PopeTrip '08: The Plans, v.2.0 + PopeTrip'08: In the Capital, the "State of the Unum"

WITL ^ | October 29, 2007 | Rocco Palmo

[NYer]

PART 1 -

PopeTrip '08: The Plans, v.2.0

Even behind the scenes, the good souls of Ecclesiastical Officialdom have taken a warming of late to the line that "Nothing is confirmed until the Holy Father signs off on it."

And who could blame 'em?

Especially in this pontificate of detail and deliberation, no one would, of course, ever deny that. Yet, as with everything across the Tiber, plans for a papal visit don't just drop out of the sky -- Papa Ratzi having bigger things to do than book flights and all.

And so, earlier this week the head of Benedict XVI's travel advance team, Alberto Gasparri, was in Washington and New York to firm up arrangements for the Pope's mid-April trek to the East Coast, whose first extensive "rough sketch" was presented on these pages six weeks ago.

Since that first report, the foreseen itinerary for the first apostolic journey to the States in nearly a decade has evolved in notable ways.

Most significant of all, multiple indications are that, for a second time, plans for a Boston leg of the trip -- which had been placed on the schedule as of the first key meeting on the visit in late August -- have been scuttled amid a previously-reported push from the upper rungs of the pontiff's inner circle.

While Cardinal Sean O'Malley is understood to be fighting on to keep his archdiocese, the epicenter of the sexual abuse crisis that has rocked American Catholicism from 2002, in the mix, at a recent meeting of his provincial bishops (which featured the trip as part of its agenda) the Capuchin cardinal was said to have made no mention of a Popestop in New England. Furthermore, the papal advance team hadn't been spotted in Boston, which had once been placed as the voyage's climactic final destination.

As things presently stand, the plan now looks to give B16 three days in New York, including a culminating Mass on the final day in Yankee Stadium, as opposed to the previously-proffered option of Central Park.

First reported yesterday by Spero News, the Big Apple leg was hammered out at a Thursday meeting in Cardinal Edward Egan's Madison Avenue residence. Alongside the cardinal and Gasparri, those present included Archbishops Celestino Migliore and Pietro Sambi, the respective nuncios to the United Nations and the US, Msgrs David Malloy and Anthony Sherman, the general secretary and incoming Liturgy Czar of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Msgr Robert Ritchie, the rector of St Patrick's Cathedral.

While the chief item of the visit -- a papal address at the UN -- is the only commitment currently foreseen for Friday, 18 April, the following morning has been given to a liturgy for priests and religious in the cathedral. The Saturday coincides with the third anniversary of Benedict's election to the papacy.

That afternoon, another newly-planned event reportedly has the pontiff heading north to Yonkers and the campus of St Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, for an encounter with seminarians and young people. The meeting's exact setting on the property remains undecided, but odds are that it'll be an outdoor venue in order to accommodate the expected number of attendees.

The next morning, Benedict is slated to head north again, this time to the Bronx and the House That Ruth Built. The choice of Yankee Stadium would mark a historic return to the site of the first papal Mass on the American continent (celebrated by Paul VI on his whirlwind visit to the New York in 1965), but would also likely be the last significant non-baseball event the hallowed turf would see; a new stadium is currently being built adjacent to the current ballpark, and is expected to open in 2009. Though Yankee's game-day capacity currently stands in the high 50,000s, a configuration of seats to hold 65,000 has been foreseen.

Especially when combined with the seeming lack of a Boston stop, the move to a venue unable to fit the hundreds of thousands who could, and did, throng Central Park for John Paul II's celebrations there in 1979 and 1995 would spike demand for tickets from the dioceses of the Northeast and beyond. Considering Benedict's relative aversion to lengthy travel, along with the widespread belief that the spring trek could well be the only US journey of his pontificate, and the frenzy to see the Pope looks set to become even more intense.

As currently planned, the trip's first full day will see the pontiff's 81st birthday. As reported in mid-September, the plans continue to point toward the visit's start in Washington. While most of the previously-noted itinerary of the Catholic University of America and diplomatic courtesies at the White House appear to remain in place, one reported change has the venue for Benedict's DC Mass pegged not for the expanse of the National Mall, but -- as with New York -- the new stadium of the Washington Nationals, currently projected to open barely a week before the visit takes place. (On a related note, Major League Baseball's scheduling for 2008 is still in its tentative stages and has not been publicly released.) Built to house a game capacity of 41,000, Nationals Park would likely seat closer to 50,000 for a papal liturgy.

A final word of caution -- to reiterate the standard protocol, papal trips are not formally announced by the Vatican until three months prior to a visit's taking place, and the detailed final itineraries are held until weeks before the journey.

Bottom line: everything can, and very well might, change. But this is where things are heading as of the present... even if "Nothing is confirmed until the Holy Father signs off on it."

As always, stay tuned.

