Potpourri on the News

Monday February 7, 2005

It’s fun to kill?

Reports on the public ‘off –the-cuff ‘ comments of marine Lieutenant Colonel James Matis that “It’s fun to kill the enemy…” and that he enjoyed a good brawl ranged from shock to ‘boys will be boys’ type comments. I suppose the latter would be better stated, “Marines will be marines!”

His superiors conceded that it was inappropriate to make public his opinion. It’s okay to take pleasure in the slaughter of your enemy as long as you don’t tell anyone.

Protestors, Catholics prominent among them, have protested outside the gates of the School of the Americas that torture and killing should never become an American pastime. It is the same thinking of Col. Matis that underlies the torture that erupted at the Abu Garib prison in Baghdad and as recent reports testify, at the Guantanamo detention center. Not good.

Curtis Sleiwa on the local ABC Curtis and Kuby Show told us that this is precisely what marines are “trained” to do. This is an interesting choice of words. It is my understanding that we “train” (brainwash) animals but instruct human beings. Is this what US Marines are really “trained” to do? Trained to have fun killing the enemy?

I was of the understanding that war is always a last resort and killing a terrible byproduct of war. Have I missed something in my moral theology to say nothing of patriotism?

Cancel my subscription!

Americans from both sides of the aisle should be outraged at Matis’ comments. Only two weeks ago, the son of the English Prince Charles was rightly reprimanded across the globe for wearing a Nazi swastika on his sleeve.

Lt. General Mattis has suffered a serious shortfall in courage and true patriotism.

John Paul II

News of the Holy Father’s illness has once again sparked comments and commentaries on the future of his papacy and speculation on his successor, all this amidst rumors of a Vatican cover-up of his true condition. I received calls from local reporters with inquires about what happens if he becomes incompetent and unable to fulfill the responsibilities of his office.

The truth is that the Holy Father was hit with the flu that has circled the globe and afflicted millions. As you know, people 65 and over have been encouraged to be vaccinated against the flu virus. I don’t know if he was indeed immunized; I feel certain he was. However, immunization doesn’t guarantee against every strain of the flu. In any case, when it hits anyone in the eighties it often requires hospitalization.

The Holy Father was not confined to the intensive care unit. He was not even on the critical list. The doctors diagnosed his condition and initiated remedies that took immediate effect and it is likely that he will return to his Vatican apartment by next week.

This recent illness notwithstanding, the Holy Father’s health status has been newsworthy for several years.

While I believe the Holy Father should be thinking about the need to retire for the good of the Church, John Paul II remains one of the most indefatigable Popes in recent history if not in the entire history of the Church.

Over ten years ago while in Rome during a general audience, we saw the early symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. He appeared frail and the American newspapers were already speculating on his demise, listing the names of those who were considered “papabili,” i.e., papal possibilities, a few of whom have died or are no longer on prominent speculators’ lists.

Italian news commentators at the time had their hands on the pulse of the Holy Father, as it were, and knew that he was a fighter and far from the end of his term or his earthly journey. Too bad American reporters do not have the same acumen as their opposite numbers among the Italian press corps.

That having been stated, Church law does indeed provide for the Holy Father’s resignation as long as the “resignation is made freely and rightfully manifested but not that it is expected by anyone.” [Canon 332 .2]

There have been rare occasions in Church history on which a pope has resigned. According to Richard McBrien, as few as three and perhaps as many as five popes, have ‘abdicated’ the papacy. [Cf. “Lives of the Popes, McBrien Harper, San Francisco, 1997] None of these have occurred in recent history.

I doubt that John Paul II will resign ‘in his lifetime’ and perhaps, as some of his protagonists have suggested, not in our lifetime!

He has loomed in the mind of many Catholics and non-Catholics, larger than life. To many devotees, he is not only a luminary of faith but also a hero of the oppressed, a liberator of the heart and soul of those who labored under Communism in Poland, indeed, in the entire eastern block countries.

Public and private citizens of every nation, the devout and not-so-devout have been found being in his presence an awesome experience. Priests who have had the privilege of concelebrating the Eucharist with him describe it as a very moving, never to be forgotten experience. Whatever one’s theological perspective or bent, there is no doubt about John Paul’s personal commitment to Christ and his undying loyalty to the Church.

