Denver Newsroom, Apr 20, 2020 / 06:05 pm (CNA).- Chris Arnade is the author and photographer of “Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row America.”
His book is a look at how many Americans – in rural and urban communities across the country- live. Chris got to know people who often lack a voice in American public life, and his work aims to give them a voice, and a face. He talked with CNA about his book, his faith, and “Back Row America.”
Below is an excerpt, edited and condensed, from CNA’s interview with Arnade. The entire conversation can be heard here.
Chris, what is “Back Row America?”
“Back Row America” describes, in my simple framework, American communities that don’t necessarily define themselves by their resumes or their education.
It’s the part of America that has traditionally gone from high school to, to a job, a lifelong job that gave them the stability to build a family and then attend church regularly and stay in their community. That isn’t a red state or blue state thing. That’s true all across the country.
It’s African-American communities in northern cities, it’s working class rural communities in places like Iowa and Nebraska.
It’s in contrast to what I think is the much more powerful group of people, which I would call, using the classroom analogy, “the front row.”
The elites, if you will, who have spent their career or chasing building a resume, going to all the right institutions and ultimately ending up probably in a few handful of neighborhoods across the United States.
They generally have very large influences in academics, the media and politics and the business world. And I think so much of how we think about America is defined by the front row, when in fact the bulk of Americans would probably find themselves to be more familiar with the back row.
How did you get to know “Back Row America?”
While working on Wall Street in finance, I spent time walking in neighborhoods across New York City. Those walks became a way to meet people I might otherwise never meet. Eventually, I quit my job and spent three and a half or four years in one neighborhood in particular, the poorest neighborhood in New York called Hunts Point in the Bronx.
It was a wonderful neighborhood, I was immediately drawn in by the strong sense of community. At an artistic level as a photographer and it was just simply a great place to photograph because it faces the south, it has good light.
And then it just drew me in.
I spent time with a group of, to use a derogatory term because there’s no other terms, of homeless addicts, who lived in cars or lived in abandoned buildings, under bridges and spent their time making their money by either being a prostitute or stealing things or begging. And many used that money to buy heroin.
And they became the community that taught me for three and a half years.
And then from there I went in my car across the United States, I’ve put roughly about 400 000 miles over four years, just driving all the, around the United States, visiting places that people would tell me not to go to.
Visiting as much of the United States as I could, the parts that I call “back row America” that are not in the news in any other way other than negative. Towns that have lost their industry, inner cities that have never had industry, all sorts of places.
What I try to do in my book is both show what is common in this condition, but that there are variations, so to speak, on the theme and how people reflect their frustration and attempt to find dignity in different ways.
What were the things that you had found in Hunts Point and wanted to look for in other places?
One theme of my book is that the most salient and the biggest division in America right now is the educational divide. We all talk about class divide. We all talk about the racial divide. But I think the education divide is as important, if not stronger currently.
And that division is not just about how we vote, but it’s about how we view the world, and how we think about what is valuable in this world, and how we think about what gives us meaning. So, at a very deep level, what’s our philosophy? And what is our worldview?
And then that, if you are in the back, and that the front row controls things now. They generally are the “in” group. They define stuff. And it’s the back row who is the one who is suffering from the decisions made by the front row, who have a very narrow worldview that they can’t seem to think beyond.
If they do think beyond it, it usually means they either want to study the back row as sort of a scientific specimen or they want to pity them and save them without questioning their worldview.
And people know when they’re being laughed at. The front row isn’t directly laughing at people. But there is this sense of, again, when they view the back row, it’s often viewed as people who are wounded, to be pitied and helped, as opposed to people to be listened to as equals.
Your book talks about some values that exist more clearly in the back row, a sense of place, a sense of obligation to the family, and people, and connectedness. Even a different sense of what matters in life; what it’s for.
Yeah. I mean, I always use the example of the young woman I met in a McDonald’s in East L.A. And, if you read the book, you’ll know that I spent a lot of time in McDonald’s.
