A Meditation on Winter

If anyone has had the misfortune of seeing me in RCIA, they know that I like to use metaphors and analogies. In fact, it probably appears that I paid good money for each as I try to wring every drop of meaning out of them, or as I often put it "I stretch a metaphor until it screams".  We're having a wonderful Texas winter right now with temperatures in the 50s so I was reminded of this metaphor that I haven't had the chance to use yet.  So I'll share it here for the benefit of my few regular readers.


I'm sure you've had this experience.  You are out and about when it's cloudy and gray and the temperature is in the upper 40's and there's a light breeze.  It's just gray and cold and everything you touch is cold and you just feel miserable.  Now consider a different situation. It's still in the upper 40s and there's still a light breeze but the sun is shining brightly.  Now it doesn't feel so bad.  The thermometer would say that things are exactly the same, but you feel much better.  You might even be able to do without your coat for short periods of time.  Obviously the sun is the difference, but what does the sun do?

The sun doesn't heat the air, the sun heats you and the ground and everything else.  But the air is clear so the sun has no affect on it. So even though the air is the same temperature, you are being warmed by the rays of the sun and so you feel warmer, even though the thermometer on the weather report (which is typically in the shade) says it's the same temperature.

So if the sun doesn't warm the air, how does it change temperature? How do we get cold fronts and warm fronts and all those strange runic symbols they show on TV?  Air warms up because it passes over the ground and trees and buildings that the sun as warmed.  It's a slow process.  Air is actually a good insulator as long as it's not moving.  That's how thermoses work.  Here in Texas we are frequently menaced by air that came from Alaska and drops our temperatures to the 20s and 30s.  And then we also are hit with winds coming from Mexico that pushed our temperatures into the 60s and 70s.  It's cold in the winter in the polar regions because the sun doesn't shine much and even when it does shine it's rays are very weak, coming in at an angle and having to pass through a lot of the atmosphere (air).  In the equatorial regions it is warm because the sun shines a lot every day and it comes perpendicular to the ground so it isn't diffused by the atmosphere as much.  It's a lot more complicated than that: there's factors such as humidity and air speed and probably wind shear that affects how quickly the air warms up or cools down, and in each case there's an equilibrium that sets up between the land and sea and air.  But the amount of sun and the intensity of the sunlight is a key factor that starts it all.

I think the lines and letters and triangles are added later, but I'm not sure how that works.

The obvious parallel here is between the physical world and the spiritual world.  I would propose that the "air" in my discourse above is roughly equivalent to the culture.  And the sun is equivalent to God. I'm not the first person to make a play on words between "Sun" and "Son".  When there's no God, the world seems like a cold place and it's uncomfortable and we don't like to spend any more time in it then we have to.  But when there's God, we are warmed and we enjoy being in the culture.  But of course by letting ourselves be warmed by God, we radiate that warmth and eventually even the culture around us becomes holier.  It takes a long time though.  We can look up in the sky and see that there's a lot of air that needs to be warmed up.  We know from experience that a few hours of weak sunlight a day won't do us any good and if we only have sunlight once a week, it's going to be a cold week.  So God can't be in our lives for only a short period of time if we're going to change the culture. And He can't be only a little bit there.  We can look around and see there's a lot of culture to change.  It has to be All God All the Time if we're going to do anything.

Finally, I mentioned that in the polar regions, the sunlight comes in at an angle and has to pass through a lot of atmosphere to hit the ground.  If we're seeing God filtered through the very culture we're trying to change, we aren't going to make much progress.  We are allowing culture to blunt the impact that God has on our lives so we naturally have less to radiate back to the culture.  The culture acting as the middle man here: giving us only the amount of God that it will allow and blocking what it finds objectionable or unnecessary.  In that case we're radiating the culture, not God.  And that's a dark and cold place.

Dismissal Notes for 3rd Sunday of Advent

3rd Sunday of Advent, Year C

12/13/2015

Ben Fischer

1st Reading Zephaniah 3:14-18a

Psalm Isaiah 12:2-6

2nd Reading Philippians 4:4-7

Gospel Luke 3:10-18

The first reading is from the prophet Zephaniah.  Zephaniah was active during the early years of Judean King Josiah.  Josiah became king at the age of 8 and at that time,  Judah was very corrupt.  The previous two kings had allowed and facilitated the worship of idols, even going so far as to install statues of idols in the Temple.  The early part of Zephaniah strongly condemns Judah for this idolatry and promises a great chastisement.  In fact, Josiah was the last of the “good kings” of Judah.  When he became an adult he instructed the priests to clean and renovate the Temple during which effort they found a “book of laws”.  He was terrified of the punishments promised to Judah and eliminated idol worship in Judah and set a number of reforms in religious and civic life.  But it was too late.  He fought with the Egyptians, losing his life in battle and was succeeded by sons who did not walk with the Lord.  Within a short period of time, the Babylonians conquered Judah and destroyed the Temple.

The portion of Zephaniah in today’s Mass concerns what happens after the great chastisement.  Zephaniah says that a remnant will remain.  God will purify them by removing the corrupt elements of society, leaving behind the righteous. Indeed, during the Babylonian Exile, the Babylonians did not forcibly remove ALL of the Judeans, they removed the king and the rulers and the Temple authorities and, in general, the elite.  These are the people the Zephaniah was denouncing in the early part of the book.  But it’s not just that the bad people are being removed and the good people are left in place. This isn’t an Old Testament version of the Left Behind books.  The “remnant” refers to the faithful, whether they are in Jerusalem, Babylon or anyplace else. Zephaniah specifically refers to the remnant being gathered from all over and being restored to their homeland in Israel.  Today’s reading is an expression of the joy the remnant will experience when God rewards their faithfulness.

So there’s a distinction that’s made between the judgement on the nation and the judgement on the individual.  A nation can be destroyed due to the faithlessness of the society, but that doesn’t condemn all members of the nation.  Similarly each person has their own obligation to live a righteous life, regardless of the state of society.  God will reward the righteous even as they may suffer from the decay of the society around them.  Zephaniah’s condemnation primarily falls on the leaders of Judah as their responsibility is primarily to the nation.  The leaders bear the responsibility for those that fall into sin because of the leader’s apostasy.  Those that fall into sin are responsible for their own actions but God’s punishment will not be as severe.  Those that remain righteous are those that will rejoice in God’s saving action.

