Pope Francis.....Heavy Sigh

UPDATE: I'm sort of regretting writing this because I don't want to get lumped in with the wackos and crazies. But still, I want to emphasize that I don't have a feeling of peace about Pope Francis, as much as I like him and as much as I like him more than any other Pope since I've been born. The bottom line, as I mentioned in one of the comments on this thread, is that it's fatiguing to have to deal with the reality that no matter what Pope Francis says, it ends up being that damage control on the side of liberals has to occur and/or damage control on the side of uber-conservatives has to occur. It just seems that everything he says is couched in controversy and why should it be that way? Where is the peace in confident leadership?

Also, I need to emphasize that if you haven't read Steve Skojec's piece that I link to, you may be confused by parts of my below insecure rant, especially concerning annulment and divorce. 

Finally, for the record, as predicted, prominent Catholic bloggers such as Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher are saying to ignore the news story which prompted my rant. Deep down I know that's sage advice. However, I continue to stand by my line of questioning, which is: When will we NOT be discussing what Pope Francis really said and meant so that we can actually learn from and appreciate what he is trying to teach us? I LIKE Pope Francis! I want to respect him too!


I'm conflicted.

Really conflicted.

On the one hand, I love the spirit and mercy of Pope Francis. He is saying things and doing things that need to be said. He really is a breath of fresh air; he is acting like Christ and not a pharisee.

But - and I hate to say it - I agree with the assessments that claim he is either a complete dumb ass when it comes to media, or he is purposely letting the media run wild with his comments because, well, he really does want to change the Church in ways that are revolutionary (or heretical, depending on your point of view.)

It seems that for every good thing I hear him say - things I LOVE and agree with - there is another that just makes me shake my head and wonder what the heck is going on in the Pope Department.

I am especially grieved by my confusion and confliction because I will be travelling to Rome in the fall and I have a guaranteed audience with Pope Francis. I'd like to feel more wholeheartedly excited about it.

I've been trying for awhile not to have a knee-jerk reaction to Pope Francis. In fact, when he was first elected, I was mad as hell at the naysayers who immediately crowned him Heretic #1. Additionally, I have occasionally peeked at Father Z's blog and laughed my ass off at his efforts to back peddle while he tries to cover for Francis.....reading Benedict through Francis? Or is it reading Francis through Benedict? Either way - HILARIOUS! (Seriously, whatever it is that Father Z is doing with his life and ministry, which is still nebulously unclear to me, it must be that he "needs" to be seen by the higher-ups as someone consistently in support of the sitting Pontiff, because come on, given his Traditional Catholic schtick, I've gotta believe that deep down he's more than a little concerned.)

Now, I'm gonna come clean about something. As some of you know, I like love Mark Shea's writings. I pretty much agree with everything he postulates about politics, culture, and religion, with the exception of his pro-vaccination stance. I have watched him try to take down the anti-Francis crowd more than once and have agreed with his tactics and arguments. For example, yesterday his Facebook page proudly proclaimed that if you think the canonization of JPII and John 23 constitutes a crisis in the Church, well then, you're a lunatic.

Agree.

But recently, Shea posted a link to a very long rant/ramble/argument by a Catholic blogger whose name I hadn't seen in years. According to Shea, the rant was further proof of Francis Hate and he wanted to highlight just how cynical and delusioned the hate was. Because I was more than a little surprised to see the name of this blogger - who used to be on my blog roll when I blogged as Cheeky Pink Girl (back when *I* was personally delusioned by the belief that to be a *good* Catholic, one had to be a judgemental, pharisaical jackass) - I clicked on the link out of sheer curiosity to find out what had happened to this guy.

Well, I took the time to read what Steve Skojec wrote. And I have to say, for the most part I didn't disagree with him. (For the record, it is a really long read, but I'd appreciate it if someone - anyone - would click over there, read it, and comment.) Now, let me be clear: The answer to every crisis in our modern Catholic Church IS NOT the Latin Mass. I need to say this up-front, because of course, rants like Skojec's automatically point to the Latin Mass and I don't want anyone to think THAT'S the part I agreed with. NOT! And also, there were a few spots where Skojec's math just wasn't adding up, jumping from point A to point K in a single leap.

The part I agreed with is the part about the Eucharist being potentially demeaned and devalued due to actions that appear to be merciful, but that are really just putting a stamp of approval on mortal sin. And the takeaway being that Pope Francis is more than likely a big fan of pastoral guidance/solutions, and that actions/statements by Francis more than lend themselves to the belief that he might be, shall we say, a rather enthusiastic supporter of allowing divorced and remarried (sans annulment) Catholics back into the communion line.

