The Francis Reformation

We will not get far by asking whether the Church is to be a Church of the poor and a Church of the merciful. Of course it is. We must ask instead whether it is to be a Church of all the beatitudes.

Pope Francis arrives in procession to celebrate Mass at the Church of St. Gelasius in Rome Feb. 25. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

On March 13, 2013, five hundred years and two days after the election of Pope Leo X, Cardinal Bergoglio was elected as the 266th occupant of St Peter’s throne. He took a novel papal name, Francis, and began (in his own words of advice to youth) “making a mess.” Cleaning up the curia, which many thought his primary task, never quite got underway; or where it did get underway, didn’t get the papal support it required. There were innovations all right, but of a kind that drove the Church deeper into crisis, a moral and doctrinal crisis not unrelated to the one that overtook Leo’s pontificate.

Leo’s crisis was already brewing when he came to office, yet he neglected it for lesser things, allowing it to boil over and flood Christendom with scalding liquids the disfiguring effects of which we are still witnessing. Francis’s crisis was also brewing when he came to office, but he was put there by the machinations of men who wished to turn up the heat. That was done chiefly by way of the two synods on the family and the production of Amoris laetitia, with its notorious eighth chapter, which reintroduces the proportionalism identified by John Paul II as a major root of the crisis. This pot also threatens to boil over, as the posing of dubia and the almost unheard-of attempt at a correctio bear witness. Meanwhile, Francis has been playing a role more like Luther’s than Leo’s.

Francis is the pope. He is not nailing theses to church doors or challenging anyone to a debate. In fact, he refuses to render judgments on debated matters. But he is very much the charismatic, even autocratic, leader – criticizing, cajoling, throwing verbal faggots on the fire. Moreover, in this time of confusion he seems to be searching, like Luther, for an answer to the question: “How can I get a gracious God?” And, in that search, he does not shy from differing with magisterial tradition as regards faith and morals and the sacraments, though (unlike Luther) he presents these differences merely as new pastoral or missionary strategies. He has even found ways, through a synodical ecclesiology, to provide something close to de iure approval of de facto schisms in doctrine and discipline, effecting a Reformation-like turmoil in the Church.

Now, it is not rare to hear from clergy and laity who support the Francis reformation, and even from Francis himself, that all this is a work of the Spirit that must not be challenged but faithfully, indeed irreversibly, pursued. This also sounds rather like Luther, both in style and in substance. It is language I find greatly disturbing. Does the Spirit make claims that are plainly contradictory (conscience is/is not the final arbiter in matters of sacramental discipline; adultery does/does not preclude a state of grace; capital punishment is/is not intrinsically evil; etc.)? Does the Spirit call for arrangements that will accommodate the sexual revolution? Does the Spirit set bishop against bishop? Speaking of bishops, does the Spirit first oppose, then propose, lay investiture or encourage “inculturation” by deposing faithful bishops in favour of quislings? We need, I dare say, not only discernment of situation, but discernment of spirits.


W
here shall we begin? Let us confess straight away that the Francis reformation has much to commend it, just as Luther’s did. A Church of the humble, a Church for the poor, a Church that goes out among the people, scouring the highways and byways to deliver unexpected invitations to the Great Feast, a Church that conveys the mercy of God to those most in need of it: such is the Church that is following its Lord. Francis speaks to this, and tries to model it. Whether he speaks well or poorly, whether he models wisely and consistently, may be questioned, but not this basic fact. And here we should take stock of his own background and agenda, not confusing it with the agendas of those whom we already knew and about which we already worried, though it is certainly disconcerting that Francis has drawn so many of the latter into his own confidence and into his administration of Church affairs.

Francis is rooted in his native Argentine teología del pueblo, which regards “popular religiosity” as a basic category. Taking his magisterial cue from the opening line of Gaudium et spes (of which he says, “here we find the basis for our dialogue with the contemporary world”), while worrying that the Church has lost the ninety-and-nine and must go in search of them, Francis desires a strategy for reconnection with the people. He rejects the restorationist program of traditionalists and seeks instead to cultivate in the Church “a real desire to respond, to change, to correspond” to the hopes and desires and sufferings of ordinary folk, in hopes of returning them to the fold.

This does not adequately account, however, for the most troubling features of his papacy, which Thomas Weinandy recounted in his letter to Francis of 31 July 2017, elaborated soon after by the pseudonymous author of Il Papa Dittatore. One that Fr Weinandy does not mention is Francis’s deliberate distancing from St John Paul II, a man whose credentials for suffering with the people and whose capacity to rekindle faith among them far outstrip his own. How shall we explain that distancing, if not by his embrace of what Keith Lemna and David Delaney, in “Three Pathways into the Theological Mind of Pope Francis”, referred to as the “post-conciliar strategy to inculturate the gospel to modern tastes that was adopted by so many of his Jesuit confreres after the Second Vatican Council”?

