Maybe Pope Francis is just too affable.
In the Kevin Costner film “Wyatt Earp,” Wyatt tells Ed Masterson that he is too affable. In Masterson’s case, according to the movie, his affability got him killed. But in Pope Francis’ case his affability tends to cause concern for many Catholics.
On top of perhaps being too affable, Pope Francis may also be a tad too loquacious and maybe a bit garrulous. He may even be a bit naïve as well. And he may also be a moderate. This would explain his tendency toward compromise and pragmatism.
Tracey Rowland, theologian, professor, and author, says Pope Francis is also sympathetic to “People’s Theology.”
“People’s Theology,” she says, is “a form of liberation theology which is Peronist rather than Marxist. This means that it is intensely popularist and nationalist. The Peronists prefer the judgments of the “Juan Pablos” (common Joe’s) to those of the educated classes.”
Rowland holds two doctorates in theology. She also has degrees in law and philosophy. So she’s a pretty smart individual. If she thinks Francis leans toward “People’s Theology,” she is probably right.
In Defense of Francis
Admittedly, though, my take on Francis is all conjecture because I’m not one of Francis’ confidants. I’ve never met him so there’s no way I can know for sure how he thinks. All I know about him is based on what he himself says and what others say about him. Most of those ‘others,’ however, don’t know him either.
Many pundits, including a good many Catholics, have accused Pope Francis of being everything from a communist to a heretic. But I’ve tried to follow Catholic teaching in regard to our Pontiff. I try to avoid rash judgment and interpret his words and deeds in a favorable way.
So, while others were calling Pope Francis a Marxist and a heretic I was saying ‘slow down.’ I wrote “Why the Left Wants Conservatives to View Francis as a Liberal” and “Francis is not the Left’s Pope” and “Misreading Pope Francis.” When many wanted to condemn him for footnote #351 in Amoris Laetitia, I suggested a different approach. “Leave The Debate Over Amoris Laetitia To The Theologians,” I said. And when Novus Ordo Watch was highly critical of Pope Francis because “Pope” Francis wants to change the “Our Father,” I was compelled to write that “Pope Francis Just Cannot Catch a Break.”
Pope Francis on Economics
Now, with his remarks on Civil Unions still reverberating, we’ve got his “The Economy of Francesco” event to consider.
It’s not surprising that Francis is concerned about the impact of economics on life and specifically on the lives of the poor. He is, after all, from Argentina, a country that that has more than its share of poverty and has long had severe economic problems.
Argentina’s economic problems were brought on by almost constant revolutions and coups from 1930 through roughly 2003. And Jorge Mario Bergoglio lived through all of it. Knowing Argentina’s history goes a long way toward explaining Pope Francis.
Francis 2013 exhortation Evangeli Gaudium (Joy of the Gospel) caused a minor furor primarily because of one statement on economics:
“…some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”
Reaganites went ballistic. Francis had to explain what he meant many times. Two years later he was still explaining.
In a January 2015 interview in the Italian journal La Stampa, Francis – yet again – clarified his views on capitalism. He said, “When money, instead of man, is at the center of the system, when money becomes an idol, men and women are reduced to simple instruments of a social and economic system.” He added that “We need ethics in the economy, and we also need ethics in politics.”
He was only restating what his predecessors have also said – the economy exists to serve mankind; man does not exist to serve the economy.
Poverty is a problem
Pope Francis, like many people, is undoubtedly very concerned about the world’s problems. He sees poverty as a major problem and he’s said as much on many occasions. So he is willing to listen to anyone who may have a possible solution to the problem of poverty. This explains why people like the pro-abortion Jeffrey Sachs, the leftist former Franciscan priest and one of the founders Liberation Theology, Leonardo Boff, and Hindu activist Vandana Shiva were invited to speak at the conference.
The economic conference was an attempt to find ways to make economies function better. As Francis said to the participants at the end of the conference, there is a “urgent need for a different economic narrative.”
