A Fallible Papacy

A devout Catholic once told me that she considered Pope John Paul II to be a sacred person. Although I disagree with many of the things that John Paul did as Pope, it is somehow understandable that one might see him as a sacred person or perhaps even as an infallible one. He was a larger than life figure who projected an iconic image and was revered by much of the faithful. He always seemed to be in total control. He was charismatic and a public relations expert. He understood the implications of his statements and his actions. You might disagree with what he said, but it was always clear where he was coming from. It was a marvel to see how he connected with crowds of young and old people alike. The persona he created was clear to all and remained constant over time.

Fortunately, the current occupant of the Holy See is far less sure-footed. It is one of his most appealing qualities. He has made numerous mistakes since being elevated to the papacy. His latest misstep involves the lifting of an excommunication against a Bishop who continues to deny the Holocaust. Benedict however, has been an equal opportunity offender, including mostly unintended slights and insults to Muslims, Jews, and other Christian denominations. He seems to lack any real sensitivity as to the consequences of his actions, and would not likely be successful as a public relations expert. His actions can be confusing, appealing to conservatives one day and moderates or liberals the next. Clearly he is a man shaped by his environment: by the war, his life in Germany and his ties to Europe. As a cleric he demonstrates little understanding of women and how others may feel about the major issues facing the Church today. The image of Benedict XVI that comes through to me is a timid man who actually might want to make a few changes but feels constrained to uphold the status quo.

No one is likely to review the years of Benedict's papacy thus far and say this is an infallible person. Yes, I know, the Pope is not infallible, except when he makes statements "ex cathedra" on matters of faith and morals. The reality, however, is that the Church tends to operate as if it were infallible far more often than not. Catholics tend to feel that when the Pope says something it is infallible, and the Church tends to issue non infallible statements as if they expect them to be treated infallibly. Benedict's frailties remind us that none of us have the whole truth. When it comes to understanding divine mysteries all of us are groping in the dark. We do ourselves and the Church an injustice when we operate as if we have all the answers on every subject that arises. The more we recognize our limitations, the more likely we will be able to be Christ like Pastors and servants. The notion that we know everything is belied by Paul in Corinthians when he reminds us that all of us see only through a glass darkly at this time.

We often make a similar mistake in our understanding of Jesus. We know him to be God and Man, but often we have trouble with the human part. Yes, we know Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the stylized account of his temptations in the desert. Yet do we experience our own daily temptations to pride, jealousy, despair, etc, and think that Jesus experienced these same kinds of feelings in his own life? What does it mean that God became man if he didn't experience true human emotions? Jesus was God, so we assume he always knew what people were going to say before they said it. Did Jesus grow up already knowing everything before he had to learn it in school or from his parents? If he were having a test did he check in with his divine nature before he went into the test so he would know all the answers?

The point here is that Christianity is the religion of the incarnation, and that should highlight something special about our religion. God became Man in Jesus Christ and thus deigned to put himself on the level of the lowest of us humans. As Paul tells us in Phillipians 'being God, He did not believe that Godness was a thing to be clung to, but rather he emptied himself, taking on the form of a servant, and becoming like us in all things except sin.' We can connect with our God because he is truly one of us, and his humanity should never be eclipsed by an overemphasis on his divinity.

What is the meaning and value of religion in our world? Is it having a Church around to tell us everytime we make a mistake, and to punish us each time we fail to follow the straight and narrow path? Is religion rather most like Jesus, when it feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, heals the sick, comforts the dying and mourning, rejoices with those who are happy, and encourages those who are sad or filled with despair?

The Church indeed makes a mistake when it tries to portray itself as all knowing. When Benedict was first installed as Pope he spoke of his humility and how he too was a pilgrim searching for truth. Jesus tells us to be not afraid. If only the Church were brave enough to allow the Holy Spirit to lead it into the 21st century. Call for Vatican III and let the voices of the Church be heard from laity to Pope. Maybe what the Church needs now is not an infallible pope, but a fallible one. Maybe this Pope or the next, he or she, will see that.

A Good Day For The President

Many have noted that last week was a bad week for the President. Two of his cabinet nominees went down in smoke. He lost control of the stimulus message to the Republicans. No drama Obama was beginning to show signs of frustration. The polls were starting to show slippage - especially as to support for the stimulus package. All of these signs were somewhat ominous in that the stimulus package was at the center of the early Obama presidency.

It seems only fair to point out, therefore, that Monday was a good day for the President. He began his day with a trip to Elkhart, Indiana. His town meeting was a success and demonstrated that he can still pull in the public and that they are responsive to his explanations. As the day wore on he had a successful cloture vote in the Senate on that all important stimulus bill. He got his three Republican votes and a special trip to the floor by Ted Kennedy to ensure its passage. Finally, he wowed the crowds with his strong performance in his first primetime news conference as president. He answered questions thoughtfully and intelligently about a wide range of issues. The reviews have been as positive as Joe Scarborough of "Morning Joe", saying that Obama may be the best ever at this kind of forum.

How do we tote up the pluses and minuses of the bad week and the good day and what can be expected in the future? Chuck Todd of NBC suggested on "Morning Joe" that the President may have waited a week too long to begin this offensive since the fate of the stimulus has already been determined. He seemed to be suggesting that an earlier offensive may have garnered more Republican votes and demonstrated more of the bipartisanship Obama had hoped for. This may have been true, but it is also true that we are only three weeks into the Obama presidency and continued offensives of this nature can have dramatic impact moving forward.