The Canticle from Isaiah echos the same theme.  The early part of Isaiah goes back and forth between condemnation of Judah’s unfaithfulness and a promise of God’s reward to those who remain faithful.  Again we see the distinction between personal salvation and the fate of the nation.

This distinction between salvation on a personal level and a national level is revealed in the Gospel reading.  John the Baptist called people to the River Jordan for the forgiveness of sins.  Why the River Jordan?  In Israel at the time, the forgiveness of sins occurred in only one place: the Temple.  John was expressing a judgement on the religious elite of the day in a similar, but less dramatic sense than Zephaniah did.  The Temple was the focal point for Israel. The fate of Israel was tied up with the fate of the Temple. Were the Temple to be destroyed then the future of Israel would be in doubt.  This is historically accurate.  Historically, the fate of Israel was associated with the temple.  The Babylonians destroyed the temple after they conquered Judah.  The Greeks profaned the Temple during their rule of Israel in the time of the Maccabbees and, looking forward, after the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70AD, Israel as a nation essentially ceased to exist, or at least it barely hung on until the definitive destruction 60 years later.  John’s message does not dispute that reverence of the Temple, but he says it is not sufficient.  Personal holiness is required.  And he called people away from the Temple to emphasize that need for personal holiness.

The people in today’s Gospel have responded to John’s call for personal holiness and are asking how they can prepare the way of the Lord in their own lives.   John had just instructed the crowds who came to him that they needed to repent of their sins.  They cannot rely on their heritage as the “chosen people” for salvation:  8 Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So the naturally respond: What do we do?  What does it mean to “repent” and “bear good fruit?”

John’s responses seem banal. He tells people to share what they have.  He tells the tax collectors to only collect the taxes that are owed.  He tells the soldiers to not rob people.  This doesn’t seem to comport with the almost violent opening line about the need for conversion.  Yet there’s a stark demand here.  

The economic system the tax collectors found themselves in was fairly simple.  Rome decided how much tax Judea would pay and the tax collectors would go out and get it. The system not only allowed them to overcharge the Jews, it assumed that they would.  The tax had to be paid. If the tax collectors didn’t get enough, then the shortfall would come out of their pockets.  The tax collectors often paid for the license to collect taxes.  That license cost plenty of money and they needed to recoup that expense somehow.  So tax collection was a complex series of negotiations, fights, extortions and evasions which generally speaking the tax collector always won.  And they were rich as a result.

Soldiers were in a similar situation.  Soldiers were not rich.  They and their families were often very poor and in debt.  The pay of a Roman Soldier was very low – probably at least in part because Rome assumed the soldiers would steal the rest. They could look forward to a plot of land to farm upon retirement but the life of a soldier was hard and the punishments were severe and there was no guarantee that they would make it the twenty-five years before retirement. So if they needed some money, a soldier had every incentive to try to get it as soon as possible.  A soldier, after all, is a well trained strong man armed and shielded with a number of similarly well trained strong and well-armed men behind him.  Roman soldiers were constantly being called out to deal with some petty uprising or major insurrection and no police force was going to arrest the soldier if he looted a few more homes than justice required in quelling the riots.  

A current example may shed light on the situation.  In the 1990s a comedy called Liar Liar hit the movie theaters.  The basic premise was that a lawyer played by Jim Carrey could not tell a lie for a day.  The comedic point was that it would not only be very difficult for a lawyer to function without lying, but that indeed a man might get into law because he was a skilled liar.  Liars sought out the legal profession because it enabled good liars to perfect their craft and make good money from their skillset, such as it is.  The situation would be similar for tax collectors and soldiers.  Conniving thieves would naturally gravitate toward tax collection as a profession and thugs and bullies would naturally gravitate towards soldiering.  Those were the professions that rewarded their talents.

John is saying that the Ten Commandments apply in every situation.  The command to “not steal” applies even if you’re in a profession that accepts or even demands theft. We might wonder what John was say about some lawyers, politicians and actors we see on TV today.

John’s instruction has a double edge to it.  He is not only saying that it’s possible for a tax collector to conduct his business honestly, but he’s saying that tax collection is an honorable profession.  The unsavory reputation it has is due to those who misuse their position of power, not to the profession itself.  In a similar way, being a soldier is an honorable profession. It is those who misuse their authority that taint its image.  John did not tell the tax collectors to quit collecting taxes, nor did he tell the soldiers to put down their swords.  The jobs are fine. It’s they way they are conducting their jobs that is the problem.

I want to emphasize this a little more.  Two great saints of the twentieth century spoke often about this idea.  One the one hand, when the day of judgement comes, God will not ask “were you a tax collector” or “were you a businessman” or “were you a social worker”.  He is going to want to know how you lived out your Christian faith: how you loved your neighbors.  But on the other hand, our professions can be avenues for holiness.  Saint Josemaria Escriva often wrote about how work, performed with the love of Jesus, can sanctify the world.  Saint Therese, the Little Flower, similarly spoke of doing small things with great love.

Of course, not all jobs are inherently good. It’s hard to imagine John the Baptist telling an abortionist, or a pornographer or a pimp to do his work with honesty and integrity. Each profession has to be judged for it’s compatibility with the demands of Christian ethics.  Some professions are inherently inimical to Christian values.  But some are not. Discerning the difference requires a conscience that is formed in light of scripture and Church teaching.

The Gospel ends by saying that the multitudes were excited by John and wondered if he might be the long-awaited messiah.  John followed in the pattern of the prophets: calling people to repent of their sins and promising salvation if they do.  Messianic fervor was at a peak at this time: the prophecies of Daniel pointed to this age as the time of the Messiah and the Jews were in need of a savior, living under a foreign power.  Many of the faithful Jews were skeptical of some of their leaders, who they saw as in collusion with the Romans.  The High Priest who was supposed to be the spiritual leader of the Jews was a political appointment and was subject to the pagan Romans.  The faithful Jews probably felt very much like the remnant described by the prophets.  How they must have longed to sing those songs of joy in the first reading and the canticle.