Pope Francis invited the young people present to think out of box. And they did. Some of the “demands” issued by the participants were “bizarre.”
Bridge building
But, as Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas said about Pope Francis in an article in Catholic World Report four years ago, “Unlike many of his modern predecessors – and especially his two immediate predecessors, who were truly extraordinary – he is not particularly endowed with gifts of culture, languages, and broad horizons; nor was his philosophical and theological training very profound.”
Note that last part: his philosophical and theological training was not very profound. This helps explain why he favors People’s Theology, and maybe why he favors moderation and compromise.
So we have a pope who truly cares about everyone – especially the poor. And he wants to bring people to Jesus Christ. But he is a pope who tends toward affability, garrulousness, loquaciousness, moderation, compromise and pragmatism. And his philosophical and theological training was not very profound. Such a combination of character traits does not make for a great pope.
Instead of delivering astute and insightful observations on the tenets of our Faith and God’s laws, Pope Francis seems to be trying to build a bridge between the spiritual and the secular. This is what moderates do. They are bridge builders. It’s almost as if he thinks that if we can just eliminate poverty and get everyone to love and care for their neighbors (and the planet), love of God will follow.
Unfortunately, pragmatic solutions and compromises do not mesh well with God’s truths. Such an approach is fraught with peril because there can be no compromise when it comes to dealing with immorality. And if we truly love God, love of neighbor will follow. It doesn’t necessarily work the other way around.
Problems for priests, too
While his approach to problem solving causes problem for the laity, it’s no less a problem for the clergy. Monsignor Charles Pope provided a parish priest’s perspective on Francis’ latest comments on civil unions.
“As a priest, I can say his remarks here, and in the past, make my work of teaching and preaching a lot harder. Dissenters are emboldened and the faithful are discouraged. It is also very awkward to have to “popesplain” and remind people that private opinions of the pope can be ignored and do not bind. It is even more difficult to say I must publicly disagree with him. Priests and bishops should not be put in this position.”
As I said four years ago, “‘Uber’ Catholics, as Fr. Stravinskas called them, and maybe even some not-so-uber Catholics, have to get over the fact that Francis is not Benedict or John Pall II.” Pope Francis is an Argentinian and the first South American pope. He most likely has quite a different worldview than his predecessors. And, once again (this bears repeating), his philosophical and theological training was not very profound
Many other bishops and priests also make remarks that cause confusion. And the main stream media seems to delight in bending, twisting, and shaping remarks from any cleric and prelate to push the Left’s secular-progressive-socialistic-relativistic views of life. Luckily there’s a simple solution to all this: Tune ‘em out!
Prayer can help
But let’s not tune out Pope Francis. Instead, let’s all be good Catholics. Let’s interpret insofar as possible his thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way. It’s a cinch he’ll never earn the title ‘Pope Francis the Great,’ but he’s doing the best he can.
In his recent article here at CS on Pope Francis’ remarks on civil unions, Scott Davis echoed some of what I’ve been saying for the past five or six years. His final thoughts bear repeating: “Let us pray for the Holy Father and all the bishops, that they provide clarity of teaching and pray for the faithful that we will approach all issues with compassion, humility, and the aid of the Holy Spirit.”
That’s the answer to the question “What are we going to do about Pope Francis?” Pray for him. Pray that the Holy Spirit gives him the gift of wisdom to guide the Church according to Christ’s will.
18 thoughts on “What Are We Going To Do About Pope Francis?”
Pingback: A Simple Change in the Code of Canon Law is Needed - Catholic Stand
The conclusion: While Pope Francis may not be an ideal leader to enforce our Catholic teachings, his inclusive approach to every man & woman on earth (without any judgement), dreams that the world becomes “one” (& the globarization helps it ?).
If it was not for him, our prayer life could’ve been luke warm, but will keep us on toes.
Thank you for your good article, I see your point.
