#386: "Habemus Papam": Back to a Relevant Church?

White Smoke = "Habemus Papam"-- But Who?

 As the media continues to analyze the election of Pope Francis I, I am offering some historical perspective:

It took less than 10 minutes for Pope Francis to win over the hearts of millions watching his first appearance on the balconies Saint Peter’s Basilica.  He greeted the crowd with “Buona sera,” invited them to join him in prayer for Benedict XVI, joked about arriving as pope from “the end of the world,” and asked the crowd the favor of praying for him in silence before he blessed them.

Pope Francis I Bows after asking the people to bless him.

 He left smiling, only to come back, and grabbed the microphone again to thank the crowd for coming, and bid them to go home and get some rest, promising he would see them again soon.

We realize how difficult the current moment is for the Catholic Church when we see the way such simple gestures triggered wild and enthusiastic optimism that Francis would bring genuine reform to Catholicism and new hope to the world.

The Argentines unfurled their flag and led the cheers

 Given the crises and divisions within the Catholic world, and the deeper challenges this pope faces (see CrossCurrents #385, The New Pope’s Challenges) it is remarkable yet perhaps also understandable how little it takes to create a sense that this is a turning point.  That is probably because, in matters of faith, style can be just as important as substance.  And this pope has already demonstrated a different style of papacy from his immediate predecessors.

Yes, this pope is a conservative (like virtually all the other cardinals in the conclave.)  But that simply means he is not interested in rewriting or revising church doctrines.  It does not mean that nothing will change.

After all, Blessed Pope John XXIII, perhaps the most beloved pope of the last 100 years, was also doctrinal conservative.  And the council he called, Vatican II, did not even have doctrine on its agenda.  It was a resolutely “pastoral council,” meaning it was more concerned with the way the Church operated in the world, and how it expressed its message, then in any corrections or developments of the message itself.

John was beloved not because he changed church teachings but because he combined a vision for how the Catholic Church could thrive in the modern world with a personal style that made his vision credible, persuasive, attractive, and thus relevant to millions of people around the world.

It is no accident, I think, that three commentators on the PBS coverage following the election of Pope Francis, when asked to compare him to another pope, immediately chose, not Benedict, not John-Paul II, not Paul VI, but John XXIII.

Like John, Francis has been elected at an advanced age, and presumably will serve as a “transition pope” who offers not a long papacy but rather the possibility of a significant shift.  Like John, his bearing is strikingly different from his predecessors, and he already shows an uncanny gift for establishing rapport with ordinary people.

Immediately after his first appearance, media reports had him declining the private car back to his hotel to join the other cardinals on the shuttle bus, and packing his bags and paying his bills by himself “to set a good example.”

My betting is there are many more good examples to come.  And they will not go unnoticed, especially by young people.

Even this early, it does not appear that the shift in style is unintentional.  As many commentators have noted, by choosing to be the first pope called “Francis” this man aligns himself with the popular “grassroots” saints of the Church’s history rather than with its towering hierarchical powers.  Everything we know about his lifestyle and his work with the poor suggests that the conclave chose this Jesuit as pope knowing full well that this would shift the focus of Catholic life almost overnight.

My daughter once told me “Dad, when you say ‘Catholic’ you mean social justice; that’s not what ‘Catholic’ means to most people.” I suspect my two sons would agree with her, and they would all be right on both counts.  I do mean social justice when I say “Catholic,” and I have found, in more than 40 years of parish work, that social justice still remains on the margins of most people’s Catholic identity.  For most, it has yet to become a core element in their faith.

But my three kids are all graduates of Jesuit institutions, and from the beginning to the end of their days in those schools they repeatedly heard the phrase “educating men and women for others,” and they also heard about the “preferential option for the poor.” They knew that, in theory at least, the Jesuits and the institutions they ran stood for a tradition of public and social service designed to build the solidarity of the human family and even peace in the world.

None of this represents anything new in Catholic doctrine.  But with this Jesuit pope it could represent something new in the way the Catholic Church styles itself before the rest of the world.

