Our Pope, Our Bishops, and Our President's Roundup of Noncriminal Undocumenteds

Pope Leo has asked our bishops to stand together strong along with him, on behalf of immigrants. Clearly he intends Trump's roundup of those who entered illegally but have not committed crimes here. As a political conservative, I see that bishops have no competence or charism for politics and policy. They err when they intrude, with the best of intentions of helping the disadvantaged, into complex matters with multiple dimensions and consequences. They needlessly polarize, including setting themselves against those with different views. They dilute their actual authority in faith and morals.

They teach on morals but not policy. When there is a clear, substantial social evil, they must speak out strongly. Examples: the Civil Rights movement, abortion, right of workers to unionize (e.g. farm workers), a reasonable safety net for the poor, religious freedom, and blatant injustice. Does this current deportation reach that bar of gravity?

I believe it does. This for two major reasons, and a number of secondary ones.

First of all, the fear, confusion, chaos and disruption is quite overwhelming. No need to detail.

Secondly, these immigrants technically broke the law, but morally, formally, actually they did not. We know that a law or rule that is systematically not enforced by authority becomes technically, but not actually a rule. Implicitly, authority is approving of the violation. 

Imagine: St. Fleckinstein's Prep School handbook forbids chewing of gum in the building. No one reads the handbook. Everyone chews gum. The Dean of Discipline is never not chewing. When he runs out of gum he asks the nearest student. The guidance counselor and the school nurse both give gum to students. There is a lively market for chewing gum in the hallways. A new Dean takes over; he reads the handbook. You are standing at your locker, chewing gum, when the new Dean spots you. He gives you a three day suspension for disrespecting school rules with a warning of expulsion if you chew again.  Is anything wrong with this scenario?

For four years our border was open. Biden basically announced upon his election that the laws about immigration would not be enforced. They were effectively voided. This was simply as stupid a policy as one can imagine. (You know, reader, that Fleckinstein rarely uses the s....d word!) Every immigrant that crossed that border "illegally" did so with the clear approval of the President. Biden broke the law by refusing to enforce it. Those whom he incentivized and allowed to cross were in compliance with his policy. For that reason, I do not call them "illegals." Daily I exceed the speed limit on NJ highways by over 10 MPH. In my work and life I probably break a dozen or more rules every day.  I am not "an illegal." 

There is widespread consensus, even beyond the Right, that Trump did a great job of closing the border and in gathering up the criminals. But arresting otherwise hardworking, decent people is troubling.

A reasonable government maintains a degree of nonpartisan continuity between administrations. For example, an international treaty or policy  (nonproliferation, peace, environment, tariffs) is not absolutely binding upon subsequent regimes but some deference to precedent is generally prudent. Otherwise our internal instability will make us unreliable in all diplomacy. Imagine: Trump deports millions and then AOC wins in 2028 and open the borders again. This can get crazy. But in any case, the culprit in this story is the Biden administration, not decent folk who accepted the welcome.

There is a host of other reasons why this practice is unwise. 

1. Our economy requires this cheap labor in agriculture, construction, hospitality and elsewhere.

2. Demographically we need more citizens because without immigration in a few decades our elderly will overwhelm our young in their demands for social security and Medicare.

3. For the most part, they are hardworking and industrious, eager for employment, not inclined to depend upon the state or play the victim and identity politics cards. Immigrants in general tend to be courageous, energetic, and ambitious and so enrich our nation.

4. For the most part, they are Catholic or Christian and therefore congenial to our culture, unlike the Islamic incursion into Europe. While they incline liberal politically, they bring strong family and religious values.

5. Immigrants send money home to their families and thus provide humanitarian assistance that is far more generous and efficient than aid from our government.

6. Their immigration is a testament to our nation. They and their children generally are grateful and become loyal citizens.

To conclude: this is the rare case in which I hope our bishops, with Pope Leo, will lean heavily into President Trump: keep up the good work on the border and criminals. Leave the decent people alone. Trump is himself flexible. He can turn on a dime. We need him to hear a strong voice on behalf of all these hardworking families.

  

The Confused Faux-Sacramentality of "Synodality"

It is a sadness that our new Pope shares the confusion, the "hopium" (delusional optimism),  of Pope Francis about what they call "synodality."

Spirituality of Listening

If this is about listening to each other, I am the first on line. Early in our married life, around 1972, I read the psychologist Fr. Charles Curran who brought into the heart of education, counseling and Church life the empathetic listening highlighted by Carl Rogers. I travelled to Winsor, Canada, to hear him in person. I was converted. Since then I have strived, imperfectly, to listen. It does not always come naturally. 

