Tuesday, October 1, 2019

Bishop Barron: To the barricades


 I read Bishop Robert Barron’s Letter to a Suffering Church today. I mentioned earlier that it was the subject of the homily at my church last Sunday and will be again for the next four Sundays, and that they were handing out copies last week.

 This morning I got a nudge from one of the Dominican Associates. She said she earlier had bought copies for her group, and one of the members, a Dominican sister, gave it back to her and said it was “too dark and depressing.”

 That bad?

 I thought I had better read it quickly.




 I’d say dark, in spots, but not depressing unless perhaps to someone who hasn’t been paying attention and can be surprised.

 Yes, Barron does compare the current hierarchy to the Old Testament priest Eli, who ignored his sons’ reprobate misbehavior until they managed to lose the Ark of the Covenant in a war with the Philistines, and when he was told, he fell off his bench and – deservedly the O.T. and Barron imply – broke his neck. That might be considered dark.



 Barron divides the book into five chapters. The first is about how bad it was, with examples. And then came the case of Theodore McCarrick, and it got worse.

 But there are precedents, starting with the aforementioned Eli, and running through the New Testament. That is Chapter 2. Chapter 3, which might have plunged that Dominican sister into the Slough of Despond, considers which of the bad popes was the worst. Barron leans toward John XII, who died in mid-coitus “either from apoplexy or the murderous hand of an offended rival.” But he adds some of the other candidates.

  “The Church, from the very beginning and at every point in its development, has been marked to varying degrees by sin, scandal, stupidity, misbehavior, misfortune and wickedness,” he sums up.

  In Chapter 4 he arrives at the “stay or go” question, having provided plenty of evidence and some sympathy for readers choosing “go.” For the “yes” side, he offers “not a detailed theological treatise but rather a hymn, a poem, a celebration.” What follows is a listing of all the things regular Catholics have always liked about the Church, meaning there is no mention of canon law, dogmatic theology, papal bulls, Roman dicasteries or regulations for the reception of sacraments. It’s about sacraments and the communion/example of saints.

 If that is still worth fighting for, he leads the reader to a chapter on going to the barricades. Much of it is good, reminding readers of their rights and what they have been promised, but most of it won’t please the one-issue solvers of the current problems.

 In a neat move, he mentions that the Roman cultural order was collapsing on Europe in the Sixth Century, and St. Benedict founded the Benedictines; the clergy was “marked by corruption, laxity and worldliness” in the late 12th-early 13th Centuries, and Francis came along and founded the Franciscans; the Protestant Reformation brought about Inigo Loyola and the Jesuits, and:

 “Somewhere in the Church there is a new Benedict, a new Francis, a new Ignatius, a new Teresa of Kolkata, a new Dorothy Day. This is your time!”

 Waiting for the Holy Spirit to provide is not going to satisfy anyone who wants juridical reform of the installation of a trans-gendered pope. But Barron has history on his side when he treats hope as something more than waiting for Godot.

 Barron also will lose a few readers in the beginning, where he casts the devil as the playwright for what the Church is undergoing, but. But he blames the prelates and priests who learned their lines and acted out their moves; he doesn’t say the devil made them do it. And by the midpoint in the book, the devil theory doesn’t seem quite as medieval as when it is introduced.



 The Letter is a long letter but a short book. Barron wraps it up in 105 pages.

 I was not scandalized, but I knew the old stories and had been following the current one. The book probably will reassure Catholics who know only what they hear and have other sacks of rocks to carry in life.
 I was never much enthusiastic about the spotless Church of Gold, Smoke and Glory. In grade school, the pastor annually gave the school the day off on the parish saint’s feast day. One year, some third or fourth grader told him he was going to do that, and so he didn’t give us the day off just to teach us not to be presumptuous. I found the pastor unjust in punishing us all for one guilty kid, and I also sensed the sisters felt the same way. So I never swooned for popes or bishops. Or monsignori, for that matter. I say to them, put up or shut up.

That’s about where Barron ends up.


34 comments:

  1. Since other christian churches also have sacraments and a "communion of saints", why is that enough to stay Catholic?

    Does belief in church teachings matter at all to being Catholic?

    Does having trust in the leadership - both on the lived-life level (nobody wants their kids left alone with priests anymore) or trust in the validity of the teachings that comes from these untrustworthy people mean anything to Barron? Or is beautiful music, and Renaissance art in overgilded Cathedrals enough for him?