Over against John Paul II, Francis has clearly partnered himself with those who think it time “for the Church to seek a mediatory pact with contemporary secular culture” by bracketing out “contentious social disputes that appear to be peculiarly Christian concerns” – who indeed believe this “an indispensable first stage in the journey to reach the lost ninety-nine.” Not only has he appointed such people to high office, despite in some cases their sexual or financial misbehaviour; he has worked with them to subvert the dicasteries and institutes that were carrying forward John Paul II’s agenda, while marginalizing the doctrinal oversight of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Even when we try to isolate the Bergoglian agenda from its European or American attachments, then, we run into trouble. That God regularly invites the Church to a fresh inculturation of its mission is not to be doubted, whatever the merits or demerits of the teología del pueblo and the Aparecida document (surely Bergoglio’s finest work) as a model for our time. Yet the Francis reformation, as a call to go out among the poor and needy, does not break much new missionary ground. It is not that call that is generating a crisis in the Church, but rather the call for another kind of accompaniment, the call for an exercise of “mercy” that echoes Jesus in John 8 but somehow neglects his “Go, and sin no more” – the call that neglects halakah, that puts doctrine and discipline aside, that makes the rich and comfortable still more comfortable while doing little to challenge popular religiosity with the demands of authentic discipleship. Here “rules and prohibitions” and “the repetition of doctrinal principals” (Aparecida 12) are not thought to be insufficient, as indeed they are, so much as to be impediments, which they are not.

We will not get far, in this business of discernment, by asking whether the Church is to be a Church of the poor and a Church of the merciful. Of course it is. We must ask instead whether it is to be a Church of all the beatitudes. The Francis reformation places emphasis on the fifth – “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” – but sometimes seems ambivalent about the fourth and the sixth: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness… Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” It stresses the first, in its Lukan version – “Blessed are the poor” – but has little to say about the last two: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake… Blessed are you when men revile you…” And why is that? Not because of the preeminence of the divine mercy, already emphasized by John Paul II in Dives in misericordia, but because of its tendency to oppose mercy and justice, despite Francis’s own statements in Misericordiae vultus that they cannot be opposed.


T
hat tendency, we may be confident, has much to do with the Humanae vitae rebellion and indeed with a determination to adopt something like the modern Protestant attitude towards sex and marriage, as R. R. Reno has trenchantly observed in “Bourgeois Religion.” With Francis himself things may be otherwise; but, if so, he is closing his eyes to a great deal of what is going on around him. At all events, his constant railing against the evils of “rigidity” suggest that he has imbibed more than a little of what Augusto Del Noce characterized in The Crisis of Modernity as “a critique of authority in the name of conscience, or in the name of a historical process thought to be providential and irreversible because willed by God, a process which eliminates every ‘fixism.’”

Consider here the four principles of good governance he adopted many decades ago and without warrant from scripture or tradition has introduced into his magisterial writings. Claudio Remeseira, leaning on Bergolio’s fellow Jesuit, Juan Carlos Scannone, tells us that these principles – “Time is greater than space; Unity prevails over conflict; Realities are more important than ideas; The whole is greater than the part” – were extrapolated from a letter written in 1835 by Juan Manuel de Rosas to Facundo Quiroga during the Argentine constitutional controversy. They are “constantly invoked by Francis and constitute the mainstay of the fourth chapter” of Evangelii gaudium. The first of them invites Francis to dismiss those “nostalgic” elements in the Church that remain stuck in the past and are unwilling to let tradition evolve. The second, we may add, recalling as it does the Teilhardian maxim that “incoherence is the prelude to unification,” underlies his advice to make a mess; while the third and fourth also relativize fixed notions and established practices to the needs of the present moment.

Remeseira stresses Francis’s capacity to combine progressivism with an anti-modernist note. “Many people still wonder whether he is a true progressive or a conservative camouflaged with soundbites and gestures that please the liberal crowds but that in the end have little or no consequence for the real life of the Church. The truth is that he is a little bit of both.” His thinking proceeds like a fugue, as he wrestles with the “unresolved conflict at the heart of Catholicism,” even Vatican II Catholicism; namely, how to proclaim Christ in a relentlessly secularist age. “When Francis says that he is nobody to judge a gay person, or when he asks forgiveness for the crimes committed by the Church during the so-called Conquest of the New World, or when he forfeits excommunication to women who had had an abortion, he is playing the liberal voice; it is the progressive line singing. When he ratifies the Vatican’s traditional teaching on contraception, priest celibacy, same-sex marriage and female priesthood, it is the conservative voice that comes up front. The important thing to keep in mind is that, as in counterpoint  – a fugue’s central device –  both voices are playing at the same time, only at different parts of the score.”

But, leaving aside the fact that Francis’s mind does not seem anything like as tidy as a fugue, we must insist that this putative conflict at the heart of Catholicism, which is really a conflict between the Church and the world, cannot be resolved by some ad hoc human counterpoint. Rather, it has already been resolved by the divine counterpoint in the cross and resurrection, the ascension and anticipated parousia, of Jesus Christ. That divine counterpoint instructs us to be very careful with inculturation, and to expect in the present age progress in evil as in good. This, surely, Francis knows. Yet he should also know, and apparently does not, that the divine counterpoint does not justify his maxims or their elevation into theological principles.


A
ccording to Evangelii gaudium, “a constant tension exists between fullness and limitation.” Fullness “evokes the desire for complete possession, while limitation is a wall set before us.” Time is greater than space in the sense that it breaks down this wall. It is a constant opening, says Francis, for we live “poised between each individual moment and the greater, brighter horizon of the utopian future as the final cause which draws us to itself.” Knowledge that time is greater than space “enables us to work slowly but surely, without being obsessed with immediate results” or anxieties about “inevitable changes in our plans.”

“Giving priority to space,” on the other hand, “means madly attempting to keep everything together in the present, trying to possess all the spaces of power and of self-assertion.” Time ought to govern spaces, for it “illumines them and makes them links in a constantly expanding chain, with no possibility of return. What we need, then, is to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society and engage other persons and groups who can develop them to the point where they bear fruit in significant historical events.”