However, every hero has his ‘Achilles heal’ and John Paul II is no exception despite his exalted position in the Church and respect among world leaders.

His greatest asset has also been his greatest liability. He is tenacity with regard to certain areas of Church discipline, e.g., mandatory celibacy, second marriages, the broadening of discipline regarding the celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, to name only a few, has occasioned disappointment and outright dissent among Catholics. His adamant rejection of any discussion on the ordination of women is based, he states, on a theological principle that in the mind of many biblical scholars, theologians and historians is no longer tenable. His defense of the natural law in the face of dramatic changes in the sexual mores even among Catholics has occasioned sharp criticism inside and outside the Church.

The question arises as to whether the Holy Father is being more intransigent than prophetic. For conservatives such as the noted author and biographer of John Paul II, George Weigel, [cf. “Witness to Hope,” G. Weigel, Cliff Street Books, 1999], John Paul is a modern prophet whose witness has yet to be fully appreciated. I dare say that Weigel will be one of the strongest proponents for John Paul’s canonization.

On the other hand, there are extremists on the end of the spectrum who view John Paul as the ‘antichrist.’ This of course is a preposterous inference if not an outrageous and even cruel epithet.

The difficulty with extreme view is that they leave little room for civil dialogue necessary for the discovery of new truths. The Church has changed over the course of history. I recall a comment of Bishop Mortimer Smith, the current bishop of Trenton, which he stated when he was still a young priest and canonist. To the inquiry of someone who apparently had questioned the orthodoxy of a comment he had made, “Are you faithful to the teaching of the Holy Father?” he responded, “Which one?” Interesting.

I would maintain that most Catholic churchgoers are ‘traditional’ Catholics. They reverence the Holy Father and respect his position as the leader of the universal Church and the apostolic successor of Peter. Nevertheless, they do not ascribe to him ultimate authority over their conscience in every regard. Quite frankly, I don’t think this was ever true in the history of the Church. It certainly was not true of my household family. The last word was spoken at our family table and ultimately in the sanctuary of our hearts (conscience). This does not mean that Church teachings were disregarded or that the words of the Holy Father was treated lightly. It simply means that we learned from our earliest years that when all is said and done,God speaks the loudest in the human heart

Italians have a much more refined sense of the authority of the Holy Father and distinguish carefully between his authority and divine authority.

This is not to denigrate the Holy Father’s authority or his dignity. It is only to suggest that the Holy Father is a servant of the gospel and must ultimately defer to divine wisdom revealed over time in the history of civilization. The ‘gift’ of infallibility is not the personal charism of the Holy Father but belongs to the Church when the Pope, Bishops, priest-shepherds and all the faithful gather together to reflect on revelation and Church teachings within the long tradition of our Church which includes of course, the ‘sensus fidelium,’ i.e., he gut ‘faith instincts’ of believers throughout the centuries. As a matter of fact, very few Church teachings have been solemnly defined as infallible teachings.

We are still a ‘church unfinished.” [Cf. recently published “Unfinished Church” by Bernard P. Prusak, Paulist Press, 2004] Within the story of civilization, we are only in the first chapter and perhaps only in the preface.

The Holy Father’s illness can foster some healthy dialogue as well as frivolous speculation. I prefer the former.

Let the conversation continue.

Recent Articles

Seventh Sunday of Easter 'B'

Living the Mystery at the town square As I walked recently to the Green in the center of Morristown after my…continue reading...

Sixth Sunday of Easter 'C'

In all things, charity It continues to astound me how the Scriptures come to life over and over again under different…continue reading...

Sixth Sunday of Easter 'C'

In all things, charity It continues to astound me how the Scriptures come to life over and over again under different…continue reading...

Fifth Sunday of Easter 'B'

Let’s stay connected. It’s not unusual to hear family members or close friends at the departure gates of life say to…continue reading...

Fourth Sunday of Easter 'B'

Watch out for the leopards! When my sister and I were kids, my father would whistle for us when it was…continue reading...