When Pope Francis was elected and appeared on the balcony without the papal regalia, a number of people had an uncomfortable feeling that he
was more conscious of himself than the office to which he had been elected, and
that he was making a negative comment on the humility of his predecessors. I admit
that I could not see what TV reporters claimed to see: that the new Pope was “radiating the humility of his name-sake,
St Francis”, I couldn’t see it because St. Francis never abandoned his
religious dress, the thing for which the new Pope was being praised. Sadly, taking
a photographer into the pope-mobile has not helped Francis demolish the
impression that he is over-conscious of himself. Rather, it has affirmed it for
many.
I have no doubt that Francis is far more humble
and holy than I am; and without doubt he is a man who genuinely cares for those
who suffer poverty or illness. But he is giving signals to both sides of the
ecclesiological divide which may widen the divisions in the Church rather than
heal them. If there was a way of Francis ensuring healing it was to answer
questions on morality by quoting the Catechism given us by John-Paul II, and affirming
that the Traditional Mass is a right for all priests of the Latin Rite as
declared by Benedict XVI; Francis would thus have shown there is a universal
doctrine to hold, and prevented flag waving by those who accept only one Form
of the Mass. My own hope when he was elected was that, with John-Paul having given us a
sure norm of doctrinal teaching (the Catechism) and Benedict having re-set the
liturgy in continuity with our past, Francis would show us how to deepen the
spiritual life by drawing upon the works of St Ignatius. Sadly, remarks such as
“who am I to judge?” on homosexuality and “we are speaking too much about
abortion” have galvanised those who seek doctrinal change; while by affirming
the “no” to women priests and speaking about the devil he has assuaged Traditionalists.
Yet it is impossible to walk in both
camps, and if the situation with the Franciscans of the Immaculate is any
indication, it will be on the liberal side of the fence that Francis will most
likely come down in the end, since he has said of himself, “I have never been a
right-winger” and admitted to having an “authoritarian” manner:
“My authoritarian and quick manner of making
decisions led me to have serious
problems and to be accused of being ultraconservative. I lived a time of
great interior crisis when I was in Cordova. To be sure, I have never been like
Blessed Imelda [a goody-goody], but I
have never been a right-winger. It was my authoritarian way of making decisions
that created problems.” [emphasis added] cf. http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
An interested party might therefore ask, “Can Francis overcome these traits easily?”
If the answer is ‘no’, the follow-up question is, “Then how safe is the Church
in his hands?” Taking Francis at his own word, it is important that he not only overcomes his quick-fire
and authoritarianism manner -his quote indicates he believes he is- but also that
he is seen to be overcoming them, since
a “quick manner of making decisions” indicates an impulsiveness which can mitigate
against wise action, while authoritarian attitudes do not sit well with
humility or compassion but can, taken with an “I am right” attitude, be
tyrannical in expression. Note that I am not
saying Francis is proud and tyrannical, but these are dangers to which those
who are quick-fire and authoritarian in their decision-making can fall prey. How Francis allows the situation with the
Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to be handled -and it is a handling which so
far appears to be one of partisanship and oppression- may end up being the
measure of this papacy in history. It may also be detrimental to souls scandalised
by what they see, and unhelpful to the unity of the Church.
Very astute Father. This business wth the FFI may be a bigger deal than we have been led to believe.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment.
ReplyDeleteI hope the problem is smaller than its seems, and that Francis is unaware of the manner and all of the actions that Fr Volpi is reported to have made.
God bless you and yours at this holy time.
Francis hasn't got a problem, the vast majority of catholics and non-catholics thinks he's a breath of fresh air. It's only a handful of semi-schismatic uber-tradtionalists that appear intent on misinterpreting and picking fault with everything and anything he says. I think posting this at a time when you should be focusing on Christmas shows you to be a snide and back-stabbing type of priests.
ReplyDeleteI thank you for taking the time to comment, Michael.
DeleteI would point out that it is Francis himself who made the comment that he had created problems.
I must admit that I cannot understand why he is seen as 'a breath of fresh air' since [a] like all Popes, he can only defend and develop the Deposit of Faith, not change it, and [b] because he is not the only Pope to have embraced the sick or spoken about the need for care of the marginalised. I suspect when Francis's Papacy is in full swing and he has affirmed the moral truths of the Faith that those who now think of him a breath of fresh air are likely to turn against him. Not so those of us who understand the papacy and are loyal to the Popes and to the Deposit of Faith.
Oh so you're using the extremely unconvincing and desperate Fr Z argument that ''progressive'' catholics are going to turn on Francis when he starts suddenly enforcing a narrow traditionalist interpretation of orthodoxy. Francis' most recent xmas stats show 83% - 88% popularity rating. You refuse to see why Francis is a breath of fresh air because you simply don't like him - why don't you just admit it? All the indications are that Francis is going to allow significant reform of the roman curia and church structures. Let's see what's changed this time next year and more interestingly how you'll be spinning all the reforms that are under way!.