This construct, I fear, is not governed by the gospel or by the Eucharist. It intrudes as a foreign element that owes far more to Lessing and Hegel and the process theologians than Francis seems to realize. Are we to adopt the Teilhardian slogan – one notes that the cry has gone up for Teilhard’s rehabilitation – L’En Haut et l’En Avant? Is it to be upwards and onwards, onwards and upwards? Then we must indeed dispense with every “fixism,” including even the fixing of Jesus to his cross and of the Church to the via crucis. Or (which comes to the same thing) we must reinterpret the cross as representing “the deepest aspirations of our age.”

Perhaps, if time really is greater than space, we may dispense also, as Luther did, with the Apostolic See itself? The step to Santa Marta is a step towards the walls, and Francis rightly wants the Church to out beyond its walls into the highways and byways. Yet the bones of Peter testify to the fact that the Church can only call people back to the future; that it can only call them to a very specific place and moment, as witnesses of the passion and the resurrection. It can only call them to a centre already fixed by God in space and time. That is what is “irreversible,” not some fancied progress in forging an ever-expanding chain of “significant historical events” or growing a “universal human consciousness” (Veritatis gaudium 4).


B
ut let us allow that Francis is not a typical progressivist and press on with our attempt at discernment by recalling that one fixture of Catholic moral teaching that is already threatened by the desire to get outside the walls and beyond the past is the sixth commandment. Unless adultery is not always adultery, it seems that adultery is not always wrong – or so many have concluded from Amoris, a conclusion blessed by Francis in the letter now ensconced in the Acta Apostolica Sedis. To put it a bit more accurately, adultery is always adultery and objectively wrong, but the person committing adultery may not be gravely culpable and may even be doing what God is asking of them.

Happily, this falsehood, which rests on an untenable notion of (subjectively) sinnerless sins and amounts to a form of situation ethics, does not touch as yet the infallibility doctrine; for nothing Francis has written or said meets the conditions of that doctrine, whether as stated by the First Vatican Council or as elaborated in Bishop Gasser’s relatio. That is not to say that it can be tolerated or left unresolved, however, since it touches directly on dominical authority, on the moral order, and on the integrity of the gospel and the sacraments.

About all this so much has been said that one hardly knows where to begin. To confine ourselves to its impact on the Eucharist, the pope, it appears, is determined to treat that sacrament as what some among the Methodists and the Reformed call a converting ordinance; that is, as something that can be approached with the intention of enhancing faith, without too many inhibitions arising from consideration of one’s actual state of life or fitness for the sacrament – which, to be sure, is never anything other or less than medicine for the sick.

Though the Catholic Church does not deny what John Wesley chiefly meant by the expression “converting ordinance” (viz., that the sacrament is not a reward for perfect faith and holiness but a means of grace intended to nourish all the faithful), it does deny – or has until now – the use made of that idea among those who have argued for open communion. Francis, however, is making a mess by pushing for a limited form of open communion. And, if open here, why not there? If open to these (the divorced living more uxorio in a civil marriage or perhaps no marriage at all), why not also to those (make your proposal)? If we are not to discipline the one, why discipline the other?

Our present lax attitude to discipline – discipline also is medicine for the sick – can hardly be put down to Francis. It has been with us since the temporary truce over Humanae vitae, and many bishops and priests have de facto permitted a kind of open communion. But Francis is pope, and if his established teaching on the matter does not square with tradition, tradition itself can no longer be conceived in any distinctly Catholic way. Moreover, it is not possible (as Veritatis makes clear) to isolate this “purely pastoral” matter from moral and doctrinal matters, such as Catholic teaching on the conscience and intrinsic evil, or on the unconditional grace of God in Jesus Christ. If marital obligations are revocable, either marriage ceases to be a sacrament or that of which it is a sacrament is also revocable. If adultery is not a barrier to communion, then communion itself is something other than what the Church says it is.

The prayer of the Church governs the faith of the Church and the faith of the Church governs its pastoral practice. The moment this relation is reversed, we set foot on the same road Luther and his fellow reformers trod. “How can we get a gracious God?” is the wrong question to ask. The right question is how we can be true to the grace of God that has already appeared for the salvation of all men; and the right answer is that we must allow it to train us “to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, awaiting our blessed hope” (Tit. 2:12f.).


N
ow, whatever conclusions are reached about Francis – who, like Luther, seems by turns gentle and angry, transparent and inscrutable, clear and confused – it must not be overlooked that his pontificate comes at a time in which the contrary spirit that has been abroad in the Church for nearly a millennium has grown very bold. The spirit of the nominalists who gave birth to skepticism, the spirit that reared its head in the Reformation to fracture rather to unite, the spirit that has had to be dealt with again and again in ever more dangerous ideological iterations – the spirit of lawlessness rebuked in Veritatis splendor– now walks where it wills, even in the halls of the Vatican, and that by papal invitation. Though it has not, or not yet, stretched out its hands for the prize of some de fide proclamation, it has already begun to parlay with the Rock.

With the Rock? With Peter confessing Christ? Surely not, some say; but perhaps they are forgetting Jesus’ own temptation, and his remarkable rebuke to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!” I recall being told by a senior churchman not long ago that it is dangerous to challenge the charism of a pope. That no doubt is true, but it is still more dangerous to let a pope pursue a false course. Besides, it begs the question as to what is and what is not a proper papal charism. That popes have a charism beyond the mandate and promises given to Peter and his successors, that they have a charism peculiar to their own pontificate, is not a matter of doctrine; nor does it stand the test of history. Some popes served so briefly as to leave no discernible mark at all, while others left the Church in a much worse state than they found it. In any event, the notion that popes are always true to such additional charisms as they may have is quite obviously false.

