Conservative dissent is brewing inside the Vatican

[Lilllabettt]

I don't think the Vatican is a pool of tranquillity and unity right now and I also don't deny that there is factionalism in the Church, but I'm very interested in how secular press and to a certain extent lay Catholics are playing into that. Unless the Pope is telling us to do something objectively sinful, my approach is to see how I can learn from his approach. While Christ knew we needed a shepherd, he never said that we would always like the direction in which the shepherd took us - it's only reasonable that sometimes we are going to be challenged. However, sometimes we seem to gauge how right the Pope is by the degree to which we agree with him and like him, and I don't think this is helpful.

I am also uncomfortable with the idea of promotion and demotion within the Church, as though we're a business corporation and a person's influence is contingent on the position they hold. Yes, I know that there are power struggles within the hierarchy and the Church is never going to be free of internal politics so long as senior clergy are human too, but If you accept that one of the greatest missionaries of modern times was a young nun who never left her Carmel it does start to seem a bit futile to think in those terms.

I think we may be talking past each other. I have no particular interest in figuring out whether the Pope is "right."  One, because the Holy Spirit was not involved in me getting picked to be Pope, and so I am at a distinct disadvantage in evaluating whether he is right. Two, because my opinion does not matter. The Pope does what he wants. He is not waiting for me to return his phone call.

You suggested the media, on account of having no clue about religion in general and Catholicism in particular, is citing a bunch of non-evidence to prove the existence of a fictitious power struggle in the Church. And I am responding that while the media does sex stuff up, they are on to something here. Cardinal Burke is not just trying to educate the media about how the Church works.

There are always in-fights with the Church. But right now the factionalism and power struggle is at its most intense since you or I have been alive.

It is silly imo to plug one's ears and pretend "this is not happening." 

You may be uncomfortable with the idea of promotion and demotion within the Church, but it is a thing, and it is used by the Pope (all Popes, not just this one) to limit the influence of particular prelates. No doubt Cardinal Burke can have tremendous influence through prayer. The Pope did not send him off to Malta because the position allows for more influence through prayer. Please note I am not commenting on the wisdom of demoting Cardinal Burke. But it was a demotion. 

[bardegaulois]

 

So, would you prefer he quote from the Catechism instead, so the media can have the headline, "Pope calls gay people disordered". Which is also not what the Church teaches? Seems like your problem is with the media.

Actually, I would prefer that he quote from the catechism. The press (and, yes, I have a big problem with them) would have a bellyache, no doubt, just like they did every time Pope St John Paul and Pope Benedict simply presented Christian doctrine that didn't fit their worldview. Remember that? And yet in the face of that, perhaps even because of that, more orthodox and traditional Catholics were emboldened in their stance against secular society. Now the trend seems to be toward such statements friendlier to secular society (assuming they're spoken or released with the foreknowledge of how the press will twist them), particularly as it seems to be going off the rails nowadays.

Residing in a fairly liberal-Catholic area, I'm already a sort of an internal exile. So what am I doing? Something not unlike what Rod Dreher called the Benedict Option, if anyone is familiar with that.

[StMichael]

And it's not new. This from Burke about a year ago, right after the conclusion of the first phase of the synod: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/31/cardinal-catholic-church-pope-francis-ship-without-rudder/. This from Crux, at about the same time: http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/16/will-conservatives-turn-on-pope-francis/. This from Chaput: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/21/archbishop-chaput-blasts-vatican-debate-family-says-confusion-devil/. It's almost a media trope right now. Yes, lots of Catholics of more traditional or conservative attitudes have been very frustrated with Francis since almost the beginning of his pontificate. I'm actually one of them. Moreover, this number includes a good share of clergy and prelates in good standing, not merely Lefebvrists or the like. This is not news, because it's not new.

All depends on when you have been exposed to it. In my case, it is news. Whenever a group of devote, obedient Catholics gather, each wait to ask the dreaded question, What do you think about Pope Francis? From there the floodgates open. Respectful, but baffled. But most certainly extremely concerned with how the Pope is sending the wrong message to the world, is not highlighting the Christian holocaust in the middle east and instead is defying centuries of teaching and traditional for what, no one knows. And this feeling is shared by the clergy and nuns at my parish. By all outward appearances, Pope Francis is fundamentally changing the Church, maybe not by doctrine, but by allowance. To those Catholics in name only, from Biden to Pelosi, etc. Pope Francis has assisted their positions, their mangling of the faith. Today, California has instituted a suicide law, allowing one to kill themselves. Gov. Brown is a supposed Catholic. He will no doubt sign this into law as "who is he to judge?" No word from Pope Francis on the amazing leaps and normalization of grave sins, from same sex marriage to beheadings. But plenty on anti-capitalism to global warming.

