How do you approach the future? The old joke about economists (attributed to the late Paul Samuelson) is that they have successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions. Some of us are born economists in that sense. Others are like Pollyanna Whittier, the eternally sunny character from Eleanor Porter’s 1913 novel, Pollyanna, who gave us the modern meaning of a “Pollyanna” as a person excessively optimistic.
It’s better, C. S. Lewis’s fictional demon Screwtape says, for people to be fixated on the earthly future. From the demonic perspective, a focus on the future best draws humans’ attention away from reality. Our pollyannaish anticipations of delight and our economist anticipations of terror are generally in the category of fantasy. We ought to know that. After all, how often have the good events we just knew would make all things better either not panned out or have come and gone without delivering the pleasure or positive change we anticipated? So, too, how often have the forecast disasters and embarrassments that caused us to walk around as if a personal storm cloud hovered above us simply failed to materialize? Or, if they did happen, they turned out to be more of a drizzle than the downpour and lightning strike we expected.
God, Screwtape says, wants humans to refrain from “giving the future their hearts” for two reasons.
The first is that those anticipations of delight and terror often make us fearful or greedy, tempting us to sin so that we may get worldly goods or avoid catastrophes. The second reason not to focus on the future so much is that we take our eyes off the present, which is the place where God meets us. “Our business,” says the demon, “is to get them away from the Eternal, and from the Present.”
Insofar as we do think about the future, we should focus on what we will do or not do to live by the Holy Spirit and according to the virtues, and not by what will happen to us. The former is in our power; the latter is not. This focus requires that we take some note of what we think is likely to happen and what others are likely to do, not so that we can lose ourselves in these “what-ifs” but so that we can plan.
So, what can Catholics expect in the future? It’s a question many of us were asked or asked ourselves after Pope Francis died and then after we found out that Cardinal Robert Prevost was elected Pope Leo XIV. It’s only been a couple of months, but I think we have already seen that Pope Leo has brought a steady hand to the office of Bishop of Rome.
His language is clear and precise. He speaks of Christ warmly, directly, and with evident faith. He speaks clearly about teachings on the family and sexuality that are hard for both a post-Christian culture and even many Catholics to accept. The Augustinian pope quotes St. Augustine often and to great effect. His manner is friendly and humane without being pandering. His challenging statements are not harsh. There is a reason that some people have taken to calling him familiarly “Pope Bob.” (It’s not disrespect but genuine filial affection.)
Pope Leo has also made changes that needed to be made. The artwork of the serial abuser Fr. Marko Rupnik has been taken off the Vatican News site. On a completely different front, the Vatican website has finally been changed to a more aesthetically pleasing look. Descriptions of this as a miracle are probably only mild exaggerations. And Pope Leo’s ceremonial changes have lent a sense of stability, too. He has used papal vestments that were abandoned by his predecessor. He has become famous for chanting parts of the Mass and hymns in Latin. This has inspired an online series of videos hosted by Dominican Father Robert Mehlhart, president of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, called “Let’s Sing With the Pope.” He has also become famous for his calls to think about the challenges of Artificial Intelligence through the lens of Catholic teaching—just as his predecessor Pope Leo XII called the Church to think more clearly about the challenges of the Industrial Revolution.
In short, what we are likely to see from Pope Leo XIV is a deeply theological and pastoral approach to the faith that is traditional and yet also aware of the times. In terms of the Church, we can see from some of his actions, as well as his laudatory comments on the Eastern Catholic Churches and their traditional liturgies, that he will likely take a very different approach than Pope Francis to those who love the concrete aspects of the Church’s liturgical Tradition, including the Traditional Latin Mass.
What then might we look forward to in the life of the Church under Leo? Though there have been some very good numbers reported of people entering the Church in many places, the reality is that the Church is still shrinking. A recent Pew survey showed that for every person coming into the Church in the United States, eight leave. At the same time, those who are staying in the Catholic Church and those who are coming in are more likely to want to accept the whole of Catholic dogmatic teaching and to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, accepting the fullness of what the Catholic liturgical and spiritual tradition affords.