Because a lot of people who don’t have a lot of money spend a lot of time in McDonald’s because it has free wifi, and inexpensive food, and cheap.
So, I would see this young woman at McDonald’ss. I would be there each night to type up my notes and she was there because… I had seen her all over the country, variations of her, she was there to use the free wifi because she didn’t have wifi at home. She or her family was too poor.
So, she would come in every night with her Game Boy and her computer, and charge both of them, and play on the internet, or do homework, or mostly just play her Game Boy, or her Switch, or whatever she had.
And so, eventually she got curious about me and asked and said, “You’re from New York City.” I told her I was from New York City.
She said she would love to go there. And I said, “Well, you’re college age.”
She said, “Well, I’m going to college here at East L.A. Community College. And I need to stay here because I’m my mother’s translator.”
Her mother was a Mexican-American immigrant. And, like a lot of immigrants, the oldest child is the one who speaks both languages and is necessary to fill out forms, navigate the country.
So, she was making a decision that I think we as a broader culture should applaud. She was staying there for her family.
But I think we look at people’s decisions in what I would call a “resume arms race.” Everybody has to be building a resume. And, in that process, which is a very narrow way of thinking about success, it’s all about getting credentialed so you can make more money.
It’s a very, very material definition of success.
For people who don’t value that, who don’t want the value of that very narrow framework, you have to give up the non-material forms of meaning like place, family, and faith, because those are considered to be in opposition to this arms race of building the best resume. And so, I think it’s particularly an elitist view.
Being materialistic is very much an elitist view of the world because one of the things we’re all gifted at birth is these values and these meanings that don’t require a resume to have, like family, like place, and like faith. You don’t need a resume into the church. You don’t need a resume to find beauty in your local community or to be a member of your family.
Chris, could you talk about faith in the back row?
I came into this project an atheist. I certainly wasn’t a nasty atheist. I was very always respectful of other people’s faiths and views. But, in the back of my mind, I would have laughed at somebody who was religious, or at least thought maybe they should learn a little. And then, certainly by the end of the project, I wouldn’t call myself religious, but I do go to church.
In the project I spent a lot of time in McDonald’s because that’s where the people I was learning from spent time. And likewise with churches, I spent a lot of time in churches because that’s where the people I spent time with went.
I went to every denomination. I tried to try to go to the denominations that were most reflective of the community I was in. I tried to go to the churches that I guess, I think, theologically would probably be considered in the back row.
Places that had improvised spaces. So, there was one that was a former… I think it was a former Kentucky Fried Chicken, had been turned into a church. Another was an old gas station that had been turned into a church. Another was an old furniture store in a strip mall. Another was someone’s house.
I came away personally moved by the experience… this was a very important part of people’s lives. It was just wrong of me at many levels to dismiss it as nothing more than just a silly way of living, but also, at a personal level, I came away realizing that there was a lot there that I didn’t appreciate.
What is important when churches minister to back row America?
I mean, I think from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think the most important thing about the church is that they get people they’re preaching to.
You go into a nonprofit in these communities or you go into these secular institutions, and they’re not made up of people from the community. They’re often outsiders who are well-intentioned. There’s nothing wrong with that, being an outsider who’s well-intentioned, but with a few exceptions, most of them haven’t gone through a rough life, haven’t experienced a lot.
You go in the churches, and it’s their people. It’s their community. They get them, at not just at an intellectual level but a lived reality level.
Also, that faith is a way to live that gives people guidance. Answers that give people a structure.
The first level of academica getting religion is pragmatic. They’ll simply view it as something that’s useful. I think the second level, which is much deeper and much more real, is to see it as something that isn’t just useful but also so powerful and true. My own intellectual journey was getting beyond the first level of, “Oh, it’s just a useful thing,” a scientific solution, like, “Oh, these poor people have religion. That’s good for them because it’s useful,” and moving on to the next, which is to see a religious worldview as equally valid to how I think about things.
—
I think to a large degree that the Catholic Church has done a pretty good job of understanding the people it serves.