At Vatican I, it was not claimed that popes have a peculiar charism, or any guarantee of personal faithfulness to their ex officio Petrine charism. It was claimed only that they do have the Petrine charism and that Providence would prevent their violation of it in formal acts of judgment on matters of faith and morals. While St Bellarmine, as Bishop Gasser pointed out, had in his day ventured qualified support for Pighius’s “pious and probable” theory that, even as a particular person, a pope could never pertinaciously believe something contrary to the faith, the Vatican fathers did not so venture. Personally, I think this pious speculation very much less than probable. Pious speculation might also posit that there will be no popes in hell, but pondering Dante provides a cure for that.

To resist the task of discerning spirits on the assumption that no pope, even when not acting ex cathedra, would ever confuse or suppress the truth doctrinally, despite an abundance of evidence that he might do so morally, requires a much higher view of the papacy than is warranted by any judgment of the Church. It also requires a blind eye to the contradictions that made their way into Amoris, contradictions that correspond to – and provide openings for – significant changes being effected on the ground. And, on the principle that reality is greater than ideas, there is every reason to suppose that these changes on the ground presage a still more concerted attempt to bring about doctrinal changes, changes that would bring the magisterium into self-contradiction. The “protestantization” of the Catholic Church would then be complete.


T
he present situation, thankfully, is not so dire as that. There is even something salutary about it, for it exposes those who are inclined to put their trust in popes, rather than in God and his Christ. On the Feast of the Chair of St Peter in 2005, one enthusiastic priest wrote: “Can a Catholic dissent from the Papal Magisterium and still claim to be a Catholic in good standing? Can one refuse to render a ‘religious submission of mind and will’ to the Pope’s teachings? No! Absolutely not! … Catholics must obey the teachings of the Pope both from his Ordinary and his Extra-Ordinary Magisterium. Too often, I believe, the mistake is made of restricting the infallible teaching charism of the Holy Father exclusively to the ex cathedra forum. Dissident theologians have capitalized on this misinterpretation, leading many Catholics to believe that they are bound to follow only the de fide or ex cathedra teachings of the Roman Pontiff. This limitation was never the mind of the Church. It certainly was not the mind of the Fathers either of Vatican I or Vatican II.” I wonder what this priest would say now, were he still with us.

Benedict himself, when he took up that Chair, was far more clear-sighted: “The power that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve. The power of teaching in the Church involves a commitment to the service of obedience to the faith. The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary, the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.”

And where this commitment or guarantee is not made good on, what then? Many years earlier – sounding a bit like John Henry Newman, whose “minimist” view of infallibility commends itself as a prudent one – Cardinal Ratzinger warned that “criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, to the extent that they lack support in Scripture and the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church.”

Well, now we are faced with just that necessity, thanks in part to his own decision to resign. We are faced in his successor with one who (if this exercise in discernment has not utterly failed) is compromising the faith and sacraments and unity of the Church. We shall have to deal with that, not by doubling down on papolatry, but by ridding ourselves of it. Not by trying to save the appearances of things Francis says or does – what could that accomplish, other than to justify the Protestant view of Catholicism? – but by reckoning with them quite honestly and repudiating them where holy tradition demands they be repudiated. And this cannot be a matter of every man for himself. It is a task ultimately for the bishops, divided as they are, and especially for the Sacred College, for all share the pontiff’s sacred duty to defend the faith.


B
ut how then can it be said, cum Petro et sub Petro? How can it be insisted, “never apart from this head”? Will the church in Rome, with the blessing of the Bishop of Rome, be among those that deviate from the historic doctrine and discipline of the holy Catholic Church? Will Rome no longer be that church, of all the churches, to which (in Gasser’s words) “faithlessness has no access and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every church must agree”? Will Rome itself (despite Cardinal Vallini’s admirable caution) have to be corrected?

Cum Petro et sub Petro: substitute aut for et and the crisis of which we have been speaking comes into focus. If it is not yet dire, it is certainly urgent. For Peter is divided from Peter, not as anti-popes are divided from the legitimate pope, whose office they covet, but as a successor from his predecessors. It does not seem possible to follow Francis obediently and to remain at the same time with his predecessors – whether his recent predecessors, whose work he has systematically undermined, or his predecessors taken as a whole. It does not seem possible to follow Francis and remain within the boundaries of faith marked out by the fathers of Trent, who had to defend from attack the very same sacraments that are threatened again today even in Rome itself.

No response that fails to escape the horns of this dilemma can hope to be successful. Rome must be corrected, yes, but it must be corrected by Rome. Peter must be corrected, but corrected in the time-honoured fashion by Paul. Which is to say: those in the college of bishops, in concert with those in the cardinalate who recognize what is at stake in this crisis and are prepared to act, must confront Peter in private and try to win their brother. If they are unsuccessful, they must oppose him to his face, before the church in Rome, demonstrating that he “stands condemned” by his own actions. Moreover, they must see to it that the church in Rome, to which the cardinal electors (though an international body) are de iurerelated, fully participates in this process.

