Douthat’s lament: Francis “must have known that it did not have to be this way”
To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism seeks to make sense of a pontificate that began with great promise but has now, after five years, deepened division, caused confusion, and “undercut the quest for the common ground.”
Looking at the wreckage of the mainline Protestant denominations in Europe and America, the Church of England’s continuing decline, and the empty pews of lenient Catholic Germany, one has to wonder—simply as a matter of self-preservation—why would Catholic “progressives” (an imprecise but useful shorthand) persist in reforms similar to those that empirically have proven to be disastrous? What is it that drives them to seemingly overturn longstanding Church teachings when similar moves have decimated other Christian communities in the West?
Best-selling author and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, in To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism, does not exactly explain the why, but he does seek to describe how he thinks Francis and his inner circle are trying to effect changes in the fundamental self-understanding of the Church and her teachings. Such changes would be tantamount to the most momentous revolution since the Reformation, and according to Douthat “would make Catholic Christianity open to substantial reinterpretation in every generation, and transform many of its doctrines into the equivalent of a party’s platform or a republic’s constitution – which is to say, binding for the moment but constantly open to revision based on democratic debate.”
Douthat states that now, five years after the surprise abdication of Pope Benedict XVI and the equally surprising election of Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy, “it helps to tell a story about the last fifty years of Catholic history.” And then adds: “So let’s tell three.” Each of the three hinges on a certain understanding and interpretation of Vatican II. First is the “liberal” account: the surprising Council was a watershed whose reforms need to be accelerated and which represents a clear break with a “legalistic,” “pharisaical Church.” The second story, told by “conservatives” asserts that Vatican II was “hijacked by those who favored a simple accommodation to the spirit of the 1960s,” but decline was arrested first by John Paul II and then by Benedict XVI, who affirmed the essential continuity of Catholic doctrine. Douthat, who is one of America’s most astute observers of this pontificate, proposes a third story: an uneasy truce in a time of upheaval, with neither the liberal nor conservative wings fully successful. What was needed was to transcend the old divisions in a world where the Pope was both very strong and very weak in managing a global flock of widely – some would say insurmountable – divergent understandings of the faith.
Douthat is very good at describing the strange situation in which the papacy finds itself, in a technologically connected and media-saturated world. The papacy is now marketed; “each pope is treated not just as the supreme governor of the church but its single embodiment, the Catholic answer to Gandhi or Mandela, the Beatles or the Stones.” This centralization of the papacy and its magnification is in many ways the fault of modern media, which demands simple stories defined by personalities. However, Douthat asserts, conservative Catholics bear some of the blame by their actions, especially during the pontificate of John Paul II. But such centrality—which is distinct in ways from Petrine supremacy—sits uneasily with the bulk of Church history and tradition. Douthat might also have mentioned the loss of strong confessional states, which balanced papal power with their own strong obligations to preserve the faith.
Francis was a surprise and perhaps an opportunity. Coming from the “periphery,” many hoped that he was free of the ideological presuppositions of European and American clerics and old arguments focused on the West to the neglect of the wider Catholic world. He was a pope for the global Church and while his inveighing against ecclesial legalism may have sounded unusual in the West, where excessive legalism was not the problem, perhaps it was not the West he was addressing. His views on the poor and the marginalized, combined with an obvious devotion to Mary and personal piety, might have been just what the Church needed to reach out to both non-Christians as well as Catholics hurt by the sex scandals or who had drifted away from the faith. Douthat spends some time exploring the real appeal of Francis’ message of mercy, and the very Catholic message that all of us are sinners and so must be met where we are. Francis was potentially the great mediator among the Vatican II stories to move the Church into the new age. At least that was the hope.
The book argues that Francis instead quickly became a controversial figure, in part because he clearly sided with the very liberal, largely European wing of the episcopate in a way that seemed designed not only to push that agenda but to criticize and even to shame the more orthodox segments of the faithful. His laudable condemnations of the “throwaway culture” of consumerism included an unsophisticated understanding of modern economics, and his focus on “encounter” with nonbelievers and “mercy” to those within the fold presaged doctrinal vagueness. And he moved deliberately to quell dissent, and indeed to punish those he saw as opponents—his treatment of Cardinal Burke being the most well-known example of several that Douthat recounts. More recently, Francis’ rapprochement with the Chinese Communist State, and the doctoring of a letter from Benedict to make it seem as if the pope emeritus was strongly endorsing Francis’ theology, further make it appear as if the Pope and his advisors are not so much serving as a mediators as acting as revolutionaries.
Francis, however, seemed determined to revisit and even undermine some of the Church’s teachings on sexuality, morality, marriage, and the family. The chapters on the early stages of the Francis papacy, including the chaotic and confused Synod on the Family, are a masterful retelling of this sad episode. Although not an edifying spectacle, it is worth being reminded of the conduct of some of the bishops at the synod, including the not-so-subtle racism of the German bishops toward their more traditional African brethren, the latter facing not just economic modernization and globalization but also a very real threat from Islamic incursions.
Douthat carefully analyzes the arguments for changing the Church’s position on divorce and remarriage, as indicated in Amoris Laetitia and subsequent papal remarks, though he notes that Francis never quite closes the door on any interpretation, preferring a “mess” that is open to various pastoral approaches rather than clear, consistent rules. Douthat notes, in passing, the irony of a Pope not inclined to nuanced theological defenses in his teaching to the people having to rely on what are at times attenuated interpretations of the Gospels from liberal theologians that disregard the continuity of both traditions and Tradition. But he also notes another irony: conservative Catholics with concerns and criticisms of Francis who “backed the strongest possible understanding of papal authority” now faced with constantly being told to obey “the Pope, this Pope, this present Pope…”
And so the Francis era, Douthat suggests, “has made conservative overconfidence of the John Paul II era look foolish in hindsight,” even if “it hasn’t made liberal confidence look justified, or at least not yet.” But it also indicates just how rough the waters have been in the decades following the Council, at a time when both instability and an inclination toward a cult of personality—a dubious but distinctive trait of the past century—blurred the lines between the fallible man and the infallible office.
Over time, Douthat argues, “the papal message has lost any distinctively conservative element, instead offering simply liberalism in theology and left-wing politics—German theological premises, Argentine economics, and liberal-Eurocrat assumptions on borders, nations, and migration.” He fairly and rightly notes that Catholic liberalism is not the same as its Protestant cousin, and so need not lead to the same result as it has in the West—and in a fascinating digression on Jansenism he shows how a liberalizing wing is an important component of Catholic intellectual history. But the tone here is one of lament, and Douthat observes that Francis acted with intentionality in creating what will prove to be a deep and long-lasting crisis, since “he must have known that it did not have to be this way.”
And yet, knowing it did not have to be this way, the pontiff from Argentina did not step away from causing confusion and even crisis. Why? Did he always intend to pursue “a kind of revolution” or has he acted rashly and impatiently, not understanding the consequences? It’s hard, if not impossible, to know. But Francis, Douthat sharply concludes,
has not just exposed conflicts; he has stoked them, encouraging sweeping ambitions among his allies and apocalyptic fears among his critics. He has not just fostered debate; he has taken sides and hurled invective in a way that has pushed friendly critics into opposition, and undercut the quest for the common ground.
To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism
by Ross Douthat
Simon and Schuster, 2018
Hardcover, 234 pp.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Pope Francis at the general audience in St. Peter’s Square, Oct. 5, 2016. / Credit: Daniel Ibanez/CNA
CNA Staff, Mar 13, 2024 / 12:00 pm (CNA).
March 13 marks the anniversary of the election of Pope Francis as the 266th successor of St. Peter. Here is a timeline of key events during his papacy:
2013
March 13 — About two weeks after Pope Benedict XVI steps down from the papacy, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio is elected pope. He takes the papal name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi and proclaims from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica: “Let us begin this journey, the bishop and people, this journey of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity over all the Churches, a journey of brotherhood in love, of mutual trust. Let us always pray for one another.”
March 14 — The day after he begins his pontificate, Pope Francis returns to his hotel to personally pay his hotel bill and collect his luggage.
July 8 — Pope Francis visits Italy’s island of Lampedusa and meets with a group of 50 migrants, most of whom are young men from Somalia and Eritrea. The island, which is about 200 miles off the coast of Tunisia, is a common entry point for migrants who flee parts of Africa and the Middle East to enter Europe. This is the pope’s first pastoral visit outside of Rome and sets the stage for making reaching out to the peripheries a significant focus.
Pope Francis gives the Wednesday general audience in St. Peter’s Square on Oct. 2, 2013. Elise Harris/CNA.
July 23-28 — Pope Francis visits Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to participate in World Youth Day 2013. More than 3 million people from around the world attend the event.
July 29 — On the return flight from Brazil, Pope Francis gives his first papal news conference and sparks controversy by saying “if a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” The phrase is prompted by a reporter asking the pope a question about priests who have homosexual attraction.
Nov. 24 — Pope Francis publishes his first apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel). The document illustrates the pope’s vision for how to approach evangelization in the modern world.
2014
Feb. 22 — Pope Francis holds his first papal consistory to appoint 19 new cardinals, including ones from countries in the developing world that have never previously been represented in the College of Cardinals, such as Haiti.
March 22 — Pope Francis creates the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. The commission works to protect the dignity of minors and vulnerable adults, such as the victims of sexual abuse.