I often went to Catholic churches as well, because I consider myself Catholic, and when traveling, I would like to go to different churches, and I think one of the things that did frustrate me is I can walk into a church and within half a minute tell you how wealthy the neighborhood around me is. You can just see by the amount of donations given. I mean, the donation differences are just staggering. You get some churches that collect $7,000 a week and others that collect $35 a week.
I think some outreach between [rich and poor Catholics] would be helpful. I think… and certainly, the people in the wealthier congregations and parishes having a little more understanding of their privilege and how the experience of being a Catholic might be different if you’re in El Paso, for instance.
Do you have expectations for how things might change for the back row as a result of where we are right now, in terms of the pandemic and the resulting economic collapse? I’ve hoped it will lead to a greater sense of solidarity among people.
I’m probably about as cynical as I’ve ever been about it right now. I hate to try to throw water on your fire, but I mean, I’m looking at how the pandemic’s playing out, and it’s becoming a disease of the poor. All the solutions we proposed, as much as I agree with them, are pretty comfortable for the wealthy and pretty uncomfortable for the poor.
Sheltering in place, I think the word “place” covers a lot of ground there that we tend not to think about, but I certainly hope at a philosophical level that we come out of this, that people who can shelter in a nice place maybe understand that that’s a privilege and that it’s much easier for them to do that — come out of this with a greater awareness of how hard this is for a lot of people.
What can people do?
I mean, that’s the problem is, with a pandemic, there’s not much we can do right now other than recognize privilege and hopes going forward that we take that into account when we think about judging other people for not doing what we’re doing, or scolding them for taking walks outside, or wanting to go to church in some capacity when the pandemic eases going to some sort of limited service.
I think we need to get back to being social again, probably before the credentialed experts tell us is a good time. I respect people enough to believe that they can make their own choices and see what’s right.
I think, in the longer term though, one of my biggest frustrations with my book, and I think a lot of readers’ frustrations is I don’t offer solutions, because I’m not sure I know them.
I don’t know how you get people en masse to start saying, okay we need to value things differently. I think, one person at a time. If somebody in a comfortable suburb recognizes that their parish or their congregation is well off and others aren’t, I mean that’s the first step. Make a personal decision about how you think you can best address that.
I think it’s important to treat people, everybody you meet, with respect, and again not pity them. I think many people look at those who are in the back row as people who need to be saved or changed, and maybe the best thing to do is just listen to them and give them the dignity of actually treating them like an equal.
That means sometimes not liking them. You don’t have to like everybody. When people ask “What can I do with the homeless person?” And I say like, “Have a conversation with them. Treat them like a normal person. If you don’t like them, you don’t like them.”
Chris, if you don’t mind my asking, having gone through this experience, what do you pray for and what do you encourage other people to pray for?
What I pray for changes. I still hear from a lot of people who I wrote about in the book, who have my phone number and text me all the time. I pray for them, and for my family.
I guess, my greatest hope from this whole thing is that the reader comes away with an understanding that, in very rare instances, almost everybody who reads this book is going to have more privilege than the people in the book. And so, a little perspective. When it comes down to it, it’s the old phrase, “Before you judge somebody, walk a mile in their shoes.” I pray that message gets into people, that they can see that they themselves probably have a lot better than they realize.
And before you judge somebody, again, know what they’ve gone through.
This was an edited excerpt from a longer conversation between Chris Arnade and CNA. The entire conversation can be heard here.
[…]
I have now taken an “unfavorable view” about the Pontiff Leo, in light of a number of recent acts he is responsible for, including his “Jubilee” invitation to permit the LGBTQ-Pathology-Parade inside St. Peter’s Basilica, where they displayed themselves in their typical demonic costume-wear, and their “F*ck the Rules” tee shirts, as all can see, here:
https://x.com/LepantoInst/status/1964356537163370601/photo/2
Recalling to mind this message, from 2000 years ago: “Woe to you, false shepherds.”