Heretic is too mild of a term to apply to Francis. He is a full blown APOSTATE! He lost all right to deference or respect the moment he venerated Pachamama! The fact he is Marxist is irrelevant.
He “venerated Pachamama?” Where are you getting your information? Nothing could be further from the truth.
When the indigenous Brazilian Catholics first arrived with the Pachamama figure for the tree-planting ceremony in the Vatican Gardens, instead of the talk he planned to give Pope Francis immediately stopped and simply prayed the Our Father without comment. As one commentator said, “Obviously, something was preoccupying — bothering — him.”
If I am going in for surgery, I am not much interested in judging the state of my surgeon’s soul. Maybe he is a warm and considerate husband; maybe he is cold and distant; maybe he is an adulterer. I won’t know, and it is not my business to judge his soul anyway; I’ll leave that for God.
But it is my business to judge the surgeon’s professional record. What is his success rate? What reputation does he have among his former patients and colleagues? Ultimately, can I feel confident putting my life in his hands?
You go to lengths arguing that we should be kind when we judge Pope Francis’s soul. We have no right to judge his soul. His professional record is another matter.
Howard,
What is Francis’ “professional record?” He cannot and has not changed any Catholic dogma or second level truths. He prefers the Novus Ordo Mass to the Traditional Latin Mass, as do many others, and he took JP II’s teaching on the death penalty a step further saying it should never be used instead of rarely used. At worst, he has tinkered a bit with third level truths, “Ordinary Teaching on Faith and Morals.” But if he is bringing souls to Christ that’s not such a bad thing.
As for Communion for the divorced/remarried without an annulment, he said (the famous footnote 351 in Amoris Laetitia) it may be permissible in certain instances, but did not clarify what those circumstances may be. Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Professor of Systematic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit opined this may be a reference to then Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1994 letter on the subject. He could also have been reacting to the situation in Argentina in which it can take up to seven years to get an annulment. You might want to read my article on the Debate over Amoris Laetitia mentioned and linked to in this article.
The bottom line is that he will not drive good, devout Catholics away from the Church because such Catholics know that the pope is not the Church. Yes, he causes some confusion now and then, but if he is bringing people to Christ he is doing his job. (See also my reply to Robert.)
How has he strengthened the Church in China? (He hasn’t; rather the opposite.)
How has he brought more souls to Christ? (He hasn’t. He’s very popular with people who never intended to be Catholic but who like being told they’re OK.)
I could go on, but it’s not a pretty picture.
Maybe he is to the papal office as Freddie Kitchens was to being a head coach: a nice guy, chosen indeed correctly, but showing no record of doing what the job demands. The alternative is to see him as the living embodiment of a Jack Chick flier, which is what he looked like during the whole Pachamama ordeal.
Did God allow him to be elected Pope? Yes. Did God allow the Black Death? Nero? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? God’s permissive will is not an endorsement, and it is not the teaching of the Church that anything more than God’s permissive will is involved with the college of cardinals. Perhaps, though, there is a divine purpose behind Francis’s election: to remind us that we must fix our attention on the True Head of the Church, not on His earthly vicar.
I doubt Francis, coming from Argentina, had any real knowledge of the situation of the Church in China. It’s quite possible he listened to advisors who steered him wrong. At the same time you have absolutely no idea how many souls he has brought to Christ. Your statement is irrational.
Neither you nor I know God’s mind. Maybe He allowed Francis to become pope but maybe He willed it. Again, His ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts.