-30-

[NYer]

Part 2 -

PopeTrip'08: In the Capital, the "State of the Unum"

Keeping with the steady drip of firmed-up plans for next April's papal pilgrimage to these shores, it's emerged that the Washington leg of Benedict XVI's journey will see what promises to be the trek's most significant ad intra moment: a meeting with the bishops of the United States, papal address included.

As all but a few members of the US hierarchy have gotten little direct exposure to Benedict's mind, aside from the routine practice of a brief baciamano greeting following his General Audiences, the foreseen speech would serve as this pontificate's first in-depth public assessment of the state of American Catholicism.

What's more, the timing of the talk will also provide an advance glimpse into what the church in the States can expect to hear in greater detail shortly down the line; the quinquennial ad limina visit of the American bishops begins early in 2009. By that time, the US hierarchy will be the last major group to make the five-yearly pilgrimage to Rome in Benedict's reign.

In the meantime, a seeming sneak-preview of April's message was given by the Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone SDB on his visit to last August's Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus in Nashville.

Some might've read the "Vice-Pope's" major address at the time... but you might want to read it again.

And for all the rest, stay tuned.

-30-

[Malacoda]

I hope the Pontiff sees fit to swing into Philadelphia. I saw JPII; I’d love to see Benedict XVI speak in person.

[AnAmericanMother]

I wonder if Boston's exclusion has anything to do with the cardinal's pooh-poohing of the Motu Proprio? Didn't he say something like, "This only applies to Europe"?

If that was somebody else, please correct me! I don't want to pin something on Boston that it's not responsible for.

[livius]

I was at Paul VI’s Mass in Yankee Stadium in 1965! I’d love to be there again for this one, although there’s no way I could get a ticket since I don’t live in the diocese anymore.

I heard originally that this Mass (in the upcoming BXVI visit) might be in Central Park to accomodate the millions who will no doubt want to attend, but I guess not. I believe the DC Mass will be outdoors, so I might go to that one instead.

[maryz]

You betcha -- Domus Dei has the whole sad story, quoting O'Malley:

In my comments at the meeting I told my brother bishops that in the United States the number of people who participate in the Latin Mass even with permission is very low. Additionally, according to the research that I did, there are only 18 priories of the Society of St. Pius X in the entire country. Therefore this document will not result in a great deal of change for the Catholics in the U.S. Indeed, interest in the Latin Mass is particularly low here in New England.
. . .
This issue of the Latin Mass is not urgent for our country, however I think they wanted us to be part of the conversation so that we would be able to understand what the situation is in countries where the numbers are very significant.

I can't stand seeing his **(^&%$ comments again -- the headaches are coming back! "[S]o we would be able to understand what the situation is in countries . . ." as if the Pope is hoping for a promotion to CNN International anchor!

[livius]

Yes, that was Cdl O’Malley.

I don’t know why O’Malley is popular with the Pope - remember, he was one of only 2 Americans invited to hear about the MP. However, it’s possible that O’Malley’s negative reaction has reduced his popularity a bit. Or perhaps it’s the fact that he’s busy closing as many churches as possible in Boston, and instead of seeking a solution, seems to be planning to just wind up the business and turn the lights off when he leaves.

[livius]

One of the bizarre things is that Americans are getting punished for being so patient and faithful. The SSPX didn’t really get established here because traditional Catholics actually tried go through channels, request the indult mass, and make themselves take that 3 or 4 hour drive every Sunday at 4:30 a.m. to get to the inconvenient place (and time) where the TLM was scheduled by the grudging bishop. Or if the bishop refused, Americans just kept going to the NO and writing to Rome. We’re too nice and obedient!

And now of course, they’re making us jump through hoops to request a TLM in our parishes, regardless of what the Pope has said. In my diocese, one parish jumped through unreasonable hoops (200+ signatures) and the pastor simply said he can’t do it and the bishop didn’t even bother to respond. This despite the fact that we have young priests who would be willing and qualified to say the TLM.

But we’re still quiet and patient and jump through the hoops. It’s like the fairy tale where every time the hero fulfilled a task to win the princess, he was set another task that was even more impossible. And yet, precisely because we’re doing all they ask, they say we don’t really want the Tridentine Rite...

[maryz]

And now of course, they’re making us jump through hoops to request a TLM in our parishes

We don't even have hoops! Of course, now there's something for the Ecclesia Dei commission actually to enforce. They're planning an explanatory statement, and I guess they've been following responses. I'd love to see a real smackdown -- but failing that (and they're just a lot nicer than I am), at the very least a clear, words-of-one-syllable ultimatum!

[NYer]

I don’t know why O’Malley is popular with the Pope

Perhaps the Holy Father doesn't judge him based on his feelings towards the TLM. No doubt he has other redeeming qualities.

Or perhaps it’s the fact that he’s busy closing as many churches as possible in Boston ..

He is not alone. Here in Albany, the Church closings continue. In the Buffalo diocese, the bishop is closing 30 churches including a Maronite Catholic Church that never switched its corporate papers to the Maronite Eparchy when it was formed in 1966. Many of these churches were built by Polish, Irish, Italian, French and even Lebanese immigrants, when they first arrived in this country. Their descendants have now moved south, necessitating the enormous growth of new Catholic Churches in the Bible belt.