When you listen you soon see widespread confusion and error. So many people believe so many crazy things and are so certain about them. This ignorance and error is largely intractable, virtually invincible. It is not possible to convince them through listening and conversation. You listen; you witness to the Truth; you get no result; you remain in serenity about "the things you cannot change." 

Nevertheless, compassionate, generous listening remains at the core of Catholic life and our corporate witness to Christ and Truth.

"Synodality:" An Institution

There is a vagueness about this novel, invented concept. It may best be described as the organization of listening into a bureaucratic institution, a "synod." Traditionally, a synod is a gathering of bishops to decide a controversial matter. But this new synod is not such: it is a democratic gathering of all sorts of people to listen to each other. It is a mega-sharing session. Apparently, the results carry some degree of authoritative authority; this is unclear. But there is a mystique about it; a trust in it. To it is attributed a vague efficacy: if we gather people together, listen to each other, we will be drawn by the process deeper into truth and love. It is our new sacrament, a deliberate act that carries grace efficaciously.

We know that among Catholics a large majority does not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Similar large numbers would approve of contraception, gay sex, in vitro conception, legal abortion. Most Americans (but not Japanese) would approve of the bombing of Hiroshima. Increasingly large numbers, especially of the young on the left, accept violence for political purposes. Politically, our Catholic electorate is divided, almost exactly 50-50, in support of the contrasting forms of moral depravity on the left and the right, with few signs of moral ambivalence about their preferred side. What do we get if we gather such in synodal sessions? Confusion and error!

Another problem is that the process is easily controlled by Church insiders, ideological activists, who position themselves to construct the results that they intend: progress away from Tradition. Conservatives like myself are not spending time and resources to influence the process. We have much better things to do. 

 Conclusion

We need to contrast the traditional and the novel, progressive understanding of synod: the first denotes a gathering of ordained bishops to teach the truth; the second is an amorphous sharing session, of all kinds of people, easily manipulated, to which is attributed an illusory efficacy. 

Our Church of 2000 years...of the apostles, fathers, doctors, confessors, martyrs... has been synodal in the traditional sense, NOT the novel, progressive sense. If it was good enough for Peter, Augustine, Thomas, Newman, and John Paul...it is good enough for me!

 

I Never Saw a Movement I Didn't Like

 A movement...political, spiritual, cultural...is the eruption and spread of a coherent pattern of ideas/values/beliefs/practices across society, for a limited period, in mimetic contagion and deliberate advocacy, leaving an impact on the culture and its institutions.

An earlier blog essay inventoried the institutions which have defined my world and myself; here I will review the movements which have shaped myself and my world over the last 8 decades. Institutions are stable, permanent, reliable across time; they preserve, protect and advance values as they shape those of us who serve them. Movements are temporary, transient, novel and revolutionary; they arise, engage culture, and disappear, leaving an impact and sometimes new institutions to preserve their values.

The last 8 decades have been a time of rapid, deep, pervasive change...and many movements, spiritual and political. Life has been similar to a surfer: we ride a wave until it crashes on the beach, then paddle back to await another good wave. The immense ocean and the sturdy board represent the stable, enduring, permanent; while the waves are change, movement, novelty.

We will consider first  religious movements that have shaped my own faith and that of the Catholic Church. Then, broader political movements that have formed our  world and my view of it.

1. Post-war Catholic Revival in the USA 1945-65.

Just prior to my birth, my father's courtship of my mother consisted of weekly attendance, with his mother, at Miraculous Medal devotions. They prayed, I am sure, in 1944-5, for the end of the war and return of their brothers. (All five came home safe; every man from Our Lady of the Lake, West Orange, returned home safe.) Our family of 9 children, quite common at the time, prayed the rosary along with the global crusade of Fr. Patrick Peyton. Our parents participated in Cana. They read America magazine and books from Sheed and Ward, the flourishing Catholic company. Fulton Sheen and Thomas Merton were celebrities; John Kennedy became president. By the early 1960s, when I was in high school, there was a wave of confidence and enthusiasm about sending missionaries and Peace Corps volunteers to Latin America to assist. Small wonder that I chose to attend Maryknoll Missionary Seminary for college.

