Pope Francis: A Nightmare?

Slate Magazine has run a piece titled “Why Pope Francis may be the Catholic Church’s worst nightmare.” I think it is worth commenting on, because, frankly, it echoes some of my own initial fears. It seems to be written, too, not from the familiar leftist standpoint, but from the less-often heard traditionalist side. The author appears to be a Catholic himself, and a fan of Pope Benedict.

First complaint:

it is one more in the pile of recent Catholic novelties and mediocrities. He is the first Latin American pope, the first Jesuit to be pope, and the first to take the name Francis. And so he falls in line with the larger era of the church in the past 50 years which has been defined by ill-considered experimentation.

Don't Cry over Me, Argentina.

SR:

I would have been concerned about empty novelty myself had the cardinals chosen a pope from Africa, as the media had been urging. It would smack of a cheap gimmick. But the church in Latin America is well-established, as are the Jesuits, and it does not seem as though the college is really rushing into anything after 500 years. And, after the papacies of John Paul II, commonly now referred to as “the Great,” and Benedict, probably the finest mind alive, I am not left with the impression that the Catholic Church has recently descended to mediocrity. Or novelties. Rather, it is the one human institution that has not.

No question, the choice of the name “Francis” signals change, at least in the sense of renewal. But it seems to me uncontroversial that the Church is in need of renewal, just as it was in St. Francis’s time. That is the premise of the “New Evangelism,” the Church’s major current initiative. Europe and America, the traditional seats of Christendom, have fallen into secularism.





Second complaint:

He is not known as a champion of any theological vision, traditional or modern.

SR:

I think this is a good thing. We have had two great theologians in a row, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. We have that area covered for the foreseeable future, and I wouldn’t particularly want someone else coming in and tinkering with it. What we have is fine, and better than fine, exceptional. What is needed now is an administrator and pastoralist to disseminate it and to implement it. It seems as though that is exactly what the cardinals have gone for.

Third complaint:

A contentious reading of Pope Francis’ rise is that Benedict’s enemies have triumphed completely. It is unusual for a one-time rival in a previous election to triumph in a future one.

SR:

Yes, that is surprising; but it seems unlikely that this represents any repudiation of Benedict. In the first place, most of the current cardinal electors were appointed by Benedict himself. Of the rest, a supermajority necessarily voted for Benedict in the last conclave. These are Benedict’s men. They would presumably not have intended any repudiation of Benedict. The more so as he is still alive, and perhaps still writing.

I think it is also worth pointing out that we do not actually know whether Bergoglio was really the runner up to Benedict in the last conclave. We only have the word of an anonymous source that this is so. If that source genuinely is in a position to know this, then he is a perjurer. Not a very reliable source in either case. There have also been claims that the runner up to Benedict was Martini. Who knows?

Not that it matters. Factions are a big deal in electoral politics, but they may not be a significant factor in a conclave. I do not find it difficult to imagine that most cardinals sincerely vote for the person they believe would make the best pope.

Fourth complaint:

He has deep connections to Italy, but little experience with the workings of the Vatican offices. … An older pope who does not know which curial offices and officers need the ax, will be even easier to ignore than Benedict.

SR:

This is a no-win situation. The alternative would have been to appoint someone from within the curia. Would that really have augured better?

No—in business, when you have a mess at the top, the last thing you do is choose the new boss from within the organization. Instead, you look well outside, to someone who will have no ties and no dogs in the internecine squabbles, but who has a reputation for administrative ability and personal incorruptibility. Which is a pretty precise description of Pope Francis.

As to his age lessening his authority—that is a perversity of the modern secular world, but not of the Catholic Church. Age brings wisdom.

Fifth Complaint:

Besides his lack of knowledge of the ins and outs of the Vatican, there is almost no evidence of him taking a tough line with anyone in his own diocese.

SR:

This seems simply not to be true. Reportedly, he took a firm stance against liberation theology as a Jesuit superior, and paid for it. He has also apparently grappled publicly with the Argentine government on several occasions.

Sixth Complaint:

Are we to believe that Buenos Aires has been spared the moral rot and corruption found almost everywhere else in the Catholic clergy? …Presumption and detraction are sins, but Catholics should gird themselves; the sudden spotlight on his reign may reveal scandal and negligence.

SR:

Sure, it may, but this risk would exist about equally with any candidate for the office. You have to trust the Holy Spirit.

Seventh Complaint:

Benedict’s liberation of the traditional Latin Mass and revisions to the new vernacular Mass have not been implemented at all in Cardinal Bergoglio’s own diocese. Already some of the small breaks with liturgical tradition at the announcement of his election are being interpreted as a move toward the grand, unruly, and improvisational style of John Paul II; an implicit rebuke of Benedict.

SR:

This sets up a false opposition between John Paul II and Benedict, who were close collaborators.

The fact that Benedict’s new vernacular mass has not been implemented in Buenos Aires is meaningless, because was only a rewrite of the English mass, and Bergoglio/Francis’s diocese was Spanish-speaking.

Nor does it signify if Benedict’s liberation of the Latin Mass has not caught on in his diocese. Benedict’s innovation was to allow the Latin Mass to be celebrated without special consent from the bishop. If nobody in Buenos Aires chooses to celebrate it, that is obviously no longer a reflection on the bishop.

There are early indications that Francis is less formal about the liturgy than Benedict was, as Benedict was more formal than JPII. These are aesthetic issues. There is no disputing taste.