If the Jews were looking for a political or military leader to overthrow the Romans, they were looking in an odd place.  John is described in the Gospels has a half-crazed man with a wild appearance and ascetic diet.  John had no obvious military or organizational skills with which to lead a rebellion against the Romans.   In fact, John did not speak against the Romans at all, but against the Jewish leaders.  What kind of savior was this?

Would John be the one to free the Jews? In a sense he was.  He prepared the way for Jesus.  But he definitely had a sense of proportion. He knew who he was and he knew how God is.  John accumulated a large number of followers. That must have been a temptation:  Perhaps they were right: he was meant to lead them against the Romans.  They would follow.  Perhaps they would win?  Perhaps the crowds are a sign of God’s favor?  But John never lost sight of his mission. He did not seek glory for himself, but rather sought the glory of God.  

If John did not have the skills to unseat the Romans, he had one trait that was greatest of all. He was humble.  He didn’t see his followers as a willing army waiting for him to give marching orders.  He didn’t see them as a mob that he could unleash or call back as he wished.  He didn’t see them as a means to his own aggrandizement.  He saw them as a flock in need of a shepherd.  He saw them as children of God who longed to be reunited with their Father.

Closing Prayer

Grant, almighty God, that looking forward in faith to the feast of our Lord’s birth, we may feel all the happiness our Saviour brings and celebrate his coming with unfailing joy.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

The Lord bless us, and keep us from all evil, and bring us to everlasting life.

AMEN

Francis on Condoms and AIDS

Yesterday I had a short-lived post up about Pope Francis in which I took issue with his word-salad response to a loaded question about condom usage on his airplane presser on his way back from Africa.  I subsequently deleted the post because in retrospect it was in poor taste.  I say that on the off chance that someone actually saw that before it came down (which I doubt given the light traffic on this blog). It was fortuitous that I did because today I came to a possible insight.

Here's the relevant portion of the interview.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-popes-in-flight-interview-from-africa-to-rome-48855/

Juergen Baetz, DPA (Germany): Your Holiness, HIV is ravaging Africa. Medication means more people now live longer, but the epidemic continues. In Uganda alone there were 135,000 new infections of HIV, in Kenya it’s worse. It’s the greatest cause of death in Africa. Your Holiness, you have met with HIV positive children, you heard a moving testimony in Uganda. Yet you have said very little on the issue. We know that prevention is key. We know that condoms are not the only method of solving the epidemic, but it’s an important part of the answer. Is it not time for the Church to change it’s position on the matter? To allow the use of condoms to prevent more infections?

Pope Francis: The question seems too small to me, it also seems like a partial question. Yes, it’s one of the methods. The moral of the Church on this point is found here faced with a perplexity: the fifth or sixth commandment? Defend life, or that sexual relations are open to life? But this isn’t the problem. The problem is bigger...this question makes me think of one they once asked Jesus: “Tell me, teacher, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? Is it obligatory to heal?” This question, “is doing this lawful,” … but malnutrition, the development of the person, slave labor, the lack of drinking water, these are the problems. Let’s not talk about if one can use this type of patch or that for a small wound, the serious wound is social injustice, environmental injustice, injustice that...I don’t like to go down to reflections on such case studies when people die due to a lack of water, hunger, environment...when all are cured, when there aren’t these illnesses, tragedies, that man makes, whether for social injustice or to earn more money, I think of the trafficking of arms, when these problems are no longer there, I think we can ask the question “is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” Because, if the trafficking of arms continues, wars are the biggest cause of mortality...I would say not to think about whether it’s lawful or not to heal on the Sabbath, I would say to humanity: “make justice,” and when all are cured, when there is no more injustice, we can talk about the Sabbath.

 This is simply terrible.  It wanders all over the place touching on every subject except that which the reporter asked about. It's like a politician speaking.  It has been interpreted as Francis downplaying the Church's teaching on condoms.

However, I think the key to understanding this is the first line.  I think that Francis here is saying that there are a lot of problems in Africa and condoms aren't going to solve them.  One of those problems is AIDS but there are many more.  I believe that Francis is saying "With all the problems in Africa, why are you so focused on condoms?  Is sex all that you can think about?"  Note the questioner was from Germany, the land that is trying to normalize all sorts of sexual behavior.

As far as all the other stuff about arms trafficking and environmentalism and pharisees, I think that's Francis just filling the air with his own hobby horses because he finds the question irrelevant.

I don't know if it's correct, but it's a possible interpretation. I'm trying to give Francis the benefit of the doubt (which I wasn't last night). I'm more willing to be wrong in giving him the benefit of the doubt than I am in accusing him of saying something he didn't mean to say.

I never thought I'd say it but I'm reading a book by Mark Shea

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B013YE53DW

It's actually quite good so far and a lot of research went into it.  A LOT of research.  And it's written in a very conversational tone.  I've lost my love for Mark Shea over the years, but this may bring me back.

I'll report back later but as it stands this could very well be a "foundation book" along with Pope B16's Jesus of Nazareth for prospective Catholics.

Francis on Intercommunion

The Indefatigable Jimmy Akin strkes again
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-on-intercommunion-with-lutherans

It's hard to know what to make of this. I know from sad personal experience that when blindsided with a question you can easily end up using many words to say nothing. But if this question was pre-selected as is implied, well then...

I'm also skeptical of the reporting on this because apparently the Pope rambled on for several minutes without insulting anyone.  That doesn't seem normal.  Perhaps his overly effusive praise of Kasper was intended as an insult (flattering someone for the particular trait they lack in order to point it out).  It's all a mystery.

A meditation on God's Providence

Matthew 6:25-26

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat [or drink], or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they?

To tell the truth, this is one of the more difficult passages in the Gospels.   Not "difficult" as in "I don't want to hear it" but "difficult" as in "that makes no sense."  My life has been a constant effort.  I would venture to guess that there are exactly zero things that I'm naturally good at.  I feel like God's admonition to Adam in Genesis 3:19 was given to me: "By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken."  In truth every modicum of success I've ever had has been the result of stubborn effort and on the day that my effort ceases, then I'll likely cease as well.  Not even "success": even the failures have been the result of hard stubborn work.