Note that many of Skojec's allegations amount to nothing more than conjecture and attempts at mind-reading. Interesting to ponder? Yes. Something to think about more when I had the time and certainly nothing to blog about. I was gonna shut up about all of this, thinking and believing what all of us good neo-Caths are supposed to believe, which is that the media has it all wrong - they've misinterpreted Francis - because he has never officially said anything that goes against Canon law or the Magisterium, etc. It's just those stupid liberal newspapers and TV stations that have purposely twisted what Francis has said to fit their own agendas, right? Case in point: Francis' comments about homosexuality, in which he never once said that the Catholic Church believes homosexual behavior is OK.

But then today, this: Pope Stirs Communion Debate With Call to Woman 

Now, OK, I know it's mostly a fact that the media gets it wrong about the Catholic Church about 100% of the time, and why should this time be any different? I'll concede that observation as pretty much true. And yet, and yet.....I don't know how many more times I can see "untrue" stories like this in the media and not have it affect me and wonder to myself and have to repeatedly think about my defense of Catholic teaching the next time I get confronted about it.

See, I care about the Eucharist. I mean, why be Catholic if you don't believe it's the real deal? And if you believe it's for real, why wouldn't you be upset about even the HINT of a relaxing of requirements in order to receive our Lord in a state of grace?

I think the state of marriage and divorce in this country is a total crisis. Most everyone who got married in the Church from the 1960's onward was ill-prepared and was subjected to crappy catechesis to boot. So, yeah, I understand that there are legions of divorced and remarried Catholics who want another go of it with their Catholic faith and I think they deserve that chance. My answer is the Church's answer but with a BUT: Annulment, but streamlined annulments that don't take three or five years or cost $1000.

I stand opposed to those trads who think annulments are given out like candy because I think they should be given out like candy, given what's all went down in the Church in the last 50 years. A two-pronged approach on this is best: Married before the year 2015? Hand out annulments like candy! Married after 2015? Go back to the old way of dealing with annulments (and I mean the old way) because we should've figured out by now that if you want people to understand marriage is a sacrament, you need to properly teach them that, and let's start doing that NOW. No excuses anymore. Make them sign in blood that they understand what they're getting into, I don't care what you have to do, but just make sure to do it because somehow, someway, restoration of an understanding of what marriage is and isn't has got to happen or marriage just becomes a joke. No one will bother to get married anymore. Hello Europe!

If the Church allows divorced and re-married Catholics back to communion, guess who's next in the communion line, people? No, it won't be murderers or child molesters. Rather, it'll be practicing homosexuals. And homosexuals who claim to be married. And homosexuals who have manufactured children for their own vanity and will whine that we're excluding a family from the sacraments.That's who.

Don't accuse me of picking on homosexuals or singling them out. Instead, I am pointing out the obvious in that if you relax the standards of mortal sin for one kind of couple (the divorced and re-married with no annulment type), you will automatically open the door for another kind of "couple," which is the homosexual type, which is almost always the type engaging in mortal sin. And that's because (can you hear the bad catechesis sirens of the 1960's-1980's going off?) we are living in a time when NO ONE actually knows what marriage is or what it's for anymore. No one seems to care, either, given that most average Catholics have long accepted that gay marriage is no different than their own marriages. End result: One kind of married couple in mortal sin will be seen as the same and equal to another kind of "married" couple in mortal sin. Gather us in, indeed!

What does any of this have to do with Pope Francis? Maybe nothing. Maybe *I'm* the one jumping the gun here and there is no connection. Yet, I think it's pretty darn interesting that Steve Skojec, a professed traditionalist, predicts that the Church will split over admitting divorced and remarried Catholics back to communion and then not two weeks later I read a news story, which must have a liberal slant, saying Pope Francis told someone to do exactly that. 

Again, I TOTALLY LIKE POPE FRANCIS! I haven't really been "into" any Pope until him, which is why - again - it really upsets me that the one Pope I like and really want to love is the one that's starting to piss me off.

Unlike Shea, I do believe that all these media stories ARE adding up to something going on.

I sense that sooner or later, something - and I don't know what, maybe it won't be the divorced Catholics thing, maybe it will be something else - something is going to change at Francis' hand and it's gonna be big and it's gonna rock our faith. Would I go so far as to call it something "wicked" the way Steve Skojec did? Probably not. But I think it will be something that's gonna turn us on our heads.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm a paranoid lunatic like Mark Shea is probably thinking I am after he's done reading this.