[dUSt]

Moving to Debate Table

Edited September 9, 2015 by dUSt

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Each Pope being an individual will govern in their own way.  Call me naive but I personally believe the Pope is allowing things to play out like this in order to find out who is who within the Church.  The fact of the matter is there are dangerous extremists on both ends and we need to pray that healing and orthodoxy prevail, because in the end there are no conservatives or liberals in the Church.  There are just orthodox and heterodox Catholics.  

[Amppax]

I love our Holy Father, tremendously. I think he's an excellent Pope in many ways (particularly, I admire his incredible love for the poor, and some of the work he is doing to reform the Curia, though that seems to be on hold at the moment). However, I don't think it's unreasonable to wish that he expressed himself more clearly (Even Fr. Lombardi, his press secretary, has said as much), or to think that at times he's demeaned certain sub-groups within the Church (although I don't necessarily think the example given above is the best example of this). All that means, really, is that I think he's human. Just like I thought Benedict was, and (gasp!) just as St. John Paul II was (Legion of Christ, anyone?). 

I was actually talking to one of the professors at Franciscan this evening, and he made the excellent point that there has been a somewhat skewed emphasis on the Pope following Vatican II. Prior to recent centuries, it wouldn't be uncommon for Joe Catholic to be unaware who the Pope even was! Obviously, that won't be the case ever again, given modern communication, but the point is that the average Catholic's current knowledge of papal/Vatican affairs is disordered (not exactly the right word, but we'll go with it.) Case in point, something Francis has emphasized tremendously (ironically) is empowering diocesan bishops, and lessening the centralization of the Church in some respects. I'm fairly confident our Holy Father would be the last person to subscribe to an ultramontane view of his office, not that I'm necessarily saying anyone here is. It's just interesting that the Pope has become, in some respects, more important following the council, given it's emphasis on collegiality. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I love our Holy Father, tremendously. I think he's an excellent Pope in many ways (particularly, I admire his incredible love for the poor, and some of the work he is doing to reform the Curia, though that seems to be on hold at the moment). However, I don't think it's unreasonable to wish that he expressed himself more clearly (Even Fr. Lombardi, his press secretary, has said as much), or to think that at times he's demeaned certain sub-groups within the Church (although I don't necessarily think the example given above is the best example of this). All that means, really, is that I think he's human. Just like I thought Benedict was, and (gasp!) just as St. John Paul II was (Legion of Christ, anyone?). 

I was actually talking to one of the professors at Franciscan this evening, and he made the excellent point that there has been a somewhat skewed emphasis on the Pope following Vatican II. Prior to recent centuries, it wouldn't be uncommon for Joe Catholic to be unaware who the Pope even was! Obviously, that won't be the case ever again, given modern communication, but the point is that the average Catholic's current knowledge of papal/Vatican affairs is disordered (not exactly the right word, but we'll go with it.) Case in point, something Francis has emphasized tremendously (ironically) is empowering diocesan bishops, and lessening the centralization of the Church in some respects. I'm fairly confident our Holy Father would be the last person to subscribe to an ultramontane view of his office, not that I'm necessarily saying anyone here is. It's just interesting that the Pope has become, in some respects, more important following the council, given it's emphasis on collegiality. 

Not sure if you are familiar with Banished Heart by Geoffrey Hull, but he makes a similar point. Although he traces it back to the formation of the Jesuits as a response to the Protestant heresies which denied the Pope's authority. Basically the Jesuits were formed with a specifically ultramontane ethos which, at times, took an intensity which bordered on the unhealthy, or at the very least which had unintended consequences down the road.

[Amppax]

I'm not I'll have to check that out. Thinking more about it this morning, I'd also say that 19th century papal politics, especially Pius IX have a lot to do with it. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Btw, how come it is the conservatives who are the ones 'dissenting'? ...

[bardegaulois]

Btw, how come it is the conservatives who are the ones 'dissenting'? ...

I wish I could still give this a thumbs up.