2. Vatican II Renewal 1962-78. 

Immediately after the Council, in college, I was caught up with much of the Church in a Dionysian frenzy of hyperactive argument, reading and criticism about change in Catholicism and the society. So much to read, digest, engage: politics, psychology, theology, culture. I spent about 6 years in a steady state of low key euphoria about ideas, books, theories. Intellectually it was overstimulating. But so much fun. Spiritually, not so good. Most of my classmates in the seminary fell away from practice of the Catholic faith as they were pulled into politics and psychology. We did not receive a solid catechesis on the Christ-centered focus of the Council. A tsunami of ideas assaulted us and no one was available to situate them within our Catholic legacy. For myself, prayer life and closeness to God were at best at a plateau, but more probably diminished as attention went to new secular ideas and enthusiasm. I was largely typical of most Catholic intellectuals engaged in this.

3. Catholic Charismatic Renewal 1970s.

Our young marriage and family that was to come were powerfully impacted by engagement in the Charismatic Renewal in 1973. Coming off of Cursillo in which each of us encountered in a personal way the person of Jesus Christ, we were swept into a new surrender to the Holy Spirit and immersion for several years in an intensive, exhilarating Bible-center, evangelical-Catholic community. This brought prayer to the center of our marriage and family and has directed the course of our life since.

4. Dual Papacy (John Paul and Benedict) and Communio Theology. Post 1978. 

When John Paul became Pope I had already dived into the theology of Balthasar as presented by the Communio school in Washington DC. And so I voraciously devoured every word that came from his teaching: on Divine Mercy, Theology of the Body, labor and the social order, the primacy of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and more. This deepened, clarified and intensified my Catholic faith in all its essentials.

5. Other Spiritual Movements.

Coincident with the above major developments were a series of smaller ones which strengthened and deepened our Catholic faith: Divine Mercy as revealed to St. Faustina, the Catholic Worker movement and related groups (Madalein Delbrel, Catherine Dougherty), Cursillo, Marriage Encounter, Marian devotions including messages from Medjugorje, Communion and Liberation, Neocatechumenal Way, the 12-steps, Our Lady's Missionaries of the Eucharist.

Significant also was the influence of psychology, the (in)famous "triumph of the therapeutic." The challenge here was, of course, to harmonize good psychology with our Catholic philosophy. Helpful here were people like Fr. Charles Curran (psychologist), Paul Vitz, Fr. Groeschel, Eric Erickson, and others. Along these lines also were psychology-inspired contributions to spirituality: healing of the memories of Ruth Carter Stapleton, deliverance of demons as practiced by Neal Lozano, the "scrutinies" of the Neocatechumenal Way, the gentle spirituality of Adrian Von Kaam, and the Catholic evaluation of psychology of Paul Vitz.

So we see here four major and ten minor movements, renewals, or revivals that directly impacted my own life as well as the Church and society around us. Now we consider of political movements.

Political Movements

Prelude: victory of Allies which structured the world into which I was born.

Cold War.

Labor movement. (Important for my family of union men.)

Development of the "third world" out of poverty.

Civil Rights.

Farm workers.

Anti-war movement and the New Left.

Countercultural Hippie Movement.

Reagan Revolution.

Prolife Movement.

Neoconservatism, specifically of First Things, and the Evangelical/Catholic dialogue.

All of the above impacted me significantly, and our world, for the good.

Toxic Movements

Actually, not all movements are to the good. The decisive, destructive movement of my lifetime is the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. This was many things but importantly: liberation of sex from marriage/family/children, deconstruction of gender, rejection of Tradition, gay liberation, militant feminism including abortion, eruption of technology into sacred domains of life and death without restraint by the natural order. More recently this movement has developed identity politics and the culture of self-pity, victimhood and grievance. 

More recently we have the MAGA movement, a study in moral ambiguity. On the one hand, Trump is the singular political figure that has defied and (at the moment) pushed back imperialistic Cultural Progressivism and restored order and reason to our border and other things. On the other hand it is toxic with his egoism, disregard for truth and reality, inflated nationalism, contempt for constitutional order, xenophobia, cruelty to the undocumented, lack of fundamental respect and dignity. And so, we find ourselves forced, in some degree,  to ally with this disorder against the greater threat. 

Conclusion

The above litany is subjective, personal, and  autobiographical but it does cover a shared history.

When you are grounded in the solid rock of the Catholic Church, family, and American constitutional democracy, you can move fluidly with the movements, currents of novelty and creativity. 

We live in interesting times.

 

"Catholic Politician"...Category Error

Commenting about the Durbin controversy, Cardinal Cupich bemoans that our polarized political system prevents anyone from being a truly "Catholic politician." This very concept is incoherent; it is a category error; it reflects the confusion of progressive thought.