Pope Francis greets pilgrims during his general audience on Nov. 29, 2014. Bohumil Petrik/CNA.
Oct. 5 — The Synod on the Family begins. The bishops discuss a variety of concerns, including single-parent homes, cohabitation, homosexual adoption of children, and interreligious marriages.
Dec. 6 — After facing some pushback for his efforts to reform the Roman Curia, Pope Francis discusses his opinion in an interview with La Nacion, an Argentine news outlet: “Resistance is now evident. And that is a good sign for me, getting the resistance out into the open, no stealthy mumbling when there is disagreement. It’s healthy to get things out into the open, it’s very healthy.”
2015
Jan. 18 — To conclude a trip to Asia, Pope Francis celebrates Mass in Manila, Philippines. Approximately 6 million to 7 million people attend the record-setting Mass, despite heavy rain.
March 23 — Pope Francis visits Naples, Italy, to show the Church’s commitment to helping the fight against corruption and organized crime in the city.
May 24 — To emphasize the Church’s mission to combat global warming and care for the environment, Pope Francis publishes the encyclical Laudato Si’, which urges people to take care of the environment and encourages political action to address climate problems.
Pope Francis at a Wednesday general audience in St. Peter’s Square on June 17, 2015. Bohumil Petrik.
Sept. 19-22 — Pope Francis visits Cuba and meets with Fidel Castro in the first papal visit to the country since Pope John Paul II in 1998. During his homily, Francis discusses the dignity of the human person: “Being a Christian entails promoting the dignity of our brothers and sisters, fighting for it, living for it.”
Sept. 22-27 — After departing from Cuba, Pope Francis makes his first papal visit to the United States. In Washington, D.C., he speaks to a joint session of Congress, in which he urges lawmakers to work toward promoting the common good, and canonizes the Franciscan missionary St. Junípero Serra. He also attends the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia, which focuses on celebrating the gift of the family.
Pope Francis speaks to the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 24, 2015. . L’Osservatore Romano.
Oct. 4 — Pope Francis begins the second Synod on the Family to address issues within the modern family, such as single-parent homes, cohabitation, poverty, and abuse.
Oct. 18 — The pope canonizes St. Louis Martin and St. Marie-Azélie “Zelie” Guérin. The married couple were parents to five nuns, including St. Therese of Lisieux. They are the first married couple to be canonized together.
Dec. 8 — Pope Francis’ Jubilee Year of Mercy begins. The year focuses on God’s mercy and forgiveness and people’s redemption from sin. The pope delegates certain priests in each diocese to be Missionaries of Mercy who have the authority to forgive sins that are usually reserved for the Holy See.
2016
March 19 — Pope Francis publishes the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which discusses a wide variety of issues facing the modern family based on discussions from the two synods on the family. The pope garners significant controversy from within the Church for comments he makes in Chapter 8 about Communion for the divorced and remarried.
April 16 — After visiting refugees on the Greek island of Lesbos, Pope Francis allows three Muslim refugee families to join him on his flight back to Rome. He says the move was not a political statement.
Pope Francis at the General Audience in St. Peter’s Square, Feb. 24, 2016. Daniel Ibanez/CNA.
July 26-31 — Pope Francis visits Krakow, Poland, as part of the World Youth Day festivities. About 3 million young Catholic pilgrims from around the world attend.
Sept. 4 — The pope canonizes St. Teresa of Calcutta, who is also known as Mother Teresa. The saint, a nun from Albania, dedicated her life to missionary and charity work, primarily in India.
Sept. 30-Oct. 2 — Pope Francis visits Georgia and Azerbaijan on his 16th trip outside of Rome since the start of his papacy. His trip focuses on Catholic relations with Orthodox Christians and Muslims.
Oct. 4 — Pope Francis makes a surprise visit to Amatrice, Italy, to pray for the victims of an earthquake in central Italy that killed nearly 300 people.
2017
May 12-13 — In another papal trip, Francis travels to Fatima, Portugal, to visit the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima. May 13 marks the 100th anniversary of the first Marian apparition to three children in the city.
July 11 — Pope Francis adds another category of Christian life suitable for the consideration of sainthood: “offering of life.” The category is distinct from martyrdom, which only applies to someone who is killed for his or her faith. The new category applies to those who died prematurely through an offering of their life to God and neighbor.
Pope Francis greets a participant in the World Day of the Poor in Rome, Nov. 16, 2017. L’Osservatore Romano.
Nov. 19 — On the first-ever World Day of the Poor, Pope Francis eats lunch with 4,000 poor and people in need in Rome.
Nov. 27-Dec. 2 — In another trip to Asia, Pope Francis travels to Myanmar and Bangladesh. He visits landmarks and meets with government officials, Catholic clergy, and Buddhist monks. He also preaches the Gospel and promotes peace in the region.
2018
Jan. 15-21 — The pope takes another trip to Latin America, this time visiting Chile and Peru. The pontiff meets with government officials and members of the clergy while urging the faithful to remain close to the clergy and reject secularism. The Chilean visit leads to controversy over Chilean clergy sex abuse scandals.
Aug. 2 — The Vatican formally revises No. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which concerns the death penalty. The previous text suggested the death penalty could be permissible in certain circumstances, but the revision states that the death penalty is “inadmissible.”
Aug. 25 — Archbishop Carlo Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, publishes an 11-page letter calling for the resignation of Pope Francis and accusing him and other Vatican officials of covering up sexual abuse including allegations against former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The pope initially does not directly respond to the letter, but nine months after its publication he denies having prior knowledge about McCarrick’s conduct.
Aug. 25-26 — Pope Francis visits Dublin, Ireland, to attend the World Meeting of Families. The theme is “the Gospel of family, joy for the world.”
Pope Francis at the 2018 World Meeting of Families in Ireland. Daniel Ibanez/CNA.
Oct. 3-28 — The Synod on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment takes place. The synod focuses on best practices to teach the faith to young people and to help them discern God’s will.
2019
Jan. 22-27 — The third World Youth Day during Pope Francis’ pontificate takes place during these six days in Panama City, Panama. Young Catholics from around the world gather for the event, with approximately 3 million people in attendance.
Feb. 4 — Pope Francis signs a joint document in with Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, titled the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.” The document focuses on people of different faiths uniting together to live peacefully and advance a culture of mutual respect.
Pope Francis and Ahmed el-Tayeb, grand imam of al-Azhar, signed a joint declaration on human fraternity during an interreligious meeting in Abu Dhabi, UAE, Feb. 4, 2019. Vatican Media.
Feb. 21-24 — The Meeting on the Protection of Minors in the Church, which is labeled the Vatican Sexual Abuse Summit, takes place. The meeting focuses on sexual abuse scandals in the Church and emphasizes responsibility, accountability, and transparency.
Oct. 6-27 — The Church holds the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region, which is also known as the Amazon Synod. The synod is meant to present ways in which the Church can better evangelize the Amazon region but leads to controversy when carved images of a pregnant Amazonian woman, referred to by the pope as Pachamama, are used in several events and displayed in a basilica near the Vatican.
Oct. 13 — St. John Henry Newman, an Anglican convert to Catholicism and a cardinal, is canonized by Pope Francis. Newman’s writings inspired Catholic student associations at nonreligious colleges and universities in the United States and other countries.
2020
March 15 — Pope Francis takes a walking pilgrimage in Rome to the chapel of the crucifix and prays for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The crucifix was carried through Rome during the plague of 1522.
March 27 — Pope Francis gives an extraordinary “urbi et orbi” blessing in an empty and rain-covered St. Peter’s Square, praying for the world during the coronavirus pandemic.
Pope Francis venerates the miraculous crucifix of San Marcello al Corso in St. Peter’s Square during his Urbi et Orbi blessing, March 27, 2020. Vatican Media.
2021
March 5-8 — In his first papal trip since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Pope Francis becomes the first pope to visit Iraq. On his trip, he signs a joint statement with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemning extremism and promoting peace.
July 3 — Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, who was elevated to the College of Cardinals by Pope Francis, is indicted in a Vatican court for embezzlement, money laundering, and other crimes. The pope gives approval for the indictment.
July 4 — Pope Francis undergoes colon surgery for diverticulitis, a common condition in older people. The Vatican releases a statement that assures the pope “reacted well” to the surgery. Francis is released from the hospital after 10 days.
July 16 — Pope Francis issues a motu proprio titled Traditionis Custodes. The document imposes heavy restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Dec. 2-6 — The pope travels to Cyprus and Greece. The trip includes another visit to the Greek island of Lesbos to meet with migrants.
Pope Francis greets His Beatitude Ieronymos II in Athens, Greece on Dec. 5, 2021. Vatican Media
2022
Jan. 11 — Pope Francis makes a surprise visit to a record store in Rome called StereoSound. The pope, who has an affinity for classical music, blesses the newly renovated store.
March 19 — The pope promulgates Praedicate Evangelium, which reforms the Roman Curia. The reforms emphasize evangelization and establish more opportunities for the laity to be in leadership positions.
May 5 — Pope Francis is seen in a wheelchair for the first time in public and begins to use one more frequently. The pope has been suffering from knee problems for months.