It's only because that's the way The Washington Post and other like newspapers and magazines want to frame the issue. They could easily call the LCWR or Call to Action or such groups dissenters, because in many cases they unabashedly are--and not merely from non-magisterial papal statements or symbolic actions, but from Catholic dogma itself. However, a look at the editorial pages of these journals will show that the opinion-makers are with such groups lock, stock, and barrel, and would accordingly never use the epithet dissenters. However, if someone quite loyal to the faith and not heterodox in the least questions the prudence or priorities of the Pope, they are fair game. It's a pity it's so, but that's how secular liberals frame debates, and not merely in religious matters either. This is fairly widespread in political reporting as well.

Edited September 10, 2015 by bardegaulois

[dUSt]

I personally think the pope is playing liberals like fiddles.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The source of my frustration is what could only be construed as either an obliviousness or a lackadaisicality as to how his words and actions are going to be construed by the press or by the non-Catholic public. Just to give perhaps the most famous instance, "who am I to judge?" has been taken very much out of its proper context by many in an attempt to undermine Catholic teaching on sexual ethics. Did the Pope intend it that way? Of course not, but it makes my work of defending and promoting Catholic doctrine all the more difficult. Likewise with the conflict at the synod last year.

Moreover, his use of such epithets as "self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagians" or "sourpusses" also sets me off. Is he referring to traditional Catholics? If so, what does he think he might accomplish by calling those who would be most loyal to him insulting names? I know there's a stereo type he's trying to argue against, but in my experience, this stereotype doesn't exist.

So, in short, dUSt, my trying to live an authentically Catholic life when it seems like the Holy Father is appearing to demean or belittle what I am doing is incredibly frustrating, so much so that I rarely take note of the news from Rome any longer. I pray consistently for the Holy Father's soul and give his office incredible respect, and indeed I think he's a very likable person. However, I know I won't be getting much public moral support from him, and it's led me to focus more on my own communities, rather than the trends of the global church.

Dont expect the holy father to always be infallible. Thats all i have to say. He is allowed to fluffy air extraction and he is allowed to say jokes and he is allowed to speak cordially. Peoples expectations of the pope may reflect there unreasonable expectations of themselves that they never themself seem to be able to live up to consistantly, un attainable piety outside of the choir of angels. Though of course dont take my comment as an excuse to do a homer simpson and half arse things, and also not saying not to go for the rank of angel on earth but also don't be so judgemental.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[bardegaulois]

I personally think the pope is playing liberals like fiddles.

To what end, though? Years of experience tell me that if you budge before an opposition, you don't do much to bring them to dialogue; you just give them ammunition to use against you (which they will if they perceive you as weak). Inquiring minds want to know...

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I'm not saying anyone is doing this but 'to be sure to be sure' please keep in mind these verses from holy scripture about how we are to deal with other believers whether they are deceived or not including the holy father as a fellow believer and as fallible as the rest of us.

James 5:9 " Do not make complaints against one another, brothers, so as not to be brought to judgement yourselves; the Judge is already to be seen waiting at the gates."

 

God is good.

Onward Christian souls.

P.s. Of course i don't do this perfectly at present but with grace i do hope(blessed assurance of an upcoming event) that with time, prayer, christian meditation, examination of my life and holy scripture and the holy sacraments i will achieve perfection in this.

[hotpink]

 

I was actually talking to one of the professors at Franciscan this evening, and he made the excellent point that there has been a somewhat skewed emphasis on the Pope following Vatican II. Prior to recent centuries, it wouldn't be uncommon for Joe Catholic to be unaware who the Pope even was! 

Well, to be honest, I don't think it's Vatican II that made the change, it's media.  The 1970's held some of the first televised presidential debates and some guess this is how Kennedy became popular so quickly. (good looks).  Most people didn't know or care about other world leaders until WW2 (although to a lesser degree during WW1).  The media has changed everything.

I'm also not 100% sure that's true about the Pope.  The role has gained some celebrity, but I think that it was still considered good to know who the Pope was.  Older churches have pictures of the Pope and I think the Baltimore Catechism refers to him.   I vaguely remember seeing an old prayer book from the 50's meant to be given to children where they could write in their pastor, bishop and the Pope specifically to remember them in prayer.  Plus don't they have those prayers where they say "for our Pope Francis, Archbishop Peter and bishop Eusebio?"  or did they not say that before Vatican 2?