Or maybe it will be something so good and merciful and loving that it will rock all our worlds. That would be something, wouldn't it?

My husband, good and wise one that he is, says he will quietly wait and make no rash judgements and he will pray and hope and have nothing but goodwill for our current Pope. I mostly agree with him on this approach.

But I'm still keeping one eye open.

Heavy sigh. Insecure rant over for now.

Reason #368 I Wish I Had Never Listened to Trad Commentary About Anything

So, I know some people think it's not too classy to talk about what you gave up for Lent. The whole don't let your right hand know what your left hand is doing and praying in the streets to be noticed thing and all that. But stick with me here.

I'm not big on giving up things for Lent. Never have been, and as long-time followers of my blog know, I have mega issues with the no meat on Fridays restriction. I follow it mostly; although this year I probably won't be overly-strict about it because I gave up sugar and all carbs for Lent and if that isn't suffering, I don't know what is. I admit it was mostly a health decision that I hope becomes more spiritual as Lent progresses. Anyway, when you make such a huge change to how you eat, believe me, it's all about what you can have. Meat and vegetables are what power a low/no carb diet. Sorry Church.

What I normally do for Lent is add on things. Like an extra mass a week, or Stations of the Cross, etc. This year I decided that I will read St. Faustina's Diary by the end of the Lent, given that two people who love me very much have endeavored to give me gift copies AND my Catholic therapist has been after me to read it.

This afternoon I sat down in my beautiful new living room with a cup of coffee and started to read the introduction and immediately became seized with the exact same thoughts as when I tried to read this book once before, many years ago. These thoughts are:

Damn Trads. Damn Trads and SSPXers with all their casting aspersions on any saint canonized after Vatican II. Damn uber-uber-uber Catholics openly ranting on the internet about how suspicious it was that Pope John Paul II, a Polish man, got a Polish nun canonized, and hey, shouldn't we be questioning that a little bit more? Isn't that, shall we say, a very pro-Polish agenda? Besides, it says right there in the diary that Faustina's writings used to be subject to various censures and restrictions. Then add in assorted commentary about all the fast-tracking of canonizations since Vatican II, which of course makes them invalid?

I wish wish wish that I had never heard these arguments, no matter how extreme (or well-intentioned) they might be. Or how much of a minority voice they might represent. Yes, I know it's not all Trads - please don't remind me it's not all of them; I get that.

Here's the thing: Words matter. (The irony of me saying that isn't lost on me.) But still, there are some kinds of words that one can't forget - that, at minimum, are meant to plant doubt. Traditional Catholicism excels at this kind of thing. All it takes is one little grain of doubt to get you questioning your mass, the consecration at your mass, your parish, your priest, your devotions, your Catholic school, etc.

I hate it.

OK, I still firmly intend to read Sister Faustina's Diary this Lent, but with the caveat that part of it has been ruined for me by the things I've seen and read out there.

My husband says: Maybe we should perhaps consider that the Holy Spirit, in its infinite wisdom, has allowed certain saints to be fast-tracked because of the intense need and help we sinners here on earth have of them? And he also reiterated to me that the problem with certain Traditional Catholics is that they want to be the judge and arbitrator, instead of allowing the Church to do her own job.

Well I'm gonna try real hard to remember these points, but it's gonna be difficult.

Trad commentary on many subjects (but not all) is like the car wreck scene I can't get out of my mind's eye. Sometimes I wonder if that's exactly what they want? Like the scene they've made of Fatima.The Trads have totally ruined that for me. I will likely never have a devotion to anything Fatima-related or read anything about it.

So, anyway, welcome Lent. Say a short prayer that I might have some mercy on the Traditional Catholics that get under my skin.

And This Little Piggy Wore A Chapel Veil

I envy all the people who can leave anonymous comments on blogs, whereas I can't blog anonymously. I say this because today I just have to be me and speak my mind, and what I have to say isn't gonna make everyone happy.

A cursory glance of my still very tiny blog role brought me to Erin Manning's blog, with news that Jennifer Fulwiler of Conversion Diary is now wearing a chapel veil to mass. UPDATE: Erin wrote a SECOND post about the veiling thing!

LOUD GROAN

So loud you can hear it while reading this.

Chapel veil wars on the Catholic internet are as frequent and almost as hotly debated as the pants/skirts wars. If you've spent any amount of time reading Catholic blogs you already know this, and you already know that it's best to stand back, not participate, and instead enjoy the car wreck.