CrossCurrents readers are familiar with two themes in my recent work.  First: the papacy itself has been in transition ever since the election of John XXIII.  Second: too often in recent years the hierarchy has created the public impression of being obsessed with matters sexual.

Pope Francis can act on both these fronts to dramatic effect.  His personal behavior, manner, and style can further transform the papacy from the stern imperial monarchy of the early 20^th century to the new mold of the public servant of all peoples everywhere—a people’s papacy. 

And his actions and teachings can shift our focus away from a preoccupation with sex to a focus on the true joys and sorrows of a world struggling to overcome injustice and groping blindly for peace.

Liberal Catholics remember with great fondness the euphoria about Catholic renewal that followed Vatican II in 1965, but they often forget that this had nothing to do with dramatic changes in official teachings.  It had to do with (1) the retrieval of many ancient values and concepts that had been lost along the way, and with (2) the suddenly extroverted style of a papacy and a Church that for too long had been closeted behind the Vatican walls.  These two shifts--a mining of ancient resources and an opening of church windows to modern life--enabled the Church to begin a new kind of dialogue with contemporary life and build bridges to people well beyond the boundaries of the Catholic population.

That began again last night when the pope stressed that his blessing was not just for the people in Saint Peter’s Square and not even only for the planet’s 1.2 billion Catholics; instead he offered his blessing to “All people of goodwill everywhere.”

It may be too early to predict, yet it is high time for the hope, that this pope will complete the transformations begun by John XXIII, put a renewed partnership of Church and world back on the map of Catholic action, and show the way for our Church to reach out to all people of goodwill and once again make the Catholic Church what its mission calls it to be: a global force for good in the world.

If that happens, Pope Francis may take us back to the future that we believed in, once upon a time, a time when the Church was still relevant.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2013

#385: The New Pope's Challenges

Some thoughts on the as-yet unfinished papal election: 

Black Smoke From Ballot #1

       The conclave’s first day has produced only black smoke.  Wall-to-wall coverage will continue, and millions will watch, until white smoke announces the election of the new pope and he appears before the masses in Saint Peter’s Square and the world’s TV screens.

If nothing else, the Catholic Church is good theater, and the conclave’s very secrecy generates the ironic suspense that comes when the players know more than the audience.

Some alienated Catholics, especially in North America, remain immune to a spectacle that offers no choice of movement on issues like contraception, same-sex marriage, or women priests.  For them, the whole papal election--indeed the papacy itself--is largely irrelevant.  That cuts both ways, of course: their concerns are largely irrelevant to judging what difference the new pope might make.

Since all 115 electors were handpicked by either John-Paul II or Benedict XVI, we know in advance that on major church teachings, as well as on the most controversial minor ones (mostly about sex and gender), the next pope, no matter who he is, will bring continuity rather than change.

But within the mainstream of that continuity are several challenges facing whoever is elected, and we will measure his success based on (1) how he sets his priorities and (2) how the engages them.

CrossCurrents readers know my take on this: the new pope inherits a 50-year process that has transformed the papacy itself, and our current challenges call for further transformation.  For me, this means taking action on several fronts:

Corruption and hypocrisy.  The fallout of the sex-abuse scandal is a widespread (and still spreading) perception of the Catholic Church is an institution steeped in malfeasance and cover-ups.  We cannot expect the next generation to invest themselves or their children in the Church unless that perception changes.  This will take visible action at all levels, and could take an entire papacy—or more—to accomplish.  So from the start, the new pope must bring a forthright and upright presence to his role by establishing accountability at all levels of the hierarchy.

Housecleaning.  Fifty years ago John XXIII hung the renewal of Catholicism on three things: Vatican Council II (1962-1965), the revision of canon law (moderately revised in 1983), and the reform of the curia (Vatican bureaucracy).  Since then, the curia is more international and has fewer minor clerics holding too much authority, but it remains an isolated bureaucracy.  Too many of its bishops are too far (in place or time or both) from the experience of day-to-day church life.