This matches what the future Pope Benedict predicted in Salt of the Earth, his 1997 book of interviews with Peter Seewald: “Maybe we are facing a new and different kind of epoch in the church’s history, where Christianity will again be characterized more by the mustard seed, where it will exist in small, seemingly insignificant groups that nonetheless live an intense struggle against evil and bring good into the world—that let God in.”
If this assessment is correct about our present and near future, we will have to prepare for some changes. The shrinking of the Church and its worldly insignificance that we have already seen are going to continue: more parishes will be closed, and bishops are going to have to think about how they minister to their flocks in different ways. This will require us to be open to big changes.
Second, these flocks will be different. My friend Jill thinks in the way Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict did. She tells me this past conclave was “the last Boomer conclave,” the marker for a Church moving away from the thin, bland version of the faith that Bishop Barron calls “beige Catholicism” and that characterized the last gasp of the old Christendom. Now, she says, the challenge will be to moderate the tendencies that come with people living an intense struggle and wanting to hold to the fullness of the Tradition in radical ways. Those who reject the liquid nature of modern society and want to live according to the will of Christ and his Church may well manifest elements of the rigidity of which so-called liberal Catholics accuse them. They may want, as my friend says, more rules than the Church gives. I know what she means—I have had young people ask me what the Church’s teaching is on cloth versus paper diapers. (There isn’t one.)
We definitely want the hard-headedness that embraces every bit of the truth Christ teaches us through His Holy Spirit in the Church. A hard-headedness that wants to live out the Christian life with no ifs, ands, or buts. In the future, we want to eliminate the beige version of the faith.
But we also want soft hearts that recognize that the Church does not offer us exact rules for all of life, that not everything will be picture-perfect, and that even those who are doing their best to correspond to grace will be flawed and imperfect. Soft hearts are essential for us to deal with others as well as ourselves with Christian love.
Pope Leo seems likely to model these traits as well as help the Church reach out to them. What’s great is that, even if the future turns out very differently from what it appears—even if the Church experiences a dramatic revival of numbers and influence—hard heads and soft hearts will still be essential to face whatever comes.
(Editor’s note: This article first appeared, in a slightly different form, in The Catholic Servant and is reposted here with kind permission.)
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.
This article tries to sound balanced, but it’s ultimately a veiled restorationist fantasy that dresses pessimism in theological overtones. It begins with a faux humility about the unpredictability of the future, then pivots to portraying Pope Leo XIV as a corrective to Pope Francis, based on aesthetics, traditional liturgies, and superficial changes like a Vatican website redesign. But this conveniently ignores Pope Leo XIV’s own bold affirmation of Vatican II’s vision, especially his clear continuity with Synodality, and especially with Evangelii Gaudium and Gaudium et Spes. The critique of “beige Catholicism” romanticizes a purist, rule-heavy faith that risks the very rigidity Pope Francis warned against. By framing the future Church as a smaller, purer remnant, it subtly valorizes exclusion over communion. This narrative dismisses the Council’s pastoral genius, its missionary openness, collegiality, and incarnational witness, as if fidelity means fleeing from complexity. But as Pope Leo XIV himself has said, the Church must walk forward, not backward, guided by the Spirit speaking through the Council. The future demands not a militant retrenchment in radical traditionalist aesthetics, but a renewed commitment to Vatican II’s call: to be a Church of the poor, for the world, grounded in Christ and open to the signs of the times.
And, of course, the piece never mentions Vatican II. But, I know the author quite well, and what you try to pin on him is not only absurd, it’s farcical.
So, Deacon Dom: Stop the slandering nonsense and actually engage with what’s written. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Carl, I suspect that many of us don’t even both to read what “Deacon Dom” writes. We see the name and just move on.
