Popes and Such

Requiescat in pace, Papa Franciscus.

The Legacy of Francis: A Tapestry, Not a Verdict

Pope Francis has been a fairly polarizing Papa. To some, he was the great reformer, the long-overdue breath of fresh air. To others he was a source of confusion and possibly scandal. Still others see him as heretical. Interestingly, he seems very appreciated by many non-Catholics and even some atheists. The reasons for this bear some scrutiny.

If we take seriously the Catholic claim that the Holy Spirit guides the selection of the pope, then the Francis papacy isn’t an accident, a mistake, or a left turn. Even if it’s a conspiracy of some sort, the joke is on the conspirators. They are part of the warp and weft. Specifically the weft. And while the finished tapestry is complete in the mind of its Maker, it’s still being woven in time by His creation. What is this tapestry? It is the tapestry of salvation history.

And you cannot judge a tapestry from 3 inches away.

You need distance and perspective and that comes with time.

Consider just one section of the tapestry covering the last 67 years or so.

We had the Vatican II popes, John XXIII and Paul VI, who (for better or for worse depending on who you ask) opened the windows to the modern world. Then John Paul II, whose long and muscular papacy reaffirmed the Church’s moral teaching and presence on the world stage. Then Benedict XVI, a razor-sharp theologian, often called “our German Shepherd”, who articulated and defended the intellectual coherence of the faith. Many believe he will one day be named a Doctor of the Church.¹

Then came Francis.

The so-called "pastoral pope" has been praised for his emphasis on mercy, inclusion, and accompaniment. However, “pastoral” does not mean what most people seem to think it means. (And yes, I thought of Inigo Montoya when I wrote that.) It does not mean “anything goes because God is merciful.” To be pastoral is to be a shepherd. And what does a shepherd do with and for his flock? A shepherd provides care, guidance, and protection to the flock. In the case of the Pope, he tends souls.

Being pastoral, then, often means telling people the truth, which is to say, telling them things they don’t want to hear. Things they need to hear for their own good. It emphatically does not mean telling people what they want to hear in order to make them feel good, or attract them.

Francis was never a systematic theologian. I don’t think he was trying to be. He was a pastor, animated more by Who saves than by how it’s explained. However, once words escape your mouth into the wild, you have lost control of them.

Where Benedict was precision and continuity, Francis was just messy. He seemed determined to counter the media’s caricature of his predecessor: less clarity, more embrace; less “thou shalt not,” more “love thy neighbor.” Not intended as a message of laxity, but of presence. Still, his offhand remarks, his refusal to answer the Cardinals’ dubia, and his allergy to definitive teaching left many Catholics disoriented.

This disorientation of Catholics was seen as an opening by people both in and out of the Church, with people practically declaring that women priests and sacramental gay marriages were just around the corner. And while we’re at it, let’s throw in some transgender priests as well.

Benedict was so precise in his wording, seemingly so aware of the reality that every utterance was subject to malinterpretation (I may have just coined that phrase…) that his framing obstructed attempts to twist the meaning. Instead he had to be viewed as old, crusty, stale, dust of ages, out of touch, etc.

Francis was pretty much the opposite. Which may have been the point.

His writings, when read carefully, aren’t particularly controversial. In most cases, they restate or reapply established teaching, though often in less direct terms. The confusion has less to do with what he wrote and more to do with how people responded. That response speaks to a lacuna in Catholic formation. Many Catholics today are unsure how to read magisterial documents at all. And there is an over-reliance on a print and electronic media that values shallow engagement over and above serious conversation. Francis didn’t invent that problem.

It seems at times he was not aware of the problem. The fact that his messy explication is easily malinterpreted means that yes, he may have been attractive to confused and non-Catholics, and non-religious. But what happens when down the road those same people feel like they are the victims of a bait-and-switch campaign?

Well, there is opportunity there. Opportunity to engage with people who until now were simply uninterested. Opportunity to clarify and engage.

Seen this way, Francis isn’t a deviation from the arc of continuity. He’s part of it. Maybe the contrasting thread needed to highlight something the Holy Ghost wants seen. And what might that be? I think the immediate concern for those faithful in the Church is a recovery of grammar, rhetoric, and logic, taught in grade school and providing a degree of competent facility by completion of high school.

If only

Can you imagine?

This training would permit proper engagement with, and understanding of, Church teaching about God, Creation, and Salvation. Proper catechesis. (Which maybe is why such learning has been deprecated.)

Pope Francis was not a heretic. For me he was extremely frustrating because he was so messy. A proper reading of his output as pope does not lead to women priests and the like. But they are subject to rather easy malinterpretation, so the Church has some ‘splaining to do. But, he did function as a conversation starter, and that presents an opportunity.

The tapestry of Pope Francis’s legacy will not be finished for some decades. When it is completed, a hundred years or more from now, we may find that humanity has benefited from bringing clarity to his presentation of what a universal church could look like in practice.

Let’s give it time.

---

1. Considered one of the greatest and most faithful theologians in the history of the Church, there are many obvious and important steps to be taken before the late pope could become a doctor of the Church.
Full article link