Supreme laziness: I agree with every single thing Erin Manning has said in her post about chapel veils. So go over there and read what she has to say. But in case you're too lazy yourself, here's my summary: If you want to wear a chapel veil, great, go for it, enjoy yourself. Wearing a chapel veil is part of Catholic tradition that is well-known, and Catholicism is thankfully wide and broad enough to incorporate all kinds of things. There's a lady at my church who always wears a chapel veil and I'm totally fine with it; she's a nice lady and a serious Catholic. My good friend wears a chapel veil whenever she goes to the Latin mass, which is often enough, and I don't have an issue with it.

If you feel God has called you to to wear a chapel veil, I'm fine with that too, and I'll honor your belief. However, I will question why God hasn't instead called you to take the $18 you spent on that chapel veil and instead contribute it to your local crisis pregnancy center or something similar. But I know, how God calls one and not another is none of my business.

With all of that being said, I'd like to add that Jennifer Fulwiler is a great person with a blog that I routinely read and have at times benefited from. I take her to be a sincere person who seems very nice. I really do mean that and would appreciate it if people wouldn't question me on that. So if Jennifer wants to experiment with wearing chapel veils and/or permanently incorporate them as part of her Catholic life, I accept that. I didn't read her blog post explaining it all and don't feel I need to - her reasons and feelings about the subject are hers alone.

So why the big groan from me?

Because legions of Catholic women lap up everything she says, and many many times, they do it in a very unthinking manner.

Remember in my recent post about "Cutsey Catolicism," I observed this about certain kinds of Catholic women:

"Those who followed my first blog know that I was highly critical of  the now defunct "Faith & Family Live" blog for exactly the sort of spirit and experience that I'm questioning here. I'm serious, if I had mentioned in a commbox over there that I was making and marketing a Catholic laundry detergent - basically Tide in a bottle but with a label that said something like "St. Ann's Suds" -  they would have fallen all over themselves to buy it and promote it and talk about how wonderful it was that they could now buy laundry detergent from a good Catholic."

I believe the exact same thing about Jennifer Fulwiler going public about wearing a chapel veil - Catholic women falling over themselves to mimic and copy her, and now a great big fad for wearing chapel veils erupts (as if there wasn't already a sort-of fad going because of the supposed resurgence of the Latin mass). As I commented over on Erin's blog, "Score one for Father Z!" Come to think of it, maybe Father Z put her up to this! Ha!

Here I go again with my broad brush: There's just a certain kind of crowd that follows Jennifer Fulwiler (and I've noted many, many times that it includes a boat-load of Protestants, which I still don't understand.) There's a certain kind of crowd that follows me. There's a certain kind of Catholic that follows whoever's behind Whispers in the Loggia. While we all intersect on the "Catholic" part, there ARE differences. Some people read The New Yorker, some people read People Magazine.

The crowd that follows Jennifer Fulwiler is the kind of crowd that looks to her as an example, a guide or mentor of sorts. I mean, look at the names of the people/blogs who post their links after her weekly "7 Quick Takes" meme and one can quickly surmise her target audience. And she DOES has a target audience - otherwise she wouldn't be doing an online TV reality show and have a soon-to-be published book. In fact, I would go so far as to say Jennifer Fulwiler has literally become a Catholic PRODUCT that we now consume like any other media product we consume.

I have, myself, been through the phase where I took my cues from the Catholic internet as to what did or did not construe an acceptable Catholic life, practice, and existence. I learned the hard way, even if I was suspicious and questioning all along. Let's just say other people are much more trusting than I was, and those people are trusting Jennifer to lead them through the wilderness of how to make sense of modern conservative Catholicism.

I'm just not so sure that wearing a chapel veil is a necessary aspect of modern-day conservative Catholicism. In fact, somewhere a rad-trad is laughing about her doing this, claiming her wearing a chapel veil is like a pig with lipstick in a pew at a Latin mass. There's a point where maybe us neo-cons need to just owe up to being neo-cons (a term I despise), since it's pretty neo-con-ish for someone who gives radio interviews to EWTN and Relevant Radio to be wearing a chapel veil. I say this as someone who has no problem with EWTN and Relevant Radio, which is why the extremists call me a neo-con, instead of someone who goes to mass at an FSSP parish.

But hey, if that's what these women want, have at it. As long as they operate in Christian love and charity, and they're towing the Catholic party line, I'm not supposed to care. Right?

Right. As far as I'm concerned, Jennifer Fulwiler's Catholic testimony is fine and well without an extra scrap of lace.