Pope Francis greeted the crowd in a wheelchair at the end of his general audience on Aug. 3, 2022. Daniel Ibanez/CNA
July 24-30 — In his first papal visit to Canada, Pope Francis apologizes for the harsh treatment of the indigenous Canadians, saying many Christians and members of the Catholic Church were complicit.
2023
Jan. 31-Feb. 5 — Pope Francis travels to the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. During his visit, the pope condemns political violence in the countries and promotes peace. He also participates in an ecumenical prayer service with Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and Moderator of the Church of Scotland Iain Greenshields.
Pope Francis greets a young boy a Mass in Juba, South Sudan on Feb. 5, 2023. Vatican Media
March 29-April 1 — Pope Francis is hospitalized for a respiratory infection. During his stay at Rome’s Gemelli Hospital, he visits the pediatric cancer ward and baptizes a newborn baby.
April 5 — The pope appears in the Disney documentary “The Pope: Answers,” which is in Spanish, answering six “hot-button” issues from members of Gen Z from various backgrounds. The group discusses immigration, depression, abortion, clergy sexual and psychological abuse, transgenderism, pornography, and loss of faith.
April 28-30 — Pope Francis visits Hungary to meet with government officials, civil society members, bishops, priests, seminarians, Jesuits, consecrated men and women, and pastoral workers. He celebrates Mass on the final day of the trip in Kossuth Lajos Square.
Pope Francis stands on an altar erected outside the Parliament Building in Budapest’s Kossuth Lajos’ Square during a public outdoor Mass on April 30, 2023. Vatican Media
June 7 — The Vatican announces that Pope Francis will undergo abdominal surgery that afternoon under general anesthesia due to a hernia that is causing painful, recurring, and worsening symptoms. In his general audience that morning before the surgery, Francis says he intends to publish an apostolic letter on St. Thérèse of Lisieux, “patroness of the missions,” to mark the 150th anniversary of her birth.
June 15 — After successful surgery and a week of recovery, Pope Francis is released from Gemelli Hospital.
Aug. 2-6 — Pope Francis travels to Lisbon, Portugal, for World Youth Day 2023, taking place from Aug. 1-6. He meets with Church and civil leaders ahead of presiding at the welcoming Mass and Stations of the Cross. He also hears the confessions of several pilgrims. On Aug. 5, he visits the Shrine of Our Lady of Fátima, where he prays the rosary with young people with disabilities. That evening he presides over the vigil and on Sunday, Aug. 6, he celebrates the closing Mass, where he urges the 1.5 million young people present to “be not afraid,” echoing the words of the founder of World Youth Days, St. John Paul II.
Pope Francis waves at the crowd of 1.5 million people who attended the closing Mass of World Youth Day 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal on Aug. 6, 2023. Vatican Media.
Aug. 31-Sept. 4 — Pope Francis travels to Mongolia, the world’s most sparsely populated sovereign country. The trip makes Francis the first pope to visit the Asian country that shares a 2,880-mile border with China, its most significant economic partner. Mongolia has a population of about 1,300 Catholics in a country of more than 3 million people.
Pope Francis meets with local priests and religious of Mongolia, which includes only 25 priests (19 religious and six diocesan), 33 women religious, and one bishop — Cardinal Giorgio Marengo — in Ulaanbaatar’s Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul on Sept. 2, 2023. Credit: Vatican Media
Sept. 22-23 — On a two-day trip to Marseille, France, Pope Francis meets with local civil and religious leaders and participates in the Mediterranean Encounter, a gathering of some 120 young people of various creeds with bishops from 30 countries.
Pope Francis asks for a moment of silence at a memorial dedicated to sailors and migrants lost at sea on the first of a two-day visit to Marseille, France, Sept. 22, 2023. A Camargue cross, which comes from the Camargue area of France, represents the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. The three tridents represent faith, the anchor represents hope, and the heart represents charity. Credit: Daniel Ibañez/CNA
Oct. 4-29 — The Vatican hosts the first of two monthlong global assemblies of the Synod on Synodality, initiated by Pope Francis in 2021 to enhance the communion, participation, and mission of the Church. Pope Francis celebrates the closing Mass of the synod at St. Peter’s Basilica on Oct. 29. The second and final global assembly will take place at the Vatican in October 2024.
Pope Francis at the Synod on Synodality’s closing Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on Oct. 29, 2023. Vatican Media
Nov. 25 — Pope Francis visits the hospital briefly for precautionary testing after coming down with the flu earlier in the day. Although he still participates in scheduled activities, other officials read his prepared remarks. The Vatican on Nov. 28 cancels the pope’s planned Dec. 1–3 trip to Dubai for the COP28 climate conference, where he was scheduled to deliver a speech, due to his illness.
Dec. 18 — The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issues the declaration Fiducia Supplicans, which authorizes nonliturgical blessings for same-sex couples and couples in “irregular situations.” Various bishops from around the world voice both support for and criticism of the document.
2024
Jan. 4 — Amid widespread backlash to Fiducia Supplicans, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, publishes a five-page press release that refers to Fiducia Supplicans as “perennial doctrine” and underlines that pastoral blessings of couples in irregular situations should not be “an endorsement of the life led by those who request them.”
Jan. 14 — Pope Francis for the first time responds publicly to questions about Fiducia Supplicans in an interview on an Italian television show. The pope underlines that “the Lord blesses everyone” and that a blessing is an invitation to enter into a conversation “to see what the road is that the Lord proposes to them.”
Feb. 11 — In a ceremony attended by Argentine president Javier Milei, Pope Francis canonizes María Antonia of St. Joseph — known affectionately in the pope’s home country as “Mama Antula” — in a Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica. The president and the former archbishop of Buenos Aires embrace after the ceremony. Pope Francis, who has not returned to his homeland since becoming pope in 2013, has said he wants to visit Argentina in the second half of this year.
Pope Francis meets with Argentina President Javier Milei in a private audience on Feb. 12, 2024, at the Vatican. Credit: Vatican Media
Feb. 28 — After canceling audiences the previous Saturday and having an aide read his prepared remarks at his Wednesday audience due to a “mild flu,” Pope Francis visits the hospital for diagnostic tests but returns to the Vatican afterward.
March 2 — Despite having an aide read his speech “because of bronchitis,” the pope presides over the inauguration of the 95th Judicial Year of the Vatican City State and maintains a full schedule.
March 13 — Pope Francis celebrates 11 years as Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.
Brimming with fascinating facts, The Reformation 500 Years Later: 12 Things You Need to Know is an excellent short history of the Reformation, the ideas that […]
Pope Francis delivers a message for Earth Day, April 22, 2021. Credit: Vatican Media.
Vatican City, Apr 22, 2021 / 15:01 pm (CNA).
In a video message sent to a climate summit on Thursday, Pope Francis urged care for nature and the preservation o… […]
42 Comments
Over at Fr. Hunwicke’s blog there is a discussion about the specific problem of “infantalization” sometimes resulting from priestly incardination.
My sense is that infantalization also operates with respect to the distorted “hyper-papalism” that has emerged in the 20th and 21st centuries.
This distortion of the papacy enables tyrannical conceit, not sober stewardship and shepherding. It engenders blind trust in clericalist authority, instead of authentic trust that comes from recognizing the voice of the Good Shepherd. It worships power and disdains service. It changes the flock into a herd, displaces the shepherd for a rustler, and changes the laity from sheep into cattle.
This is what results when a Church turns its back on faith and reason, having lost its memory and identity 50 years after turning its back on tradition, which preserves faith and reason.
“the Francis era, Douthat suggests, ‘has made conservative overconfidence of the John Paul II era look foolish in hindsight,” even if “it hasn’t made liberal confidence look justified, or at least not yet.'”
This quote is so true. I recall all the confident bloggers tut-tutting the Episcopal Church as it embraced gay unions, remarking that ‘we have the Magisterium!’ like that guaranteed immunity from modern liquidity. Now we have Jim Martin all but explicitly endorsing the same thing and being promoted by the Vatican. Strange times.
I disagree. There was no conservative overconfidence or idolotry of the Pope during the JP II era or the Benedict era. Contrary to what liberals claim, there never was any conservative who claimed that JP II was always right, no matter what he said, simply because he was Pope. Instead, they claimed that he was right because what he said was thoroughly orthodox. Same for Benedict. They were right not because they were Pope, but because what they said was always orthodox.
“Contrary to what liberals claim, there never was any conservative who claimed that JP II was always right, no matter what he said, simply because he was Pope.”
There were times when certain of what I might call “First Things conservatives” – with George Weigel at the head of the list – seemed to come perilously close to that. (I might not call WITNESS TO HOPE a hagiography, but it flirts with it at times.) And if there was “overconfidence,” it wasn’t that all was right once again in the Church, but that the long arc of history had bent decisively in the direction of their narrative, even if the destination had not arrived just yet.
That narrative increasingly comes in for some reexamination.
“But he also notes another irony: conservative Catholics with concerns and criticisms of Francis who “backed the strongest possible understanding of papal authority” now faced with constantly being told to obey “the Pope, this Pope, this present Pope…””
I see no irony here. Perhaps I understand the Papacy differently from the way some others do. This article speaks of a “centralization of the Papacy and its magnification” as a recent development that “sits uneasily with the bulk of Church history and tradition.” It seems to me that Peter was pretty central and magnified – and rightly so. Yet he was at many times a very weak and wrong man, who was sometimes roughly rebuked by Jesus and by other apostles. So it has gone with Peter’s successors, more or less, depending upon their individual qualities.