Now, it will be pointed out that there is no canonical process for passing judgment on a pope; indeed, that there is no earthly court in which such judgment can be passed. To which two responses may be made: First, the process of which we are speaking is not a juridical one, and could never become such without a change in canon law. A pope can resign, but he cannot be removed from office by his brethren; he can only be removed “by the law itself” (canon 194), that is, by reason of having “publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church.” Second, if the process, which is a personal and collegial one, were unsuccessful at its private stage, it would likely lead either to resignation or to the appearance of some formal heresy that would bring canon 194 into play. That this, or some still sadder or more troubling outcome, can be imagined is no reason for refusing the Pauline duty, to shirk which is to leave the faith itself at risk.


I
have said that the immediate task of correcting particular errors on the part of Francis, errors which do not yet amount to heresy, and the larger task of rethinking the papal role as such and determining what good governance in today’s Church really means, must be undertaken by willing bishops and cardinals, acting in concert. Neither of these tasks, however, whether they prove surprisingly simple in execution or difficult and protracted, should be allowed to obscure the fact that the Church as a whole is being asked to choose between two very different paths: the Protestant path that leads to individualism and sectarianism and thence, as the past half-millennium has shown, to cultural assimilation and statism; or the path that leads to a more authentic Catholicism that is both traditional and evangelical, unified and missionary – a communio Catholicism from which the contrary spirit has been fully exorcised.

It is for the sake of this choice, I believe, that an otherwise calamitous pontificate has been permitted. As Fr Weinandy put it at the end of his letter to Francis, perhaps our Lord does indeed want “to manifest just how weak is the faith of many within the Church, including many of her bishops. “Ironically,” he adds, “your pontificate has given those who hold harmful theological and pastoral views the license and confidence to come into the light and expose their previously hidden darkness. In recognizing this darkness, the Church will humbly need to renew herself, and so continue to grow in holiness.”

Is that not a sound discernment? There are corrupt things in the Church that have been crawling slowly but surely into view, surviving even the harsh light cast on some of them in 2002 – old things that have been growing in the shadows for a very long time, fed by the spirit of lawlessness and recognizable as rebellion against the law of Christ, even when disguised as mercy and compassion or inculturation and accommodation. Since the Church cannot renew herself by herself, but can and will be renewed by the Spirit of God, let us pray for our bishops, especially the Bishop of Rome, that they may name these things accurately and put them to flight. And let those who will not do so be replaced by those who will.

About Dr. Douglas Farrow 3 Articles
Douglas Farrow is Professor of Theology and Christian Thought at McGill University, and the author, most recently, of Theological Negotiations: Proposals in Soteriology and Anthropology (Baker Academic, 2018).

37 Comments

  1. Like clouds streaking cross a roaring sky some dark some bright reflections of disturbance below Reformation. I love the Gospel. I love that Love. Would be as it were forever smitten.

  2. Dr. Farrow sees a difference between Pope Francis toying with the “death penalty as intrinsically immoral”….and his two predecessors publicly seeking worldwide abolition despite their own catechism. This school of thought…2 predecessors were great/ Pope Francis is a danger…is blinding us by over-simplification. All three had and have a deficient belief in ALL that scripture says…indeed the 2 predecessors both stated that we can’t be certain Judas is in hell….compare that with Christ’s consistently dire words on Judas. They both avoided Romans 13:4 in any discussion of the death penalty just as gays avoid Romans 1:26-27 on gay acts. Our problem is a drift from scripture wherever scripture is severe and non sugarey.
    And it began long ago…Francis is another brick in the wall. Von Balthasar…hope for an empty hell repeated by Karl Rahner despite Christ saying in Luke 3:24 ” many will seek to enter and will not be able”. St. John Paul II denigrating the pentateuchal death penalties in Evangelium Vitae section 40. Benedict denigrating the OT massacres in Verbum Domini 42.
    God could order massacres of a people He spoke to because only God owns all souls as He says in Ezekiel. Right now He takes c.150,000 people daily into the next life. Francis says there is always mercy and Christ says the sin against the Holy Spirit is not foregiven in this life or in the next…and it is unsettled as to what that sin is and final unrepentance doesn’t fit with the context which is Jewish leaders attributing good acts to satan.
    Wherever scripture is severe, there we find leaders running from scriptures. Francis is just another brick in the wall…but an obvious one because he talks a lot. No one knew Benedict opposed the herem massacres of God…because it’s buried in section 42 of Verbum Domini. No one knew St. JPII denigrated the pentateuchal death penalties because it coyly stated then buried in section 40 of Evangelium Vitae.
    Drift from scriptural severity is the common link from Von Balthasar to Francis thru the two predecessors.

    • Your arguments are excellent.
      Even the popes are disregarding some important excerpts of the Scripture when they don’t match their views.
      The Gospel must be taken as a whole. Otherwise, either by a priest or by a Pope, it is pure manipulation and must be strongly contradicted and rejected.

      • Thanks Jack. Check Verbum Domini 42. Samton is a stalker of mine out of extreme attachment to Benedict but you’ll notice Samton doesn’t dispute that God ordered the massacres….Benedict does but Samton can’t allow that he does.

        • Hilarious. A “stalker”? You must operate under several different names, then because I have no remembrance of you. It is so bizarre when you types misrepresent Catholicism, then respond like a vampire who has seen a cross when someone simply corrects your misreading of scripture and catholic texts.

    • ” St. John Paul II denigrating the pentateuchal death penalties in Evangelium Vitae section 40. Benedict denigrating the OT massacres in Verbum Domini 42.” You seem to fail to understand the distinction between what St. John Paul II states regarding the death penalty, being only a prudential judgment and as such not binding on the consciences of Catholics and Francis’s effort to declare the death penalty intrinsically evil, vengeance, contrary to human dignity etc.
      As for massacres as described in the Old Testament, these have to be studied and understood with the help of proper Biblical Hermeneutics by applying the methods already proposed by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of 1943.