Very well said, Mr. Olson. Deacon Dom’s latest popesplanation, which you’re referring to, is an argument without opposition.
His statement, “This narrative dismisses the Council’s pastoral genius, its missionary openness, collegiality, and incarnational witness, as if fidelity means fleeing from complexity,” refers to nothing.
Bergoglio and his Dark Vatican seem to have caused poor Dom to lose all touch with reality. Because the author does not disparage any ecumenical council — including Vatican II — whatsoever.
Apparently even Bergoglio’s dark legacy will take a heavy toll on the Church.
Given the fact that large numbers of priests, nuns, and monks abandoned their vocations and large numbers of people left the church in response to Vatican II, it can hardly be praised as an example of pastoral genius 🙄
What if the signs of the times are traditional Deacon Dom?
Lather, rinse, repeat.
You write the same clichéd, accusatory, and archaic comment every time you post here.
Yo, Deacon Dom, in the interests of dialogue:
How to walk and chew gum at the same time? Pope Leo XIV encapsulated this whole picture in paraphrasing St. Augustine: “For you I am a pope, with you I am a Christian.”
Three points:
FIRST, in his opening speech to the Council, Pope John counseled: “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine [say what?] should be guarded and taught more efficaciously [….] it is necessary first of all that the Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers. But at the same time, she must ever look to the present, to the new conditions and new forms of life introduced into the modern world which have opened new avenues to the Catholic apostolate.”
SECOND, the “beige” proposition, instead, has been partly to cast bishops synodalistically “primarily as facilitators,” and then to Germanize the crescendo/self-validating Synod on Synodality (say what?) by obscuring the distinction in roles between the baptized and the baptized/ordained which “differ from one another in essence and not only in degree” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 10; note also all of Chapter 3 and its Explanatory Note on the Church as a “hierarchical communion”). Also, obfuscation of the “sacred patrimony of truth” by backing-in to separated moral contradictions termed “pastoral”.
THIRD, about which, another “sign of the times” is the Anglican-like split in the Church imposed by the path from the enabling Amoris Laetitia to the climax of Fiducia Supplicans. And, by devolving the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops into a collage of town hall meetings cross-dressed as “Synods.”
Said the real Synod in 1985 [the 20th anniversary of the Council]: “We cannot replace a false unilateral vision of the Church as purely hierarchical with a new sociological conception which is also unilateral [Pope Francis’s “inverted pyramid”?]. And about the Council itself, in 1985 Pope John Paul II stressed “It was necessary that at this moment above all those who were called to take part in it express their judgment on Vatican II in order to avoid divergent interpretations [!].”
SUMMARY, perhaps the more illuminating coloration is less about “beige” Catholicism than it is on whether red-hats in lockstep with guru Hans Dung can pass the red-face test?
Thank you very much David Paul Deavel, for an excellent reflection.
It was very refreshing to read and if I was a betting man I’d bet Pope Bob would enjoy it.
God’s Blessings
There is a world of difference between pastoral Popes and autocratic Popes. It harkens back to Jesus’ admonition to Peter: “Feed My sheep.”
Nice article.
“The last Boomer Conclave”. Praise the Lord, says this Boomer.
Let’s sing with the Pope!
Thank you. I appreciate your contributions.
If the main problem with Franciscus was heteropraxy, it would follow that the main solution is orthopraxy. This might not please those of us with hard heads who want written corrections for the weaponized ambiguity of Amoralist Laetitia and Sfiducia Supplicans, etc. If so, then the Truth of Christ will have to wait.
Regarding the TLM, if those who grabbed it as a lifeline to Sacred Tradition are still Catholic (versus in schism with the SSPX), let’s pray that these folks hang on. Wanting them to leave, versus patiently pastoring them, is hateful. It would be merciful if Pope Leo restored the solution of Pope Benedict.
