A lot of people who call themselves “Church traditionalists”
aren’t happy with Pope Francis. (See my
Easter Sunday post, “(OUR NEW AND WONDERFUL PAPA) HAS POWERFUL ENEMIES” and
today’s other post, POPE FRANCIS ON THE CHURCH’S VARIOUS OBSESSIONS: JESUS IS TRULY AT WORK IN HIS CHURCH for further illumination on the Pope’s problems with certain
elements of the Church.) It’s not that
the Pope has made any substantive moves that run counter to the Church’s
conservative approach of the last thirty or so years and it’s not that he is
likely to do so. This Pope is no
radical; he was, after all, made a Cardinal by John Paul II, late in his papacy,
at a time when it was nearly a requirement to toe the conservative line to be
made a prince of the Church. But
Francis is really shaking things up by his style, his approach, and his most
recent pronouncements on such things as homosexuality, abortion, contraception,
and women in the Church. (Again, see
today’s other post.) The conservatives
in the hierarchy, accustomed to their comfortable lives of being served rather
than serving and perfectly content to spend the rest of their lives obsessing
on tangential issues and excluding and castigating those who don’t simply pray,
pay, and obey, have to be getting nervous.
What is this guy going to do next?
But the “traditionalists” are in a bind. One of the doctrines to which they demand
rigid adherence is the primacy of the Pope; we have to do what the Pope says
because he is Christ’s representative on earth, the successor to St.
Peter. While technically he is
infallible only in limited, and few, instances, the “traditionalists” seem to
believe he cannot be challenged at any time on anything. What do they do, then, when a Pope doesn’t
agree with their conception of what it means to be a Catholic follower of Christ? Can they ditch their doctrine of papal
primacy? If they do, doesn’t that put
their other doctrines in danger of being thrown over the side?
So far, the approach of the “traditionalists” seems to be
that the Pope doesn’t really mean it when he says crazy things and does insane
things like refusing to live in the lavish papal apartments. I heard a few weeks ago, from a “traditionalist,”
that Pope Francis is not living in the Papal apartments not because he finds
their regal accoutrements distasteful and not in conformity with his
understanding of the way Jesus wants us to live. No, sir.
The “traditionalist” line is that Francis is not living in the papal
apartments out of deference to Benedict XVI.
Since Benedict is still alive, the story goes, Francis won’t live in the
papal apartments because he considers those quarters Benedict’s home…even
though Benedict doesn’t live there. Uh
huh. Those peddling this story may be
right; and the Cubs and the White Sox may play a subway series in 2014.
Such rationalizations on the part of the “traditionalists,”
aside from being a short term strategy, give a hint as to the “traditionalist”
long term strategy regarding this bothersome pope. It
seems to yours truly that these quarters of the Church will square the circle
presented by the combination of papal primacy and a pope whom they don’t like
by arguing that Francis is not the “real” or “legitimate” pope.
The “traditionalists” will argue, in line with tradition, of
course, that the Pope cannot step down, that he has no right to relinquish his
position and must serve until his death.
Thus, the real pope is not the poseur
Francis but Benedict XVI, the guy who just loves the red Prada shoes and
all the gold and regal finery the papacy has to offer and who spent virtually
his entire papacy, and time as John Paul II’s doctrinal enforcer, obsessing
over the very things Francis said are ancillary to genuinely following
Christ.
That such a pronouncement would be self-contradictory (How
can a pope, who is not supposed to be wrong in such important matters, have
made such a grave mistake by resigning?
Hmm…) will bother this crowd not a whit.
Contradictions have never bothered them; just look at the riches of the Vatican
in light of the simple life of Jesus.
And such a rationalization will let them off the hook; they won’t have
to listen to the poseur who thinks he
is pope; they only have to listen to what the guy in the red Pradas had to say about
the inherent evil of homosexuality, the uppitiness of the sisters, the
unpardonable sin of contraception and other such nonsense.
3 comments:
is this all conjecture on your part? or do you have contacts that are credible that inform you that this kind of strategy is afoot?
If its simply conjecture on your part, I think you should say that. Otherwise you will simply look like a gossip columnist who focuses on the church.
Conjecture, to be sure, but not by any means gossip. This is conjecture based on reading what's being produced by the "traditionalist" quarters of the Church and the direction in which such talk is heading.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
And note that I did say "It SEEMS to yours truly...," (emphasis here is mine) clearly indicating that this was conjecture, but well reasoned conjecture.
Thanks again for reading and commenting.
Post a Comment