New Jersey Update: Wednesday

So. We didn't do much today. Mostly sat around and read "Piers Plowman". I've already finished the reading for Tuesday because Thursday's reading is twice as long and I figure I'd better get started on it. I like it pretty well so far. It reminds me of Candide and Pilgrim's Progress. The best parts are some of the long, hyphenated names. Piers' son's name is something like "Always-listen-to-your-elders-and-do-what-they-say-or-maybe-you'll-wish-you-had". Priceless.

Other than that, we spent some time hanging out on the waterfront in 300mph winds, looking across the water at some Staten Island landfill. Mark and I went for a pleasant walk before dinner. Dinner itself consisted of excellent Shepard's Pie. We then played a very long game of Apples to Apples. This week has been my first introduction to that game, but it is very fun. I totally pwned this time.

So, the Thought of the Day:
So I guess Piers Plowman has got me thinking... in both this work and Canterbury Tales, the Church and its ministers get a hard scolding. It was a time of great difficulty in the Church due to the priest-shortage from the Plague. The Church's weakened state allowed a bunch of rogues to get in and abuse their power; it definitely needed to be whipped into shape. The thing is: the people who stepped up to do it were generally people who loved the Church! They certainly say hard things and bring ugly realities to light, but they do so recognizing that these gluttons and liars are not the Church but rather those that have invaded her sacred body.

Chaucer and Langland both admired simple men of God and wanted to see churchmen return to that. I think that, because their satire was written not only with spite (like too much of the satire today) but with a real love for the mystical body that they were criticizing, it was far more effective in its goal. So my thought for today is: we see a priest shortage today, as well as scandal within the clergy (which is certainly nothing new). Why are the people who /hate/ the Church the only ones standing up and calling attention to it? I don't think that we can entrust God's words of chastisement to pagans who would laugh at any downfall of the Bride of Christ. The Church and those who love her need to start examining the situation and applying rebuke where necessary.

I do not mean that we have been lacking in the area of general apologies given and sins acknowledged (though perhaps long after the fact). What I mean is that the Church hierarchy, in their concern to avoid scandal, did not properly distance itself from the sins committed. We all ended up looking like the protectors of the wolves rather than protectors of the sheep. There are many possible ways that the Church could have taken a stronger stance, rather than merely a reactionary/apologetic role, and I really don't know if a public flogging would have worked better than a simple excommunication. All I know is that in an attempt to preserve the solidarity of Catholics against the pointing fingers of the heathens, we ended up in solidarity with the wicked.

Some say that it is a good thing that there was so much attention on the scandals in the clergy, because it spurred us on and cleansed the House of God. That may be true in part, but I cannot imagine that the poisonous gossip of scoffers is what is needed ultimately. Far too many of us are either ready to sit back and let them do the job, or else we are too defensive in our rejection of their criticism. The Church needs a renewal of its devotion to the Cardinal virtues, and the tongues to administer those life-giving waters are not the wicked tongues of blasphemers and gossipers but a tongue that loves as it chastises, drawing all of its words from the humble Eucharist that it receives.