|
And ofte tyme swich cursynge wrongfully
retorneth agayn to hym that curseth,
as a bryd that retorneth agayn to his owene nest.
-- Geoffrey Chaucer
From that line in The Parson's Tale, writers of modern English shaped the image of chickens of prior breeding returning to the roost wherein they were begat. "The chickens have come home to roost," says the proprietor of some failed enterprise shaking his head in sadness. A bold choice he made a time or two ago has soured into defeat.
Yesterday's decision becomes for some today's problem and tomorrow's regret, for others sweet revenge. Upon occasion, those who took the original decision welcome as good news what others see as disaster, the former relishing the disappointment of the latter.
Recently, Pope Francis convened a synod of bishops to help him iron out the wrinkles of church policy where divorced and remarried Catholics are concerned, and maybe even the church's official blockheadedness regarding the LGBT community.
Francis was, of course, aware that his two immediate predecessors -- John Paul II and Benedict XVI -- caused to be bred a great number of episcopates over the 35 years between 1978 and 2013. Most of their bishops were in the mold -- or tortured themselves into it -- of those two conservative pontiffs.
Thus, things at the synod turned out to be a kind of standoff between the naysayers and the progressives.
Francis seems to be trying to drag Catholicism into the 20th century -- never mind the 21st -- and is being frustrated by the others guys' bishops. I think he could not, as one of his predecessors (John XXIII) did, throw open the window and call for aggiornamento.
The opposition would kiss his ring, bow piously and vote against him. That would leave Francis to force his program into being by issuing a robust encyclical or even speaking ex cathedra, neither of which quite seems to fit his style.
The mixed news reports of the synod tell different stories: "CHURCH DOCTRINE IS PRESERVED," "LIBERALS WIN OUT!" and "IT WAS A STALEMATE." Hence, at least it can be said that the chickens bred and hatched by Wojtyla and Ratzinger have come home to roost.
A similar situation exists in the United States Supreme Court due to the uncertainties of death, resignation, elections and a cranky Senate. We can thank Ronald Reagan for the presence of Antonin Scalia among the Supremes. Clarence Thomas later was appointed to the high court by George H.W. Bush and confirmed only after much ado about his personal habits and not enough about his readiness to be one vote among nine that could upset almost any apple cart in the country.
Together with Scalia and Thomas in frequent harmony of thought sit Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito -- Roberts' ideological Tonto -- and Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy. Under Roberts, the court leans to the Right more often than not, with Roberts appearing to favor business over consumer, capital over labor and the rich over the poor. It must be said, however, that it was the Chief Justice who saved the Affordable Care Act and the legality of same-sex marriage. There are good days among the not-so-good.
As we see, those jurisprudential chickens have found the roost wherein they were created and tend from time to time to lay the egg of conservatism, which may please their brooders. There lies a path down which we have already gone some distance from what most of us learned in civics classes about the nature of democracy.
Meanwhile, we owe Bill Clinton for the presence on the high court of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- two of the sharpest minds on that hallowed bench. Justice Breyer is a philosopher of the law and can surprise lawyers who appear before him with his grasp of precedent and its history.
President Obama brought to the court two brilliant women: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, whose contributions to clear thinking and the common welfare have distinguished them and the president who appointed them.
All of which is to say that American presidents and Roman popes -- while neither wield absolute power, as Mr. Obama well knows and His Holiness Francis is learning perhaps the hard way -- are able to change the historical course of their separate enterprises simply by using their uncontested power in the case of the president to nominate, and in the case of the pope to appoint, such judges and clerics that will, respectively, reflect in their jurisprudential findings and episcopal ministries the broad visions of their sponsors.
Both Barack Obama and Pope Francis came to their current posts with much political opposition already in place. Obama arrived at his four years before Francis at his, so the latter is behind. The prayer of many Catholics I know and care about is that Francis will live long and cause to be made make the changes to his church that clearly need to be made.
Obama is within 14 months of leaving the presidency, and it is doubtful 1) that he will have the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice and 2) that, given the trench warfare being waged in Congress, he could see one through to confirmation.
Maybe Francis will have the better chance to set loose some ecclesiastical chickens of his own, which will come home to roost just when their broad-minded, Francis-like orientation will be needed to keep the church from falling further into innocuous desuetude.
| 
