Grumpy Gringo Blog

An article penned for the Irish Examiner notes: 

But surely the odds are that the majority of people for whom the resignation of the pope is a matter of supreme indifference are themselves members of his flock, at least nominally. And yet their eyes glaze over if you talk about it. 

“A matter of supreme indifference” – these words capture the response of many, many “Catholic” young whena asked about their interest in the Conclave. 

What happened? In the span of just two generations the Church went from a position of being a critical factor in the lives of a large percentage of its members to this toxic indifference. This blog looks to foster dialogue between those who remember a valuable asset in their lives and those whose attitude is that of supreme indifference. 

Bill Keller’s article (click here or see the links section of the blog) offers some guidance on this question. He notes that Catholicism “is a service industry” and here the young indeed are left baffled. What services does the Church provide them today? Many young express outrage at the hypocracy of an institution they perceive as telling them how to “be good” when the institution itself is challenged by rot from within. 

The child abuse scandal is not the only element in this dilemna, perhaps not even the most important. There is a sense of a “supreme disconnect” between the lives of our youth and Church leaders. The half-hearted attempts by these leaders to “engage” the young all too often end in “preaching without understanding”, further alienation, and eventual supreme indifference. 

Still the Church, and its to-be-selected new chief executive, need to discover how to serve today’s young. History might offer some guideposts. At the dawn of the 20th century, the Church’s institutions in the US – parochial schools, youth organizations, orphanages, hospitals, etc., provided desparately needed services for an immigrant populations. The Church had its finger on the pulse of its people’s needs at that time and the institution became a source of strength and comfort for its members. 

While our young may sit the Conclave out with indifference, those of us whose lives were enriched by those experiences in past years can pray that the Cardinals ask themselves these hard questions: how can the Church serve the young of today? And pray that said service follow Catholic tradition of “preaching” through actions of charity rather than empty words and criticisms.

On the morning of February 11, 2013, the Vatican announced the pending resignationof Pope Benedict XVI. Benedict will be the first Pope to relinquish the office since Gregory XII did so in 1415 to end the Western Schism and the first do so on his own initiative since Pope Celestine V in 1294.

This is a short introduction to Papal Conclaves and how they work. 

The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is chosen by the College of Cardinals, convened and sequestered in St. Peter’s for the election. Since 1846 the voting itself occurs in the Sistine Chapel. According to current Canon Law, cardinal electors are those cardinals under the age of 80. 

Conclave comes from two Latin words: cum and clavis, best translated as locked with a key. It refers to both the locked place where the election takes place (the Sistine Chapel) and the gathering itself. 

The process dates back to 1059 C.E. and replaced the earlier system of selecting a bishop via the consensus of the clergy and laity of the diocese. Currently the rules require a two-thirds super majority of the College as well as the consent of the elected. 

The Dean of the College of Cardinals (currently Cardinal Angelo Sardano) convenes the Conclave, which begins fifteen to twenty days after the death of a Pope. Since the papacy will become vacant on February 28th, most interpret Canon Law to mean the Conclave begin fifteen to twenty days later. Recent press releases suggest that indeed the Conclave may begin before March 15th. The actual date may depend on the speed which the members of the College of Cardinals arrive in Rome. 

Procedures followed during the Conclave are specified in the Ordo Rituum Conclavis (Order of Rites for the Conclave). It is possible that these rites are changed by Benedict through a Moto Propio (literally “on his own impulse,” meaning a document issued by the Pope on is own initiative and personally signed by him) before February 28th. 

The Conclave will begin with Mass, followed by the preliminary sessions, presided over by the Dean of Cadinals, to clarify the election procedures. Then all not belonging to the College of Cardinals are dismissed and the Cardinals are sealed in the Sistine Chapel.

For each ballot the Cardinals receive rectangular cards with the words Eligio in summum pontificem (I elect as supreme pontiff) printed at the top. Each cardinal prints the name of his choice on the card, folds it down the middle, and then places the card in a chalice. 

After each vote the ballots are burned. Chemicals are added to make the smoke black (meaning no pope is yet selected) or white (meaning there is a pope). The only requirement is that the Pope be a baptized male.

Once selected, if not already a bishop, the new Pope is immediately ordained (the last non-bishop to be selected Pope was Urban VI elected in 1378). The Cardinals present then pledge their support to the new pope. The Dean of Cardinals ask what name the new pope chooses. The oldest Cardinal present announces the choice to the City of Rome and the world with the following Latin phrase: Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum! Habemos Papam! (I announce to you a great joy! We have a pope!). 