At Vatican II the curia’s scheme for a quick, do-nothing rubber stamp council exploded when the world’s bishops balked at being bossed by bureaucrats and recreated a meaningful council agenda.  The result: Vatican II was truly the product of the Church’s shepherds, not its bureaucrats.

But 50 years later the bureaucrats are back in charge (and often committing grievous errors of governance).

The last two popes not only allowed the world’s bishops to languish (the occasionally convened Synod of Bishops became increasingly toothless under John-Paul II and Benedict XVI), they also neglected their own responsibility to manage the curia.

The new pope will need to reassert the right order of things: his place as the leader of all bishops, with the curia under their direction.

On pilgrimage.  Since Paul VI, the papacy has become a pilgrim post, no longer secluded away in the Vatican but traveling the world’s continents to make the Church’s presence and mission visible in human form. His successors followed his example, but lost control of day-to-day management.

 The challenge facing the new pope: how can he continue this global presence but keep control of what goes on in Rome?  It will help if he is truly a man of the world, a people’s pope, rather than a closeted cleric.

Evangelizing.  Worldwide Catholicism continues to grow, but not everywhere: it is losing relative ground in Latin America, it is losing absolute numbers in North America (and only avoids shrinking thanks to millions of immigrants), and is nearly moribund in much of Europe.

Vatican II aimed to enrich the secular the world with gospel values by reaching out, by engaging in what Paul VI called “a conversation with the entire world.” But in many places that conversation has broken down even among our own members.

My view is simple: since Vatican II, secular culture has outrun Catholic renewal, and we risk falling further behind unless the new pope can preserve and rekindle the flame of renewal.  If Vatican II sought to assert Catholicism as a world church, the new pope must solidify the papacy’s role in world leadership.

These four challenges are central to the new pope’s success.  My own conviction is that such challenges are too big for one man to tackle solo.  Upon his own election in 1958, John XXIII knew he needed help to face post-war modernity, so he called the world’s bishops to convene in council.  In so doing he dispelled a century-old myth that the pope could lead the church alone.  We should hope and pray that the new man thinks like John, and mobilizes his bishops to join him in leading the way ahead.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2013

#384: The Pope, the Bible, and the Drones

As we wait for the conclave to begin the election of a new pope, three small random observations:

RECUSED: Cardinal O’Brien of Scotland has recused himself from the conclave after allegations of personal sexual misconduct surfaced last month. But Los Angeles’ Cardinal Roger Mahony is in Rome, still determined to participate in the voting despite revelations of (and his apologies for) covering up priestly sexual abuse during his time as Archbishop of LA. This has sparked widespread protests by Catholics who regard his participation as scandalous. But Mahoney’s participation pales next to the truly horrific irony from the last conclave, which elected Benedict XVI. At the time (2005), Sean O’Malley had become Archbishop of Boston but was not yet made a cardinal. Meanwhile Bernard Law, despite his resignation in disgrace from Boston (epicenter of the sex abuse crisis) in 2002, retained his red hat and resided in Rome. So it was that Bernard Law, despite being the scandal's cover-up poster boy, participated and voted in the 2005 conclave--but Boston (the #4 Diocese in the US) had NO VOTE OR VOICE in choosing the next pope! At least this time that is rectified: Law is too old to vote this time, and Cardinal O'Malley will able cast his vote in Boston’s behalf.

BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS: The History Channel has been running a multi-part Lenten series on the Bible, but it took only 5 minutes (on the destruction of Sodom and the fate of Lot’s wife) to form my reaction. Aside from the arch acting style and the surfeit of special effects, the movie most resembles the sand-and-sandal sagas from 1950s Hollywood (see Cecil B. DeMille's “The Ten Commandments”) in portraying Bible narratives as literal events—as “history.” This plays neatly into the rising dominance of evangelical Christianity’s belief in literal interpretation of the bible. Unfortunately, surveys show that the majority of Catholics (and an even larger percentage of regular Mass-goers)  go right along with biblical literalism, even though Catholic teaching has made plain since at least the 5^th century that, with much of the bible, interpreting literally yields distortion of the text and its meaning. Let’s hope most Catholics skip this sort of fundamentalist propaganda.