This taunt to so-called ‘conservative Catholics,’ that their love for and rejoicing in the pontificates of JPII and Benedict XVI somehow divest them of standing to condemn error in all subsequent pontificates is pretty lame. It makes about as much sense as a kid telling his parents he no longer has to mow the lawn, because just this morning they told him they loved him and he was a great kid.
yes John from MN, the article in general has this fallacy running through it… a most blessed and fruitful day of Lent, Holy Week, Easter and Divine Mercy to all….
I agree. No supporter of JP II or Benedict backed “the strongest possible interpretation of papal authority” It just did not happen. There was no pushing of the notion of papal authority during their pontificates. There was merely the affirming of what they said as RIGHT, because it was orthodox. Liberals don’t get the whole idea of orthodoxy.
“This article speaks of a “centralization of the Papacy and its magnification” as a recent development that “sits uneasily with the bulk of Church history and tradition.””
It’s a development chiefly of the last 150 years or so.
Papal primacy has been there from the beginning. But there *has* been a major centralization of law, administration, appointments and messaging – centered around the person of the Pope – that simply was not there before the mid-late 19th century.
I’ll take a stab at answering the “why”, because too many bishops and cardinals have been (and are) administrators and/or too attached to the culture/”elite” thinking that surrounds them rather than courageous disciples of Christ. Hence, the clergy scandals and cover ups, bad seminaries, and “innovations”, not to mention a failure to inspire their diocesan flocks to be the courageous disciples this world desperately needs.
Lament doesn’t suffice. Ross Douthat analyzes correctly “That Francis acted with intentionality”. Intention indicates what is not definitively stated. We have an Apostasy moving in the opposite direction of Apostolic Tradition suggested in Amoris and the letters inserted in Acta Apostolicae Sedis declared official Magisterial doctrine by the Pontiff’s Mini-Me Vat Secy of State Cardinal Parolin none of which are definitive binding doctrine but rather further suggestions of intent. The imbroglio over Benedict XVI’s refusal to endorse Pope Francis’ theology involving burlesque revelation of contents charges countercharges dismissal reinstatement indicates both desire for endorsement and implacable “intention” to win the day. The New Paradigm narrative like Lieut Gen von Manstein’s Panzers bursting thru the seemingly ‘impregnable’ Ardennes surprising and routing the Allies has knocked solid Catholic thinkers off their pinions. Douthat knows many have Papolatry Disease and wringing our hands won’t do. We have clear definitive Apostolic Tradition. The Battle Lines have been drawn. We are called to the Front.
Reading this review, I better get Michael Sean Winter’s nasty reaction over at NCR: “You cursed brat! Look what you’ve done!! I’m melting, melting. Ohhhhh, what a world, what a world. Who would have thought that a New York Times columnist could would be the one…”
Nice reference!Though I suspect since Formosus was restored to his proper grave that the warning about the end of Stephen VII, the corpse synod pope, who was later more lastingly dishonored, might be more apt.
There’s not much new here in this review (or apparently in the book if this review is accurate). I was hoping to hear about Douthat’s “third story”:the uneasy truce between conservative and progressive and the way to surmount both to bring about orthodoxy. Hopefully, Douthat offers some analysis and prescriptions in his book.
At bottom, its all about Truth – – not conservative truth or liberal truth but The TRUTH.
As to the why? Conduct a thought experiment: What would the devil do to harm the Church and the faithful? Do you see any similarities from your list and recent activity? We are under attack and have been for some time.
Pray!
Mike, you are bang on here!!!We must get back to the basics and stop naval gazing. This is a battle of principalities that was foretold us in Sacred Scripture. Christ, we must remember has not simply died and risen. The final stage will be his returning as Christ the King. The state of souls in the world, and apostasy must come first before His return and boy do we have apostates! We have a crisis of an impure priesthood and an atheistic society that must be made clean. Christ, who has Dominion over all creation, will come, in His time to make all things new. How many souls will be lost on His return, is partly up to us. Our role is to remain in God’s grace and pray for all those who are far from Him. He will apply those prayers to assist souls who are tumbling around in the darkness. Only the Truth will set each soul free. Watering down truth and creating god in one’s own image and likeness to enable one to live under a false putrid ideology founded by satan will not go well when He returns in all His Magnificence. Those found tearing at the Mystical Body of Christ, His Holy Church will tremble in His sight.
The consequences of ignoring the counsel of Father Kolvenbach in 1991 regarding one Jorge Bergoglio have resulted in the chaos, apostasy and de facto schism we are witnessing firsthand. How ironic that the Peter Principle has manifest itself with the latest successor to Saint Peter.
The resulting mess that will have to be cleaned up once the current Pontificate ends will rival that of the worst natural disaster ever known to man.
Francis knew, or must have known, the problems he would cause? No. I think he is not an intellectual himself, and he underestimated the number of intellectuals in the Church who would vigorously oppose his attempts at change. He is a typical liberal who hangs out with liberals and doesn’t realize how many of us have no interest in becoming liberals because we can see how destructive and how anti-God the progressive world view is. Francis’s minions in Rome are not smart men, and they don’t understand smart men. They are unable to change the truth with their ideas, so they act like clowns trying to force their liberalization of the Church. There is damage being caused, because we are sheep without a shepherd (very much so in the Catholic Church in the U.S., not just in Rome in general), and that’s a sad position to be in. But we are not letting the Church be taken without a fight, and it’s a fight we’ll eventually win. We have to, because as the article points out, if we lose, the Catholic Church will become as irrelevant as the Church of England, and the gates of hell will have prevailed. In the long run, that’s not going to happen.
Sharon:
Bergoglio’s Vatican gang are not clowns — they’re thugs. (Don’t forget, Bergoglio began his career as a nightclub bouncer, before he became a Jesuit).
The conduct of this Pontificate has been thuggish from the beginning (I won’t recount here all of the summary sackings and dirty tricks we all have witnessed). In fact, it was a gang of thugs that worked to get Benedict out and Bergoglio in — the St. Gallen Mafia and the Lavender Mafia.
Might one suggest that the current papacy is one that needs rescuing from itself? One word continues to plague this papacy—confusion. That is, the pope seems confused… about his role. Which, if I’m not mistaken, is to preserve undiminished the Catholic Faith, and to strengthen the brethren in this Faith. Pope Francis is our pope. He needs our prayers. He bears a heavy burden. For the sake of his soul and the billion+ souls under his care, he, like us all this Lent, would do well to ponder seriously the four last things.
This pontificate may not be a full step back (to 1970s goofiness) as much as it is a step sideways when the Church really needs at this time a pontiff who is willing to be absolutely clear about Christ’s teaching and who is willing to lead others forward in faithful witness to the Holy Gospel. Catholics need to say ‘no’ to permissiveness dressed up in slippery pseudo-doctrine. In other words, Catholics must say no to clergy who have missed the lesson taught by the trajectory set forth by Liberal Protestantism, a trajectory that reduces Christianity to a disposable ideal. Ironically, protestants and their liberal Catholic counterparts have forgotten that God makes available His grace to all those who call upon Him to help them grow in holiness. God does not abandon us to, nor does He tolerate, man’s sophistry. Liberal catholicism, like liberal protestantism, is a grace-less religion.
“If the conservatism of John Paul and Benedict led only to Francis, perhaps it didn’t conserve enough; if those popes’ attempted synthesis was so easily challenged and unraveled, perhaps it wasn’t a successful synthesis at all; if their project of restoration still left fertile soil for a new revolution, perhaps the entire project needed to be reassessed” (Ross Douthat To Change the Church). Maike Hickson 1Peter5 makes a powerful argument in respect to actual continuity between Pope Francis and Benedict XVI [inclusive of John Paul II] noted by Douthat that adds an entirely new dimension to the Letter imbroglio and the issue of continuity or discontinuity. And to my own previously held convictions[though many have asserted this on Catholic websites]. There is far more contained in Douthat’s book than thought after reading Rusello’s article. Mrs Hickson quotes Benedict questioning himself whether he contributed to a hegenomic Modernism. She also quotes credentialed theologian Msgr Antonio Livi to support this view. Whatever the motives of the players involved in the letter scandal this news seemingly more real than fake indicates political maneuvering of baiting Benedict to suit their narrative of continuity in change. Lament or no Douthat expresses hope in younger conservative priests restoring faith and doctrine. Needless to say that is impossible without conviction of permanent truth. The Apostolic Tradition unmitigated sans Modernism.
Thanks, Father Morello.
The Hickson piece in 1P5 raises a very disturbing question that many of us have been struggling with (though not publicizing) over the last 5 years. Was,in effect, Ratzinger a kind of Wizard of Oz? Did he, with the best of intentions, execute a virtuoso performance informing the pontificate of JP2, then advancing in his own pontificate, a “continuity” that is chimerical. Make no mistake: I love Ratzinger, advocate for him and read everything I can get my hands on that he writes.
Under Bergoglio the question seems to have become: Continuity, yes, but continuity with what?
Remember, that site is essentially a conspiracy site. They believe that there is a conspiracy about the third secret of Fatima, that Pope Benedict did not respond to their false allegations, and that secret forces control him now. The rather ridiculous claims they make in todays article about how Benedict was responsible for all the ills of the church just reinforces the idea they are a conspiracy web site.
