The Boston Globe seems perplexed as to why the catholic archbishop, speaking this week about the priesthood, stated that Jesus' disciples were apparently not "the best and brightest." Quoting the sermon:
"Jesus,... in forming his spiritual army, did not assemble a well-groomed, highly disciplined, state-of-the-art army of Dale Carnegie communicators in polyester suits and well-moussed pompadours, but rather he went down to the wharves and called a ragtag dirty dozen to be the pillars on which he would build his church, a clear indication that the enterprise was to be more than met the eye," he said.
We'll find the signifieds so the Globe doesn't have to.
The Jesuit order was founded by a soldier and have always considered itself a "spiritual army," famous for its sublime discipline. Being a modern religious order, it does also tend to be "state-of-the-art" by Catholic standards, frequently on the cutting edge of both theology and pastoral ministry. And this order operates a very large, selective university in the archbishop's city, at which people study these disciplines and numerous others; its students are famous for their well-moussed pomadours. They also give the best homilies, as they are thoroughly trained in the arts of persuasion.
So, the bishop was arguing over which catholic religious orders are more in touch with original Christianity. Actually, this is about vectors of power: he was arguing over who is more similar to Peter and the Apostles.
One correction to make to his remarks: the claim that Jesus did not have some of the "best and brightest" for disciples is confounded by evidence. St. John was obviously smart enough to become an evangelist and the church's "first theologian." Most Christians believe that Christ also personally called St. Paul, probably on account of his intellect. But the smartest of the disciples was Mary Magdalene, who tradition maintains devoted the rest of her life to study and contemplation, even though her publications were suppressed.