ANTI-WAR GOP? With Sen.  Rand Paul's filibuster against the use of drones to kill US Citizens, the GOP may have begun re-branding itself on foreign and military policy. Instead of being merely the party that never met a war it didn’t like, growing numbers of party leaders see the risks militarism is posing to both human rights and the constitutional balance of power. For Catholics, this can only be welcome: since most drone use is almost certainly a violation of the Catholic Just War Theory, and since the Obama administration is, if anything, even more aggressive in promoting the use of drones to kill, opposition from the other side of the aisle may compensate for the fact that Democrats, even of the “left,” have been largely silent about the possible breach of international law, violations of humans rights, and even constitutional abuse of presidential power.

©Bernard F. Swain 2013

 

#268: Benedict Goes Outside the Box

Pope John-Paul II famously rejected "liberation theology," and in the process undermined the radically progressive social teachings of his predecessor, Paul VI.  Ironically, the "conservative" Benedict XVI personally took up the challenge of reviving Paul's social vision--thus proving that his resignation was not the first time Benedict defied expectations. Here (from 2009) is my last retro-piece before Benedict leaves tomorrow:

 

After more than 35 turbulent years working in the Catholic Church, I often wonder "Why work here?"

Benedict XVI’s new social encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” ("Charity in Truth") confirms my habitual answer, reminding me of a simple but unheralded fact: few institutions can match the world vision of the Roman Catholic Church (despite all the Church’s flaws).  It's a vision that offers a depth, balance, and wisdom far beyond any corporation, university, or political party I know -- especially because it consistently goes "outside the box" of conventional ideologies. 

A Surprise From The Pope. Benedict largely confirms and updates previous Catholic social teachings, without breaking dramatic new ground.  But he does so in a way that greatly surprised me. 

After all, Joseph Ratzinger abandoned his "progressive” identity 40 years ago, becoming first a champion among theological "conservatives," then serving as "Vatican watchdog," and finally succeeding his conservative mentor John-Paul II as pope.  Yet he centers his first social encyclical on the very document that many regard as the most progressive, even radical, of all papal pronouncements: Paul VI’s “Populorum Progressio” (“The Progress of Peoples,” 1967). 

Conservatives have long labeled “Populorum Progressio” an "odd duck" among papal writings, and even social progressives like Father Andrew Greeley found it uncomfortably close to left-wing radicalism.  Many believed that the subsequent political turmoil of 1968 -- the same turmoil that scared Ratzinger off his progressive agenda -- proved that Paul VI was a naive romantic. 

Yet here is Benedict, writing to assess the 40 years since “Populorum Progressio,” and finding it is not only still relevant but even vital for understanding the challenges of our day. 

Modern Catholic social doctrine has been largely shaped by papal encyclicals, beginning with Leo XIII’s "Rerum Novarum" ("Of New Things," 1891) and continuing with major contributions by Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John-Paul II. 

Rerum Novarum launched this modern era in Catholicism's worldview by focusing the Church's attention on "the social question." This phrase, a household word among thinkers and leaders between 1870 and 1914, questioned the circumstances in which Europe’s newly-emerged working classes were laboring and living.  Those raising "the social question" -- including Pope Leo XIII -- wondered why the emergence of competitive market societies (modern capitalism) had not produced the "liberty, equality, fraternity" expected of modern democracies.  With Rerum Novarum, the Catholic Church joined forces with those who believed that social reforms and political intervention might be required to correct the injustices of "unbridled capitalism."

Paul VI: Prophet of Globalization.  Papal encyclicals after 1891 amplified or updated Rerum Novarum, but in 1967 Paul VI attempted a more ambitious project: Totally re-framing the social question in light of the new global era emerging in the 1960s due to decolonization, air transportation, mass media, and multinational corporations.