You have made your opinion of Francis perfectly clear. But in charity I’ll remind you of CCC 2479:
Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
Hi Gene. You are being very kind to Pope Francis and though I worry about him far more than you do, I commend your generosity. As you say, we should pray for him and I do. But having said that, I bristle at the pope’s vitriolic attacks on people like me who stand firmly, in terms of our beliefs (I make no claim to holiness) with regard Catholic doctrine, wanting it taught clearly, unambiguously and uncompromisingly. The pope seems to make a distinction between Catholic doctrine and pastoral outreach. As better theologians than the pope have stated, doctrine and the Church’s pastoral approach stand together. Doctrine guides the Church’s pastoral activity. There can be no division. And as Mark has stated, quite correctly, the pope has surrounded himself with somevery questionable characters after dismissing or sidelining obviously orthodox prelates. Sadly, I cannot be as kind to this man as you. He worries me a lot.
I think the main questions are these.
Should he have our respect because he has earned it, or because of a vote of the college of cardinals? If the former, HAS he earned it?
Should he have our trust because he has earned it, or because of a vote of the college of cardinals? If the former, HAS he earned it?
Is it possible to be sincere about respecting him and trusting him if he has not earned respect and trust? Is it virtuous for us to fake it?
Ultimately: Does he draw converts into the Church? Does he make it easier for people to remain Catholic? Does he make it easier for those who do remain Catholic to lead lives of holiness that will take them to Heaven?
If the Sabbath was made for man, it is even more the case that the papacy was made for the Church, not the Church for the papacy.
Maybe there is only one question: Why did God/Jesus allow Francis to be elected Pope? Perhaps because His ways are not our ways nor His thoughts our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Robert,
Perhaps “vitriolic attacks” is a bit harsh. I don’t think there is any malicious desire (ill will) in anything he says. And while doctrine is clear, both doctrine and its interpretation is Theology. As Dr. Rowland points out in her book “Catholic Theology,” interpretation does vary depending on the school of thought to which you subscribe. Francis is certainly not a Thomist, like Benedict and JP II. He subscribes to “People’s Theology” which helps explain his views.
Francis is not a bad pope, but he is not a Western pope nor is he a Thomist. He sees things differently due to his not so profound philosophical and theological training and having lived in Argentina his entire life. Like many post Vatican II clerics he seems to focus on God’s love and mercy and neglects to mention He is also a just God and that hell is a real place. But he is trying to bring souls to Christ. (See also my reply to Howard.)
Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
CCC 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
– of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
The bishop of Rome knows exactly what he is doing.
Just look at whom he associatives with, his inner circle. Marxists, socialists, atheists and globalists clearly dominate.
Then look at whom he rejects: Burke, Chaput, Vigneron and anything with a trace of Tradition. It’s not rocket science. The bishop of Rome is clearly embarrassed by many things Catholic.
Philosophical and theological training not profound? Well then, dear pewsitters, how the hell did he become a bishop/archbishop/cardinal/pope?
We can begin by asking the St Galen mafia group. Or, review Fr Klovenbach’s letter to Rome stating Bergoglio is “unfit to be become bishop”. That report has disappeared from Jesuit records. Nice, of course it’s gone, imagine that.
Mark, you must know our Holy Father very well indeed to be able to so perfectly interpret his thoughts, motivations, and actions. As I said, I do not.
I also don’t know why Pope St. John Paul II made Jorge Mario Bergoglio a Bishop, an Archbishop, and finally a Cardinal, in spite of Klovenbach’s alleged letter pointing out his flawed character, or why Jesus Christ allowed him to become pope of His Church. It does appear, however, that Klovenbach and Bergoglio were not very fond of one another. And as our Blessed Mother told Sr. Agnes Sasagawa, “”The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops.”
The history of the papacy shows we have had some very bad popes. But despite the bad popes, Christ’s Church is still here, with more members than ever. History will show where Pope Francis stands on the list of popes.
The words of St. Ignatius of Loyola, quoted in the CCC, seem to apply here: “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it, and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love.”
This is one of the most clearly written, explanatory, and just lovely pieces I’ve read in quite a while. May we ignore the fact that I’m just a tad jealous of your gift?
Thank you! And oh, I have to add that I’m an ardent fan of our Pope. I “get” him.
Thank you Ida. May God be with you.