    Or maybe it's all the cultural identity stuff - people want their kid to get dressed up and have a First Communion party, and they like Advent wreaths and saints festivals at their parishes, and other RC cultural customs.

    I really don't see why Barron saying "well, the church has always been corrupt so get over it" is a reason to stay. To me it's like Trump supporters telling the "resistance" that all politicians are crooks and they should support Trump because they think he's responsible for the lower unemployment rate and a "great economy" - when I bring up the lying and cheating and corruption, and misogny, and anti-christian treatment of the poor and refugees etc - just supposed to "get over it".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Complacency

    Thinking about this reminded me of Jim's homily on complacency - which IMHO is the best of the homilies he's shared with us.

    One of the things that drove me out of the RCC was the complacency of the people in the pews about multiple wrongs in the RCC, but especially related to the sex abuse scandal. So many seemed to think that they are NOT part of a church "communion of saints" that is universal. The attitude very often was highly individualistic with little concern for their fellow Catholics- "Well it didn't happen to my kid. It didn't happen in my parish And I really like our parish. The priest is a great guy and tells great stories in his homilies. The kids enjoy CYO, and some of the liturgies have great music. I like the traditions and I like being Catholic, so I'm just going to continue on in my comfortable complacency. If it happens to my kid, though, then I'll sue".

    Some Americans say "My country, right or wrong". But many of us don't share that view and so we work to change what we see as wrong, just as young Greta is doing.

    As citizens, we have a voice, we have a vote, and we contribute time and money to causes and groups and politicians whom we believe share those values and will work to achieve them.

    According to the official teachings, the RC "church" is the 1 billion+ people who have been baptized in the RC. But most people don't use the word that way - when someone says "the church teaches" they mean the very small group of male individuals who govern the church and who define all of its teachings, with no input at all from the 1 billion who are supposed to be the church. They count on complacency in the pews to support them - literally support the male celibates with everything necessary to live - housing, food, etc, and support the parishes, and support the luxuries enjoyed by those at the peak - the mansions of some bishops, the 5 star meals, the luxuries that too many of the hierarchy assume as their right. Even while they betray the people who pay for it all by protecting priests who molest their children, hide their own sins from the people, and fight every attempt at transparency as hard as Trump does.

    The laity are limited in their actions to attempt to undo the lying and corruption that has brought the institutional church to its present state - they can shut their wallets or they can leave or they can do both.

    Barron and the rest of them don't want that of course. They want the people in the pews to continue to be complacent. Besides, all the devil's fault, so why withdraw support from the men who run the institution that hid these crimes?

    In the non-church world, people gather together and have protests, or walk-outs and sometimes their voices are heard. These climate action kids are being heard around the world.

    But Barron and others tell Catholics that they shouldn't take any actions at all - they should just continue to go to mass, pray, and, most importantly, cough up those donations every Sunday. Waiting for another Benedict or Francis to defeat the corruption is a bit like waiting for the fairy godmother to appear and make everything right again.

    So, as long as Catholics are complacent, and write those checks, and dutifully sit in the pews, nothing will change.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tom, thanks for this synopsis. Based on your description, this seems pretty good. It could certainly be much worse!

    It seems that Barron has decided - correctly, in my opinion - that one key to the church starting the long, long slog to rebuilding credibility is to tell the truth.

    And he doesn't let go of the imperative to evangelize.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Further to what Anne said:
    Many years ago Greg and I were attending a non-denominational church in San Francisco. A new pastor came on board and alienated many of us. 200 hired a new pastor and rented our own worship space. The new pastor was a former Mormon, then Episcopalian, and finally non-denominational.
    Very early on he let it be known that we had hired him to deal with the spiritual and pastoral matters. Our job was to deal with the temporal matters. We were about 40% former Catholic/Episcopalian/Lutheran. The rest were Heinz 57. I was elected to the first board of directors. After 2 meetings I complained to the pastor that the finance chair was not giving us meaningful data. I was quickly “invited” to take on that responsibility, i.e., put up or shut up.
    To keep a long story manageable, those of us with a “pew potato” background quickly learned that if adult behavior is expected, said behavior is usually lived. Some of THE most active (and best financial supporters) were former Catholics.
    Complacency is quickly overcome if the only alternative is dissolution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am not sure about the new Mother Teresa or Dorothy Day schtick.