Video (27 min. 07 sec.): Bishop Schneider Brutally Shreds James Martin’s Big Jubilee At The Vatican, by Anthony Stine, posted September 11, 2025.
The excellent site Catholic Answers posted numerous examples of the early Christian thinkers on the subject of homosexual relations, in answer to the modern Catholic Church claim that “loving” homosexual relations (but not just “lustful” relations) are OK and can be blessed by priests. Here are a few, which today’s popes and many cardinals and bishops and priests act against and probably would label as “hate speech”:
Saint Eusebius of Caesarea
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
Saint Basil the Great
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).
Saint John Chrysostom
“[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment” (Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).
“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases” (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).
“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).
Saint Augustine of Hippo
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
Tertullian
“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).
Saint Clement of Alexandria
“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians” (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).
Saint Justin Martyr (the first recognized philosopher of the Christian era)
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. . . . And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).
________________________________________
The Didache
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).
The events of “a pride parade” in the St Peter’s Basilica is not as mind-blowing in itself as its juxtaposition with the TLM Mass in Latin celebrated there by Cardinal Burke in the same Basilica. To aid myself in processing that juxtaposition, I even made a photo collage of those two events: on the left – the photo of the “rainbow people” with “F*ck the Rules” in St Peter’s, on the right – a traditional Bishop, surrounded the altar servers in traditional garbs, facing the high altar and razing the Holy Host in the same St Peter’s. Pity I cannot post it here; it would express my point far better than words. The collage caused a mind to go into a halt.
Indeed, it is impossible to put two events together, in a believer’s mind. Yet they are being put together and then pushed into the throat of the Church. Not just “a pride parade”, not just the TLM with Cardinal Burke but them put together like two sides of a coin, with “F*ck the Rules” on one side and “Agnus Dei” on another one. It is disgusting even to type it but I invite the reader to stop and ponder the image.
“Oh, but the parade was first and the TLM will be second” does not really work because the Church of Christ exists in eternity – as long as Christ is its Head. “Agnus Dei” was present in St Peter’s in a form of the Blessed Sacrament when “F*ck the Rules” was brought in before Him. If we believe in the Real Presence, then it was literally said to Christ, in the same technique of a postmodern collage.
Hence, it is right to say that two events happen simultaneously, in the timeless realm. However, they are also mutually cancelling, leaving zero, nothing in the Church. Only that “nothing” can accommodate such contrary phenomena and not just accommodate – not to feel any discomfort.
“razing the Holy Host” in English means destroying or demolish. You may have intended ‘raising’ the Holy Host. A double entendre with relevance in both instances. No one can destroy the Eucharist because the act has harmful repercussion for the person rather than the Eucharist.
The bishop who offered the Mass and raised the Eucharist before adamant homosexuals, putatively a blasphemy may have incurred irreparable harm to himself. I would add inclusive of those responsible for permitting the act.
A spelling accident but, as you said, it is fitting.
Objectively speaking yes, no one can destroy the Eucharist – and yet he can, psychologically, for its recipients. It is done via a covert denial of what (or better to say Who) Eucharist is, via engaging in actions which “cancel” its reality.
For example, a priest implicitly denies the Real Presence, if yesterday he abused a child after Mass and today he preaches “the love of Christ which we all must show to others”/ “allow the little ones to come to me etc” and then gives communion to that very child he abused and to his family. Not only is it psychologically perverse, it is also blasphemous in the context of a juxtaposition, of what he has done and of the Church.
However, while such an experience often ruins a faith of an abused (and of his family), it is still not as potent as the actions of other clerics who cover up the abuse and allow the abuser to continue saying Mass, as if nothing ever happened. The fact that one who believes in Christ cannot engage in mutually excluding actions, of an abuse of a child and of preaching the love of Christ and “little children”, is for some reason being ignored. This is rightly experienced by the victims and their families as mind-blowing, a world turned upside-down. NB: not an abuse as such is mind-blowing but a sick dichotomy: the same person abuses and IS “Persona Christi”, psychosocially kills and gives Life (Eucharist), literally tearing the soul apart.
