allegedly met with some victims'!

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/opinion/pope-victims-chile.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials&action=click&contentCollection=editorials&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

      Delete
    3. It's not a one-time event. Since he has become pope, he has been very quick to get rid of abusers, but very slow to act against people guilty of cover-ups.

      Regarding verifying, asking for proofs, letting justice run its course, not jumping to conclusions, etc, I am not sure about his attitude regarding accusations of abuse (maybe it depends on the country and the context), but regarding accusations of cover-ups or other misdeeds around abusers he seems to ignore those accusations.

      He does not seem to believe that there is responsibility for other individuals beyond the individual abusers. He does not seem to "get" the systemic aspect.

      As to meeting with victims, or not: Pope Benedict had many years of going through folders every Friday , to form an image of abuse in the church. Pope Francis has no such experience, and a few meetings with victims every now and then is not going to make him aware that there are problems beyond the members of the clergy who are abusers.

      Delete
  12. Claire: "Back in the old days a bishop was elected by people shouting "He is worthy!" In my view there are two things that make a bishop legitimate: one is the pope's nomination letter, and the other is the assembly's applause during the installation Mass, signaling that the people find that "he is worthy". In the case of Barros, that second thing is missing."

    Maybe Barros should resign his office in recognizing that the people do not accept him. He could still insist, if he does, on his innocence, but act for the good of the local church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Makes me think a little of the situation of Bishop Okpaleke in Nigeria, who was actually appointed by Pope Benedict, but not accepted by the priests of the diocese because he was from the wrong tribe. Pope Francis insisted that the priests accept him, by virtue of their promise of obedience and under pain of excommunication. I see his point because the bishop has done nothing wrong and opposition to him seems to be rooted in prejudice. However, if it is impossible for him to do his job, then it hurts the Church and the people he is supposed to lead. It would probably be better if he stepped aside.

      Delete
    2. Maybe they are afraid of where that might lead. What if people get the idea that if they don't want a bishop, they can make him resign by making their displeasure loud and public? Then there is no predicting where the laity might next take that idea.

      Delete
  13. Wow, Margaret. Making personal sacrifice for the unity of the Church and peace within it. Now that's an innovative idea, especially for the hierarchy. I really wish I could see an act of heartfelt repentance and truth from these hierarchs, even just one of them. That I can't remember one makes me wonder if these guys have any of that apostolic charism that they're supposed to maintain in this world through the centuries.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Replies
    1. I hadn't heard about the incident of Francis (as a Jesuit provincial) having been accused of collusion with the government, resulting in two young Jesuits being arrested and tortured. Of course experiencing a false accusation such as that would make one reluctant to make someone else a victim, absent some very convincing evidence. I see that Cardinal Sean O'Malley has made a statement indirectly critical of what Pope Francis said. It looks to me like he (Pope Francis) may have let a personal experience get in the way of his objectivity in dealing with this situation. Too bad there isn't an "undo" button to click.

      Delete
    2. OR maybe he let his personal experience hold him back from jumping to a conclusion for which he (apparently) has seen no evidence.

      Delete
  15. There is testimony (I'm using that term in its colloquial sense, but it's possible it may also be fitting in the legal sense) that Barros actually was present during some of Karadima's episodes of abuse.

    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.4491266/why-this-chilean-abuse-survivor-refuses-to-accept-pope-francis-apology-1.4491284

    Among the things that I struggle to make sense of is that a series of churches apparently have been torched. The CBC story to which I've linked above seems to imply that they have been torched by anti-Barros protesters. But this Christianity Today article states that the church arsons are being committed by radical members of an indigenous group, the Mapuche.

    https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/january/why-chile-churches-firebomb-attacks-pope-francis-mapuche.html

    Perhaps the two groups - anti-Barros protesters, and Mapuche activists - aren't entirely mutually exclusive? I hesitate to comment much because there are things about this story that I'm still trying to fit into a coherent explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is hard to believe that Barros would have been present during some of Karadina's episodes of abuse. Pope Francis obviously believes that that is slander, that the victim making that accusation is confused, and that a single testimony does not constitute a proof. No wonder that victim is angry that he is not being heard. And pope Francis, who very visibly has Barros by his side, won't meet with that victim. Not a good situation...