And I'm hardly alone.  Read the story of Mother Angelica, Saint Teresa, Saint John of the Cross or for that matter, Saints Peter and Paul.  Most of the really great human stories that we hear are about people struggling against disability, disease, misfortune and temptation.  How can the Gospel passage above apply to any of us?

But something about that occurred to me.  One of my neighbors has an apple tree which extends over his back yard into the alley. Right now, it's dropping apples at a steady rate as the cold weather finally kicks in.  The squirrels run up and eat the apples and haul what they can back to their burrows (or wherever squirrels go).  My neighbor probably isn't too happy if the squirrels eat the apples right out of his tree, but anything that falls in the alley is fair game. God is providing for them.

But squirrels have a hard life.  I see them run back and forth across my back fence and they are harassed constantly.  Birds swoop down and peck at them if they get too close.   They have to fight other squirrels for what the birds don't steal.  Any dogs in the backyard will give chase if they wander into view.  Yet they survive and God gives them what they need to survive.  He doesn't take away the struggle, He makes the struggle pay off.

When Jesus says "Look at the birds in the sky... your heavenly Father feeds them."  He does, but birds eat voraciously to support the constant effort that is is there life.  Jesus says a verse later that the wildflowers are clothed more elegantly than even Solomon.  Indeed!  But plants dig into the hard soil and even crack rocks with their roots to stay alive.

The passage above doesn't promise and easy life.  It promises that effort will pay off.  On the other hand, it doesn't guarantee misery.  This is not the Winston Churchill school of motivation:  “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.”  We give glory to God by fulfilling the role that God has for us.  And that brings a certain peace and joy, and perhaps even comfort.  But it never excuses us from the work at hand.

RCIA Talk for Sunday 11/22

Breaking open the Word (aka, Dismissal)

34th Sunday of Ordinary Time / The Feast of Christ the King

November 22, 2015

Ben Fischer

The opening reading is from the Book of Daniel. The Book of Daniel is the last of the Major Prophets in the Old Testament, and is notable for it’s rich and vivid imagery.  The visions are similar to those in the Book of Revelation.  The book is also notable for it’s clear Messianic prophecies. Two prophecies are important for today’s discussion: the reference to the Son of Man in today’s reading and a timeline that the Jews believed predicted when the Messiah was to come.  And indeed, that timeline pointed to the time of Jesus, so when He walked on Earth, Messianic expectations were very high.

In today’s reading we read a portion of a vision that Daniel had.  Just before today’s first reading, Daniel has a vision of four beast emerging from the waters, each more terrible than the one before.  The first one was like a lion with eagle’s wings. The second one was like a bear. The third like a leopard with four wings and four heads.  The fourth beast was unlike the others, “terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong”. It had 10 horns on it’s head and as Daniel looked a new horn appeared and three others fell before it and the new horn had eyes like a man’s and a mouth which spoke boastfully.  Then a throne was erected and the Ancient of Days took his place on the throne. His clothing was white as snow and his hair was white like wool. His throne was blazing with fire and countless thousands of people attended to him.  Before the Ancient of Days or “Ancient One”, the fourth beast was destroyed.

Then we come to today’s reading. One, like the Son of Man, came and stood before the Ancient One and received glory and dominion over all.

This phrase “Son of Man” is the most common expression that Jesus used to refer to Himself.  It is a strange circumlocution. In essence, a “son of man” is simply a man – a mortal, a mere human.  It appears several places in the Old Testament and merely means that.   In the case of this vision of Daniel, there seems to be additional context.  In the beginning of the vision, there are a number of fantastic and unimaginable beings.  The four beasts look like an amalgam of living animals and the Ancient One is only vaguely described.  Is He human? Is He yet in some other form?  But the one “like a Son of Man” stands before them all and and was found worthy and received dominion.  This is no mere mortal.  This is the essence of humanity: humanity as it was before the Fall; made in the image and likeness of God and who had been given dominion over all the Earth.  

The Jews understood the “Ancient One” or “Ancient of Days” to refer to God seated on His throne.  The book of Daniel goes on to interpret the beasts and the horns as referring to the pagan kings which tormented Israel.  The “Son of Man” was widely accepted by the Jews as referring to the Messiah who was chosen by God to lead His people to victory.  There was no expectation that the Messiah would be divine.  That wouldn’t come until Jesus revealed it.  The Messiah was simply an exemplar, a great leader and a great man.  Very much like the vision in Daniel: someone who has been found worthy by God and who can stand before the forces arrayed against him and emerge victorious.

For Jesus to take that title for Himself seems contradictory. After all, He is the Son of God!  And calling Himself “Son of Man” seems to be only partially correct since Joseph was His legal, but not biological father. The Christian interpretation is that Daniel saw one like the Son of Man.  Not just a son of man.  For Jesus was truly man, but also truly God.

It is believed that by using this title, Jesus was doing several things.  He was identifying Himself totally with humanity; “like us in all things but sin”.  We was also identifying Himself with this prophecy in Daniel.  When the Jews heard Him use this phrase, they would have understood that Jesus was referring to Himself as the Messiah and as perfected humanity.  He is victorious over the enemy and His words bring Eternal Life and He is the model that we need to live up to.  

In the Gospel reading, this Messianic fervor brought Jesus to the ruler of the day.  The Jewish authorities, fearful of what the Romans might do if Jesus’ followers got out of hand, turned Him into the local authorities with the charge of insurrection.  Pope Benedict XVI wrote about this in his book Jesus of Nazareth, volume II.

The image of Pilate in the Gospels presents the Roman Prefect quite realistically as a man who could be brutal when he judged this to be in the interests of public order. Yet he also knew that Rome owed its world dominance not least to its tolerance of foreign divinities and to the capacity of Roman law to build peace. This is how he comes across to us during Jesus’ trial.

The charge that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews was a serious one. Rome had no difficulty in recognizing regional kings like Herod, but they had to be legitimated by Rome and they had to receive from Rome the definition and limitation of their sovereignty. A king without such legitimation was a rebel who threatened the Pax Romana and therefore had to be put to death.

Pilate knew, however, that no rebel uprising had been instigated by Jesus. Everything he had heard must have made Jesus seem to him like a religious fanatic, who may have offended against some Jewish legal and religious rulings, but that was of no concern to him. The Jews themselves would have to judge that. From the point of view of the Roman juridical and political order, which fell under his competence, there was nothing serious to hold against Jesus.