It is like saying a Catholic mechanic. Doesn't make sense: his faith doesn't meaningfully effect his work. Or a Catholic ballerina. Or a hypertense ballerina. Or an anorexic polar bear. Or a progressive peanut butter. We don't give awards to our most Catholic mechanics, or ballerinas, or surgeons. They are distinct categories.

By definition, the progressive confounds politics and religion: politicizing the faith, and sanctifying the politics. So the religion becomes a political agenda: against racism, capitalism, etc. And the particular ideology...anti-racism, global warming, gun control...becomes itself a religion. It is astonishing that a Prince of the Church is so fundamentally confused. 

The Catholic social conscience does have some absolutes, that are not prudential policy affairs about which we can differ: pedophilia, abortion, torture, sexual abuse, contraception, slavery, military targeting of civilians. These are clear and simple, absolute, always wrong.

A second category would be issues that protect our way of life, the practice of our faith: freedom of speech and worship, ability to educate our children including in our schools, ability to place children for adoption without coercion to place them with "gay couples," liberty to run nursing homes without providing contraceptives to our employees, etc.

However, 95% or more political questions are pragmatic, prudential, policy calculations involving complex weighing of anticipated consequences; taxes, borders, tariffs, health policy, and so much more. There is no Catholic position on these. We gather at the Eucharist in a union that goes far deeper and farther than our policy arguments. 

Cupich suggested that we sit down in synodal meetings and talk about things like the award for Durbin. I would rather have a tooth pulled! This is silly and stupid to the extreme. We have been living together, since Roe, for over 50 years, two different worlds, prochoice and prolife: talking, arguing, voting. The divide is worst than ever. I do not bring up the subject. I do not want to talk about it. We do not convince each other; we do not have a "meeting of the minds." We live in two different worlds. And we will continue to battle politically over it. And we are obliged to do so respectfully. And there is a Catholic position on legal abortion: opposed! There is no Catholic position on immigration: not pro-Biden. Not anti-Trump. We can, as Catholics, be pro-Biden or pro-Trump, as good Catholics. But...please...no lifetime achievement awards!

Pope Leo, to my disappointment, made a similar category error in commenting on the Durban thing: "...if I say I am in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States I don't know if that's prolife."  So the immigration situation is complex, multifaceted and open to many interpretations. About half of the nation, and slightly more than half Catholics, voted for Trump and his immigration policy. They are not in defiance of Catholic doctrine. Catholic teaching is that we treat all people, and especially refugees charitably and justly, even as we protect our borders. How that is implemented is open to dispute. The Pope has no charism regarding border policy.

"Inhuman treatment?" If I illegally sneak into Mexico or Bermuda, or a movie theatre, or the Academy Awards, or somebody's backyard pool and I am arrested and sent home for trespassing...Is that inhuman? Am I being demonized? Not inherently.  Personally, I am in agreement with the majority of Americans as I do not want us to arrest and return illegals who have not broken the law here (other than the entry.) But: No, that is not necessarily demonizing or inhuman. Nor does it require a Pope to give it a status of moral equivalence with abortion of the unborn.

It is a sadness, a sadness that we can only accept: that our Church leaders, in the person of Leo and Cupich and many more, are confused as they use their charism of teaching authority, from Holy Orders, to advocate a particular progressive ideology.

Lord, grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change.

Grieving for the Truth in the Church of Pope Leo XIII

Today's first mass reading (Nehimiah 2) not only allows me but directs me to grieve, like Nehimiah over the collapsed walls of Jerusalem. The Persian king asks his cupbearer why he is so sad. With fear, Nehimiah answers that it is the destruction of his beloved Jerusalem. Compassionately, the king asks what could be done. He asks to rebuild the walls of the city. Not the temple itself, but the walls.

Just Sunday past we heard Amos condemn Israel for failure to grieve over the collapse of Joseph. In both these readings, I hear the Lord directing us to grieve over our Church.

Yesterday I was grieved to read Pope Leo's response to the crisis in Chicago. Cardinal Cupich decided to give Senator Dick Durbin a lifetime achievement award for his work on immigration. Durbin has long been forbidden to receive communion by his own Bishop Paprocki of Springfield. For decades Durbin has advocated for legal abortion, including even partial birth abortion. The policy of the American bishops for many decades has been to not publicly honor staunch defenders of legal abortion. In this decision, Cupich disrespects the college of bishops and his own neighbor bishop. About 12 bishops have spoken out against the award; none have spoken in favor. Durbin finally declined the honor, thus ending the controversy.