I gave an example of child sexual abuse to make my point more accessible but instead of abuse of human persons, a liturgical abuse can be just as effective if it involves a blasphemous attitude to the Person of Christ as to a non-person. A priest/Church who today preach about “love of Christ” and tomorrow spits on the same Christ via their actions represent the same sick dichotomy and the same vector, of a covert denial of Christ. In essence, this dichotomy reveals that both Christ (and a child from an example above) is just a soulless tool. He is not the Person. He can be switched on”, used to back up some agenda and then switched off again. I argue that this “on and off” switching of Christ, in His Church, psychologically destroys Him = the Eucharist for people.
Yes, duplicity is a scourge within Church and world.
For those of us who are aware of the wounds inflicted on Christ [figuratively] and Church [in reality], and positioned to meaningfully respond I cite the Prayer after communion for today’s Mass, Our Lady of Sorrows:
Having received the Sacrament of eternal redemption, we humbly ask, O Lord, that, honoring how the Blessed Virgin Mary suffered with her Son, we may complete in ourselves for the Church’s sake what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.
This prayerful intent is most relevant regarding the moral tragedy of a Roman pontiff tacitly permitting the adamantly sexually disordered to pass through the Holy Doors and celebrate their depravity in Our Lord’s sanctuary.
Chris,
I’m unhappy to say that IMHO I also find it hard to support or now even listen to Pope Leo.
in addition to your point about the LBTG sacrilegious parade in St. Pete’s Basilica, he appoints as Vatican Director of Fine Arts Cristiana Perrella, whose resume includes porn productions (perhaps soft porn, I don’t know, but it sounds like porn none the same).
Then there’s the meeting with Fr. James Martin, seemingly a man of genuine compassion for gays but also one who expresses views undeniably contrary to Sacred Scripture and the true Magisterium. That used to be called heresy.
Lastly, there’s the Pope’s recent pronouncement which showed continued kowtowing to the atheistic Chinese regime.
Just all very disappointing. I’m not a Newman scholar by any means but I recall once reading his view that during the Arian heresy, it was the laity that sustained Christ’s Church. That may be the challenge now for us all.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Yes…thank you for noting the newly appointed pornographer-fine-arts-director.
Recalling to mind the title of an address given by Solzhenitsyn in 1976: “If One Doesn’t Wish to be Blind.”
One can find plentiful homoerotic artworks in the Vatican. It is far from being a major problem.
I looked into the artists from Perella’s resume; the majority do typical “modern art” – installations, photos, homoerotic/queer etc. that has nothing to do with the Christian sacred art. Two artists attracted my attention; I did not keep the links/names but they can be easily found.
One had an exhibition called ‘Sacrilegio’ (a self-descriptive title); an artist took medieval/early Renaissance prototypes, mostly ‘Madonna and Child’, and painted over their Faces some objects a la Salvator Dali suggestive of excrements, intestines, or tiny faces protruding and suspended looking like female sexual organ etc.
That was offensive of course but another one was far worse. The artist took photos of people, mostly females, burnt their eyes and mouths out and called them ‘Self-portrait with Nadia M.’ or ‘Self-portrait with Lisa D.’ etc. The artworks show only mutilated faces, not an artist himself. I understood that “self-portraits” are clearly his action towards those females whose faces he disfigured. I.e., the message is of a wild violence towards females bordering on psychopathy.
Being an iconographer, I have never seen a better anti-icon than his works which show a murderous denial of the personhood of the depicted. An iconographer typically labours over making the personhood as visible as possible; he enlarges eyes and makes them and a mouth very expressive to highlight the presence of a person. That anti-iconographer did exactly the opposite i.e. burned them out.
To me it is quite symbolic of what is going on and far worse than homoerotic stuff or even, strangely enough, ‘Sacrilegio’. Compared to that psychopathic “art”, various homo-nudes of another artist are nothing.
