RIP Francis

 

Pope Francis has died. 

No good honest Catholic should mourn.

Not because he was a bad pope. Because he lived 88 years. If he was a good man, he now has his reward. He is to be congratulated on the promotion. If he was a bad man, he had opportunity enough to repent if he were going to. Either way, time to move on.

Some are accusing JD Vance of killing the pope. I think there may be some truth to that. Francis was obliged to allow Vance an audience, since he had just granted one to the King of England. It would have been scandal had he not. But I imagine it was uncomfortable for him, as they had publicly clashed in the recent past. And I think Francis had reason to feel guilty about it: not only was it not his place to interfere in US politics, but I believe Vance’s position was sounder on Catholic doctrine than his own. He was playing politics at the expense of the faith.

In the video of their meeting, Francis seems to have difficulty looking Vance in the eye.

He died the next morning of a stroke and a heart attack. 

Commonly the result of stress or sudden shock.

According to one journalist who interviewed him. Francis did not believe in hell. He thought that, if one did not deserve heaven, the soul simply evaporated. He may find out now if he was right. Or rather, if he was wrong. If he was right, he may never know.

Francis was a bad pope. The whole job of a pope is to give clear guidance: to lead the faithful like a shepherd. Pope Benedict was magnificent on this; Pope John Paul II was great on this. Francis failed on this, as did, by and large, Pope Paul VI. His pronouncements were relentlessly ambiguous. The result is always discord in the church; and in individual souls. Sheep stray, confused.

It is folly to predict who will next be pope. It is usually a surprise, and there is a rush to figure out who this guy is.

But there are general trends. The decisive John XXIII was followed by the over-cautious, ambiguous Paul VI, who seemed mostly a manager. The prevaricating Paul was followed by John Paul I, but for only a month; then by John Paul II. JPII was decisive, to balance Paul, and young and full of energy, to balance the frail JPI. 

JPII’s pontificate was successful enough that Benedict was named—a rare case when the successor was obvious; the effective second in command. 

However, returning to form, the decisive Benedict was followed by the managerial and prevaricating Francis.

It follows that we can have some hope that the cardinals will settle now on someone strong on doctrinal clarity; and not, as many fear, a “Francis 2.0.”

Here’s praying.

Lead Us Not into Temptation

 

I hear Pope Francis has changed the words to the Lord’s Prayer in the Italian mass. “Lead us not into temptation” is now, in English translation, “do not abandon us to temptation.”

Francis has spoken of this before. I recall him saying years ago that “lead us not into temptation” is a bad translation. God, after all, would never lead us into temptation.

But it is not a bad translation. The words in the original coine Greek, and in the Latin of the Vulgate, do translate to English as “lead us not,” and cannot be made to mean “do not abandon us.”

And this wording is given us by Jesus himself. Francis is presuming to correct Jesus. If that is permissible, what is forbidden? Is self-will  and our own judgement sovereign in the universe?

I also think Francis is theologically wrong. Although it is a mystery, some of us clearly are led into temptation, in a way others are not. This has to be God’s will, since God is all-powerful. God tempts us. 

He tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He need not have created that particular tree, of forbidden fruits. He need not have given them free will. He need not have allowed the serpent. It was a setup.

Some of us are patently tempted to have homosexual sex; some are not. Some are tempted by alcohol, or gambling; others are not. Say this is from the Devil, and not God; nevertheless, the Book of Job tells us, God gives permission. If he does not tempt us himself, he leads us into temptation. As with Job, he is testing us.

When I was a kid in Catholic school, I understood the prayer well enough. I feared martyrdom, the temptation to renounce the faith in the face of torture and death. Some are put to that test. I did not want that temptation. 

And that, of course, is the temptation Jesus himself faced. 

Please make it easy for me if you can, Lord. Take this cup from my lips, if it is acceptable to your will.

And consider this. If the meaning is “do not abandon us to temptation,” this asserts that, at the moment of temptation, God abandons us. 

This thought is nightmarish. And it implies that, if tempted, one cannot, need not, resist.

The Synodal Way and the Narrow Way

 

A prayer intention that I had not heard before was added to the mass this Sunday: “Lord, keep us in communion with the Holy Father, Pope Francis in Rome.” 

This is perhaps an indication of the turmoil in the church: schism seems a possibility, perhaps immanent. And if it happens, Francis is responsible. It is he who is stirring things up. The latest word is of a proposed reconciliation with the Freemasons. Whom prior popes stretching back centuries supposedly simply misunderstood. 

Good Catholics do not know which way to turn. If good Catholics are now to believe that the popes and councils prior to Francis got it wrong, how can we have confidence that Francis has it right? On what authority?

“The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
Has crossed the threshold and it has overturned the order of the soul”

I have no sense that the local bishop, or the local priest, are particularly traditionalist. Some parishioners clearly are. The weekly bulletin dutifully reports on the synod on synodality in the same terms used by the Vatican. It calls for a “listening church,” seeking to know what the Holy Spirit wants. And reports that two representatives from the parish will be sent to a new regional synodal confab in March.

Given that there is a continuing need to know what the Holy Spirit wants, that the Holy Spirit has perhaps changed His mind on something, how does one discern what the Holy Spirit wants? How does one listen to the Holy Spirit?