ReplyDeleteDear Michael,
DeleteIn that Francis has a genuine care for the sick and the poor what is not to like? The man is obviously someone who is compassionate and of good heart, which are always likeable qualities. You are wrong to assume I do not like Francis. My post expressed a concern that Francis has admitted to being authoritarian and quick-fire in action, which can be problematic. As he himself in the quote given says, his way of making decisions “ caused me to have serious problems”. The criticisms made of Francis in the post are made by Francis; what I have done is simply highlight the dangers that can arise from his mode of operation. Perhaps you might like to read the post again?
And when affirmations of Catholic moral teaching on abortion, communion for the divorced-remarried, homosexual acts etc start coming from Rome, it will be hard to find a liberal who will be happy. And these statements will come, because they belong to the Deposit of Faith and as such, cannot be abandoned.
God bless you and yours at this holy time, and beyond.
Popes are not required to have popularity ratings or be "a breath of fresh air"; they are required and needed to defend and preserve the sacred Deposit of Faith and strengthen their brothers in the Faith. It is never a good sign if enemies of Christ's Holy Church claim to like the Pope. If people of goodwill are open to the truth and are drawn to converting to the Faith through the Pope, that of course is a good thing, as for those who have ceased to uphold and practise the Faith, repenting and coming back to God's grace.
DeleteI would agree with Father Sonia and Michael you need to re-read this post. You clearly have a bee in your bonnet and just picked the parts if the post that you like rather than understand it God Bless
DeleteI do thank you for taking the time to comment, Janet.
DeletePlease note the post simply states that I don’t see how abandoning a religious habit speaks of humility; that abandoning the signs of office suggests other Popes have not been humble;
that Francis is at times pleasing to both sides of the ecclesiological divide; that he has admitted to being authoritarian and quick-fire in manner which can lead to unwise decisions in anyone; that how the situation with the Franciscans is handled will be judged by history –wont we all?
I have no bee, Janet, just worries. I was well able to see the good in the post I linked to, but the problems Francis admitted to are likely to raise a concern about anyone in authority, be they Pope, Prime Minister or President; Head Teacher, GP or parent. At the end of the day I am not an ultramontanist: I am free to wonder about the prudential judgements of any Pope, since not everything a pope says or does carries has to be followed.
God bless you and yours in this holy season and beyond.
I do thank you for taking the time to comment, Janet.
DeletePlease note the post simply states that I don’t see how abandoning a religious habit speaks of humility; that abandoning the signs of office suggests other Popes have not been humble;
that Francis is at times pleasing to both sides of the ecclesiological divide; that he has admitted to being authoritarian and quick-fire in manner which can lead to unwise decisions in anyone; that how the situation with the Franciscans is handled will be judged by history –wont we all?
I have no bee, Janet, just worries. I was well able to see the good in the post I linked to, but the problems Francis admitted to are likely to raise a concern about anyone in authority, be they Pope, Prime Minister or President; Head Teacher, GP or parent. At the end of the day I am not an ultramontanist: I am free to wonder about the prudential judgements of any Pope, since not everything a pope says or does carries has to be followed.
God bless you and yours in this holy season and beyond.
I would agree with ML, I find this posting to be snide and inappropriate. A supposedly orthodox priest would be using this festive season as an opportunity to evangelise not take cheap shots at the Pope in an attempt to undermine and misinterpret him. I'm glad you're not my parish priest. Pope Francis is doing something right and I just find this suggestion that everyone is going to turn on him soon to be far fetched. It comes across like you want it to happen and sooner rather than later.
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking time to comment, Sonia.
DeleteOn liberals turning against Francis, I repeat here what I said to ML: when affirmations of Catholic moral teaching on abortion, communion for the divorced-remarried, homosexual acts etc., start coming from Rome, it will be hard to find a liberal who will be happy. And these statements will come, because they belong to the Deposit of Faith and as such, cannot be abandoned. I do not want anyone to be turned against, so no, I do not want it to happen to the Holy Father, I just think that some folk have the impression that his compassion for the sick and poor will bring him to overturn moral teaching that in fact, cannot be overturned. That those teachings are not overturned will be a let-down for many.
PS. Since my ministry is not limited to this blog your comment on evangelisation falls rather flat, but I take note of the point made.
helpful post, Father. I agree that there's no way the moral orthodoxy is going to change, and no, we won't become a Church of priestesses - God got rid of female priests when He got rid of paganism. but Pope Francis' spoken and acted rebellion against 'norms' of Papal practice is all part of why people end up projecting their faith into fantasy space where it should never go.
ReplyDelete'they (post-concilliar popes) have consistently refused to see any relationship between their own abandonment of integral orthopraxis and attacks on doctrinal and moral orthodoxy that undermine their authority and have brought about the dramatic dechristianization of two generations.' G. Hull - The Banished Heart.
this refusal to see the connection seems likely to continue.
Thank you for this.
DeleteI think we simply trust in Almighty God. I remind myself that the Popes we get are not chosen by God by by the Cardinals; God simply works with the Pope we give Him and keeps the Church safe.