At this point we must pass from considerations about the person of Pilate to the trial itself. In John 18:34-35 it is clearly stated that, on the basis of the information in his possession, Pilate had nothing that would incriminate Jesus. Nothing had come to the knowledge of the Roman authority that could in any way have posed a risk to law and order. The charge came from Jesus’ own people, from the Temple authority. It must have astonished Pilate that Jesus’ own people presented themselves to him as defenders of Rome, when the information at his disposal did not suggest the need for any action on his part.

Yet during the interrogation we suddenly arrive at a dramatic moment: Jesus’ confession. To Pilate’s question: “So you are a king?” he answers: “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice” (Jn 18:37). Previously Jesus had said: “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world” (18:36).

This “confession” of Jesus places Pilate in an extraordinary situation: the accused claims kingship and a kingdom. Yet he underlines the complete otherness of his kingship, and he even makes the particular point that must have been decisive for the Roman judge: No one is fighting for this kingship. If power, indeed military power, is characteristic of kingship and kingdoms, there is no sign of it in Jesus’ case. And neither is there any threat to Roman order. This kingdom is powerless. It has no legions.

With these words Jesus created a thoroughly new concept of kingship and kingdom, and he held it up to Pilate, the representative of classical worldly power. What is Pilate to make of it, and what are we to make of it, this concept of kingdom and kingship? Is it unreal, is it sheer fantasy that can be safely ignored? Or does it somehow affect us?

In addition to the clear delimitation of his concept of kingdom (no fighting, earthly powerlessness), Jesus had introduced a positive idea, in order to explain the nature and particular character of the power of this kingship: namely, truth. Pilate brought another idea into play as the dialogue proceeded, one that came from his own world and was normally connected with “kingdom”: namely, power—authority. Dominion demands power; it even defines it. Jesus, however, defines as the essence of his kingship witness to the truth. Is truth a political category? Or has Jesus’ “kingdom” nothing to do with politics? To which order does it belong? If Jesus bases his concept of kingship and kingdom on truth as the fundamental category, then it is entirely understandable that the pragmatic Pilate asks him: “What is truth?” (18:38).

It is the question that is also asked by modern political theory: Can politics accept truth as a structural category? Or must truth, as something unattainable, be relegated to the subjective sphere, its place taken by an attempt to build peace and justice using whatever instruments are available to power? By relying on truth, does not politics, in view of the impossibility of attaining consensus on truth, make itself a tool of particular traditions that in reality are merely forms of holding on to power?

And yet, on the other hand, what happens when truth counts for nothing? What kind of justice is then possible? Must there not be common criteria that guarantee real justice for all—criteria that are independent of the arbitrariness of changing opinions and powerful lobbies? Is it not true that the great dictatorships were fed by the power of the ideological lie and that only truth was capable of bringing freedom?

Benedict XVI, Pope (2011-03-10). Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection (pp. 188-191). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

Today is the feast of Christ the King.  The feast day was originally established by Pius XI in 1925.  This was in response to the rise of Fascism and Socialism after the disastrous First World War. Both political systems are inherently materialistic and atheistic.  By establishing this Feast Day, Pope Pius XI hoped that

1. The Church would remain free from state interference,
2. That secular leaders would remember their duty to honor and respect Christ
3. That the faithful would be reminded that Christ must reign in our hearts, minds, wills and bodies.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas.html

(or just Google “Quas Primas”)

Those are still relevant today.  The specific political systems that were ascendant in 1925 have been replaced, but their replacements are no less materialistic or secular in outlook. And the four beasts of Daniel’s vision continue to attack our faith and our culture.

May the Son of Man conquer our enemies and rule in our hearts and minds!

Closing Prayer

Almighty, ever-living God,

 it is your will to unite the entire universe under your beloved Son,

 Jesus Christ, the King of heaven and earth.

Grant freedom to the whole of creation,

 and let it praise and serve your majesty for ever.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,

 who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

 one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

The Lord bless us, and keep us from all evil, and bring us to everlasting life.

Huzzah! Maureen Mullarky is back online

http://studiomatters.com/

From her "I'm back" post
http://studiomatters.com/note-to-readers

This brings me to Ross Douthat’s go-round with the roster of Jesuits and academics who pulled their hems back from his published dismay over the agenda of our bien pensant pope. Without a doubt, I am in Douthat’s corner. Full square. I have only one demurral from his rousing public apologia. 

In his “Letter to the Catholic Academy” he states: “A columnist has two tasks: To explain and to provoke.” To explain, yes. But to provoke? That is the role of pamphleteers, not journalists. It implies a willed effort to inflame, agitate. Hacer un lío—rock the boat. That is Francis’ preferred modus operandi. It is not mine, and never was. 

No serious journalist—and Douthat is unquestionably serious—needs to make an effort to provoke. Provocation comes unbidden when writers try to tell the truth as they understand it. The truth shall make you free, John told us. But not everyone wants the truth for fear of the very freedom it brings.

"...pulled their hems back from his published dismay..."  Classic!

The Death of Arius

Those that would twist scripture and the clear teachings of the magisterium to their advantage should consider the fate of the most famous heretic in the history of the Church.

This is the account, per Athanasius

Arius, on account of his politically-powerful friends, had been invited to appear before the emperor Constantine. When he arrived, the emperor asked him whether or not he held to the orthodox beliefs of the universal church. Arius declared with an oath that he did, and gave an account of his beliefs in writing. But, in reality, he was twisting the Scriptures and not being honest about the points of doctrine for which he had been excommunicated.

Nonetheless, when Arius swore that he did not hold the heretical views for which he had been excommunicated, Constantine dismissed him, saying, “If your faith is orthodox, you have done well to swear; but if your beliefs are heretical, and you have sworn falsely, may God judge you according to your oath.”

When Arius left the emperor, his friends wanted to immediately restore him to the church. But the bishop of Constantinople (a man named Alexander), resisted them, explaining that the inventor of such heresies should not be allowed to partake in communion. But Arius’s friends threatened the bishop, saying, “In the same way that we brought him to the emperor, against your wishes, so tomorrow — though it be contrary to your wishes — Arius will have communion with us in this church.” They said this on a Saturday.