As for lingering abuse cases, financial problems, transparency, episcopal appointments, etc., all we can do is pray and hope. Who would have expected this College of Cardinals to elect Pope Leo? Perhaps papal pundits are less prescient than economists.
What we know for sure is that Jesus Christ is Lord. Speaking of soft hearts, consider again Julian of Norwich: “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”
“Julian of Norwich understood the central message for spiritual life: God is love and it is only if one opens oneself to this love, totally and with total trust, and lets it become one’s sole guide in life, that all things are transfigured, true peace and true joy found and one is able to radiate it.” He concluded: “‘And all will be well,’ ‘all manner of things shall be well’: this is the final message that Julian of Norwich transmits to us and that I am also proposing to you today.” (Pope Benedict XVI). Franciscus echoes the same idea in his (best?) Encyclical, Dilexit Nos. (See #110)
‘….[the above article] subtly valorizes exclusion over communion’
Whereas, self-evidently, Deacon Dom prefers the contrary preference viz ‘communion’ over ‘exclusion.’
Which might reasonably, I contend, be summarised in the famous phrase of Pope Francis:
‘todos, todos, todos.’
To be blunt, I for one certainly reject the ‘franciscan’ contention that the presence of the likes of:
Nancy Pelosi
Joseph Robinet Biden jr
at the altar rails (sic)
still less of:
Cardinal McCarrick
Cardinal Becciu
Bishop Zanchetta
Fr Rupnik
Fr Martin sj
at the altar itself
are in keeping with Christ’s teachings, as always understood throughout the history of His Church; well certainly up until 1963/1968/2013 ?
My late husband and I were converts to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism. It might help some Catholics to know that to Evangelicals and many other Protestants, UNDERSTANDING is of great, perhaps GREATEST importance and is a high priority.
Evangelical Protestantism sometimes goes much too far to present the Gospel of Christ in such a way that the “language of Christian faith” can be understood by the hearers, and the traditions (music, dress, etc.) are fashionable, comfortable, and “edgy” for the majority of the people.
Examples of this include the pastor abandoning suits and vestments and giving his “message” (not generally called a “sermon” or “homily” in Evangelical circles) while wearing blue jeans and local t-shirts, or back in the 1970s, leisure suits, and of course, the technical style of rock and roll Praise and Worship music that is a staple in almost all Evangelical Protestant megachurches!
On the other hand, for many years, Evangelical Protestantism has seen the conversion of many people around the globe and in the U.S. to Christianity. There’s just something about meeting people where they are and using the language and music styles that they use and understand that generally attracts people more than something that appears “foreign” to them.
I know that this hurts “traditionalists”, both Catholic and Protestants, who love all things ancient and are wary of anything younger than a few hundred years, but…what exactly are you going to do about it?!
I would probably not be Catholic if my only option was “the Latin Mass” and liturgy. I and many other Catholics love many of the Vatican II changes, e.g., use of the vernacular instead of Latin in the Mass, and hymns and songs that are up-to-date and that sound better with guitars and piano rather than the incredibly expensive and costly-to-maintain pipe organ (which so few people know how to play these days that I’m surprised that it’s still being used, especially when the organists that I know demand (and DESERVE!) high salaries). I do love pipe organ, though, and spent several years taking lessons from a wonderful teacher who I am still good friends with–and I’m also a member of the American Guild of Organists.)
From what I see all the time, I think nowadays, even Catholic parents get their children involved with sports like swimming and soccer rather than with enrolling them in local children’s choirs and in music lessons, especially organ lessons, which run around $50/hour–and you have to have access to an organ for practicing–and organs are not cheap to buy and not available at Cost Co! (Note–the “chord organs” are not adequate.)
I’m a pianist who grew up playing in my Evangelical church and also, since converting in 2004, played for years in Catholic churches, and yes, with advance practice, I can play the organ for hymns, but not choir pieces or classical-style (e.g., Bach) preludes and postludes. Many of the organists that I know who play in Catholic parishes are not even Catholic, or if they are, they are much more liberal politically and in their lifestyle choices than many Catholics!