Thank you for this, Lynda.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that "Popes are not required to have popularity ratings or be 'a breath of fresh air' ". Being Pope is a task no one in their right mind would seek!
God bless you and yours at this holy time, and beyond.
Pope Francis’ comments on sourpusses and “who am I to judge” may be distracting but should not cause Catholics to be alarmed by the liberal constituencies in the Roman Church. To take one example, the Code of Canon Law, canons such as Can. 1024 “A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly,” or Can. 1404 “The First See [Rome] is judged by no one,” or Can. 333.3 “No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff,” or Can. 1372 “A person who appeals from an act of the Roman Pontiff to an Ecumenical Council or to the College of Bishops, is to be punished with a censure” are not going to be abrogated. Likewise collegiality and subsidiarity will enjoy the same status that they have had since the close of the Second Vatican Council. Yet down the arches of the years the faithful remnant will pray and hope for a Roman Pontiff who is a Christian husband with a family and children of his own. And in the bloom of that long-awaited moment, for the second time in its history, humankind will discover fire.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment, Dain.
DeleteI think Traditional Catholics will still have some concerns though, since Canon Law is a disciplinary tool to protect the living-out of orthodoxy, rather than a theological text per se. It is the Deposit of Faith, handed on in Scripture and Tradition, from which Catholics take their security. Also, It seems to me that the expression given to collegiality and subsidiarity since Vatican II is about right; there are consultations with the Bishops via the Synods but the supreme role of the Roman Pontiff remains intact (even if the machinations of the Roman Curia do need to be sorted out!). The faithful remnant is more likely though, to desire the retention of a celibate Pope and priesthood, since this is the vast majority of our history. Though Peter was married prior to his call, there is no evidence he took his wife and family with him into ministry (he was, after all, probably an older man with no dependents). To my knowledge, the Orthodox Church permit married priests, but priests cannot marry after ordination, and Bishops are always chosen from among the celibate priests. This is their way of holding onto the Tradition of celibacy.
Hopefully the fire of the Faith will be kindled when there is a realisation that following the ways of the secular world is not always the best thing; after all, we are here to enlighten the world, not to be enlightened by it.
All the blessings of the season to you and yours.
You are a wise man Father to see through the world's love for the mob effect. If Jesus is here on earth now, I am sure he will not be exalted by the media or by most Catholics. In fact one can safely say, Jesus will have the opposite effect on the media compared to Pope Francis. Jesus's words: Luke 6:26 Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you, for in the same way they used to treat the false prophets.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, Aquinian.
DeleteI cab'r claim to be wise or even always prudent, but I do think if Francis can admit to a problem we ought not to deny it, and seek ways of working with it, where possible.
I really hope the world shows only indifference toward Popes; outright hostility we do not want; but nor do we want adulation when the role of the Pope toward the world it to challenge and change it.
Blessings of the season to you and yours, now and beyond.
Wow Father, that has certainly brought the bugs from the woodwork!! I agree totally that the Pope (whoever he is) is not there to win a popularity contest & (IMHO) his disregard for the papal vestments says to me that he considers the man to be more important than the office. Not a good start.
ReplyDeleteThe Pope is there (as you say) to protect the Deposit of Faith & not to change the rules because they might be popular to those (it seems to me) like your denigrators. Communion for the divorced? Surely not a problem unless they have remarried but surely not for those divorcees who remarry.
If we go along the road of married clergy (God help us) why not revert to the medieval practice of "Mass priests" who simply celebrate the Mass but without the other priestly faculties.
Missed you last Sunday Father Gary but hope your health is improving. Happy New Year
Thank you for your comment, David.
DeleteI think a number of people were dismayed by the Pope abandoning the papal regalia for the very reason you give.
As you rightly note, Communion for the divorced is not a problem. It is the divorced who have then entered civil unions without a declaration of nullity from the previous marriage that have excluded themselves from Holy Communion (though not from Holy Mass); in their understandable need for human companionship they have chosen human communion over Divine Communion.
Blessings of the season and beyond to you and yours.
PS Since my health problem is primarily COPD (your lady wife can explain this to you I'm sure!) it will only ever deteriorate; it cannot 'improve'. My hope is to stay clear of respiratory infections... Thank you for your concern.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI apologise for not being able to understand what your final sentence is getting at; I do hope you are not judging or wishing harm on anyone other than me.
DeleteSadly Francis appears to be having no effect upon you in that he wishes to be known as a man of pastoral charity, and a true fan would surely seek to imitate him.
Francis has admitted fault; perhaps his 'fans' can allow him the integrity to do so, and to exude the charity with which Francis wants to be known.
May God bless you and yours in this holy season.
You ought not to have published the above obscene outpouring. The person behind it has no respect for the Catholic Faith or common decency.
DeleteThank you Lynda, your are right that I ought to have left the comment unpublished
DeleteI published it so as to give the write his/her freedom of speech, but the content did address with me with an obscenity and the outpouring lacked charity, both of which are sinful. I should have discarded it from the first. A sincere thank you for bringing my failure to my attention. I have now deleted the offending comment.