Sonic Youth and the Feelies vs. A Giant Hole of Suck
Photo of the Day, November 23, 2009: Stark
Where Should You Eat? A Fast Food Flowchart
Sports Redux: One Goal, And One Goal Only
Sunday Happenings
Poor John Paul II. The Pope did manage to appear at Easter Mass yesterday but was unable to speak. The Globe reports that "aides had brought a microphone to the Pope's mouth...he made a few sounds but was unable to pronounce any words."
Many in the crowd were crying and applauding the Pope's efforts, which were obviously causing him pain. In the end the pontiff's Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sondano, delivered the pope's Easter "Urbi et Orbi" liturgy (which means "for the city and for the world"). The Pope, who is 84, suffers from Parkinson's Disease and arthritis. He was hospitalized in February and March for two severe breathing crises and has not spoken publicly since.
Although the Pope's aides assure the public that he is still mentally sound and capable of carrying out his papal duties, many Catholics believe that he should step down, both for his health and the good of the Church. Bostonist remembers a heated debate about this topic at our last family gathering. What are your thoughts?
Contributed by Alex Gantley
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I think there are extremely _few_ Catholics currently in communion with the Church who think he should step down. They understand full well that the Pope is, in fact, by means of his suffering, continuing to instruct the faithful in morality and call them to goodness, and acting as a living witness to the multitudes, of God's triumphal plan - it's one of his most important duties, which is being done poignantly and with dignity, by a once vibrant and active man.
By doing what he is doing, he stands for the faith even unto death. He stands athwart the nihilistic modernism which gives rise to the culture of death and the fashion that says human health is equal to human value.
That said, I specify 'currently in communion' advisedly, and by which I mean they go to Church once a week, accept the major teachings of the Church, and currently have no stain of mortal sin on their soul. Self-honestly, specifying this cuts out a great many of the 'catholic' voices of dissent (from commentators, journalists, and organizations) I've run across, of any stripe, regardless of whether they are critical of this particular decision. A _lot_ of those yelling the loudest (and, face it, we only hear, because of the filters of the secular MSM and the odium fides of heretical sects, those who yell loudly) are like the man with the beam in his eye.
The many Prodigals are lost to us - but we will welcome them back with joy when they turn back from their turning away. We pity the many who are self-abandoned, who have banished themselves from the Kingdom. But we will run out to greet them when they make the journey back to their family's home.
Another point: what Catholic can get through celebrating the Easter Triduum, and say that through suffering, nothing good comes? That suffering should not be part of life? The Last Supper, the Garden Agony, the Betrayal, the Trial, the Passion, the Abandonment, even the happy, necessary Sin all of which lead to the Light of the World being brought into being, all these things and more besides refute the proposition, and affirm that there is a transcendent soul in all men (which makes them inherently valuable), and that it is that which links together Terri Schiavo, the Pope, all those suffering, as well as the non-suffering faithful. The Communion of Saints isn't just in heaven - it's here too. Too often, that last bit is forgotten.
Speaking of suffering, I actually read that whole thing!
best site