      Delete
    2. More information on an old article by Austen Ivereigh
      https://www.ncronline.org/news/parish/controversial-chilean-bishops-appointment-continues-divide-diocese

      "... it became clear that the Vatican would press ahead with the installation of Juan Barros Madrid as Osorno's new bishop, a move as unpopular with Chile's other bishops as it was with the clergy and laypeople of the diocese."

      "Most of Chile's bishops stayed away -- something unheard of at a bishop's installation Mass -- including its two cardinals."

      "In letters to Rome via the nuncio over many weeks, 30 of Osorno's 41 priests and 1,500 of its lay Catholics made the same point: Barros' baggage made him unsuitable to lead a diocese."

      "No canonical or civil case has ever been brought against Barros. But the Catholics of Osorno say the baggage he brings objectively disqualifies him in canon law from being their shepherd.

      They point to his being cited in the victims' testimonies as having been present during sexual acts. One of the victims, Juan Carlos Cruz, describes in detail how Barros himself was part of Karadima's sex games. Later, as secretary to the then-cardinal archbishop of Santiago, Juan Fresno, Cruz and others said Barros covered up for Karadima by destroying correspondence.

      None of these allegations has been the subject of an inquiry, and Barros denies them, saying that the first he knew of Karadima's abuse was in 2010. Yet the weight of testimonial evidence, upheld by Chile's courts, is hard to ignore."

      Delete
    3. Thank you. Quite a detailed account of events in 2015.

      Some further paras. in the story:

      "What is the pope up to? The transfer of Barros to Osorno appears to torpedo a number of his objectives. Imposing Barros over the local bishops flies in the face of collegiality, and steamrollering a small diocese in southern Chile does little for restoring the voice of the margins. Ignoring the claims of abuse victims, meanwhile, undercuts the pope's own Commission for the Protection of Minors, which has energetically complained to Francis via its chairman, Cardinal Sean O'Malley.

      "One answer is that the pope's hands were tied. Barros, already a bishop and legally innocent, had to be given a diocese. If Francis had suspended him, the guns would soon be out for the three other bishops who were close to Karadima in their time.

      "Alternatively, it was a deliberate, personal decision by the pope, who met Barros at the end of February for an hour. Barros had spent the previous month in a Madrid retreat led by a Jesuit close to Francis, Fr. Germán Arana Beorlegui, who was reported to be satisfied.

      "Whatever the explanation, Francis appears discerned and in full possession of the facts, following energetic efforts by Ezzati to dissuade him."

      Note the Jesuit connection in Spain.

      The story also describes Kardima as the head of an association of priests. Opus-Dei-like? Or a confraternity of like-minded clergy?

      Do we begin to see the virtues of a well-organized and respected history of prosecutorial independence and accountability in Chile and in the Vatican?

      N.B. somewhat off-target. Argentina still struggles to prosecute (or at least name) those responsible for the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires. Was the latest prosecuotor murdered or suicided? Who will ever know? about the explosion of the center 24 years ago, or the most recent event that stymies the effort to resolve it? Conspiracy theories abound.

      Delete
  16. Now Cardinal O'Malley has entered the fray. If nothing else, getting friendly fire that really is friendly ought to be a pleasant change for Francis after the dubia boys. I wonder if the Vatican will ever be able to get back to mumbling against the pope but making big public shows of agreeing with his every word.

    It has been years since I knew people who knew Chile inside out. But I do think the current situation ought to have one highly overpaid consultant to the Great feeling remorse at involving the U.S. in overthrowing Salvador Allende in 1973 for being a socialist -- just like the governments of the white Scandinavian states which are now Mar-a-Lago's models for what we should be again.

    ReplyDelete