Disconcerted by Francis #4

I think of myself in old style politically left-wing terms, as a young man I became a Catholic by being a Communist first. I believed in the brotherhood of man and through that learnt a need for the Fatherhood of God and the Motherhood of the Church. I have a soft aging hippy notion of the openness of borders, the welcoming of immigrants. I am pro-life but I realise that there are economic implications to being open to Life. I have no problem with a Pope who at least in Western and North American terms presents himself as being towards the left, or as both he and I would like to say 'on the side of the poor'. When pushed I suspect both the Pope and I would readily admit there is as much poverty, spiritual poverty at least, in Mayfair as there is on the seafront in Brighton.

There are priests and laypeople who because of their Christian principles strongly disagree with my own interpretation of the Church's teaching, the Church is large enough. We hold to the same doctrines but have received different inspiration, as Pope Benedict kept saying the Christian Faith is "both and not either or"

There is problem when the Church identifies itself with the poor, Jesus does 'go to the peripheries' and speak about the poor but he seems much more concerned about God's generosity. Ches writes on the experience of the Spanish writer  Juan Manuel de Prada, who I suppose could be described as politically right of centre, who has spent a great deal of ink defending Christian thinking, especially on what are those touch button issues such as marriage, the family, the rights of the unborn, he feels betrayed by the recent Francis interview.

Abp Chaput from the USA has said, "I heard from a mother of four children – one adopted, another disabled from birth -- who’d spent years counseling pregnant girls and opening prolife clinics. She wanted to know why the Pope seemed to dismiss her sacrifices. A priest said the Pope “has implicitly accused brother priests who are serious about moral issues of being small minded,” and that “[if you’re a priest,] being morally serious is now likely to get you publicly cast as a problem.” Another priest wrote that “the problem is that [the Holy Father] makes all of the wrong people happy, people who will never believe in the Gospel and who will continue to persecute the Church.”

Being a soft liberal I am not the greatest fan of Michael Vorris but I think he has a very important point in this video, that the "change in tone" the Pope calls for actually turns out be a way of undermining those heroic priests and laypeople who do speak out on moral issues.


In the Church St Paul tells us there are 'a variety of gifts', a local bishop or archbishop can understand and address the problems that beset his particular diocese, as Pope Francis is speaking to the whole Church, he has a duty not to 'stifle the Holy Spirit'. Narrowing the Church's message only serves the enemies of the Church and pours cold water the flame of faith.
I am sure if the Holy Father realised how this interview would be used would be mortified, perhaps in the next few weeks we might see him strengthening the position of Christ's friends rather than allowing his words to be a comfort to those who hate the faith.

Disconcerted by Francis #3

I know from recent personal experience how the media can destroy or at least badly one's reputation. Whatever Pope Benedict did from the moment he stood on the balcony of St Peter's wearing his black jumper under the Papal cassock with his black plastic watch on his wrist the media hated him. The build up to the Papal visit here in the UK indicated a flop, the media spread stories of massed anti-Pope demonstrations, even the prospect of arrest, every interview tried to suggest he personally was responsible for clerically child abuse rather than the one who chose to deal with it, then he arrived and his gentle courteous humility seemed to change hearts.

Cardinal Suenens visited the seminary I was in after the election of Pope John Paul II, I met him in the corridor and in brief conversation asked what Cardinals did after electing a Pope, his answer was, 'prepare for the next Conclave'. The speed of Pope Francis' election would suggest that he had already secured the block vote of the Curia, and probably a proportion of the Italian electors before he even entered the Conclave. As runner-up to Ratzinger in the previous Conclave his election was probably not such a surprise to him, and those who had taken part in the previous Conclave, as it was to most of us. It would be foolish to think that likely candidates for the Papacy do not think through, and even discuss with others, the first few months of their tenure if the are elected.


Considering the negative media coverage of his predecessor it would be not unnatural for Pope Francis to have considered, and received advice about his image before his election, nor would it have been foolish or cynical for this to have been discussed during the Conclave and in an image conscious age one of the things Cardinal-electors would have been concerned about a new Pope's ability to project a positive image.


