Sunday, August 18, 2002
Dale: Train to Rantburg, Now Boarding.
There are certain irritations in life with which I seem almost forced to interact. First, there is the "Beastmaster" syndicated television series, a profoundly stupid fantasy program featuring cheesy CGI, laughable-to-nonexistent plotlines, and the worst acting this side of community theatre. The lead "actor's" sole talent seems to be an indefatigable ability to smirk in any situation. I say "forced to interact" because syndicated television means that you can be ambushed by this crap at any viewing hour of the day. And I find myself mesmerized by its train-wreck awfulness. "Look, honey--he's smirking again! And this time, he doesn't have the ferrets stuffed in his pants!"
Second is Northwest Airlines, which has a deathgrip on airline travel out of the major Detroit airhub. Northwest, too, is run by people with elusive talents, only two of which repeatedly manifest themselves: (1) the ability to understaff the ticket counter at peak hours, and (2) the little-known fact that they've hired Penn and Teller to work part-time in the baggage department--always when I'm flying.
The final irritation is much more serious. This irritation is the bishops of the Catholic Church in the U.S. Unlike the first two, I can't change the channel or fly another airline with these guys. Nor, does it appear, that there's a chance in hell that I'll get new ones, either through resignation (ha!) or removal (double ha!). Today, I attended a Mass presided over by Bishop Kenneth Untener, the bishop of Saginaw. Even though I have enormous problems with the Bp., (I regard him as a veritable pinata of error-soaked platitudes), he's not the target of my scorn this week.
In light of two events last week, I'm about to propose to the National Spelling Bee that "c-a-t-h-o-l-i-c-b-i-s-h-o-p" be allowed as an acceptable alternate spelling for "incompetent." Or "prevaricator." Or "clueless." The problem is, as has been pointed out on other blogs, that the bishops in this country have not viewed themselves as ordained shepherds to the apostles or shepherds of souls for many decades. Instead, they behaved like corporate executives. Some claim that they behave like CEOs, but I don't think so. Being a CEO entails much more responsibility than these gentlemen are willing to assume. Instead, they've behaved like corporate vice-presidents, with most of the perks and pay, but almost none of the responsibilities. They have managed to turn the Catholic Church in America into a going concern called "God, Inc." (Motto: "Why God? Because Mentioning Christ Makes People Nervous.") Henceforth, as long as they insist on behaving like VPs, I'll be referring to them as veeps.
The first source of my disgust is the deposition testimony of Cardinal Law in the Shanley case. Not only has the buck never stopped anywhere near Cardinal Law during his career, he's not even sure what a dollar bill is. What a load of crap. Until this week, some part of me had felt a slight degree of sympathy for him, considering his undeniable good work for civil rights, immigrant issues, the poor, and his proposal for a new Catechism. This seemed to, in a very limited sense, make Law into something of a tragic figure, and in the classic sense of the term tragedy. This always fell far short of my sympathy for the dozens of victims of his priests, but it was there. Now, the only tragedy is continued tenure in office, and his blinkered determination to stay there. Would it kill one of the veeps to stand up and admit "yes, I failed in my Christ-ordained duties. Yes, I let a pervert/perverts run loose on my watch. I repent utterly of my actions. Please forgive me"? Apparently, it would. Meanwhile, the Church burns as they wiggle, shamelessly.
The second source of anger is a mission statement coming from one of the veeps' subcommittees. Actually, given what it says, "non-mission" statement is more accurate. Essentially, the veeps' subcommittee said that the Gospel is not for the Jews. No, really. The document has a couple of points buried in the Catholic section: the need to be respectful of Jewish tradition, and to avoid stupidity in witnessing to Jewish people. After all, there's a river of blood between Christians and Jews. And most of it, horribly, is Jewish. Plus, Judaism occupies a special place in Christian thought--as Peter Kreeft says, biblical Judaism is the only religion that Christianity regards as completely true. Still, that history, and that position, do not require us to abandon our Christian tradition. Which, unfortunately, the document does. Here's the money phrase:
Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God.
This is the line that trumps all the others. All of the other gasbaggery about "witnessing" to Jewish people, the duty to evangelize all people, welcoming Jewish converts, etc.--has to be read in light of the above sentence. Why in God's name would Jews ever convert to Catholicism? According to "the Church", they are already IN a saving covenant. There's no point. Not unless you are really moved by hearing "Gather Us In" accompanied by a ukelele and an oboe.
What a slap in the face to Jewish converts, and the painful struggles they went through. Someone call Cardinal Lustiger and let him know--guess what? You didn't have to go through all the trouble after all--the theological giants on a USCCB subcommittee have spoken!
Here's a helpful hint before the next time you guys do a reflection--consult that last section of your Bible--that "New Testament" thing--before you put pen to paper. And consult it as the Word of God, not something to be explained away in embarrassment for the sake of interreligious dialogue. Romans 11 might have helped you prepare the Catholic response better. It certainly would have prevented you from giving the Gospel away.
It's not enough that I have to be uncertain about the safety of my children in the Church. It's not enough that I have to put up with bowdlerized liturgies, gutted churches, and the goofy errors supposedly mandated by the spirit of V2 (the council, not the missile). Now I have to wonder whether the Gospel itself is going to be compromised. Thanks, veeps.