I think it’s a stretch to read the Hickson article as saying Benedict “is responsible for all of the ills of the Church”.
She seems to me to be saying that in their pains to discern “continuity” between the pre- and post-Conciliar Church, JP2 and B16 may have evaded an inevitable “reckoning”. In my opinion, B16 executed an heroic, virtuoso performance trying to hold the Church (including the traditionalists) together. I love Benedict: with him, I venerate Pius XII, Pastor Angelicus, Pope of our youth; and to me, Benedict is Pastor Angelicus, Pope of my old age.
As for conspiracy theories, I hold no brief for 1P5, but…
Why has it been such a long and tortuous process to release the full Third Secret of Fatima?
As for “secret forces” now allegedly controlling Benedict, why not go there? The thuggish modus operandi of the current pontificate positively invites it. Benedict is the prisoner of the Vatican, and Ganswein arguably is his double-agent jail guard.
Robert you raise the question many suffer. The best indication of Benedict XVI’s mind is in his Last Testament interview by Peter Seewald. Benedict in response to decentralization, “We need the Petrine Ministry and the service of unity, and we need the responsibility of local churches”; Seewald: So you do not see any kind of break with your pontificate? Benedict: “No. I mean, one can of course misinterpret in places, with the intention of saying that everything has been turned on its head now. There may be a different emphasis, of course, but no opposition”. The remainder of the interview has Benedict praising Francis nonetheless if Benedict didn’t believe the Church isn’t “turned on its head” he would not have said it. Perhaps it’s Freudian. Benedict was strained and labored responding to Seewald. My conviction remains on what Benedict has written prior to has abdication particularly Jesus of Nazareth his last major opus in which he is implacable in refuting attempts to revise Gospel account of the Messianic revelation.
Thank you again, Father Morello.
Ratzinger is a man who early in his life learned how to speak truth in a totalitarian regime. It requires pregnant nuance (not lies). Now, in his old age, he finds himself prisoner of what amounts to a totalitarian ecclesiastical regime. There is much he could say, but he is acutely aware of the Petrine vocation of preserving unity, which still binds him.
The answer to Douthat’s musing is something which should have been apparent all along: That the project of a conservative (call it “Communio” if you like) reception of the Council of JPI and BXVI never penetrated very far into the Church, which has effectively been taken over by a thoroughly liberal clerisy by the late 60’s. They may have inspired a modest surge of vocations, but the episcopates were, with very rare exceptions, never on the same page as these popes. They would give lip service as necessary, but go on as they were. The papal power of appointment failed to alter this situation much, because a) both popes feared that a vigorous use of it to remake episcopates would trigger a major schism, b) there were in many places very little of a pool of like-minded clergy to appoint, and c) both men were, fundamentally, consensus-minded and gentlemanly in their administrative style. The Catholic Church of 1978-2013 was a fundamentally liberal ecclesiastical ice cream sundae with a conservative cherry on top (and a few nuts scattered within).
One could make an even more fundamental critique of both pontificates, as (say) traditionalists typically do – this would get to Douthat’s point about an impossible synthesis. Of course, a traditionalist pope elected in the past two decades who insisted on ruling as a traditionalist *would* have provoked an open schism. The question then becomes whether that’s actually preferable to the unofficial schism which seems to have been in place now in the Church since the 1960’s.
Richard regarding the Council there are two distinct takes the best analysis given by a youngish increasingly noted theologian Thomas White OP titled READING THE COUNCIL WITH NEWMAN, NOT NIETZSCHE. An excerpt: Fifty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council, two schools of thought dominate the interpretation of that event. One derives from the theology surrounding the post-conciliar journal Concilium, founded by theologians like Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx. It advances a progressivist reading of the Council: Vatican II stands for engagement with modernity, liberation of women, dialogue with world religions, liberalization of sexual mores, laicization of the mission of the Church, and liberal political advocacy. The other school stems from the thinkers who founded the journal Communio: Hans Urs von Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger. It reads the Council as a bold new vision of a distinctively Catholic way of being in the midst of modernity. The agenda is inevitably countercultural: the Church as a sign and instrument of salvation in Christ, nuptial theology that stresses the importance of gender complementarity, Eucharistic communion and sacramental marriage as the core of a healthy society, teaching and evangelization as the heart of the Christian mission in the modern world. That Council teaches us confidence. For in modernity the Church surely does travel through a dark night of faith, but she also bears within herself the hidden and radiant presence of the inextinguishable light of Christ.
Yes, that has been the debate – two major receptions of the Council, Concilium vs Communio. Simplistic, but a lot of truth to it.
And the truth in turn is that Concilium pretty well won the day at every level below the Papacy pre-2013. We can guess at numbers, but it’s easily most of the bishops and clergy, nearly all of the credentialed theologians and academics, nearly all of religious order leaders, nearly all leaders and staff of Church institutions, of the past 53 years. Two Communio pontificates kept this mass from coloring *too* much farther outside the lines; these popes helped inspire some modest bumps in (more conservative) vocations and a few key appointments here and there created a slight gravitational pull in the other direction. But in the main, the overwhelming reception of Vatican II has been a Concilium one, I’m afraid. The Western World underwent a full scale cultural revolution beginning in the 60’s, and the Church went along in its wake.
The debate over how to understand the Council, over five decades on, seems increasingly bootless. We can go on (as one pope did) about a “Council of the Media,” or the “hijacking of Council,” but at some point, if the overwhelming, sustained, multi-generational reception of an event is “X,” it becomes increasingly difficult to cut that “X” reception away from the event and texts of the thing.
I’ll be curious to see how Douthat treats this in detail, but he seems to be rightfully hinting at the prospect that both schools have increasing reason for re-examination. The Concilium approach seems to only produce death and decay, no matter how eagerly pursued. (52 years after the Dutch Catechism, what is even *left* of Dutch Catholicism?!?) But it’s less clear just how viable a synthesis a lot of the Communio project is, either.
P.S. By the way, I would like to make clear that my argument isn’t just an institutional one (though it is in part that). It is true that Communio lines of thought never penetrated very deeply into theological or ecclesiastical circles, and there are a number of reasons for that – not all of which Communio thought and thinkers can be held responsible for. It’s hard to beat back a revolution in its full tide, especially when it has tenure and ecclesiastical power to wield.
But even beyond that, it is worth asking just how much staying power a lot of Ressourcement school is really going to have. There was a time when the the thought was gathering steam in the 1990’s in these circles that Balthasar, De Lubac, Maritain (and, yes, Wojtyla and Ratzinger) could lead the Church out of the theological cul-de-sacs that both mature Thomism on the one hand and progressivist theology (Kung, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Congar, etc.) on the other had seemingly run into. But I can already sense the Communio tide gradually receding. I don’t say there is nothing of lasting value in any of that, but we must now be open to the possibility that a lot of that optimism may have been unfounded.
An interesting well informed analysis Richard. As a philosopher I search causes and the movement as such Modernism is the catch all terminology. What underlies what’s occurring is the modern man who questions all and forms his conclusions reaching back at least to Rousseau and the Emile. Politico liberalism in France critical analysis in Germany had to affect theology. “Pius X said modernism embraces every heresy. M. Loisy [France circa 1893] makes practically the same statement when he writes that ‘in reality all Catholic theology, even in its fundamental principles the general philosophy of religion, Divine law, and the laws that govern our knowledge of God, come up for judgment before this new court of assize'” (New Advent). I rediscovered my faith when Vat II began and sensed much of what was traditionally held was previously scrutinized although in appearance the Church was staid and solid. It was not. Most know what came to the surface during the Council was long fomenting and the likelihood is the Council staved it. Rebellion and schism was quite real during Paul VI’s pontificate. Paul VI kept the Church intact by compromise. You’re probably right that if John Paul II and Benedict were more forceful that rebellion which tended toward overt distancing would have occurred. As it happened it turned inward within the Church, which causes me to wonder whether strong opposition by those two pontiffs may have been the better option. And is at least in part why I agree with Bishop Athanasius Schneider that pious silence is not an option.
It looks like the new church is coming to take the form of a high pressure boiler room marketing operation. Say whatever needs to be said to close the sale. Make the sale and charge the credit card. Transactional spirituality. I use the small c because the new church more and more has the appearance of an ecclesial community as opposed to a Church.
One of the comforts of knowing Church history, and especially the history of the popes, is how greatly (and with pain and suffering) the Church always recovers from very deep crises. The Mystical Body of Christ will live the life of Christ until the end of time. I have no doubt that the hand of God is in all the confusion and turmoil of this papacy, but it is not all bad, despite the casualities. People should know that many popes and bishopsin the past have imposed a great deal of suffering and misery on the sheep and they will pay the debts they incur, as we all will pay for our own sins. The remedy for the troubles of our time is simple: ignore all the confusion and noise at the top and become saints. Not easy, but it is possible. Stick to traditional Catholic spirituality and ignore all the advise. Buy a copy of Tanquerrey’s The Spiritual Life. It is the science of the saints and don’t ask someone about it, clergy or lay, who has never read it.
This is of course true. But for parents struggling to transmit the faith to their children, and seeing the Church herself undermining this transmission, the battle is personal and deeply wounding.