    I think you're fortunate to find a parish--regardless of denomination--in which there are two or three people who inspire you to love God and others. That's sacramental to me. That's living in the Communion of Saints.

    I no longer really care about anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just a few random thoughts; about Tom's post and some of the comments. I may give the book a try now. Originally I hadn't planned to, because I thought it would just be same-old, same-old. But it sounds like Archbishop Barron actually gets some of the problem. One place I am prepared to disagree with him is that I expect he will really double down on the "bad catechesis" thing. So many times I have read that people would stay engaged with the church in greater numbers if teachings were just 'splained to them better. This implies that it's mostly a "head" problem, which I don't believe. It's a "heart" problem. There was a book a few years back called "He Just Isn't That Into You". I think a lot of people "just aren't into" the church anymore, and all the book knowledge in the world isn't going to change that.
    Which brings me to why I stay. I guess I am "into" it. It's where I find a relationship with God (but not the only place). Yes, I know other churches have the Word of God, sacraments, and community. But there isn't a one of them that doesn't have problems, too. I don't think that the church gets enough credit for the strides we have made in making sure that everyone is safe, and that we don't enable offenders. The number of reported incidents have dropped dramatically since the Dallas Charter and subsequent safeguards have been put in place.
    About the hierarchy, yes there have been some bad ones, but most are not. They don't own the church (even the good ones don't). I'm darned if I'm going to excommunicate myself for their sins.
    About saints being raised up in every age, I believe that is true, canonized and not. It has been the case all along. We probably know some of them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So much said so far. I want to get back into this later today. But to Katherine's point about bad catechesis, I don't think the word appears in the book. Barron really seems to be in it for what Anne calls the "beautiful music, and Renaissance art in overgilded Cathedrals," although he'd call it something like "mystery and awe." I have to say I am no fan of Renaissance art (I don't believe Mary looked anything like any of those artists' mistresses) but I do dig the music.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I'm not mistaken, Barron sees sacred arts - not only painting and music, but also literature - as portals to the divine. I believe that his Word on Fire ministry is premised at least in part on this: beauty is an analogue to - and an expression of - what is good.

      Delete
    2. Didn't Pope Benedict say something similar about Catholicism having its saints and its art to offer the world?

      Delete
    3. I hadn't heard that about Benedict, but that is very interesting.

      I haven't seen much of an art-loving streak in Francis so far. I also suspect that his idea of a saint may not track perfectly with the more traditional, Eurocentric notions.

      Delete
    4. Tom, I'm glad to heat that he wasn't preaching about "better catechesis". Because that dog won't hunt. I will have to see if our library has the book. I just buy books I want to keep, and I'm not sure this one is a "keeper".

      Delete
    5. Yes, Benedict also had the saints and art theory, too. They were both influence by Von Balthasar on the beauty issue. The importance of the saints was stressed by Karl Rahner and Congar. Rahner point out that the church is much more in the business of canonizing saints than doctrine. "every saint is a new example of a way to imitate Christ." Congar said " each saint's life is a commentary on scripture."

      Delete
  9. A little bit more on the bishop and me. Like Anne, I didn't warm up to him over "Catholicism." For one thing, he opened that series with Cardinal George on the pope's balcony, reflecting on the death of the Roman Empire and the victory of the Church. Leading by making your boss out to be a deep thinker is always a good career move. Plus, Barron looks and talks like the kid whose parents bought him a BMW for his 16th birthday. He can't help it, but the subliminal comparison is a block for me.

    OTOH, one of his fans has quoted him on more than one occasion saying, "If you want someone to like baseball, you don't begin by trying to explain the infield fly rule." That tracked with my own experience. A friend was entertaining a young lady from Spain and wanted to take her to a baseball game. Having spent most of his formative years in England, he knew cricket but baseball? Nada. So he dragged me along to Veterans Stadium (Philadelphia) to explain. In left field for the Phillies was Greg Luzinski, a/k/a "The Bull," and when Luzinski came to bat, the organist played the usual bullfight music. This created an immediate bond, and she watched and understood the game through Luzinski. She left as a beginning baseball fan, and I never had to explain the infield fly rule.

    A lot of Catholics have their own, personal Luzinski somewhere, and things that upset Anne and others never even swim into their mental pool. No one ever explained transubstantiation to them, and it wouldn't matter if someone did. So the bishop and I agree on that.