'Spin' is a fact of life, being thought well of is in many ways a Christian virtue. Cardinal Hume used tell his novices when Abbot of Ampleforth, 'The Community is commanded by Christ to love you, you therefore have a duty to make yourselves lovable', as with novice monks, so with Popes. Building up support for himself within his diocese and Italy is a wise and prudent thing to do, and for Pope Francis doing the things Italians love, kissing every baby, hugging every granny obviously comes easily. The large black camera that has appeared on the back of the Popemobile ensures that every kiss every embrace is seen by thousands. Popes should be seen as lovable. Being the son of Italian parents is almost as good as actually being Italian and probably the best Italians can hope for in any future Pope and is certainly not a hindrance to filling St Peter's Piazza.

Certainly Francis' message is simple: show mercy and humility, love the poor, be good, don't gossip etc. it is a message even a cynical journalist can understand without it needing to be interpreted, he says the things one might expect any parish priest to say. In a culture where it is quite possible to be a good Catholic and anti-clerical, the slightly subversive Pope plays well, complaining about priest's cars and wanting to fight against Vatican corruption plays well.

The press are always going to do the 'compare and contrast' bit between Francis and Benedict, it is natural and it is also obviously a concern for those inside the Vatican. To some the comparison is disconcerting, it highlights shifting sands, to others to others it is a source of hope or more likely wishful thinking but behind the obvious public image of Francis there is something quite enigmatic, we see him through the media which having been given a certain lead then builds up its own momentum. The reason for expressing these thoughts is that a couple of days ago El Pais came out with the headline: Pope Francis contemplates appointing a female cardinal which has as much substance behind it as so many other speculative pieces about the Pope or his plans for the future but it is emblematic of many of the headlines that appear in the popular media.

As far as Francis' plans for the future are concerned, we know he wants to reform the way in which the Curia operates, we know he wants the Church to be more concerned about mission, there is little more that we know. The amazing thing is that six months into his Papacy for most of us he is still enigmatic, one day saying we say too much about abortion, the next day addressing that very issue, or another talking about freedom from laws, the next excommunicating an unrepentant dissident. For me Francis remains a disconcerting enigma, the problem is separating the spin from the reality.

He cannot change dogma, he can change its expression and presentation, the more he is presented as being likely to change fundamentals of discipline and the way in which ordinary Christian live their faith, the more disconcerting he becomes. The more the media present him as subversive, the sooner he will be forced to show himself as the stable Rock on which the Church is built. A Pope can't base his Papacy on subversion, we know from scripture what happened to house built on sand.

I would put forward one speculation of my own, perhaps in the reform of the Curia Francis himself doesn't yet quite know what he can do, beyond a few small steps and if I am right in my suggestion that he was elected by the Curia's block vote, he doesn't know himself what the Curia will allow him to do either, they of course are the real masters of spin, and illusion too!

Disconcerted by Francis #2

Following on from the previous post, I understand that not a few African bishops have been disconcerted Pope Francis' interview, mainly by his words on homosexuality. As archbishop of Buenos Aires he could tailor his words for his own audience, knowing the reaction of the faithful and to some extent of the local media, as Pope his words are thrown to the four winds and in many places reinterpreted in way to cause the maximum damage the Church.

The proper role of the Pope is to teach and safeguard fundamental Christian principles, it is the role of local bishops to safeguard and to enculturate these principles in the context of the culture in which they are missioning. Fifty years ago it might be possible to make assumptions that western, indeed European culture, with its strong Christian underpinning was superior. In the nineteenth century, and before the Church had flourished in the wake of European colonisation, first of all the Spanish and Portugeuse, then the French and British, and finally the tremendous influence of Americanisation, today there is perhaps much greater cultural diversity and European and Western culture sees itself at enmity with its Christian roots. Just as the age of of monarchy and colonialisation has past, so the age of a strongly centralised Church has past. The centre is not holding.