As info has come forward piecemeal Sandro Magister pieced together an important analysis of Benedict’s letter to Msgr Dario Viganò that further clarifies Benedict’s “continuity” with Pope Francis. An excerpt: “What may be the most expansive and meditated text published so far by Benedict XVI after his resignation from the papacy, in a multi-author book on John Paul II published in 2014, the pope emeritus does not hesitate to identify precisely ‘Veritatis Splendor’ as the encyclical of that pontificate most crucial for the present time. ‘To study and assimilate this encyclical,’ he concludes, ‘remains a great and important duty.’ It is no coincidence that three of the five ‘dubia’ submitted to Francis by several cardinals in 2016 concern precisely the risk of abandoning the foundations of moral doctrine reiterated by ‘Veritatis Splendor.’ Nor is it a coincidence that Ratzinger recalled, in his letter to Viganò, none other than the opposition to the principles of ‘Veritatis Splendor’ on the part of the theologians of the ‘Cologne Declaration,’ who have now been brought resoundingly back into favor by Francis. A pope whose ‘continuity’ with his predecessor can truly be, at this point, entirely and solely ‘interior'” (Magister).
“What is it that drives them to seemingly overturn longstanding Church teachings when similar moves have decimated other Christian communities in the West?” The answer is obvious: They despise the truth, they have turned away from the light, they love the applause of the world, they embrace the sentimental and political causes of atheist governments. In short, they are neo-pagans.
I guess Jesus created confusion also when He said, “Take and eat, this is my body. Take and drink, this is my blood.” I guess He didn’t know this would cause many of his disciples to leave. I guess He didn’t know this would cause Christian factions who deny the Transubstantiation.
The Church has spoken on a lot of things. Too bad there are those who just refuse to listen to Her.
Pope Francis said he is a son of the Church. Don’t go looking to false theologians. Didn’t Christ Himself say to be wary of wolves in sheep’s clothing?
Ask yourself. Who is the sheep and who are the wolves?
I look forward to reading this book, but I hope it doesn’t gloss over the most important thing to know about Francis’ form of narcissism: his de facto atheism. Francis is a process theologian, and process theologians are atheists. The theory was advanced in the early seventies by Kasper and Kung and others that God is incomplete and in process of learning how to be a good God. Francis, like Kasper, is so committed to this idea of God, they condemn anyone who fails to share this vision as being so wrong in their understanding of God as to effectively be atheists. They are Orwellien madmen. To believe in the inferiority of God is to have such a false understanding of God is to be in effect a real atheist. Only a de facto atheist would have such a hysterical hatred for immutable truth, which is accessible to everyone by God’s plan and not in need of super intellectuals to arrive at pivotal points in human history to instruct the rest of humanity. Great minds can inspire us and remind us, but only God is the source of all truth. Haters of immutable truth, like Francis, are the real Pharisees and Pelagians. They hold the amoral qualities that Francis hatefully projects onto others.
I think that papal authority has been overrated by many Catholics. There is much resistance to Vatican II’s teaching on personal conscience.
Saint Paul, in 2Corinthians 1:24 says: “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand”; and 1Peter 5:3 says to the elders: “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock”.
1Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”. Maybe we should have been doing this all along.
Pope Francis may be helping this along.
Over at Fr. Hunwicke’s blog there is a discussion about the specific problem of “infantalization” sometimes resulting from priestly incardination.
My sense is that infantalization also operates with respect to the distorted “hyper-papalism” that has emerged in the 20th and 21st centuries.
This distortion of the papacy enables tyrannical conceit, not sober stewardship and shepherding. It engenders blind trust in clericalist authority, instead of authentic trust that comes from recognizing the voice of the Good Shepherd. It worships power and disdains service. It changes the flock into a herd, displaces the shepherd for a rustler, and changes the laity from sheep into cattle.
This is what results when a Church turns its back on faith and reason, having lost its memory and identity 50 years after turning its back on tradition, which preserves faith and reason.
“the Francis era, Douthat suggests, ‘has made conservative overconfidence of the John Paul II era look foolish in hindsight,” even if “it hasn’t made liberal confidence look justified, or at least not yet.'”
This quote is so true. I recall all the confident bloggers tut-tutting the Episcopal Church as it embraced gay unions, remarking that ‘we have the Magisterium!’ like that guaranteed immunity from modern liquidity. Now we have Jim Martin all but explicitly endorsing the same thing and being promoted by the Vatican. Strange times.
I disagree. There was no conservative overconfidence or idolotry of the Pope during the JP II era or the Benedict era. Contrary to what liberals claim, there never was any conservative who claimed that JP II was always right, no matter what he said, simply because he was Pope. Instead, they claimed that he was right because what he said was thoroughly orthodox. Same for Benedict. They were right not because they were Pope, but because what they said was always orthodox.
“Contrary to what liberals claim, there never was any conservative who claimed that JP II was always right, no matter what he said, simply because he was Pope.”
There were times when certain of what I might call “First Things conservatives” – with George Weigel at the head of the list – seemed to come perilously close to that. (I might not call WITNESS TO HOPE a hagiography, but it flirts with it at times.) And if there was “overconfidence,” it wasn’t that all was right once again in the Church, but that the long arc of history had bent decisively in the direction of their narrative, even if the destination had not arrived just yet.
That narrative increasingly comes in for some reexamination.
“But he also notes another irony: conservative Catholics with concerns and criticisms of Francis who “backed the strongest possible understanding of papal authority” now faced with constantly being told to obey “the Pope, this Pope, this present Pope…””
I see no irony here. Perhaps I understand the Papacy differently from the way some others do. This article speaks of a “centralization of the Papacy and its magnification” as a recent development that “sits uneasily with the bulk of Church history and tradition.” It seems to me that Peter was pretty central and magnified – and rightly so. Yet he was at many times a very weak and wrong man, who was sometimes roughly rebuked by Jesus and by other apostles. So it has gone with Peter’s successors, more or less, depending upon their individual qualities.
This taunt to so-called ‘conservative Catholics,’ that their love for and rejoicing in the pontificates of JPII and Benedict XVI somehow divest them of standing to condemn error in all subsequent pontificates is pretty lame. It makes about as much sense as a kid telling his parents he no longer has to mow the lawn, because just this morning they told him they loved him and he was a great kid.
yes John from MN, the article in general has this fallacy running through it… a most blessed and fruitful day of Lent, Holy Week, Easter and Divine Mercy to all….
I agree. No supporter of JP II or Benedict backed “the strongest possible interpretation of papal authority” It just did not happen. There was no pushing of the notion of papal authority during their pontificates. There was merely the affirming of what they said as RIGHT, because it was orthodox. Liberals don’t get the whole idea of orthodoxy.
“This article speaks of a “centralization of the Papacy and its magnification” as a recent development that “sits uneasily with the bulk of Church history and tradition.””
It’s a development chiefly of the last 150 years or so.
Papal primacy has been there from the beginning. But there *has* been a major centralization of law, administration, appointments and messaging – centered around the person of the Pope – that simply was not there before the mid-late 19th century.
I’ll take a stab at answering the “why”, because too many bishops and cardinals have been (and are) administrators and/or too attached to the culture/”elite” thinking that surrounds them rather than courageous disciples of Christ. Hence, the clergy scandals and cover ups, bad seminaries, and “innovations”, not to mention a failure to inspire their diocesan flocks to be the courageous disciples this world desperately needs.
Lament doesn’t suffice. Ross Douthat analyzes correctly “That Francis acted with intentionality”. Intention indicates what is not definitively stated. We have an Apostasy moving in the opposite direction of Apostolic Tradition suggested in Amoris and the letters inserted in Acta Apostolicae Sedis declared official Magisterial doctrine by the Pontiff’s Mini-Me Vat Secy of State Cardinal Parolin none of which are definitive binding doctrine but rather further suggestions of intent. The imbroglio over Benedict XVI’s refusal to endorse Pope Francis’ theology involving burlesque revelation of contents charges countercharges dismissal reinstatement indicates both desire for endorsement and implacable “intention” to win the day. The New Paradigm narrative like Lieut Gen von Manstein’s Panzers bursting thru the seemingly ‘impregnable’ Ardennes surprising and routing the Allies has knocked solid Catholic thinkers off their pinions. Douthat knows many have Papolatry Disease and wringing our hands won’t do. We have clear definitive Apostolic Tradition. The Battle Lines have been drawn. We are called to the Front.
Reading this review, I better get Michael Sean Winter’s nasty reaction over at NCR: “You cursed brat! Look what you’ve done!! I’m melting, melting. Ohhhhh, what a world, what a world. Who would have thought that a New York Times columnist could would be the one…”
One might want to bid Francis to remember Formosus
Nice reference!Though I suspect since Formosus was restored to his proper grave that the warning about the end of Stephen VII, the corpse synod pope, who was later more lastingly dishonored, might be more apt.
There’s not much new here in this review (or apparently in the book if this review is accurate). I was hoping to hear about Douthat’s “third story”:the uneasy truce between conservative and progressive and the way to surmount both to bring about orthodoxy. Hopefully, Douthat offers some analysis and prescriptions in his book.
At bottom, its all about Truth – – not conservative truth or liberal truth but The TRUTH.
As to the why? Conduct a thought experiment: What would the devil do to harm the Church and the faithful? Do you see any similarities from your list and recent activity? We are under attack and have been for some time.
Pray!