    I was 30 before I believed God gave a hoot about what happens in His universe, and it took me another maybe 20 more years to realize my brilliant mind can't control anything that is really important. Another 10 years and I discovered what we put under the catchall "spirituality" and found Merton, Catherine of Sienna, John of the Cross, etc. (None of them, by the way, depended on the Church's infield fly rules, although some were irritated by hierarchs trying to apply them.)

    Barron's take on the Church fits neatly into my own late-life approach. But I can see why he is a turnoff for some.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Plus, Barron looks and talks like the kid whose parents bought him a BMW for his 16th birthday. He can't help it, but the subliminal comparison is a block for me."

      That is very funny!

      Re: how the church evangelizes: one of my own little idiosyncratic views is: don't evangelize by putting priests in Roman collars on television. Most people who aren't immersed in the church already would find that, by turns, strange, exotic, and/or off-putting. That's my guess, anyway.

      Delete
    2. Well, Jim, all I can say is you shoulda been around for Bishop Sheen with his red beanie, red cape and piercing eyes. Not just for his theology did American women watch him more some weeks than they did Milton Berle.

      Delete
  10. Off the subject, HuffPost is jumping the shark today with shock jock headlines. They'll lose what credibility they had as a news source if they're not careful.

    ReplyDelete
  11. When I read some of the comments of the "true believers" here I still wonder what role official Catholic teachings play in all of this? Since Tom thinks that few care about them (transubstaniation etc), then why does the RCC bother to even teach this stuff? Why have a 1000 page catechism (required reading textbook in my older sons' Catholic high school). And if the RCC really doesn't think that it's important -that only spirituality such as Merton end others have written about (which does speak to me as Barron does not), then why be Catholic at all? I know a whole lot of not-Catholic christians who are Merton fans, and John of the Cross fans, and Julian of Norwich fans. Similarly, many other christian churches have beautiful music and art, and dare I say it, even literature. So.....why be Catholic except for the cultural factors?

    Re Barron's approach - he doesn't use the word "catechesis" here - just says the faith has been dumbed down.

    https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/catholic-church-should-focus-getting-nones-back-bishop-barron-says

    "For every one person joining our church today, 6.45 are leaving" ......church leaders don't need to speculate about why people are leaving because there are plenty of studies ...that answer this. The No. 1 reason...is that they simply no longer believe the church's teachings, primarily its doctrinal beliefs.

    In his opinion,..this is "a bitter fruit of the dumbing-down of our faith" as it has been presented in catechesis and apologetics.


    I am not a huge fan of Michael Sean Winters, but I agree with his assessment of Barron. https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/barrons-idea-evangelization-nones-misses-mark

    A friend likes to say that John Paul II was a Platonist, that for him if you believed rightly you were the virtuous person. It was this that allowed him to remain blind to the inadequacies and moral failures of many of his collaborators: They believed the right things.

    I am not sure if that same Platonist designation could be applied to Barron. It might be that he is just a huckster setting out the rationale to buy his videos and books and whatever else he is selling ... Call me dumbed down, but it is this kind of evangelizing approach that turns off a lot of people, people for whom the witness of Christians so compromises the Christian narrative, that they cease to believe. It [has]a whiff of Elmer Gantry about it.

    Barron went on to speak about relativism and anytime someone bemoans relativism and does not mention materialism, you know you are in the presence of a culture warrior.


    And in another column

    Pope Francis, speaking in Paraguay in 2015 said, "How many times do we see evangelization as involving any number of strategies, tactics, maneuvers, techniques, as if we could convert people on the basis of our own arguments. Today the Lord says to us quite clearly: ...you do not convince people with arguments, strategies or tactics." Austen Ivereigh, commenting on the pope's remarks, said, "This Pelagianism of methods — evinced in a certain triumphalism in some apologetics — is one obstacle to evangelizing." I couldn't agree more. I am sure that Barron's apologetical style appeals to a certain kind of person, but I think it repels as many or more than it attracts.

    https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/black-friday-and-bodybuilders-bishop-barrons-crass-tactics-mimic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anne - my personal view is that, when evangelizing to someone who is not a believer and knows little or nothing about Christianity, instructing them about Transubstantiation is the wrong approach. There is plenty of time to talk about that, but it's not the card I would lead with.