Walls

Walls, boundaries, definition, rules...are essential for us in many ways. Today's patron Saint Theresa of Lisieux, lived her short life behind the cloistered walls of a convent. Those are very important for this life. They mark a place of prayer, separate from the world, where the souls of the elect unite with God.

Psychologically we all need walls, boundaries: to define ourselves, to defend our dignity and integrity, to elucidate our mission and responsibilities. 

A nation needs boundaries. Our country is in crisis now because for four years our territorial integrity was not defended. Indeed, the open border policy incentivized the poor to send their children here alone or to place them with gangs and human traffickers. This unwise policy did immense harm to our common good and to many who were motivated to violate our laws.

Our Church needs walls: clarity in belief, practice, and worship. It is especially the task of the Pope to provide this definition in Truth.

Pope Leo on the Durbin Scandal

Pope Leo: "I think it's important to look at the overall work that a senator has done...in 40 years of service...I understand the difficulty and the tensions. But I think...it is important to look at many issues that are related to the teachings of the Church." He then went on to say that a prolife position on abortion but in favor of the death penalty is not prolife; and prolife on abortion but in favor of inhumane treatment of immigrants is not prolife. He of course ended by calling for mutual respect.

This can only be read as support for Cupich: that he may indeed prudentially reward a prochoice Catholic politician if his record on other issues warrants it. This is, however softly, a correction to Paprocki and a contradiction of the policy of the American bishops.

Back to Ratzinger and McCarrick

In 2004, then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a private letter to the gathered American bishops in which he directed that a Catholic politician who persists in advocacy for legal abortion after being spoken with is to be denied Communion. Then-Cardinal McCarrick ran the meeting. Astonishingly, he kept the letter private, did not at that time read it to the bishops, but paraphrased it as saying that the matter was a prudential one at the discretion of the particular bishop. 

We see that the spirit of McCarrick and Ratzinger are still at war in our Church. Paprocki is loyal to Ratzinger; Cupich and apparently Leo to the McCarrick misinterpretation.

A Church in Actual Schism

Durkin cannot receive communion in Springfield where he lives; but next door in Chicago he is given the highest imaginable honor. Gays can get blessing of their unions across the West but nowhere in Africa. A divorced-remarried-without-annulment spouse is welcome to communion in Germany, but not across the border in Poland. 

We are now clearly two distinct Churches; a Church in schism.

Durbin has apparently said that he considers Cardinal Cupich to be his bishop. Wow! Cafeteria Catholicism on steroids! We can choose our own bishop! Ok...I live in NJ but my bishop of choice is Cardinal Burke in Rome...or whoever. This is insanity!

Challenging Ecclesiology

We are, of course, ONE, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. But we are in reality two distinct Churches in significant aspects of practice, belief and worship. The Church of Ratzinger and that of McCarrick; that of John Paul and that of Francis, and now of Leo. This is difficult: as we differ gravely on matters of Truth we need to maintain our bonds of love (as Leo knows so well), our institutional unity and loyalty, our unity in works of mercy and so much that is good and beautiful. And yet we cannot abandon the Truth as we have received it. Difficult!

Leo Unveiled

These remarks about the Durbin affair were just a few sentences but his response was spontaneous, genuine, unscripted, from the heart and the intellect. We have been wondering and waiting. We should have seen this coming. He said from the start he would continue the papacy of Francis; and he meant it. He is still, in many ways, a refreshing break. He is a man of prayer and of the Church; a man of love for the people and especially those who suffer; he is an institutionalist who will steady the bark of Peter; he is a reconciler who will try to unite all of us.  All of this is good.

But now we know him theologically: he is Francis II. He grew up in the American Church immediately after Vatican II; went to college and seminary in the 70s when the Church was at its very worse low point catechetically and theologically. It is clear he imbibed the soft, sentimental progressivism that pervaded our Church at that time. His short comments showed confused, fuzzy, sentimental thinking on many levels about moral theology, doctrine, abortion, politics, death penalty and immigration. All of this is just too familiar. He lacks the intellectual depth and clarity to resolve our crisis in accord with the Tradition we have received. We will continue in the fog of synodality and sentimentality. He is a man of charity and prayer; a capable administrator; he is not a theological teacher.