      • You seem to ignore that St. JPII by seeking world wide abolition was seeking to make the prudential judgement of Pius XII and I and of ccc 2267…..impossible. What’s the real not intellectual difference between one man calling it intrinsically evil and another man wanting it impossible to every government to make a prudential judgement in favor of execution…lol. Here’s all three Popes, none of whom read enough in regional penology to know that a Catholic region, Northern Latin America, is the most murderous large region in the world and it is non death penalty…here they all are trying to make a prudential judgement for the death penalty impossible:

        
”Today I would encourage all to work not only for the abolition of the death penalty…etc.”
-Pope Francis Address to the Delegates of the Sixth World Congress Against the Death Penalty
“…

        “I draw the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty and to reform the penal system…”
– Pope Benedict XVI Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Africae Munus Benin, November 19, 2011

        
“I renew the appeal…to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”
-Pope John Paul II Homily St. Louis, MO, January 27, 1999

        • That last quote by the way is heretical since it says the identical thing as saying the dp is intrinsically evil…cf “cruel”.

  3. A very clear article from the excellent Farrow. That the church can only call people back, and back even to the future, is a profoundly true idea. The way forward is a journey home.

  4. One question that has bothered me for the past year has been : Why did P. Francis really commemorate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther, who was responsible for the break-up of the Catholic Church?

    His (PF’s) subsequent actions – Amoris Laetitia which goes against Catholic dogma, and which many faithful clergy and theologians have decried, his dislike for P. Donald Trump, who has been declared the most pro-lie president of the USA, his embrace of Islam as a “religion of peace”, and his close ties to radicals like Barack Obama, George Soros, the left leaning United Nations, Jeffrey Sachs and his ilk, etc. etc. expose a clear agenda – is P. Francis for Jesus Christ, or against him, for as the Scriptures say – no man can serve two masters. Someone please clarify who P. Francis really is. Enough of
    “Who Am I to Judge” – as the leader of the Catholic Church, this much used quote is rather puzzling.
    Benedict, and before him, P. John Paul, were clear on dogma – why this radical departure ? What is the agenda?

  5. Pope Saint Pius X in his 1907 encyclical On the Doctrines of the Modernists made clear the origins of the current misfortunes of the Church.

    And most Catholic seminaries still remain unfaithful to the dogmatic teaching of the Church regarding the study of the Scriptures.

    … the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its “mind” to be this – that “in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”
    — Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus

    There are many miraculous event recorded in the Scriptures in sections the genre of which were historical narrative, that seminarians are taught are myths and legends, events that the Fathers unanimously believed were the historical facts of salvation history. Benedict XVI mentions this in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini:

    Unfortunately, a sterile separation sometimes creates a barrier between exegesis and theology, and this “occurs even at the highest academic levels”. …

    The lack of a hermeneutic of faith with regard to Scripture entails more than a simple absence; in its place there inevitably enters another hermeneutic, a positivistic and secularized hermeneutic ultimately based on the conviction that the Divine does not intervene in human history. According to this hermeneutic, whenever a divine element seems present, it has to be explained in some other way, reducing everything to the human element. This leads to interpretations that deny the historicity of the divine elements. …

    Such a position can only prove harmful to the life of the Church, casting doubt over fundamental mysteries of Christianity and their historicity – as, for example, the institution of the Eucharist and the resurrection of Christ. A philosophical hermeneutic is thus imposed, one which denies the possibility that the Divine can enter and be present within history. …

    All this is also bound to have a negative impact on the spiritual life and on pastoral activity …

    Rationalism’s rejection of belief in miraculous events recorded in the Scriptures began in the mid-nineteenth century. It infected Catholic seminaries long ago. So, many of our priests and bishops were trained in the seminary to disbelieve the Scriptures. And that, to put it very, very tactfully, does indeed “have a negative impact on the spiritual life and on pastoral activity.”

    I would put it this way: Irrationality believed by priests and prelates will, of course, become a destructive force in the Church. In a nutshell:

    We now know that the natural Universe (time, space, matter and energy) had a beginning. It is irrational to assume that it popped into existence, uncaused, from nothingness in terms of the absence of time, space, matter and energy. This is because it is also self-evident that from nothing, nothing comes. Yet the natural Universe began to exist. That happening must have had a cause; its cause must have been a reality that transcends the natural, namely, a supernatural reality.

    If the Scriptures are indeed a true account of the interaction of that necessarily existing supernatural reality with natural beings, then we should expect that the supernatural side of that interaction would be supernatural. We should expect an account that includes the miraculous. Modern Scripture scholarship begins its study of the Scriptures assuming nothing miraculous really happened. If a natural explanation for a given event cannot be found, it is declared a myth or a legend. That is something like proclaiming oneself an expert in the life of Babe Ruth, and beginning one’s instruction of others on his life by insisting that Babe Ruth never really played baseball. This is the ridiculous mistake of rationalism’s approach to the Scriptures.

    Smacking the ball out of the park playing baseball is what Babe Ruth did. The supernatural is, of course, what our necessarily existing supernatural reality does. If the Scriptures are what Catholics believe them to be, we should expect to find accounts of the miraculous in them. Duh!