Mike, you are bang on here!!!We must get back to the basics and stop naval gazing. This is a battle of principalities that was foretold us in Sacred Scripture. Christ, we must remember has not simply died and risen. The final stage will be his returning as Christ the King. The state of souls in the world, and apostasy must come first before His return and boy do we have apostates! We have a crisis of an impure priesthood and an atheistic society that must be made clean. Christ, who has Dominion over all creation, will come, in His time to make all things new. How many souls will be lost on His return, is partly up to us. Our role is to remain in God’s grace and pray for all those who are far from Him. He will apply those prayers to assist souls who are tumbling around in the darkness. Only the Truth will set each soul free. Watering down truth and creating god in one’s own image and likeness to enable one to live under a false putrid ideology founded by satan will not go well when He returns in all His Magnificence. Those found tearing at the Mystical Body of Christ, His Holy Church will tremble in His sight.
The consequences of ignoring the counsel of Father Kolvenbach in 1991 regarding one Jorge Bergoglio have resulted in the chaos, apostasy and de facto schism we are witnessing firsthand. How ironic that the Peter Principle has manifest itself with the latest successor to Saint Peter.
The resulting mess that will have to be cleaned up once the current Pontificate ends will rival that of the worst natural disaster ever known to man.
Francis knew, or must have known, the problems he would cause? No. I think he is not an intellectual himself, and he underestimated the number of intellectuals in the Church who would vigorously oppose his attempts at change. He is a typical liberal who hangs out with liberals and doesn’t realize how many of us have no interest in becoming liberals because we can see how destructive and how anti-God the progressive world view is. Francis’s minions in Rome are not smart men, and they don’t understand smart men. They are unable to change the truth with their ideas, so they act like clowns trying to force their liberalization of the Church. There is damage being caused, because we are sheep without a shepherd (very much so in the Catholic Church in the U.S., not just in Rome in general), and that’s a sad position to be in. But we are not letting the Church be taken without a fight, and it’s a fight we’ll eventually win. We have to, because as the article points out, if we lose, the Catholic Church will become as irrelevant as the Church of England, and the gates of hell will have prevailed. In the long run, that’s not going to happen.
Sharon:
Bergoglio’s Vatican gang are not clowns — they’re thugs. (Don’t forget, Bergoglio began his career as a nightclub bouncer, before he became a Jesuit).
The conduct of this Pontificate has been thuggish from the beginning (I won’t recount here all of the summary sackings and dirty tricks we all have witnessed). In fact, it was a gang of thugs that worked to get Benedict out and Bergoglio in — the St. Gallen Mafia and the Lavender Mafia.
Yes, indeed. Thugs, not men of holiness, having no sense of discipline.
The men surrounding the bishop of Rome I would not invite into my house.
Might one suggest that the current papacy is one that needs rescuing from itself? One word continues to plague this papacy—confusion. That is, the pope seems confused… about his role. Which, if I’m not mistaken, is to preserve undiminished the Catholic Faith, and to strengthen the brethren in this Faith. Pope Francis is our pope. He needs our prayers. He bears a heavy burden. For the sake of his soul and the billion+ souls under his care, he, like us all this Lent, would do well to ponder seriously the four last things.
This pontificate may not be a full step back (to 1970s goofiness) as much as it is a step sideways when the Church really needs at this time a pontiff who is willing to be absolutely clear about Christ’s teaching and who is willing to lead others forward in faithful witness to the Holy Gospel. Catholics need to say ‘no’ to permissiveness dressed up in slippery pseudo-doctrine. In other words, Catholics must say no to clergy who have missed the lesson taught by the trajectory set forth by Liberal Protestantism, a trajectory that reduces Christianity to a disposable ideal. Ironically, protestants and their liberal Catholic counterparts have forgotten that God makes available His grace to all those who call upon Him to help them grow in holiness. God does not abandon us to, nor does He tolerate, man’s sophistry. Liberal catholicism, like liberal protestantism, is a grace-less religion.
“If the conservatism of John Paul and Benedict led only to Francis, perhaps it didn’t conserve enough; if those popes’ attempted synthesis was so easily challenged and unraveled, perhaps it wasn’t a successful synthesis at all; if their project of restoration still left fertile soil for a new revolution, perhaps the entire project needed to be reassessed” (Ross Douthat To Change the Church). Maike Hickson 1Peter5 makes a powerful argument in respect to actual continuity between Pope Francis and Benedict XVI [inclusive of John Paul II] noted by Douthat that adds an entirely new dimension to the Letter imbroglio and the issue of continuity or discontinuity. And to my own previously held convictions[though many have asserted this on Catholic websites]. There is far more contained in Douthat’s book than thought after reading Rusello’s article. Mrs Hickson quotes Benedict questioning himself whether he contributed to a hegenomic Modernism. She also quotes credentialed theologian Msgr Antonio Livi to support this view. Whatever the motives of the players involved in the letter scandal this news seemingly more real than fake indicates political maneuvering of baiting Benedict to suit their narrative of continuity in change. Lament or no Douthat expresses hope in younger conservative priests restoring faith and doctrine. Needless to say that is impossible without conviction of permanent truth. The Apostolic Tradition unmitigated sans Modernism.
Thanks, Father Morello.
The Hickson piece in 1P5 raises a very disturbing question that many of us have been struggling with (though not publicizing) over the last 5 years. Was,in effect, Ratzinger a kind of Wizard of Oz? Did he, with the best of intentions, execute a virtuoso performance informing the pontificate of JP2, then advancing in his own pontificate, a “continuity” that is chimerical. Make no mistake: I love Ratzinger, advocate for him and read everything I can get my hands on that he writes.
Under Bergoglio the question seems to have become: Continuity, yes, but continuity with what?
Remember, that site is essentially a conspiracy site. They believe that there is a conspiracy about the third secret of Fatima, that Pope Benedict did not respond to their false allegations, and that secret forces control him now. The rather ridiculous claims they make in todays article about how Benedict was responsible for all the ills of the church just reinforces the idea they are a conspiracy web site.
I think it’s a stretch to read the Hickson article as saying Benedict “is responsible for all of the ills of the Church”.
She seems to me to be saying that in their pains to discern “continuity” between the pre- and post-Conciliar Church, JP2 and B16 may have evaded an inevitable “reckoning”. In my opinion, B16 executed an heroic, virtuoso performance trying to hold the Church (including the traditionalists) together. I love Benedict: with him, I venerate Pius XII, Pastor Angelicus, Pope of our youth; and to me, Benedict is Pastor Angelicus, Pope of my old age.
As for conspiracy theories, I hold no brief for 1P5, but…
Why has it been such a long and tortuous process to release the full Third Secret of Fatima?
As for “secret forces” now allegedly controlling Benedict, why not go there? The thuggish modus operandi of the current pontificate positively invites it. Benedict is the prisoner of the Vatican, and Ganswein arguably is his double-agent jail guard.
Robert you raise the question many suffer. The best indication of Benedict XVI’s mind is in his Last Testament interview by Peter Seewald. Benedict in response to decentralization, “We need the Petrine Ministry and the service of unity, and we need the responsibility of local churches”; Seewald: So you do not see any kind of break with your pontificate? Benedict: “No. I mean, one can of course misinterpret in places, with the intention of saying that everything has been turned on its head now. There may be a different emphasis, of course, but no opposition”. The remainder of the interview has Benedict praising Francis nonetheless if Benedict didn’t believe the Church isn’t “turned on its head” he would not have said it. Perhaps it’s Freudian. Benedict was strained and labored responding to Seewald. My conviction remains on what Benedict has written prior to has abdication particularly Jesus of Nazareth his last major opus in which he is implacable in refuting attempts to revise Gospel account of the Messianic revelation.
Thank you again, Father Morello.
Ratzinger is a man who early in his life learned how to speak truth in a totalitarian regime. It requires pregnant nuance (not lies). Now, in his old age, he finds himself prisoner of what amounts to a totalitarian ecclesiastical regime. There is much he could say, but he is acutely aware of the Petrine vocation of preserving unity, which still binds him.
The answer to Douthat’s musing is something which should have been apparent all along: That the project of a conservative (call it “Communio” if you like) reception of the Council of JPI and BXVI never penetrated very far into the Church, which has effectively been taken over by a thoroughly liberal clerisy by the late 60’s. They may have inspired a modest surge of vocations, but the episcopates were, with very rare exceptions, never on the same page as these popes. They would give lip service as necessary, but go on as they were. The papal power of appointment failed to alter this situation much, because a) both popes feared that a vigorous use of it to remake episcopates would trigger a major schism, b) there were in many places very little of a pool of like-minded clergy to appoint, and c) both men were, fundamentally, consensus-minded and gentlemanly in their administrative style. The Catholic Church of 1978-2013 was a fundamentally liberal ecclesiastical ice cream sundae with a conservative cherry on top (and a few nuts scattered within).
One could make an even more fundamental critique of both pontificates, as (say) traditionalists typically do – this would get to Douthat’s point about an impossible synthesis. Of course, a traditionalist pope elected in the past two decades who insisted on ruling as a traditionalist *would* have provoked an open schism. The question then becomes whether that’s actually preferable to the unofficial schism which seems to have been in place now in the Church since the 1960’s.