When Alexander heard this, he was greatly distressed. He went into the church and stretched out his hands before God, and wept. Falling on his face, he prayed, “If Arius is allowed to take communion tomorrow, let me Your servant depart, and do not destroy that which is holy with that which is unholy. But if You will spare Your church (and I know that You will spare it), take note of the words of Arius’s friends, and do not give Your inheritance to destruction and reproach. Please remove Arius from this world, lest he should enter the church and bring his heresy with him, and error would be treated as if it were truth.” After the bishop finished praying, he retired to his room deeply concerned.

Then an incredible and extraordinary thing happened. While Arius’s friends made threats, the bishop prayed. But Arius, who himself was making wild claims, unexpectedly became very ill. Urged by the necessities of nature he withdrew, and suddenly, in the language of Scripture, “falling headlong, he burst open in the middle,” and immediately died where he lay. In an instant, he was deprived not only of communion, but of his very life.

That was the end of Arius.

http://thecripplegate.com/death-of-historys-worst-heretic/

The highlighted passage above is expanded upon a bit by Scholasticus

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people.

http://taylormarshall.com/2012/10/how-arius-heretic-died-in-bathroom.html

The rest is just nasty.

The moral of the story is that holding heretical beliefs is dangerous.  Twisting the words of scripture to confirm your heretical beliefs is dangerous, and preening at your cleverness and ingenuity in doing so is even worse.

Interpreting Francis, Again

The internet still is on fire about Francis' performance in the recent Synod.  A good example is Damian Thompson's latest in The Spectator.

One source of all the angst is Francis' closing speech at the Synod.  I have two excerpts.  The first one is

It was also about laying closed hearts, which bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.

 Most people have read this has an attack against the conservative wing that wouldn't budge on the Kasper proposal.  They would be the ones "hiding behind even the Church's teaching" but what about the next few words "or good intentions"?

I tell my students in RCIA that the magisterium must be read in continuity with what came before.  There's open debate about whether Francis, in fact, intends to be read in that way. Most people read him as a innovator and he doesn't seem to mind that. However, perhaps we can read the man with the Hermeneutic of Franciscan Continuity: that even if he's not consistent with his predecessors, he's at least consistent with himself.  That paragraph above reminds me quite a bit of his closing speed of Synod 2014.

One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals. 

- The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.

- The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46). 

- The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God. 

- The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

Putting these two together, it seems that in the closing speech of Synod 2015, he was, once again, castigating everyone, not just conservatives.  The conservatives are indeed "hiding behind the Church's teaching" but progressives are also hiding behind "good intentions".

The next slap came later in the same speech. I've highlighted the controversial line.

The Synod experience also made us better realize that the true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit; not ideas but people; not formulae but the gratuitousness of God’s love and forgiveness. This is in no way to detract from the importance of formulae, laws and divine commandments, but rather to exalt the greatness of the true God, who does not treat us according to our merits or even according to our works but solely according to the boundless generosity of his Mercy (cf. Rom 3:21-30; Ps 129; Lk 11:37-54). It does have to do with overcoming the recurring temptations of the elder brother (cf. Lk 15:25-32) and the jealous labourers (cf. Mt 20:1-16). Indeed, it means upholding all the more the laws and commandments which were made for man and not vice versa (cf. Mk 2:27). 

Again, Francis embraces squishy non-dogmatic feel-goodism.  However, the very next line says "This is in no way to detract from the importance of formulae, laws and divine commandments".  Colloquially, if you were listening to someone say these two sentences back to back, you'd hear the author say "... true defenders are not those who ONLY uphold it's letter, but ALSO it's spirit".  I think it's a reasonable interpretation.

The most recent outrage came from ANOTHER interview in which he apparently said dodgy things. Damian Thompson's article linked above has a decent rundown of that.   I got nothing.   I am as confused as the rest of the world.

I've mentioned before that Francis is the Don Rickles of Popes.  I don't know why he was so mad at the synod fathers in 2014 and 2015.  Perhaps he was hoping they, as a group, would come up with something that he could use.  Some new specific avenue of mercy.  I don't know if he actually wanted the Kasper proposal to be approved, but perhaps he thought that some compromise would be found.  (I don't know what that could be).  When none was forthcoming, he unleashed his acid tongue at the rigid doctrinaires and do-gooders who were each too stubborn to budge.

We may never know.  

Like the rest of the conservatives, I'm afraid of what Francis will come up with when he issues his post synodal exhortation.  But until then, I think some of the histrionics about the synod are overblown and I hope emotions die down soon.

Erasmus Lectures

Or should that be Erasmi?  Doubtless, many have been following the kerfuffle involving Ross Douthat.  He made some comments that got the liberals in a snit, then appeared on First Things' Erasmus Lecture.

http://www.firstthings.com/media/the-crisis-of-conservative-catholicism

Interestingly, last year Archbishop Chaput gave the Erasmus lecture and during the Q&A portion said some things that got the liberals' noses out of joint.

http://www.firstthings.com/events/2014-erasmus-lecture

The year before Rabbi Jonathan Sacks gave the Erasmus lecture and, as far as I know, no liberal's feelings were hurt.

http://www.firstthings.com/media/on-creative-minorities-featuring-rabbi-jonathan-sacks

For the record, I thought Rabbi Sacks' talk was the most compelling.

However, I am mostly interested in the tone of the last three lectures.  Rabbi Sacks talked about creative minorities. He specifically referenced the role that Jews played as a persecuted minority.  Archbishop Chaput spoke about the decline of Christian culture.  Ross Douthat spoke of the resiliance of dissenting voices within the Catholic community, even after over 30 years of conservative papacies.  None of these talks are very triumphalistic.  All assume that the orthodox or conservative position (which is the position First Things caters to) is a hunted minority and none assume that things will get better soon.

Of course, some of this is grandstanding.  Everyone fancies themselves a persecuted minority.  If you go to the comments section of a typical National Catholic Reporter story, the feverish rantings would imply that THEY are the oppressed masses.  And then you turn on the Erasmus lecture and it turns out WE are the oppressed resistance fighters.  And you get the same nonsense listening to political stump speeches (even Barack Obama is persecuted by powerful forces in Washington).  I don't know what a psychologist would call that, but I call it pandering to the base.  I also don't understand why people want to hear that they are being bullied around, but I know that it's effective.