    Christ considered His miraculous works to be proof of Who He really was:

    Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.
    — John 14:10-11

    Those priests and prelates who don’t believe that the Scriptures are what Catholicism has always believed them to be — a true account of the interaction of the necessarily existing supernatural reality with natural beings — should find another line of work.

    As long as Christ would have to say of those teaching our seminarians, and of many prelates and priests, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God,” (Mt 22:29), things are only going to get worse in the Church.

    • Good points, however incomplete. God has revealed through the thought patterns of the inspired writers. And the those writers use hyperbole (Jesus Himself: if your eye is a problem for you CUT IT OUT!!!) All Mediterranean cultures can talk that way, exaggeration to make the point. You hear it all the time watching papal Masses on TV, when some cardinal or bishop from Mediterranean based cultures address the Pope to greet him starts with ‘MOST HOLY FATHER’ referring to God the Father? To take those kinds of passages bluntly literally is a tendency of northern Europe who might simply say Holy Father or your Holiness. Of course, there ARE passages that are to be taken literally.
      The point is to understand the meaning according to the time and culture it written from. The severity in the OT is clearly PEDIGOGICAL, God must INSIST ON THEIR OBEDIENCE. Israel doesn’t finally REASIZE this until the destruction of the first temple and the Babylonian Captivity.
      After Our Lord when cultures are christianized by the Church ONE DOES SEE MERCY MODIFYING the OT the divine penalties. (Woman caught in adultery–Christ doesn’t absolve her from her sin and then let them stone her, he FREES her with a command to sin no more.

      • Pete…please…think a little. The woman caught in adultery incident does not remove severity from every subsequent NT passage. After Christ Ascends, God kills Herod in Acts 12 and leaves his body for worms to eat just as Jezebel was eaten by dogs…and He kills Ananas and Sapphira in Acts 5 for lying to the Holy Spirit about money. The sternest warnings about hell for adulterers are in the epistles not in the OT.
        Pete….the most violent massacre by God happens in 70AD in Jerusalem…600,000 to 1.1 million people killed by the Romans moved by God’s active Providence according to Christ who said it would happen because Jerusalem did not know ” the things that are for thy peace”. Why did it happen to teens among others and babies within them as Christ foretold? Because part of the Sinai Covenant said that God would punish those who hate him down to the third and fourth generation….not eternally but physically as you and I are punished for Adam’s sin by illness and death.

          • Well Samton….Jesus in your view was incorrect….He told Jerusalem their enemies would massacre them not by any wise will of theirs but ultimately because Jerusalem did not recognize the day of their visitation by the Son of God….Luke 19….which means God controlled that massacre even down to the temple being left with not one stone on another…

            Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.”*
            40
            He said in reply, “I tell you, if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!”
            The Lament for Jerusalem.*
            41
            o As he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it,p
            42
            saying, “If this day you only knew what makes for peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes.q
            43
            * For the days are coming upon you when your enemies will raise a palisade against you; they will encircle you and hem you in on all sides.
            44
            They will smash you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another within you because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

      • Read St. Cyprian’s Exhortation to Martyrdom and you will find that in the Early Church the hard sayings of Christ were not considered mere hyperbole but were taken very seriously.

  6. They say a picture is worth a thousand words and this is the first time (through the CNS photo you posted for this essay) have I seen Pope Francis carrying that Crucifix. It is interesting to learn that only an assortment of tongue depressors were nailed to the Cross.

        • After some thought TALbers a reference to medical care indicative of the Pontiff’s Christian humanist concerns.

      • Father: One cannot know for sure with modern/symbolic art/artists (and I could not immediately find anything on an internet search) It is probably the case that the lower vertical oblong is meant to be the legs of Our Lord, the upper vertical-the torso, the lower horizontal – the outstretched arms, and the upper horizontal -the Sacred Head. It is Dali-like in configuration and thus its fluid shape may purpose to express an outflowing of grace; one could surmise it relates to the horizontal love of the 4th through the 10th commandments and the vertical love of the 1st through the 3rd. Sadly, it might point to a Cosmic Christ, thus purposely hoping to dissolve (literally melt) the revealed knowledge of God in favor of a more fluid and evolving conception of Christ. Or it could be that the artist was before a Crucifix when he looked down at the wooden spoon he was using to scrape his Italian ice and thought – “cool”…!

        • Thanks Inigo. I just gave my take on the cross to TALbers. Your view that it may reference a “Cosmic Christ” is fearsome and may be the implied intent. Hopefully not. Yet it fits the trend at the Vatican. There was a Dominican Fr Matthew Fox circa 1988 who taught a “Cosmic Christ” along with a “green theology” of “Mother Earth” similar to some ideas bandied about at the Vatican. Fox was censured by then Prefect for the CDF Ratzinger. He left Catholicism and became an Episcopalian. Noted Catholic apologist Fr Aidan Nichols OP opposed him and wrote extensively on New Age thought and a Cosmic Christ.

          • Thanks Father. It seems that the censures are going in the wrong direction these days – Blessed Lent

    • Strictly speaking, the object Pope Francis is carrying is not a crucifix, because it lacks a corpus. I do not know whether there is a term denoting a cross to be carried in procession, with applied vertical and horizontal metal tongue depressors.

      • Charles – thanks. Yes, I almost did refer to this as only a “cross” but the purpose sadly appears to be a Crucifix since an image is imposed to represent Christ. But your point is well taken.

  7. “Let us confess straight away that the Francis reformation has much to commend it, just as Luther’s did.”