Stefanie Krasnow’s post (Click here, some adult language) on “The Cult of Individualism,” though occasionally sliding into rhetorical shots at traditional liberal Quixote windmills (eg. capitalism, big corporations), is inciteful in its observation on narcissim in modern societ. The article points out that with the Death of God narcissism runs rapid, or, as he puts in, , or, as the article calls it, where “non-judgmentalism meets moral relativism.” 

The history of people and socieities is replete with ebbs and flows. Two of these poles are altruism and narcissism, or self-sacrifice and self-interest. Two world wars in the early and mid 20th century perhaps brought sacrifice for the greater good (regardless of which side) to the fore. Altruism, whether religious or political, peaked in the 60s. 

The mid-70s provided fertile ground for sowing the seeds of a renewed narcissism globally. Perhaps somewhat ironically Reagan’s Presidency marks the starting point of this Cult of Individualism. WIIFM (what’s in it for me), “Greed is Good”, and many other sound bytes mark the change from altruism to narcissism. 

Well today is Thanskgiving. Lots of turkey, food, and kids running around the house. For sure there are many reasons to give thanks!

Met an interesting person on the train home yesterday. His name is John Hunter, and he modestly refers to himself as a teacher of gifted students. But it’s a bit more than that…

He moved from teaching gifted students to creating the world peace game, which, in turn, led to the development of the World Peace Foundation. The website notes:

The World Peace Game is a hands-on political simulation that gives players the opportunity to explore the connectedness of the global community through the lens of the economic, social, and environmental crises and the imminent threat of war. The goal of the game is to extricate each country from dangerous circumstances and achieve global prosperity with the least amount of military intervention. As “nation teams,” students will gain greater understanding of the critical impact of information and how it is used.

He suggested taking a look at IDEO, a design company focused on innovation. While I did not have a great deal of time to chat with him, there was a spiritual presence to him that I have not felt in a long time. An interesting meeting just before Thanksgiving.

Today’s NYTimes ran an interesting article (click here) on Dilma and the military in Brazil’s past. Truly history is stranger than fiction. The President of Brazil was once arressted and tortured by the military she now oversees. Life is full of ebbs and flows. 

The article also points out the surprising turn of events in Brazil since Lula’s election.

Ross Douthat published an intriquing article in today’s New York Times (click here) entitled Can Liberal Christianity be Saved? It is worth a careful read. 

The article points to two seemingly connected yet disparate facts: Conservative Christianity and its focus on personal conversion is seeing increasing attendance, participation and contributions membership, while Liberal Christinaity and its focus on social issues and/or social reform sees a decline in all three. He notes:  

The defining idea of liberal Christianity [is] that faith should spur social reform as well as personal conversion. 

“Because progressive Catholicism has failed to inspire a new generation of sisters, Catholic hospitals across the country are passing into the hands of more bottom-line-focused administrators, with inevitable consequences for how they serve the poor.”

“What should be wished for, instead, is that liberal Christianity recovers a religious reason for its own existence.”

The Vatican, the institutional guardian of the Roman Catholic Church, does not have its eye on the ball. This could not be clearer than the recent headlines on the College of Cardinals and the political intriques surrounding their selection. 

While the world continues to look for some sign that the institution is working through its denial of the magnitude of the child abuse scandals, what the world sees is yet another insider political intrigue played out on the world’s stage. 

Whitney Houston’s death yesterday is the first time I’ve learned of a major news event from “the social medial” – in my case Facebook. For all of my life (until yesterday) major news was always prefaced by “we interrupt this program to bring you…” For my parents, it was the radio, for my great-grandparents it was the newspaper. Now social media. News channels continue to evolve…

The next weeks, perhaps months, various media channels – newspaper, radio, TV, social networks, will turn from a superficial look at “how” Whitney died to generating a judgement on her life itself. The channels will clog on commentaries and analysis that judges her life. Was she “good” or “bad”? Why did her life go wrong? How could her life have gone wrong with all of her fame and fortune?

The true “how” of Whitney Houston’s death is news, as in items like the coroner’s report, any information that might suggest criminal activity, recaps of her life’s impact on music, or other “news” items that may be uncovered about her death. What makes me grumpy is that the media will not focus on the news; instead, it will spend untold hours on judging her life. This will be called “analysis.” This is not analysis of the news, not even gossip, but pure vicarious pleasure received from judging someone else’s life. People “get off” looking at sins of the famous and judging them. Because the media channels will receive a high rate of “hits” when engaging in this voyeurism, and these ratings translate into money, then all pretend that this is either “ok” or “inevitable.” After all, there’s money to be made there. Time for a grump!