Certainly the White House has made some early mistakes, and because expectations have been so high many thought such mistakes might be avoided. It's hard to understand how the vetting process for Tom Daschle and others went so wrong but it did. Why did the White House not get out in front of the stimulus message? Did they think it would succeed more easily than it did? Perhaps these problems will turn out to be a good thing in the long run. For one thing it appears that the President has moved pretty quickly to reaasert his dominance in the battle over the stimulus. No president is immune from mistakes in taking over the most powerful position in the world. The real indicator of where this presidency is going lies in the learning curve from mistakes that occur. In that category the response so far is reassuring.

What about bipartisanship? Here I believe that is not wholly in the President's hands. Bipartisanship by definition requires two parties to engage. One might argue that here too mistakes were made. Many say Nancy Pelosi was given too much power to craft the bill. Others say that the timing of when and how Republicans were consulted was at fault. I'm sure the process could always be improved, but I still believe the major problem here was that Republicans decided it was a good idea to buck the stimulus, and they are generally effective in presenting a united front when that is their aim. What made their stand possible was their success in crafting their just say no message. What could have created more bipartisanship was a better performance out of the White House initially. I think the only thing that will change the dynamics between the two parties is tangible success on the part of what the Democrats are doing. I believe this kind of success is the only thing that is going to bring more Republicans on board down the road. I do think Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Spector deserve much credit for joining to pass the Senate stimulus bill.

Finally let me mention one caveat for Republicans. None of us know how these next two years are going to pan out. If, however, when the 2010 congressional elections occur, there is marked improvement in where the country is, and the public attributes much of that turnaround to the new president, the Republicans could be in a heap of trouble. I watched the town-hall meeting in Indiana, and saw hope and trust in this new president. If he can deliver, he will be making an impact on a lot of conservative, rural, Republican areas. These people will not forget him, just as they did not forget Roosevelt.

A number of Republicans today like to say unequivocally that Roosevelt failed. Yet he was elected to four terms in the oval office. Most people would call that success. The Democratic coalition was so strong that Republicans had to push through a constitutional amendment to limit each president to only two terms. Certainly, failure is always a real possibility, but I believe the possibility is also there for a major realignment that would label Republican policies as the failed policies of the past for years to come. The more Republicans insist on delivering the same message over and over again, the more they could be left behind.

Of course Tuesday brought a less than spectacular roll out by Tim Geithner - so stay tuned.

Bipartisanship: What Is It? Is It Possible?

Clearly bipartisanship is needed in Washington because the American people expect and demand it. They want to see something getting done. But what would bipartisanship look like? Is it reasonable to expect partisan politicians who are accountable to their constituents to play nice with the opposition? Is gridlock simply the way of Washington?

Let me suggest a few things that would not represent true bipartisanship. First of all, ignoring principles that were the reason for entering political life in the first place is not bipartisanship. It also doesn't mean going along to get along. Nor does it mean splitting the difference so that each party gets 50% of what they want on each bill. While compromise is certainly a part of bipartisanship it needs to be achieved through a genuine search for common ground and consensus, and through the development of mutual respect and trust of the parties involved.

Certainly I think the first thing everybody can agree on is that bipartisanship requires civility among all participants. The much heralded change in tone in Washington is critical for any meaningful bipartisanship and for the possibility of achieving any kind of results in Washington. This is one area where I believe we have seen some progress since the election if it can only be sustained. The President has reached out to Republicans in Congress and the Republicans have seemed appreciative of these gestures despite the apparent inablility to get any members of Congress to actually change their minds.

Civility in itself, however, is not going to get us where we need to be. I think the second requirement at the most minimal level of bipartisanship is a refusal to be obstructionist. Certainly there is a point where it may be necessary to stand on principle even if you are standing alone, because the issue is that critical in your mind. But if your response to every issue that arises tends to be the same, that would have to be considered obstructionist. To lobby for changes in the President's stimulus package that you believe might improve the bill woud be appropriate. To filibuster or find a way to make the legislation fail in the face of the dire economic conditions of the country and the need for swift action could only be characterized as obstrutionism.

True bipartisanship also involves the search for common ground and the avoidance of a rigid ideological stance. Compromise is the result, but it needs to be a result that enables one to remain true to one's principles while at the same time recognizing that there is validity to another's point of view. The essence of meaningful bipartisanship requires a genuine belief that working together and benefiting from all the ideas around the table will lead to a better result for the country. The give and take involved in real consensus is not an easy task, but certainly would be an improvement over what we've been doing the last eight years.

Is bipartisanship possible? When I began writing this blog entry early this week I believed the answer to that question was an emphatic yes. I am no longer sure. Look at what has happened. The President reached out to the opposition, even going up to the Hill to speak to them on their own turf, which hasn't been done by a President in my memory. He removed items from the bill when Republicans objected. The result has been that the Republicans have sensed a weakness. They rushed to trash the bill with tired old arguments that have already been rejected. They actually gained the upper hand on the message. The President has had to resort to talking tough and twisting arms to get the stimulus package back on track. Bipartisanship, this isn't.

The Republicans in this case have been quite successful politically. A moribund party has resuscitated itself by hammering away at narrow talking points. They won't kill the stimulus, but they may well kill bipartisanship. Even the valid points they made early in the debate have been largely lost in the incessasnt attacks which suggest they would be happy to scuttle the stimulus entirely. If they are willing to resort to politics as usual on an issue so crucial to the future of our country, one cannot be very optimistic about cooperation on other issues. Republicans have failed the first test of bipartisanhip. Perhaps they feel that it wasn't in their interest anyway. Unfortunately, it may well have been in the interest of the American people.