Such is the person who is now in charge of Christian art in the Vatican.
Actually, 100% of Catholics favor the Pope. The 20% in the poll misrepresented their Catholicity.
Unfortunately, per the same sort of popular opinion polls, 70% of Catholics reject Jesus’ teaching that the Eucharist is His Body.
Please understand that I am not suggesting that the polls define “Catholics” as baptized Catholics who also happen to obey Jesus.
Regardless of “methodology” in these polls, I believe there is much commonality in the numbers of those who “favor” Prevost and those who do not believe in the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist. I believe that among those who “favor” Prevost (84%) are many of the same who do not believe in the True Presence of our Lord in Holy Communion (70%).
Why do you come to that conclusion RM?
M. Bruno: You seem to be an authority on Catholicism Please tell the rest of us what exactly defines someone being called “Catholic.” Be specific, including identifiably measurable behaviors and beliefs. Thank you. This will be most helpful as it’s very obvious that just about anyone can call themselves Catholic (including the Pope).
I’m not too thrilled with his having granted a private audience to Fr. Martin, or with his kowtowing to the Chinese, but he seems to be easing up on the Latin Mass issue, and that I REALLY like, and overall I like him.
Of course the fact that he is DA POPE, as proclaimed by my latest t-shirt, is part of the whole thing.
I like the guy.
I like him, too Mr. Terence.
Are the 80% favorably disposed because just as it was during Francis’ pontificate they need not be worried by those troublesome rules and simply just get along with everyone? Attend Mass and you’re saved?
The same Pew surveying found that 70% of Catholics do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Pew also found that 23% of Catholics confess at least once a year. These aren’t remarkably good stats. To date Leo XIV hasn’t changed these stats except regarding likeability. He has exercised continuity with his predecessor Francis.
Said Henry VIII to Thomas More (in Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons”) who asked, “Then why does Your Grace need my poor support?”
“Because you are honest. What’s more to the purpose, you’re known to be honest…There are those like Norfolk who follow me because I wear the crown, and there are those like Master Cromwell who follow me because they are jackals with sharp teeth and I am their lion, AND there is a mass that follows me because it follows anything that moves [!]–and then there is you.”
Thomas More had that rare integrity that remained faithful to authority, for Henry because he was king. When sent to the Tower he wrote Meg commending Henry’s graciousness for allowing him to live there in peace hoping he would continue in that vein.
There is a certain nobility in acknowledging deference owed to authority in our case a Roman pontiff, an office instituted by Christ. Which makes the Chair, and its occupant possessive of that owed dignity. With that there’s the life or spiritual death dimension that those of us with orders have a duty to assess, conscientiously respond without malice or insult in respect of the office.
Pope Leo XIV seems to be to be a likable fellow. I wouldn’t mind spending some time with him over dinner. However, that is not what makes a great pope. Is he orthodox, is he wise, does he take the the great charge of spreading the Gospel to all people seriously? Will he govern and to govern means that some shepherds need to be chastised for their own good and the good of the sheep. So far, the jury is still out IMHO. I’m looking forward to the re-instatement of Frank Pavone and Bishop Strickland. Once I see that, I’ll be relieved.
The date during which this survey was taken is very telling. I believe it was BEFORE he was patting the heads of those “Catholics” like Martin, and made appointments from those who support dubious and condemned sexual activities. I would wager if the poll was taken now it would show much more unfavorable reactions. I can tell you that those who I see at daily Mass are unhappy and disappointed.
I am sorry to feel this way. I was beyond thrilled that an American was actually elected pope. He seemed like a kindly and thoughtful person. However if he also is a “go along to get along” type looking for approval from the secular leaning types, he doesnt get my vote.
I believe also that Pope Leo is kindly & thoughtful.
As long as Fiducia Supplicans with all its ambiguities and sophistry remain a declaration from one of the Vatican’s dicasteries, suspicion remains that 2357 – 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will be targeted for alteration to suit the zeitgeist.