The path is well known and marked. It does not have to do with meeting in groups. In such groups, one is not listening to the Holy Spirit. The voice of the Spirit is there drowned out by human voices. One goes out into the desert, alone. Or to the monastic cell.

Abraham did not hear the voice of God by listening to the polytheists around him, but by breaking away from them, packing his bags and leaving Ur. Noah likewise; his neighbours no doubt thought him mad. Lot likewise; he was not even to look back on the cities of the plain. Moses likewise; he met God in the desert, as a fugitive. Elijah or Isaiah likewise; John the Baptist likewise. 

The synodal way of breaking into small groups to discuss topics for three minutes each, is not listening to the Spirit, but to the world.

On Responsible Henhouse Management

 

Why is the government of Canada, the USA, and the Catholic Church now so historically awful?

It is simple. We have the foxes in charge of the henhouse. 

Trudeau dislikes Canada; he says there is no Canadian mainstream. It’s all just a romper room to him. Not admirable, like China.

Biden and his backers consider “Make America Great Again” an objectionable sentiment. They’re explicitly not on the side of America.

And would anyone who loves Catholicism and its traditions want to prohibit its central ritual for centuries, the Latin mass? A recent commentator insists that the modernists are well-intentioned, and think they are saving the church. I do not believe it. You do not increase your appeal by denying some option.

Of course these people are going to do what they can to trash the place while they have the chance. 

One might ask, would a moral person seek and accept a position running an institution they despise? Isn’t this deceitful? 

But we needn’t assume these are moral people. It would still be a good career move.

We can’t do much about Francis, but as voters, it was also unwise to put someone who condemns “populism” in charge of a democracy.

I hope there is still enough love for Canada, for America, and for God Incarnate, among ordinary people, those of the Beatitudes, that we can outlast this, outvote this, and salvage it all.

Personal Identity and Peace

That little dickens Pope Francis is at it again, twittering and tweeting.

It occurs to me that Francis, unlike Trump, probably does not write his own tweets. Certainly not in English. Still, I wish someone would confiscate the smartphone.

Here’s the latest:

So what does it mean? How do you “violate” someone in their “personal identity”? By forgetting their name?
Given the pronouns “his” and “her,” I hope he means not calling women women, or men, men. Would that be too much to hope?

But there are a lot of other possibilities, and just about all of them are problems for Catholic theology.

More fundamentally, it is bad practice to stress the notion of “personal identity.” It ought not to be all about me. Nor about the silly roles society assigns us. There is, after all, no man or woman, no Jew nor Greek, nor Samaritan, in Christ.

We are children of God, brothers and sisters, and it is our unity which ought to be emphasized.

Whatever he meant, it is unhelpful to sow woodland herrings in this way.

Jesus's Teaching on Non-Violence

Pope Francis has been tweeting again. He writes:



First problem is that word “today.” It suggests that the requirements for being a follower of Jesus have changed, and even recently. That sounds like the heresy of modernism.

And what teaching is he referring to about “nonviolence”? “Nonviolence” is actually the English translation of the Sanskrit “ahimsa.” It is an ancient Indian philosophy, originating with Jainism. It is not, that is to say, a Christian doctrine. Yet Francis suggests that Christians must accept it in order to be “true” followers of Jesus.

How’s that for muddying the waters concerning Catholic teaching. And he even seems conscious of the fact that he is adding something not originally there: note the word “also.”

They pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help.-- Matthew 23:4

The Jain advocacy of “nonviolence,” originally involving not just pacifism, but vegetarianism, nudism, and not swatting at insects, was taken up by Mahatma Gandhi and used as a practical tool in the Indian independence movement. It was then adopted by Martin Luther King for the civil rights struggle in the US. This has given it a certain modern prestige. It works, in large part by claiming the moral high ground for whatever it advocates. It seems like a good thing.

But that does not make it a part of Christian teaching.

To be fair, Gandhi himself did claim he got his inspiration not solely from Jainism. He pointed to the Sermon on the Mount as seeming to him to preach something similar. But then, this was also wise strategically, in appealing to the Christian English. He also claimed to find the principle in Judaism and Islam.

Presumably he, Gandhi, refers specifically to the famous “turn the other cheek” passage:

“38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

It surely sounds like a related concept. But to call it “nonviolence” is misleading. Note the entire passage:

“40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”

Not hitting back at one who slaps you involves renouncing violence. But not refusing your cloak, or a loan, does not. Violence or non-violence, in other words, is not the issue here. It is rather a call to return love for hate.

Compare Rosa Park’s famous action in refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus in 1955. This is the most famous single act of “non-violence,” the classic example. But does it follow Jesus’s teaching? Clearly not.

Jesus had no problem with violence as such. He refused to condemn soldiers, he advised his apostles to buy a knife, he cleared the moneychangers from the temple, he said “I come not with peace but the sword.” Violence has its place.

It is really not helpful for a pope to be promoting such confusion. I understand that Francis is not interested in theology or doctrine, that his emphasis is pastoral.

Even so: surely it is the first responsibility of a shepherd that he not lead his flock astray?