How many of you who are traditionalist and fairly young or young-at-heart have ever tried to sight-read anything by Palestrina? I accompanied (piano) a very talented traditional (Latin Mass) Catholic high school choir for several years, and the teacher (a dear friend and a Latin Mass advocate!) tried to teach them some Palestrina pieces–and not surprisingly, it didn’t go well. Even the best student singers/instrumentalists in the class gave up at some point during the pieces–and I (generally an excellent sight singer) had a hard time and eventually shook my head! I think the people who advocate Palestrina and other composers like him need to realize that without a very solid classical/baroque background in music and the ability to read the neumes, most people will not “get Palestrina” or any of the really difficult chant pieces. Those people you hear on the radio are generally professional musicians who learn it because they have spent a lot of time and money to be highly-trained. I’ve actually heard people tell me that “when we were kids, WE learned chant in Latin, and sang Palestrina”–well, I’m sure you did, but you didn’t play soccer every evening or have social media or 24/7 television with 62 channels to choose from, and “STEM” courses requiring a few hours of homework every night!
I just wonder where all the liturgical musicians are supposed to come from when soccer rules most families these days!
I also wonder how the Church will implement “chant” when the majority of families these days listen exclusively to rock, pop, country, jazz, or movie music, and there are churches with no music in their parish school curriculum (but plenty of STEM courses so that the kiddies can get a great job when they grow up!), no graded choirs, and so few children are taking piano lessons (let alone organ lessons!). I don’t know about any of you, but to me, chant, especially in Latin, sung by someone who hasn’t been taught Latin or how to sing properly sounds…well, I’m sure God appreciates it!
I keep waiting for the day when instead of a choir number, the congregation will joyfully and reverently watch soccer players kick and head-butt the ball around the nave.
However, in spite of my less-than-optimistic attitude, I do believe firmly that both forms of the Mass, ancient and modern, CAN and SHOULD co-exist and thrive, along with Catholics who are both ancient and modern in their preferences.
And while I agree that many of the more modern parishes could tone it down quite a bit and that the various contemporary “hymns” in our missalettes should be examined and drastically culled down or eliminated, most of these modern parishes, IMO, are pretty mild in their practice of “church” compared to the Praise and Worship non-denominational Protestant church attendees, who generally have never seen or heard (or are willing to tolerate) an “organ” and instead, listen to a Praise and Worship band belt out rock and roll worship music, and then settle in for a 45-minute message utilizing overheads or the more contemporary computer or I-phone screens, volunteers from the audience, live animals, lights that change color, constant mysterious-sounding background music, questions and answers from the “congregation”, and an emotional altar call that generally attracts a fairly large crowd of sobbing people to the front of the church.
Keep in mind that to many of these “modern” Protestants, the most “contemporary” Catholic churches look and sound “mysterious” and “ancient”–and maybe that could be one reason so many Protestants are coming into the Truth of Holy Mother Church! A stripped-down “church” with modern-sounding music and a message that is spoken in their own language is often more appealing than still more noise and bells and smells and words that aren’t understandable and don’t have sub-titles.
After all, many of our “moms” are “old-fashioned” and still cook “casseroles” and wear clothing that they have been wearing since the 1980s–but we love and honor them and tend to run to them when we need advice, comfort, and true love that never ends no matter what. Holy Mother Church is like “Mom”–and remember that there are many styles of “Mom”, both old and traditional (shag carpeting, avocado kitchen, and a picture of a ship above the fireplace), AND new and modern (vinyl plank flooring, white and black kitchen, and an abstract by a local artist above the faux fireplace).
There is no slogan more empty of meaning than the slogan “the signs of the times.”
And “open to the signs of the times?” That = “Turn off your mind…relax…and float downstream….”