Richard regarding the Council there are two distinct takes the best analysis given by a youngish increasingly noted theologian Thomas White OP titled READING THE COUNCIL WITH NEWMAN, NOT NIETZSCHE. An excerpt: Fifty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council, two schools of thought dominate the interpretation of that event. One derives from the theology surrounding the post-conciliar journal Concilium, founded by theologians like Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx. It advances a progressivist reading of the Council: Vatican II stands for engagement with modernity, liberation of women, dialogue with world religions, liberalization of sexual mores, laicization of the mission of the Church, and liberal political advocacy. The other school stems from the thinkers who founded the journal Communio: Hans Urs von Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger. It reads the Council as a bold new vision of a distinctively Catholic way of being in the midst of modernity. The agenda is inevitably countercultural: the Church as a sign and instrument of salvation in Christ, nuptial theology that stresses the importance of gender complementarity, Eucharistic communion and sacramental marriage as the core of a healthy society, teaching and evangelization as the heart of the Christian mission in the modern world. That Council teaches us confidence. For in modernity the Church surely does travel through a dark night of faith, but she also bears within herself the hidden and radiant presence of the inextinguishable light of Christ.
Hello Fr. Morello,
Yes, that has been the debate – two major receptions of the Council, Concilium vs Communio. Simplistic, but a lot of truth to it.
And the truth in turn is that Concilium pretty well won the day at every level below the Papacy pre-2013. We can guess at numbers, but it’s easily most of the bishops and clergy, nearly all of the credentialed theologians and academics, nearly all of religious order leaders, nearly all leaders and staff of Church institutions, of the past 53 years. Two Communio pontificates kept this mass from coloring *too* much farther outside the lines; these popes helped inspire some modest bumps in (more conservative) vocations and a few key appointments here and there created a slight gravitational pull in the other direction. But in the main, the overwhelming reception of Vatican II has been a Concilium one, I’m afraid. The Western World underwent a full scale cultural revolution beginning in the 60’s, and the Church went along in its wake.
The debate over how to understand the Council, over five decades on, seems increasingly bootless. We can go on (as one pope did) about a “Council of the Media,” or the “hijacking of Council,” but at some point, if the overwhelming, sustained, multi-generational reception of an event is “X,” it becomes increasingly difficult to cut that “X” reception away from the event and texts of the thing.
I’ll be curious to see how Douthat treats this in detail, but he seems to be rightfully hinting at the prospect that both schools have increasing reason for re-examination. The Concilium approach seems to only produce death and decay, no matter how eagerly pursued. (52 years after the Dutch Catechism, what is even *left* of Dutch Catholicism?!?) But it’s less clear just how viable a synthesis a lot of the Communio project is, either.
P.S. By the way, I would like to make clear that my argument isn’t just an institutional one (though it is in part that). It is true that Communio lines of thought never penetrated very deeply into theological or ecclesiastical circles, and there are a number of reasons for that – not all of which Communio thought and thinkers can be held responsible for. It’s hard to beat back a revolution in its full tide, especially when it has tenure and ecclesiastical power to wield.
But even beyond that, it is worth asking just how much staying power a lot of Ressourcement school is really going to have. There was a time when the the thought was gathering steam in the 1990’s in these circles that Balthasar, De Lubac, Maritain (and, yes, Wojtyla and Ratzinger) could lead the Church out of the theological cul-de-sacs that both mature Thomism on the one hand and progressivist theology (Kung, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Congar, etc.) on the other had seemingly run into. But I can already sense the Communio tide gradually receding. I don’t say there is nothing of lasting value in any of that, but we must now be open to the possibility that a lot of that optimism may have been unfounded.
An interesting well informed analysis Richard. As a philosopher I search causes and the movement as such Modernism is the catch all terminology. What underlies what’s occurring is the modern man who questions all and forms his conclusions reaching back at least to Rousseau and the Emile. Politico liberalism in France critical analysis in Germany had to affect theology. “Pius X said modernism embraces every heresy. M. Loisy [France circa 1893] makes practically the same statement when he writes that ‘in reality all Catholic theology, even in its fundamental principles the general philosophy of religion, Divine law, and the laws that govern our knowledge of God, come up for judgment before this new court of assize'” (New Advent). I rediscovered my faith when Vat II began and sensed much of what was traditionally held was previously scrutinized although in appearance the Church was staid and solid. It was not. Most know what came to the surface during the Council was long fomenting and the likelihood is the Council staved it. Rebellion and schism was quite real during Paul VI’s pontificate. Paul VI kept the Church intact by compromise. You’re probably right that if John Paul II and Benedict were more forceful that rebellion which tended toward overt distancing would have occurred. As it happened it turned inward within the Church, which causes me to wonder whether strong opposition by those two pontiffs may have been the better option. And is at least in part why I agree with Bishop Athanasius Schneider that pious silence is not an option.
It looks like the new church is coming to take the form of a high pressure boiler room marketing operation. Say whatever needs to be said to close the sale. Make the sale and charge the credit card. Transactional spirituality. I use the small c because the new church more and more has the appearance of an ecclesial community as opposed to a Church.
One of the comforts of knowing Church history, and especially the history of the popes, is how greatly (and with pain and suffering) the Church always recovers from very deep crises. The Mystical Body of Christ will live the life of Christ until the end of time. I have no doubt that the hand of God is in all the confusion and turmoil of this papacy, but it is not all bad, despite the casualities. People should know that many popes and bishopsin the past have imposed a great deal of suffering and misery on the sheep and they will pay the debts they incur, as we all will pay for our own sins. The remedy for the troubles of our time is simple: ignore all the confusion and noise at the top and become saints. Not easy, but it is possible. Stick to traditional Catholic spirituality and ignore all the advise. Buy a copy of Tanquerrey’s The Spiritual Life. It is the science of the saints and don’t ask someone about it, clergy or lay, who has never read it.
This is of course true. But for parents struggling to transmit the faith to their children, and seeing the Church herself undermining this transmission, the battle is personal and deeply wounding.
Paul VI was right. The smoke of satan did enter the Church. Now we have a pontiff who wants to fan the flames and increase the smoke.
As info has come forward piecemeal Sandro Magister pieced together an important analysis of Benedict’s letter to Msgr Dario Viganò that further clarifies Benedict’s “continuity” with Pope Francis. An excerpt: “What may be the most expansive and meditated text published so far by Benedict XVI after his resignation from the papacy, in a multi-author book on John Paul II published in 2014, the pope emeritus does not hesitate to identify precisely ‘Veritatis Splendor’ as the encyclical of that pontificate most crucial for the present time. ‘To study and assimilate this encyclical,’ he concludes, ‘remains a great and important duty.’ It is no coincidence that three of the five ‘dubia’ submitted to Francis by several cardinals in 2016 concern precisely the risk of abandoning the foundations of moral doctrine reiterated by ‘Veritatis Splendor.’ Nor is it a coincidence that Ratzinger recalled, in his letter to Viganò, none other than the opposition to the principles of ‘Veritatis Splendor’ on the part of the theologians of the ‘Cologne Declaration,’ who have now been brought resoundingly back into favor by Francis. A pope whose ‘continuity’ with his predecessor can truly be, at this point, entirely and solely ‘interior'” (Magister).
“What is it that drives them to seemingly overturn longstanding Church teachings when similar moves have decimated other Christian communities in the West?” The answer is obvious: They despise the truth, they have turned away from the light, they love the applause of the world, they embrace the sentimental and political causes of atheist governments. In short, they are neo-pagans.
I guess Jesus created confusion also when He said, “Take and eat, this is my body. Take and drink, this is my blood.” I guess He didn’t know this would cause many of his disciples to leave. I guess He didn’t know this would cause Christian factions who deny the Transubstantiation.
The Church has spoken on a lot of things. Too bad there are those who just refuse to listen to Her.
Pope Francis said he is a son of the Church. Don’t go looking to false theologians. Didn’t Christ Himself say to be wary of wolves in sheep’s clothing?
Ask yourself. Who is the sheep and who are the wolves?
St. Joseph, pray for us.
I look forward to reading this book, but I hope it doesn’t gloss over the most important thing to know about Francis’ form of narcissism: his de facto atheism. Francis is a process theologian, and process theologians are atheists. The theory was advanced in the early seventies by Kasper and Kung and others that God is incomplete and in process of learning how to be a good God. Francis, like Kasper, is so committed to this idea of God, they condemn anyone who fails to share this vision as being so wrong in their understanding of God as to effectively be atheists. They are Orwellien madmen. To believe in the inferiority of God is to have such a false understanding of God is to be in effect a real atheist. Only a de facto atheist would have such a hysterical hatred for immutable truth, which is accessible to everyone by God’s plan and not in need of super intellectuals to arrive at pivotal points in human history to instruct the rest of humanity. Great minds can inspire us and remind us, but only God is the source of all truth. Haters of immutable truth, like Francis, are the real Pharisees and Pelagians. They hold the amoral qualities that Francis hatefully projects onto others.
Just started reading it. A very good book by a very good writer.
I’m hoping Pope Francks’ Pontificate ends soon.
I think that papal authority has been overrated by many Catholics. There is much resistance to Vatican II’s teaching on personal conscience.
Saint Paul, in 2Corinthians 1:24 says: “Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand”; and 1Peter 5:3 says to the elders: “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock”.
1Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”. Maybe we should have been doing this all along.
Pope Francis may be helping this along.