THE GRUMP: This is not an issue of “rights” – the media certainly has the right to pursue profit by all legal means. And to the extent that media is part of the press, they have the right to freely publish. It is a “morality” issue. Judging the lives of the famous is not a news function. Nor is it a public function. Sin, judgement, and forgiveness are intimate and private functions outside the public scope. In fact, when sin and judgement enter the realm of the public collateral damage is almost guaranteed – without any accountability for the damage done. So while legally correct and at least on the superficial level financially rewarding this voyeuristic judgement of people’s lives is morally reprehensible.  

And here the accountability issue arises. On the one side are media moguls who have exploited a ready channel for profits – pushing this type of information is financially rewarding. On the other side is, well, us. The public. Those of us who watch (and are measured as watching by Nielsen or the new tools of the social media) these public free-for-alls where we get to all be gods and pass judgement on the life of the deceased. Because that person is famous or rich or powerful or all three the Public gets vicarious pleasure out of its role of god and judge. The media racks up profits. The moral quality of our life goes down. It makes me GRUMPY. 

There’s nothing new about this process, it began with the development of mass media, perhaps earlier! Nor is there a realistic chance to eliminate it: people “get off” on judging others, especially the rich, powerful and famous, and that vicarious pleasure gained by looking at a famous person and “bringing them down” will remain part of the human experience. However the process has an ebb and flow. There are times when it is a very small part of “the news,” usually in times of crisis, war, etc. There are times when it almost replaces news and becomes the primary product of the media channel. Unfortunately we seem to be at a “high tide.”

Nor is “judging” the same as critical analysis of a person’s work. In the case of Whitney Houston, it is indeed a time for an evaulation of her music – and here criticism is certainly legitimate. A person’s “product” – the music of a diva, the policies of a politician, the plays of a sport star, are indeed items where opinions will be expressed and will vary greatly. But too little of this will happen, and too much focus will be on judging her life and the way she lived it.

While whispering a prayer tonight for Whitney and her family I also pray that we, the public, will begin to pull back from this practice and instead look with humanity and compassion on those who’s performances enrich our daily lives. And that we look into the mirror and ask ourselves why we “get off” judging the lives of others. It is a bad habit!

Thursday, February 9, 2012 — Salem, VA

Today the Schmitt family sadly lays to rest Rick Schmitt. Husband, brother, father, grandfather (!), cousin, friend, colleague. Perhaps the right word is lament – that sense of grief, loss, and mourning as a loved one leaves our presence. 

Rick SchmittRick was my cousin. While our families spent time together when we were young, like many cousins, as we grew older we traveled down different roads. I found myself looking around today at his wake and seeing many faces for the first time – more cousins, his wife, his children, his grandchildren, his friends. I found myself lamenting the loss of connection. So much of his life was unknown to me: I didn’t know of his profession, didn’t know his wife and children, only learned now of the great passions of his life. 

Still, cousins are special.  An unknown sage expressed it clearly:

Cousins are usually the first friends we have as children. No one will ever understand the idiosyncrasies of your family better than your cousins. Even if you don’t get to meet them often. 

What makes cousins into first friends? Why is there that deep sense of belonging whenever, however rarely, we gather together? Perhaps it is the shared adults. My parents, after all, are my cousins’ uncle and aunt. Their parents are my uncle and aunt. We shared the same grandparents. We do indeed understand the idiosyncrasies of our family and perhaps it is that shared experience that creates a bond. And yet we cousins grew older we headed in many directions…

It is not surprising that, as the Schmitt family tree grew – the Schmitt / Hall, the Dibley / Schmitt, the Schmitt / Miller, the Miller / Schmitt and the May / Schmitt branches, each of us sought out our own path. Another writer recently turned to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet for insight into this reality:

The question of the play (Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet) is this: Which love is pre-eminent? Is it the love to which you are born — your family, your religion and your tradition — the love of one’s own? Or is it the acquired love, the one you have chosen?

As children we cousins were an important part of each other’s early lives. As we became adults we began to pursue our heart’s passions and desires. Sometimes that means staying close to “one’s own” and sometimes it means finding a different path. It is lamentable that these paths often result in separation from the first friends of our childhood, our cousins. And yet no distance can take away he understanding that runs deep and is there even if we don’t get to see each other often. 

As we grow older we also share new types of loss. Marie, Betty and Irene have all left us. All three women touched us deeply and either gave us life or helped shape our lives. And now we also share the loss of a sibling. Terri and Rick both torn from us by cancer. Once again we share terrible losses. Once again it is cousins who understand without being told what it means. 

So today perhaps a simple prayer is in order – that we find a way, in spite of the distance, to connect as often as we can. While late, perhaps there is still time to learn much about my cousin – from his family, his friends, the great gift of his life.  – Requiem Æternam