Niederauer complains about blogging "bullies" while Pastor of MHR tries to sidetrack issue
The earlier CNS article that I wrote about today has since been expanded to include more quotations from the pastor of MHR parish as well as a revealing comment made by Archbishop Niederauer. To wit:
Father Meriwether told Catholic San Francisco that parishioners have told him it did not appear the two "sisters" "were trying to grandstand at all." Parishioners were, however, "upset by the people roaming around filming and taking pictures," he said.The pastor of MHR has decided to make the unfortunate - but not unforeseen - decision of diverting the argument away from the sacrilege that occurred to the Eucharist on October 7th, and focusing instead on the folks who photographed and videotaped the event.
He's a bit smarter than the co-chair of the parish liturgy council and master of ceremonies, David Differding, who had this to say:
[critics] "can't get over the fact that God created gay people. That's my impression. They want to put up every roadblock they can."Riiiiiiight, because that's the issue we've been discussing for the past 10 days. Why no desire to talk about the Eucharist? Is that a moot point? [ed.] Again, my mistake, Mass is a celebration of diversity in the community, not the worship of God by his loving members.
But the truly unfortunate addition to the debate was made today by the Archbishop himself:
Let me make something clear: nothing would make me happier than to see this whole sorry affair put to rest. At the same time, the only way it can truly be put to rest is if the underlying attitudes and failures in duty are rectified. I prefaced my first lengthy-commentary about this issue with the words "I regret having to do this, but I think it must be done...."Asked about reaction he had received, Archbishop Niederauer expressed concern about the impact of Web logs, or blogs."
The blogosphere is a kind of dangerous, endless recess in a global schoolyard," he said, "where the bullies with the biggest bullhorns can shout whatever they want."
I really meant those words. This isn't a "fun" subject and I don't relish controversy. Least of all do I relish seeing abuse take place against the Sacraments of the Church, or witnessing the truth of Christ being hid under a bushel by those who have sworn to proclaim and reveal it. As the Catholics must always keep in mind, the greatest thing we have to offer to humanity is the truth of Christ. A truth not of our own but one rather that is freely and graciously given to the Body of Christ for the salvation and redemption of the world.
(Jeff Miller has already written about the crucial need for charity in matters such as these. I would only add that too often folks criticized in posts such as my own attempt to hide behind protestations of "charity!" when what they truly dislike is being reminded of what they ought to be doing in justice. Fair enough - by all means, keep us charitable. Such admonitions themselves are charitable, and must be equally phrased in charity. But let none of us in doing so forget about the truth being debated. But to resume....)
Why exactly should the Archbishop be concerned about the impact of blogs? Can't the truth survive even when subjected to free debate? If blogging about this topic - on the whole - was malicious, isn't this about the state of affairs any Archbishop should expect to endure as part of his ministry? Isn't it an honor to suffer for the Church? And finally, if blogs have been writing in error, isn't it his duty to teach the faithful? I'm awaiting the Archbishop's firm, public and reasoned rebuke. Offhanded comments about bloggers being "bullies" neither enlightens the observers nor helps the (supposed) offenders.
There's another reason why I don't savor continually writing about this issue - I genuinely want to think the best about the Archbishop. I mentioned in my first commentary that I believed he might truly have been unprepared for the presence of the two transvestites in his communion line, panicked, and therefore went against his better judgement when he gave them the Eucharist.
Further still, I wanted to believe that his initial denial of culpability was in good faith, as unlikely as I could find such an hypothesis. Still further, I published his apology in full, without noting any of its grave deficiencies (e.g., that it lost a perfect teaching moment for the presentation of the Church's position on the sinful and harmful nature of the homosexual lifestyle. He is in San Francisco, after all, and it is probably the main challenge of the Church there).
I think there's really only one way to accurately describe the nature of the Archbishop's "concern" about the impact of web logs, namely, that the Internet is accessible from Rome.
Pope Benedict is widely known to possess greater awareness of the problems plaguing dioceses than his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. In the two years I've been blogging, I've heard several reports that a bishop's ad limina visit is no longer a simple exchange of pleasantries and exhortations under the new administration of Pope Benedict. Pointed questions are asked, questions about specific events, places and persons. If I were the Archbishop of San Francisco, I'd find the youtube clip of him giving communion to a couple of transvestite individuals very uncomfortable, especially if it's playing on the Pope's laptop at the meeting.
I don't think I'm being unrealistic with this hypothetical (Diogenes, in his typically-astute observations posted today, presents a similar image) Most major Catholic blogs possess a regular Roman and Vatican readership. Speaking personally, they are my 5th and 10th most popular countries-of-origin respectively - and I don't think they're only here to chuckle over the PPOTD.
Looking at the landscape from this new perspective, doesn't the line given by Archbishop Niederauer ("The blogosphere is a kind of dangerous, endless recess in a global schoolyard where the bullies with the biggest bullhorns can shout whatever they want.") almost sound like a trial-run for the account he will be eventually asked to give for this whole affair to his brother bishops and superiors in Rome?
I hope not. I hope this is an external protestation of his which is hiding a genuine change of heart and a new resolve to teach what the Church teaches and has always taught, long before the first blog tooted its horn.
Update: From the comments, a particularly edifying contribution from Fr. Brian Stanley:
Would [Christ] have dined with [sinners]? Yes. But it would not be to their credit, as Our Lord pointed out in all three synoptic accounts that the one who dined with Him, and even shared the dipped morsel of bread with Him, and who would in a few moments betray Him, would have been better off not being born [let alone dining with Him in that Last Supper]. Judas did attend the Last Supper, but he had a different agenda than the others who attended. I think that it is self-evident that the men in drag had an agenda that differed from the others in the congregation who dressed modestly and appropriately.
Paul has an instruction concerning the proper reception of the Eucharist in his first letter to the Corinthians, in the eleventh chapter, beginning at the 27th verse:
"Whoever, therefored, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself and drinks judgment upon himself."
Just my observation, but a man who dresses as a woman, including make-up and flowers on one's head, has not, in my humble opinion, discerned his own body enough. Men who dress as women and present themselves for the Eucharist are not only inviting comment from others, but calling God's judgment upon themselves. Perhaps I'm [being] simple-minded, but the thought struck me: shouldn't men dress as men, and women dress as women?
It behooves pastors to point out the consequence to which St. Paul refers, so that profanation of the Eucharist does not occur. It is more than merely regrettable that neither the pastor nor the archbishop pointed this out to the men dressed as women. It is to the credit of the videographer that this incident has been recorded, so as to serve, as Fr. Jungmann writes of the celebration of the Eucharist, as a "teachable moment." What is ironic [and not just a little sad] is that the pastor and the archbishop are the ones being taught.
Labels: catholic blogosphere, disciplinary issues, most holy redeemer
posted by Thomas Peters at 8:49 PM
|
links to this post