There are certain irritations in life with which I seem almost forced to interact. First, there is the "Beastmaster" syndicated television series, a profoundly stupid fantasy program featuring cheesy CGI, laughable-to-nonexistent plotlines, and the worst acting this side of community theatre. The lead "actor's" sole talent seems to be an indefatigable ability to smirk in any situation. I say "forced to interact" because syndicated television means that you can be ambushed by this crap at any viewing hour of the day. And I find myself mesmerized by its train-wreck awfulness. "Look, honey--he's smirking again! And this time, he doesn't have the ferrets stuffed in his pants!"
Second is Northwest Airlines, which has a deathgrip on airline travel out of the major Detroit airhub. Northwest, too, is run by people with elusive talents, only two of which repeatedly manifest themselves: (1) the ability to understaff the ticket counter at peak hours, and (2) the little-known fact that they've hired Penn and Teller to work part-time in the baggage department--always when I'm flying.
The final irritation is much more serious. This irritation is the bishops of the Catholic Church in the U.S. Unlike the first two, I can't change the channel or fly another airline with these guys. Nor, does it appear, that there's a chance in hell that I'll get new ones, either through resignation (ha!) or removal (double ha!). Today, I attended a Mass presided over by Bishop Kenneth Untener, the bishop of Saginaw. Even though I have enormous problems with the Bp., (I regard him as a veritable pinata of error-soaked platitudes), he's not the target of my scorn this week.
In light of two events last week, I'm about to propose to the National Spelling Bee that "c-a-t-h-o-l-i-c-b-i-s-h-o-p" be allowed as an acceptable alternate spelling for "incompetent." Or "prevaricator." Or "clueless." The problem is, as has been pointed out on other blogs, that the bishops in this country have not viewed themselves as ordained shepherds to the apostles or shepherds of souls for many decades. Instead, they behaved like corporate executives. Some claim that they behave like CEOs, but I don't think so. Being a CEO entails much more responsibility than these gentlemen are willing to assume. Instead, they've behaved like corporate vice-presidents, with most of the perks and pay, but almost none of the responsibilities. They have managed to turn the Catholic Church in America into a going concern called "God, Inc." (Motto: "Why God? Because Mentioning Christ Makes People Nervous.") Henceforth, as long as they insist on behaving like VPs, I'll be referring to them as veeps.
The first source of my disgust is the deposition testimony of Cardinal Law in the Shanley case. Not only has the buck never stopped anywhere near Cardinal Law during his career, he's not even sure what a dollar bill is. What a load of crap. Until this week, some part of me had felt a slight degree of sympathy for him, considering his undeniable good work for civil rights, immigrant issues, the poor, and his proposal for a new Catechism. This seemed to, in a very limited sense, make Law into something of a tragic figure, and in the classic sense of the term tragedy. This always fell far short of my sympathy for the dozens of victims of his priests, but it was there. Now, the only tragedy is continued tenure in office, and his blinkered determination to stay there. Would it kill one of the veeps to stand up and admit "yes, I failed in my Christ-ordained duties. Yes, I let a pervert/perverts run loose on my watch. I repent utterly of my actions. Please forgive me"? Apparently, it would. Meanwhile, the Church burns as they wiggle, shamelessly.
The second source of anger is a mission statement coming from one of the veeps' subcommittees. Actually, given what it says, "non-mission" statement is more accurate. Essentially, the veeps' subcommittee said that the Gospel is not for the Jews. No, really. The document has a couple of points buried in the Catholic section: the need to be respectful of Jewish tradition, and to avoid stupidity in witnessing to Jewish people. After all, there's a river of blood between Christians and Jews. And most of it, horribly, is Jewish. Plus, Judaism occupies a special place in Christian thought--as Peter Kreeft says, biblical Judaism is the only religion that Christianity regards as completely true. Still, that history, and that position, do not require us to abandon our Christian tradition. Which, unfortunately, the document does. Here's the money phrase:
Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God.
This is the line that trumps all the others. All of the other gasbaggery about "witnessing" to Jewish people, the duty to evangelize all people, welcoming Jewish converts, etc.--has to be read in light of the above sentence. Why in God's name would Jews ever convert to Catholicism? According to "the Church", they are already IN a saving covenant. There's no point. Not unless you are really moved by hearing "Gather Us In" accompanied by a ukelele and an oboe.
What a slap in the face to Jewish converts, and the painful struggles they went through. Someone call Cardinal Lustiger and let him know--guess what? You didn't have to go through all the trouble after all--the theological giants on a USCCB subcommittee have spoken!
Here's a helpful hint before the next time you guys do a reflection--consult that last section of your Bible--that "New Testament" thing--before you put pen to paper. And consult it as the Word of God, not something to be explained away in embarrassment for the sake of interreligious dialogue. Romans 11 might have helped you prepare the Catholic response better. It certainly would have prevented you from giving the Gospel away.
It's not enough that I have to be uncertain about the safety of my children in the Church. It's not enough that I have to put up with bowdlerized liturgies, gutted churches, and the goofy errors supposedly mandated by the spirit of V2 (the council, not the missile). Now I have to wonder whether the Gospel itself is going to be compromised. Thanks, veeps.