      Delete
    2. Jim, Barron was talking about evangelizing the 6.45 who leave the RCC for every one who joins. So he's not really talking about those who know little about Christianity. Or about Catholicism for that matter. They do know - but they don't accept many "doctrines". It seems that Catholic doctrine is a strong factor that n the loss of all those once-Catholics. Not a group that is unfamiliar with Christianity. It is likely that his approach would simply be a big turnoff to those who are already disaffected.

      Delete
  12. Tom: I have to say I am no fan of Renaissance art (I don't believe Mary looked anything like any of those artists' mistresses)

    LOL! Right - it is highly unlikely that Mary was a fair skinned, blue-eyed blond. Or that Jesus had European looks instead of looking like a typical first century Jewish man.

    Some of the articles I've read on this subject note that these portraits, that all of us have grown up with, say much more about our own culture than about Jesus, Mary and their culture.

    I have wondered how many white, evangelicals would be as committed as they are if the portrait of Jesus in their bible study room and books looked like what one artist has drawn to show a far more likely example of Jesus' physical appearance.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2015/12/what-did-jesus-really-look

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess I don't really think about Jesus' physical appearance too much. He's in a glorified state now anyway. All through the ages artists have depicted him as looking like the people they see. And I think that is okay, as long as people keep in mind that he's not limited to any race or ethnic group.

      Delete
    2. Katherine - The problem is that it plants an idea that Jesus was a white European, which reinforces the white Christian nationalist movements that are growing frighteningly strong in the US and Europe.

      Delete
    3. Do white christian nationalists actually consider if their beliefs are logical or rational? I think they're the same ones that believe the earth is less than 6000 years old.

      Delete
    4. Consider DaVinci's Last Supper, the second most famous painting in the world. No women. Who cooked the lamb (or, more likely, brisket)? James and John? To suggest that is to laugh. But it is a picture in many, maybe most, minds.

      Delete
    5. I'm of the view that Jesus can be portrayed as Caucasion, African, Asian, Polynesian. I can't help what racists think. I have a big copy of Our Lady of Częstochowa hanging on my wall, called by some the "Black Madonna". Probably about the right complexion historically and Jesus is brown, too.

      Delete
    6. Stanley, I agree with you. We shouldn't try to put Jesus in a pigeonhole.

      Delete
  13. People can be portrayed as any race or ethnicity people want. But the human being named Jesus who is the lead character in the NT, most likely looked as other first century Jewish men of Israel looked. Dark hair, brown complexion and eyes. So why not portray him as he most likely really looked? Nothing to do with putting him in a pigeon hole. And it might be a nice thing for people who do not look like Europeans either to see Jesus and Mary routinely portrayed looking like they really looked.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So why not portray him as he most likely really looked?" Because Italian artists of the Renaissance didn't have any models that looked like that. And monkey see, monkey do. Next question?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, Tom,I'm guessing that at least a few people from the mid-east were in Italy when the painters were painting. After all, Peter and Paul.....

    I have to admit that I was largely unconscious when it came to things like this - until my family expanded to include three different races and four cultures (American mutts, Jamaican, French/Polish, Viet Namese).

    A friend posted this on FB

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APMu32sC2nM&app=desktop

    Of course, I'm guessing Jesus probably didn't wear dreds either. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The BBC Jesus has a lot in common with the Janet McKenzie portrait the National Catholic Reporter chose among a bunch of submissions for the millenium. In a so-so reproduction, it is here: https://www.janetmckenzie.com/joppage1.html

      Delete
  16. Coincidentally I ran across a picture of Jesus this morning which looks very middle eastern. The fine print at the bottom of the picture identifies the artist as Maxine Pendry,copyright date 1973, Augsburg Press. I found it on a box of my late mother-in-law's things. Due to a plumbing disaster yesterday I had to do some major basement sorting today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember America Magazine, a few years ago, showed a painting with Jesus portrayed as a woman. I believe some depictions of Jesus in the early centuries showed him as androgynous. Although a departure from historicity. Again, no complaints from me.

      Delete
  17. Tom, the BBC actor DOES look incredibly like the Janet McKenzie portrait. Maybe that's how he got the part - they were inspired by that portrait.

    It would be great if a whole lot more Catholic parishes and schools were to begin displaying that portrait more frequently.

    And also display images of the Black Madonna of Poland - who has strong mid-eastern looks.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna_of_Cz%C4%99stochowa

    ReplyDelete