But beyond the grandstanding, I think there's an important point, and I think that Mr Douthat put his finger on it. To hear the dominant narrative in the late 1990's, you'd think that we'd be living in a conservative paradise by now.  Mahoney and Trautman and Hubbard would be gone and the LCWR would be in it's collective dotage and the Church would be run by vibrant young bishops and habited smiling nuns.

And how'd that work out?  Of course, things have gotten a little better, but I think that after a couple of years with Francis, it's obvious that we didn't really ever have a crop of fiercely orthodox Bishops turning out fiercely orthodox priests.  We had a bunch of Bishops and seminarians we went along with however the winds were blowing.  When Rome was tilting in an orthodox direction, they got out the man-lace and thuribles and chanted with the best of them.  Now that Rome is tilting the other way, they are rummaging around for colored sweaters and telling people "just call me Bob!"

Douthat is absolutely correct that conservatives need to do a better job explaining their positions.  We cannot rely on Rome to settle debates for us.  We've gotten lazy (or maybe always were lazy) and that needs to change now.  In that regard we are well served by organizations like The Institute of Catholic Culture and First Things and Crisis Magazine (though Crisis is more of a pop-journal that also panders to it's base than a reasoned thinker's journal).

If Conservatives reflexively appeal to Rome to settle an argument, then the recent arguments over Douthat's column and -- when you get right down to it -- his existence demonstrate that liberals will reflexively appeal to the academy to settle an argument.  The point is that neither side cares about that appeal. The last thing a conservative will listen to is a tenured Jesuit, unless he agrees with him of course. And the last thing a liberal will listen to is the Pope, unless he agrees with him.  So these arguments must be understood to be what they are: they are intended to buck up the faithful, and not to convert the heathen.

Arguments must be based on something else: reason, experience, common shared values.  Judicious use of power will also have to be applied as well, but as is obvious conservatives have no power outside a few Chancery offices.  The universities, charities and even the Vatican is now firmly in liberal control and has been for some time.  But where power exists, it must be used subtly but judiciously.  The liberal way is to come in with a wrecking ball and destroy, because destruction is part of the liberal agenda. Rebuilding afterwards is a nice extra.  The conservative principle is more of a brick-by-brick approach because preservation is the goal.  But those bricks must be laid and they must be strong.

That's the way it is. We must pray for prudence and patience and strength and persistence.

The Hermeneutics of Bafflegab

I assumed that both "sides" in the synod subscribed to the Hermeneutics of Continuity, but they differed on what they were in continuity with. One side was holding fast to the traditions of the Church has preserved by the Holy Spirit, and one side was holding fast to the Spirit of Vatican II and ditching whatever traditions got in their way.  Then Pope Francis scolded the synod fathers for reading events with a hermeneutic of conspiracy and I thought I'd heard it all.

But Cardinal Wuerl apparently has framework that I hadn't even considered where ambiguity is a feature, not a bug and we'll hold on to the teachings, but who can actually say what that means? It's all about encountering and accompanying.   What do we do after we encounter and accompany people? We lead them to Christ! How do we do that? By encountering and accompanying them.  When do we share the Gospel message and the teachings preserved by the Church? Well...

 

Raymond's look of confusion is priceless.

A Thought about the Synod

A couple of years back, when all the world was exercised about gays marching in New York's St Patrick Day Parade (which now seems like such a quaint time), Anthony Esolen had this to say.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/serpents-gone

At the time it came out, I found much wisdom in the piece.

In the parade are liars, cheats, gossips, Sabbath-breakers, and people who drink too much. In the parade are adulterers, a thief or two, a pleasant civic-minded taker of bribes, a man who beats his wife, and a wife who beats her husband. In the parade are people hooked on porn, and at least one woman who has produced some of it herself. In the parade are parents who have hurt their children and children who have hurt their parents. In the parade are fornicators, and some who have snuffed in the womb the natural result of their fornication. In the parade is a doctor who let an elderly patient die of an overdose of morphine because her relatives wanted it. In the parade are the angry, the false-hearted, the covetous, the slothful, the vain, the blasphemous, the licentious, the ambitious, the perverse, the cruel, the petty, the lukewarm, and the obscene.

Dr Esolen's point is that in any group of people, there will be sinners o'plenty.  This is perfectly illustrated in a subsequent paragraph.

In the town next to mine when I was a boy, the Italian immigrants had brought over from Gubbio a great festive parade, the Race of the Saints. Three teams of men, carrying seven-hundred-pound statues of Saint George, Saint Anthony, and Saint Ubaldo, Gubbio’s patron, would race up and down the hilly streets, to the cheers of most of their four thousand townsmen. Sin was carrying sanctity; sinners bent their backs and strained their legs to give honor to the saints. 

That is why we have a parade. We who are not always honorable show our appreciation for honor. We who are not always holy show our reverence for holiness. We who are small pay our respects to what is great. We who have received great benefits show some modest gratitude for those who have conferred them upon us.

So we're all sinners. What could go wrong?

Now let us suppose that the Royal Order of Wife-Beaters wants to add their float to the parade, with a jaunty young lady bending over to invite the man with the big paddle. Let us suppose that the Fornicators for Freedom want to march, dancing to “Paradise by the Dashboard Lights.” Let us suppose that a group calling itself Porn Again Christians wants to strut, with bikini underwear and thongs. Let us suppose that the Rumor Rustlers want to march, advertising their raison d’etre, to ferret out other people’s ugly secrets and to spread them abroad in gleeful caricatures.

Now suppose that the parade were ostensibly held to celebrate the feast day of a saint, and that a leader of the saint’s faith were to occupy the seat of honor. That would not be a case of sin carrying sanctity. It would be a case of sin marching right over the backside and the head of sanctity. Saint Patrick, according to legend, cast all the serpents out of Ireland. The new Patrick is more “inclusive.” He welcomes the serpents back in.