Pope Francis points us the Orthodox or Byzantine model, presumably because it is also a Catholic model which pre-existed the 19th century Ultramontane doctrine. I have no problem with the doctrines of  Vatican I, I do have problems with how these doctrines became so quickly corrupted by the middle of the 20th century. I remember asking an Orthodox priest historian after an ouzo filled discussion on pre-Great Schism on Church discipline, why he didn't become a Catholic. With a degree of fury he slammed down his glass and said, 'How could I become a subject of the Pope of Rome when he personally can sign a document which abandons two millennia of Tradition'. He was speaking of Paul VI's act of 'abrogation' of the Traditional Liturgy. He saw that act as the fruition of Ultramonatanism: a pen stroke made in Rome that changed the nature of the entire Catholic Church throughout the world.

He suggested that having fruited, the plant had died, because for him as an Orthodox the essential constituents that held the Church, were adherence to the Ecumenical Councils and their Symbols, adherence to to the teachings of the eastern synods, adherence to the writings of the holy Fathers and most importantly adherence to the Sacred Liturgy. In summary it was holding on to that which was passed on, faithfulness to Tradition, that marked the Church and for Orthodoxy guaranteed unity. For him, the West was in a state of disunity; little, except the  historic label seems to mark the Catholic Church's unity and he wondered how long that would last. In many ways he was obviously a little partisan but the observation was interesting.

The problem for Pope Francis' reforms is that the unity that the Liturgy once gave the Church has been severely damaged, it is after all the Liturgy that is the main mark of communion for the billion Catholics throughout the world. The 20th century anti-Traditionalism, which some see as a 'movement', that marked much of the implementation of Vat II could actually be seen as being encapsulated in the Bergoglio Papacy.

What holds Orthodoxy's together is its 'Traditionalism' something which is held in common by bishops, priests and laity. Survey after survey in the Catholic Church seems to suggest there is gulf between the faith of the heirarchy and that of the rest of the billion plus. There is crisis of trust, therefore of unity between people bishops, the upheavals from the Council, the abuse crisis have seriously damaged the trust of both priests and people in their bishops.

Some might well be fearful that the Church can withstand yet another shake up.

I would wonder whether many of our bishops are capable of taking  responsibility for the local Church. The insistence on Catholic doctrine has since the rise of Modernism not been a strong point of Catholic bishops. Local bishops covered up the abuse crisis, it was Rome or rather Pope Benedict who stepped in to cut out the disease. Local bishops dither not knowing how to deal with Catholic politicians who enact laws contrary to the faith, local bishops seem to want to cosy up to the governments or political parties.

The great weakness of taking the Orthodox as a model is that the Church easily becomes a nationalist Church, supporting either the Emperor, or the Sultan or the Czar or even Stalin or as we have seem in Serbia in recent years to its shame was involved in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia.

Disconcerted by Francis?

I was a little disturbed by a comment on a post yesterday.

James said,
I abandoned the SSPX under Pope Benedict XVI but now I wonder if I made the right decision - could they be right? Pope Francis I believe is causing untold damage with his off-the-cuff remarks and style and worse is sowing confusion. Does he realise or even care that his words have been, are and will be misinterpreted and used to justify every error, abuse or heresy? I feel so disconcerted. The Pope seems to imply Catholic doctrine is unimportant really. Some of us try at great sacrifice to adhere to church teaching on issues such as those highlighted. Now we look rather silly. Perhaps I should give it all up. Maybe that's what this Pope wants. Is it wrong to want a Pontificate to end before it destroys ones faith?

I don't think James is alone, I have had similar emails from a few people who are disconcerted by the events in the Church over the last six months. It is not only those who have left the SSPX or thinking about it following the overtures made by Pope Benedict but former Anglicans too. I have had emails from people who are considering changing rites or even joining the Orthodox. But for the most part I get emails from people who are just confused about the direction the Church Francis is taking the Church in. I must be honest and admit I too have problems with him.
My advice, to myself, as much as everyone else is always, pray, remember Christ's promises to Peter, meditate on what the Church teaches about herself, be patient and wait on the Lord, the Master and Bridegroom of the Church who promises to be her us unto the end of time.

As I said in the post James commented on, many younger priest seem equally disconcerted, not on the point of leaving, just at sea. I think some of the statements from one or two of our bishops recently; the push by ACTA and Queering the Church have reflected the confusion Pope Francis has brought to many. Groups like ACTA who don't seem to have a particular agenda just a vague support for that illusive poltergeist, the Spirit of Vatican II, seem to be given strength by things the Pope has said and done. One suspects some bishops are saying things today they would have remained silent about under Benedict, Francis is being used to justify their own disorderly thinking.