    “The Catholic Church does not deny what John Wesley chiefly meant by the expression ‘converting ordinance’ (viz., that the sacrament is not a reward for perfect faith and holiness but a means of grace intended to nourish all the faithful)…”

    But…

    POW! A useful and jarring comparison. The whole piece, all-round, makes me think how helpful sound and clear theology is when you find it.

    Thank you.

  8. The whole of this argument I believe is that Francis sees the “old boy”network of the hierarchy so used to a level of comfort and higher living that they do not want to abandon this reality. He is pushing against this “ruling from above” autocracy by encouraging the clergy to “get out of your nice comfortable residence” to go out and meet the needs of the people. Although the Catholic Church has started many charities, hospitals, schools, etc, from his background he thinks it is not enough. At the same time, his teaching does not emphasize that this mercy must not condone sinless sins as the writer points out. The pendulum may have swung a bit far in that direction, and if you believe the Holy Spirit will continue to watch out for the Church, it will eventually swing back. Maybe the enlightenment that comes out of the dialogue accompanying these controversies is the Spirit’s method to start the swing back again.

    • Hopefully not wishful thinking.

      But the speed that Cardinal Marx and fellow travelers are effecting pastoral changes that directly challenge the Church’s doctrine are growing more ominous by the day.

  9. Standing before the abyss of formal heresy, Francis ignores key passages of Scripture, especially that one about Christ “coming not to abolish the Law…”

  10. I really enjoyed reading this piece,it just sounds right. Father Weinandy is very clear in his letter, he makes a good diagnosis and in the process reminds Pope Francis that the special guidance that God The Father confers upon the Petrine Office through the Holy Spirit ought not be taken in vain. The fact that some cardinals are using political terms to label Church Teaching is scary. As Dr. Farrow points out, the Sacred College needs to do what it needs to do, no matter who occupies the Chair of Peter. I would dare to say Mother Church needs to remind Herself why She dresses Her own with scarlet red robes. These symbols have a deep meaning that come with huge responsibilities which could possibly require martyrdom. We have somehow believed in us, in our interpretation, in our own logic and forgot the prophetic words written on the Coat of Arms of Cardinal Raphael Merry del Val,”Give me souls, take rest”. We may think our new paradigms will save the day, but they won’t. Papa Sarto and his trusted Secretary of State were living proof that conclaves have gone terribly wrong in the past but yet The Holy Ghost, not conscience, steered the votes in favor of the humble Patriarch of Venice leaving Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro waiting for the papal tiara. Popes come and go,Jesus only came once and will triumphantly return. Mary Mother of Good Counsel pray for us.

  11. An excellent treatise by Dr. Farrow. We seem to be approaching the time where Francis can no longer simply be ignored. Farrow lays out what will happen if the Pope stays on the course he has taken. Increasingly, groups of bishops and cardinals will privately let it be known that his behavior will begin to cause public remonstrance. The Pope may continue on his course, and thereby cause a real crisis. We will probably know this year sometime if we have a real rogue Pope on our hands that has to be publicly opposed.

  12. A very powerful piece – I have no quibbles. I also have no answers – why the Pope and his supporters think that accommodating 21st century secularism will be possible for the Catholic Church when its been poison for the “mainstream” Protestant denominations is impossible to explain.
    One of Benedict’s supporters at the Vatican was stunned by the Pope’s resignation. He found one source of comfort – believers would now have to concentrate their faith on Christ and not on the Church. I’m a convert and went to the Church of JPII with open eyes and grew to love it. So watching Francis dismantle this Church is very painful. It is very possible that I had put too much spiritual capital into love of the Church and not enough into the love of God.

  13. The personal charisms of Popes is a rather secondary aspect compared to the Petrine Ministry which they are bound to faithfully fulfill. In the history of the Church some of the great Father such as St. Athanasius, St. Basil and especially St. Augustine, and of course Doctors especially ST. Thomas Aquinas, but also others such as St. Catherine of Sienna and St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis and St. Ignatius have contributed more to the life of the Church than almost any Pope. Of course, I am not forgetting St. Leo the Great and St. Gregory the Great, but many of the others are best forgotten.
    I don’t see any solution to this problem in this Pontificate. All we can do is to pray that the Cardinals will exercise due diligence and choose someone who will begin to fix the mess caused by the present Pontificate. Let us recall that Pope John XXII, who caused a theological upheaval of sorts by denying the doctrine of the intermediate escathology in the XIVth century, although he did retract his error in his deathbed, his successor Benedict XIII put an end to the controversy by dogmatically defining the doctrine in a Bull called Benedictus Deus.
    We need to remember that there are doctrines infallibly proposed and definitive by the Ordinary Magisterium. It seems to me that the doctrine expressed in Humanae Vitae is one of those and others expressed in Veritatis Splendor. The next Pontificate will have to put great emphasis on doctrine and straighten out this mess. Pope Francis has made some positive contributions as regards evangelization as expressed in Evangelii Gaudium and he has rightly opposed clericalism and expressed the desire to go beyond a model of Church looking in on itself. At the same time, he seems to be shooting himself in the foot, as inevitably the problems he has raised have brought about internal division in the Church which is hardly what is needed for a true launching of the new evangelization, which he rightly desires.

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. The Francis Reformation -
  2. VVEDNESDAY EXTRA – Big Pulpit
  3. Morning Catholic must-reads: 01/03/18 | WTLM Autodesk
  4. Being Frank about Francis – Catholic World Report

Leave a Reply to Ciaran guilfoyle Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*