 While American politics was still obsessing over tensions between capitalist West and communist East, Pope Paul was already focused on relations between the rich North and the poor South, and he re-set the social question on a new basis: development.  "Development," he famously said, "is the new name for peace."

Paul did not use the term "globalization," but his vision of an emerging new world order scared off many readers, so that Populorum Progressio has languished in a neglected state, even as globalization itself has blossomed into a dominant force in our social, political, and economic lives.

Benedict's surprise move is to refocus attention squarely on Populorum Progressio, even calling it "the Rerum Novarum of our time." In effect, this Pope, writing in the enormous wake of John-Paul II, has ironically cast himself as the champion of Paul VI’s world vision.  Indeed, the simplest way to grasp the gist of Caritas in Veritate’s 144 pages is to understand that Benedict wants to accomplish two things: (1) he wants to affirm the vision and message of Populorum Progressio, and (2) he wants to update that vision to preserve its relevance. 

The Vision of Paul VI.  Benedict's full title is "On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth." Here he adopts Paul VI’s notion that our era's principle challenge is to achieve, not just any development, but the kind of development that will fulfill humanity's true calling and destiny. 

For Benedict, this Integral Human Development (“IHD”) cannot be achieved by mere technological progress; it must also incorporate a special kind of love -- "charity in truth" -- that goes beyond sentimentality to achieve real fraternity rooted in our true nature as God's chosen ambassadors. 

Following the lead of both Vatican II and Paul VI, Benedict sees our time facing one principal risk: that the globalized world’s de facto interdependence will not be matched by the moral dynamics needed for "truly human development."

That's why, for Benedict, Populorum Progressio remains a landmark in Catholic social doctrine.  It was Paul VI who saw that "the social question had become worldwide," and who proclaimed that the Church's life must aim to promote IHD.  Indeed, he taught that development is the heart of the Christian social message, and that Christian charity is a principal force in promoting IHD worldwide. 

For ordinary Catholics, the implications are profound.  We cannot be truly Catholic without embracing the Christian social message -- and we cannot do that without committing ourselves to development.  The rest of Caritas in Veritate simply spells out what that means. 

The Church’s Goal: Global Fraternity. But first Benedict invokes one more of Paul VI’s ideas.  If the world lacked true development in 1967-- and if IHD is even more lacking 40 years later-- the main causes are not material (lack of money, resources, institutions, or legislation).  The main causes are lack of wisdom and a lack of brotherhood. In calling for social reforms aimed at "the establishment of authentic fraternity," Benedict offers this comment as the keystone of his entire encyclical:

As society becomes more globalized, it makes us neighbors but does not make as brothers.

Benedict then devotes a chapter to surveying the changes since Populorum Progressio -- the shifts in economic, political, and social life that require updating Paul VI’s account of IHD. 

He deplores that 40 years of expanding global wealth have not reduced what Paul VI called "the scandal of glaring inequalities."

He notes that national governments no longer control commerce in an age of mobile capital, production, and labor.

He warns that globalization threatens to downsize the social safety nets for needy people. 

He admits that trade unions face new difficulties in outsourcing and unemployment. 

He fears that the commercialization of world culture threatens to extremes: a parallelism where different cultures share no dialogue, and a leveling where cultures lose all their traditional identity. 

Benedict finds hunger, respect for life, and religious freedom all struggling to progress, and laments that scientific knowledge and ethical wisdom do not collaborate better. 

In sum, Benedict says all these new elements "require new solutions" -- solutions that will redistribute global wealth, prioritize full employment, protect workers' rights, and create more humane living for all.  Without such solutions, he warns, globalization could "cause unprecedented damage and create new divisions within the human family."

In restoring Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio to prominence, Benedict has gone outside the box of both his own conservative reputation and of conventional interpretations of Catholic Social Doctrine. On top of that, his proposed “new solutions” will go outside the box of conventional American politics.

              © Bernard F. Swain PhD 2009