The real fear that many have is that if the Church is 'lite' on doctrine and its prayerful expression in the Sacred Liturgy -lex credendi lex orandi- there is a serious danger in Catholicism fragmenting into, not so much a Communion but a loose federation of national Churches, each with their own liturgical styles but more worryingly with their own pick 'n' mix set of beliefs, with little to hold it together and ultimately become something like the Anglicans, with nothing but the label to hold it together. The truth is that this already exists in many dioceses, the orthodox and the extreme liberal  are left to get along as best they can. Outsiders, even many of the faithful, like to see the Catholic Church as being monolithic but the truth is it is already deeply divided, the unity we presume is a long distant memory.

Benedict tried to restore that unity, on one level his resignation was an admission of his failure, Francis is trying another experiment based synodality and collegiality and rather than trying to gloss over the fragmentation, perhaps he is facing it head on. Benedict from the late 1950s onwards predicted a smaller more deeply committed Church, Francis seems to be wanting a larger or at least broader and therefore possibly, less committed Church, but one like Benedict which is seeking Christ.

Could it just be that Francis is being more realistic and more imaginative? Dr Adam DeVille argues as I would argue that the centralised bureaucracy of the late 19th and 20th century which supported a Ultramontane Papacy is an aberration. He quotes Francis:

We must walk together: the people, the bishops and the pope. Synodality should be lived at various levels. Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic. This will also have ecumenical value, especially with our Orthodox brethren. From them we can learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality. The joint effort of reflection, looking at how the church was governed in the early centuries, before the breakup between East and West, will bear fruit in due time…. We must continue on this path.

Francis is realistic enough to recognise that there is actually a problem with unorthodoxy but though Rome can help, its function is not actually to act as policeman but to assist local bishops who should deal with it, he sees orthodoxy as being an issue of concern for local bishops, not something which they ignore:

It is amazing to see the denunciations for lack of orthodoxy that come to Rome. I think the cases should be investigated by the local bishops’ conferences, which can get valuable assistance from Rome. These cases, in fact, are much better dealt with locally.

The problem is useless bishops, as a wise Irish priest I know says, 'Ah, in my day they wouldn't have even been allowed to make their first Holy Communion let alone be made a bishop'. Are our bishops capable of working 'collegiately'? It presumes they share a common faith, and having a sense of the Church.

It is worth noting that again and again Francis criticises careerist bishops, bishops that seek promotion to better Sees, bishops that are airport bishops, bishops that fail to be true fathers to their priests, bishops who spend time out of their dioceses, bishops who don't smell of the sheep, bishops who aren't a sign of asceticism. The major task of Nuncios, for him, is to find good bishops.

He certainly has a different vision of the Church to Benedict but it isn't one in which all the poisons in the mud are left to hatch out.
After reading the interview I am much more impressed with Francis than before, it is easy to see him just as a chatterbox, a popularist, even as a rough gaucho, even at times a buffoon, but read this:

Among musicians I love Mozart, of course. The ‘Et incarnatus est’ from his Mass in C minor is matchless; it lifts you to God! I love Mozart performed by Clara Haskil. Mozart fulfills me. But I cannot think about his music; I have to listen to it. I like listening to Beethoven, but in a Promethean way, and the most Promethean interpreter for me is Furtwängler. And then Bach’s Passions. The piece by Bach that I love so much is the ‘Erbarme Dich,’ the tears of Peter in the ‘St. Matthew Passion.’ Sublime. Then, at a different level, not intimate in the same way, I love Wagner. I like to listen to him, but not all the time. The performance of Wagner’s ‘Ring’ by Furtwängler at La Scala in Milan in 1950 is for me the best. But also the ‘Parsifal’ by Knappertsbusch in 1962.

Those aren't the words of a gaucho but of a deeply sensitive intelligent reflective thinking man who should not be underestimated.

My advice is always, pray, remember Christ's promises to Peter, meditate on what the Church teaches about herself, be patient and wait on the Lord, the Master and Bridegroom of the Church who promises to be her us unto the end of time, and pray for the Pope.