Red hats are not given out willy nilly - they are earned. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and judge the actions of a Cardinal in Boston MA, without having the specifics. Leave the judgment up to our Lord, okay?

[AnAmericanMother]

Whatever he may be doing in Boston, what he said sounded like insubordination and a slap in the face.

I don't see how it could have been interpreted otherwise.

[netmilsmom]

I really wish the Holy Father would hurry up and set the dates for Washington DC or NYC.

We either need to start our American Government curriculum and make campground reservations or get the party bus ready to meet our dear Cyborg!

[CatQuilt]

Red hats are given based on whether or not the Archdiocese had a red hat before. The archdiocese of Boston looks like it contains a large number of Catholics, unfortunately, many are Catholic-in-name only.

Don’t get me started on what Cardinal Sean has done for Boston. :-(

Pope Benedict would not have gone through the immense difficulties he did to get the MP published to have one of the largest diocese in the US just ignore it.

[livius]

I’m not judging his immortal soul. I’m simply judging his actions, or as they appear to me, and I think that’s perfectly legitimate. If lay Catholics had been more alert 40 years ago and more willing to simply say, sorry, your Excellency, but that’s wrong, the Faith would not have been ripped out of our hands by renegade bishops and clergy.

Supposing, instead of closing churches, a new evangelization had been launched, and the new inner-city residents had been invited into the former immigrant churches? But the Faith was so drained of content by these heretical teachers that there was nothing with which to evangelize.

I have no doubt that O’Malley (who does publish an entertaining blog that I read) is not a heretical teacher and is well-intentioned. But he is completely resistant to any suggestion of the Latin Mass, regardless of what the Pope has said, and while he was brought in to clean up the mess left by his predecessors, he simply seems to see himself as being the last one out and the one to close the door and turn out the lights. And I think those approaches are simply wrong.

[livius]

I think the hoops, in our case, were just to buy time. That is, they were hoping it would take forever to assemble signatures, and that in the interim, people would forget about it or the modernists could consolidate their opposition in some way.

They’ve been pretty successful with the latter, btw, and are working hard to marginalize the conservative priest and even parish members they perceive as conservative. Even the fact that parish income has been declining since they started on this punitive course doesn’t seem to bother them, because they are obsessed with preventing the TLM in this parish and, if they can, in the diocese altogether.

[CatQuilt]

He may not be herectical but he surrounds himself with them...

[maryz]

Supposing, instead of closing churches, a new evangelization had been launched, and the new inner-city residents had been invited into the former immigrant churches?

As you said in another post, it looks like he's just shutting down the operation, gradually instead of all at once. AFAIK, he has never once expressed any sorrow at closing a parish -- the attitude is more, "Well, we're closing it, and you people are jerks!"

I would think they could have -- at least in some cases -- kept the churches open, and have the priests moved to another rectory; they all have cars. Sell the rectories and convents and halls if they had to, but keep at least one or two Sunday Masses in every church. Meet with the parents about schools and be open to suggesions or offers to help in keeping the school open. Breaks my heart to see a church near me that is now condos -- and it's a 19th century church, gray stone, with a cross still on the steeple! Couldn't ever have been anything but a church.

Just a thought I've had recently, but around here anyway, it's the poorest churches that really have pathetic attendance. I really think the NO is better suited (or more satisfying anyway) to those who are relatively affluent and not badly off. It's the people who are in desperate circumstances (as we all are, well, depending on how you look at) who really need visible acknowledgment of the mystery of suffering and sacrifice -- not this "Aren't we wonderful!" stuff!

[maryz]

I don’t know why O’Malley is popular with the Pope

I don't even know that he's "popular" with the Pope. I believe he's credited with doing a good job of cleaning up aften the sex abuse scandal in Fall River. In Boston, as far as I can tell, the abuse was pretty well cleaned up before he came -- all over but the lawsuits and settlements.

As for why he was invited to the meeting in Rome, maybe the Pope was aware that he was unsympathetic but thought he was more malleable.

[livius]

It's the people who are in desperate circumstances (as we all are, well, depending on how you look at) who really need visible acknowledgment of the mystery of suffering and sacrifice -- not this "Aren't we wonderful!" stuff!

That's an excellent observation! I have always thought that the NO (in a number of the canons and certainly the way it's generally celebrated) is stuffed with a type of Pelagianism that appeals to the comfortable middle class, who know they're all nice people who are going to go to sleep someday and float off comfortably to Heaven no matter what. The poor are forced to confront their own daily existence and moral choices on a different level, and I think this is why the NO has less appeal to them. It comes across as just being fluff.

No crucifixes in an NO parish. No suffering, saving Christ in the NO, thanks!

[maryz]

He may not be herectical but he surrounds himself with them...

Wasn't it recently reported that a top aide or something is a big gay marriage supporter?