Dysfunctional Dad

I feel like a bright 12-year-old who has always loved and adored his father but has just discovered: Dad is a drunk; or is unfaithful to Mom; or is prejudiced and ignorant; or is a workaholic; or cannot keep a job. This is a sadness. It cannot be avoided. It must be grieved. But we still love Dad. We honor him as our father. And we love him the more in his weakness. We pray for him.

What Do We Look For in a Pope?

Four things: holiness of life; a heart of charity; competence in governing the Church; and theological wisdom in teaching. Pope Francis gets good grades for the first two; poor grade in the third; failing grade in the last. Popes John Paul and Benedict get superb grades in all except the third where Benedict scores higher than John Paul. John Paul's mission included so much that he gave little attention to steering the bark of Peter except by his sterling example. Pope Leo looks like he will do very well in the first three. But poorly in the last. Hopefully, better than Francis. But the signs are not good.

We Always Have John Paul and Benedict

These two are really one-but-dual papacy in that they worked together and their combined theological legacy (even as enlarged by adjacent thinkers) is a unity. It appears that Francis-Leo will also be a one-but-dual papacy in that their thinking forms a unity. And so, the deficiency in this second dual papacy is not catastrophic as we lean always into the thought of the prior two. Most of our young priests are John-Paul-Benedict-priests. We do not have, we will not have Francis-Leo priests. Not that they were not good men, but they were weak theologians. The legacy of John Paul/Benedict will stand with that of Augustine/Aquinas, Francis/Benedict, and the fathers and doctors.

Where Are The American Bishops?

This dispute between Paprocki and Cupich can be resolved by the Pope in Rome or the American bishops. Pope Leo has avoided direct definition but clearly sides with Cupich. From the American bishops we have a dozen clear voices. There are 430 American bishops, including retired. That is less than 3% of our bishops. Cupich directly violated episcopal policy and insulted his brother bishop and less than 3 out of 100 bishops have anything to say about it. Is this intellectual confusion? Or moral cowardice? Or a combination?

Church Honoring Politicians: BAD Idea!

Aside from Durkin's depraved advocacy for legal abortion, it is a  terrible idea for the Church to honor any politician. Even an ideal Catholic politician should not be honored publicly by the Church. 

Politics and religion are two different spheres and must be kept separate. This is like the NBA giving MVP award to the outstanding NFL quarterback of the year. Or the Nobel Prize Committee giving an academy award.  Nonsensical! Generally, conservatives understand this intuitively: politics does not belong in Church, or at the NFL, or the Academy Awards, or Disney World. Progressives have already sanctified their politics and politicized their faith. And so, even Pope Leo is confused: he conflates the prudential and varying judgements that Catholics entertain about immigration with abortion, an inherent, always-and-everywhere evil.

Additionally, politics is always complex, multi-valued, and polarizing. So, to honor any politician is already to alienate those opposed to his politics. In a 2-party system, to honor someone from one party is to offend the other. The Church unites us around the person of Jesus, the Eucharist, our legacy of belief and practice. It unites those of all races, classes, and politics. We as Church have no business honoring someone in the name of the Church because we like their politics. That applies to Cardinals especially!

What are We to Do?

1. We grieve. We are sad and disappointed. We hear Amos and Nehimiah: we mourn for Jerusalem, for Joseph, for our Church.

2. We refocus, as always, on our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He, not the Pope, is head of the Church. We renounce remnants of ultramontanism or hyper-papalism; we detach in love and renounce lingering co-dependency on the papacy.

3. We maintain our loyalty to him; we pray for him all the more, aware that he is weak; we strive with him for the unity of the Church, in all that is good, beautiful and true.

4. We continue in the Culture/Theological War: we witness to the Truth as given. We do so zealously, respectfully, peacefully, confidently, compassionately.

5. We look elsewhere for teaching, direction, shepherding, guidance. We have good shepherds among the priests and bishops, but not many of them. We are blessed with Spirit-filled laity who receive and protect the Deposit of Faith as they respond to new initiatives of the Holy Spirit. These include prominently theologians, leaders of the lay renewal movements, and thinkers within strong Catholic institutions. We are in the age of the laity. With the hierarchy and even the priesthood in crisis, our brightest intellectual light today comes from the laity.

6. As mentioned, we drink deeply from the legacy of John Paul, Benedict, their companion theologians of the Vatican Council (DeLubac, Danielou, Congar, Boyer), Balthasar and those that continue their work. 

Conclusion

We love and accept Pope Leo as he is; we pray for him.

We love and accept the Church for who she is. She is Jerusalem, walls in ruins. 

We pray that we may, like Ezra and Nehimiah, restore our city and its temple!