I've been thinking about this in terms of the recent synod.  What I'm about to say may be unpopular, but it's surely true.  Those who are divorced and remarried can, in large part, already receive Communion.  They can either just go up the aisle and deal with the looks and occasional comments, or they can change parishes.  In a large urban or suburban setting, it's possible that the great majority of people in Mass don't even know who they are or if they are married, dating, cohabiting or what.  If so they might be able to fix that by going to different mass than the one their acquaintances do.  Only people in small rural settings -- with maybe 200 parishioners and no other parish within twenty miles would everyone know their business and there's no option for another parish.

Surely the scenario I'm lining out is happening today.  It's like Dr Esolen's parade of sinners.  It's not right, and it's dangerous for the souls of the "remarried" couple that does it, but it's typical of humanity.  And it in no way impacts the teachings of the Church.  That a Church doctrine would be ignored is about as surprising as morning following night.

In the synod, however, what was being proposed is the accommodation of sin.  Now not only the couple is in jeopardy, but presumably the entire Church.  If divorce and remarriage is sinful ("remarriage" meaning marriage without annulment), then if the Church endorses it in any way, it's complicit in the sin.  In the case of the large urban or suburban parish I mentioned, the impact is, again, minimal.  Most people are unaware of the couple situation anyway. In the case of the small rural parish, the impact is more dramatic, but those are small numbers as well.  So we're not talking about widespread scandal.  But it's qualitatively different.

I'm not in favor of a remarried couple running off to another parish where no one knows them and taking part in the sacraments.  I want all people to go to heaven, and if Our Lord said that something is a sin, I'd prefer all people avoid it.  However, I can't deny that it happens, and in a way I'm OK with it.  Their sin is, after all, their sin.  As long as the Church isn't endorsing or publicly tolerating it, I can sit next to the couple in Mass and offer the sign of peace in blissful ignorance.  By the same token, I don't know if the person sitting next to me in Mass is a thief, a lier, a bigot or a scoundrel.  I know he's a sinner, but I don't know what kind of sinner.  Some day, God will work on them to the point that they will make things right.  Hopefully.

But if the Church finds an accommodation -- something that makes their sinful state not sinful -- then it does affect me.  The Church is saying that a vow I took on my wedding day doesn't apply sometimes. Suddenly there's a category of sin that the Church publicly acknowledges as sad but inevitable.  Now there's a third category of sin: Venial, Mortal and Acceptable.

That would destroy any legitimacy the Church has left to talk about sin and redemption.

Second Coming

For some reason, I've been thinking about this poem a lot in the last three weeks.

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING 

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds. 

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

A synodal Church

Yesterday the internet was all a-flutter with the news that Pope Francis had called for a more synodal church and a redefinition of the role of the papacy.

I'm not sure there's much to worry about at this point.  Francis says a lot of things and little of it sticks around.  He has a well-known habit of preaching to the choir.  For instance, while on a plane with journalists, most of whom are secular in outlook and lifestyle, he famously criticized people who breed like rabbits only to turn around a few days later when speaking to a Catholic audience and say that large families are a blessing.  So last week he spoke to a bunch of people involved with the synod on the anniversary of Pope Paul VI establishing the synod as a permanent feature in Church life and said synods were awesome and the Pope is just a guy, you know?  Sure.  This after unilaterally changing the annulment process in the Church a month ago.  Next week he'll be wrapping up a divided and fractious synod by telling them that his opinion is the only one that counts.  Like he did last year.

So who knows what he's going to do.

This has been dealt with in some depth by the "Letters from the Synod" published in the United States on First Things magazine's website.  The "Doubts about Devolution" segments were written by George Weigel, who I am hardly worthy to read, let along critique, so I'll take a slightly different tack.

The first thing to say is that you're thoughts about devolution probably depend on where authority is devolving from and where it's devolving to.  If you think your local Bishop or Bishop's conference can be trusted to uphold the faith and, perhaps are even being held back by flacks in Rome, then you're probably OK with it.  If you think your local Bishop or conference won't do the job, then you'd probably rather keep the authority in Rome. If you don't think either group is up to the task, then you're probably not really Catholic anyway.

So in the United States most Catholics are skeptical of the USCCB and are hard pressed to see any upside in giving them more authority.  Most liberals only see Bishops like Chaput and Dolan and Cordelion using the USCCB to further their culture wars.  Most conservatives remember with dismay the activist conference from the 1970's calling for unilateral disarmament and the current banality that is the USCCB voter's guide.

Theoretically, liberals should be loving the idea of a more synodal Church because, with more Francis appointments on the way, they can anticipate the day that their issues will find favor with the majority of the USCCB which can then ram that policy down the throats of the remaining B16 Bishops. In theory, conservatives would fear synodality for the same reason, but with the added tedium of endless discussion groups and committee reports that the liberals will force on the Church until the conservatives are ground down.

The second point is that there's a tiresome fascination with Churchy matters that don't much apply outside the parish grounds.  If the New Evangelization is supposed to be more than a marketing gimmick (which looks less and less likely), then we should quit focusing on internal battles and turn our attention to where the real work needs to be done.

Father Barron addressed this when speaking about the reason Ratzinger et al left the Concilium journal (today seen as a liberal "Spirit of Vatican II" outpost) to form Communio (today seen as a rock-solid orthodox journal)

...Balthasar, Ratzinger, and de Lubac decried the “Concilium” board’s resolve to perpetuate the spirit of the council. Councils, they stated, are sometimes necessary in the life of the Church, but they are also perilous, for they represent moments when the Church throws itself into question and pauses to decide some central issue or controversy. We think readily here of Nicea and Chalcedon, which addressed crucial issues in Christology, or Trent, which wrestled with the challenge of the Reformation. Councils are good and necessary, but the Church also, they contended, turns from them with a certain relief in order to get back to its essential work.

The progressives in the 1960's and 1970's wanted an eternal Council.  They wanted to push ahead with the momentum from Vatican II and keep on talking until the Church was just how they wanted it.  But Ratzinger and the rest saw that internal struggles can suck up all the oxygen in the room.

In the United States we have the USCCB and can readily see how useless and irrelevant it is.  Perhaps that is not the case in other countries.  Maybe they are blessed not to have a national bureaucracy that gets in the way of the local Ordinary and his flock.  So perhaps they simply don't know what they are wishing for when they want more synodality.