Tuesday, November 12, 2019

5 (more) Keys to Understanding Pope Francis #5

Continuing the theme from my 2014 e-book (now out of...print?), on understanding the Church's first Latin American Pope and his ministry, I present you with key #5:

5. Pope Francis is the Pope.

Every five years or so, the heads of the dioceses go to Rome to report on the situation of their local Church with visits to the various dicasteries in the Vatican (for example, the Dicastery for Communications, for Human Development; the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors) and to meet personally with the Holy Father. Right now the US Bishops are making their “Ad limina” visits to the Holy Father (the Bishops of New England went first!).

In the Philippines (photo by Michael Makri, SDB)
It takes about seven years for the Pope to meet all the diocesan “Ordinaries” of the world. He gives them a chance to talk about their biggest concerns for their people, and he take the opportunity to share his own chief concerns with them. Now that Pope Francis has been on the Chair of Peter for six and a half years, and made personal visits as Pope to (so far) 48 nations, Francis knows the Church and the world like nobody else. This puts him in a unique position.

When he speaks, it can be hard to know whom he is addressing, because he has so many people and situations before his eyes. It could be any of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics, most of whom are poor, and a huge percentage of whom are in life-threatening situations from corrupt political systems or lack of education, environmental degradation or dangerous working conditions (so many times, all three go together). Or he may be addressing other Christians (another 1.1 billion), who are open to his leadership because he is clearly not seeking his own advancement. Sometimes we see him reach out to people of other faiths, as when he and key Orthodox Christian leaders met at the Vatican this past October 28 with Jewish and Muslim leaders to reaffirm shared values in end-of-life care, and restate their opposition to euthanasia and “physician-assisted suicide.”

He has his hand on the pulse of the whole world, and our corner of it may be very, very small. Indeed, we may well be lacking the tools to even interpret what the Pope is saying (or doing) because our own experience of Catholicism itself, or of the Catholic world, is too limited. (I have certainly had that experience as a member of an international religious congregation!)

How many times is the Pope acting “in persona Christi”—but not in the classic sense that lifetime Catholics may expect? He may be taking us back to the Upper Room where the Master offered a deliberately provocative act of charity to break through his disciples' conventional thinking and tell them, “I have given you an example” (Jn 13:15).

This is not to say that no one can disagree with the Pope's practical judgments, any more than Paul hesitated to differ with Peter's personal decision to resume a kosher diet while in Antioch (see Gal 2:11-13). But in a media age, where criticism has an exponential capacity (and a peculiar credibility), it is unwise to draw increased attention to what one may find disagreeable. It was always Bl. James Alberione's publishing policy (and he lived during Italy's difficult Fascist period) in the case of Church leaders, to respond to actions that seemed out of place, badly timed, or outright disedifying by affirming in a positive way the principles that one found compromised.

This would be sound advice for Catholics in social media today, too. It  keeps honest disagreement from devolving into personal disparagement or an animosity bordering on contempt. (There are some posts I have seen on social media which are so vile that I am afraid that the Catholics posting them avoid mortal sin only because of their ignorance of the gravity of what they are doing.)

There are thousands of voices pleading for attention (Nunblogger is one of them!); thousands who believe they have something of value to offer. Only one teacher on this planet was given an assurance of divine support. Only one man was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

He, and no one else, is the visible sign of unity for the Church. We really have nothing to fear if we stick by him.




I think I'll cover some media issues related to Pope Francis in a future post. In the meantime, here are all the 5 (More) Keys to Understanding Pope Francis posts:
Key #1 (Pope Francis is Latin American)
Key #2 (Pope Francis is not afraid of chaos)
Key #3 (Pope Francis Trusts in the Holy Spirit)
Key #4 (Pope Francis is Catholic)
Key #5 (Pope Francis is the Pope)

1 comment:

Sister Anne said...

Well, a priest on Twitter has done the nearly impossible and explained, step by step, how and why it could be a mortal sin for a Catholic to indulge in criticizing the Pope, so I am going to paste that thread in here as a catechetical public service. have added the bold/italics. This is going to have to be a thread in itself, due to the limits on comment lengths in Blogger, so here is part 1 of 2:

Fr. Matt Fish @frmattfish

It has become common on #CatholicTwitter for people to tweet about the Holy Father contemptuously, disparaging his person or his personal ministry. These are sins, probably grave.

Why?
First off, the point is not whether or not the Holy Father has done something worthy of correction or admonition. The point is whether or not honor and piety is owed to him regardless. Next: who then should give the Holy Father correction, and when & how?
These are moral matters of justice. Honor is the manifestation of the respect due to another on account of their superiority. Fame (reputation) is the recognition another deserves publicly. Piety is the reverence we owe to our parents.
And correction is the admonishment by one who is bound by knowledge and power to do so, given to one whom he is bound to correct, whether privately, or in some cases, even publicly. Opposed to these duties are these sins: Contumely is unjust dishonor communicated to another...
...Defamation is the unjust blackening of the reputation of another, not to his face, by untrue words (slander) or true words (detraction). Impiety is the failure to render the respect due to parent or country, whether by thoughts, words, or actions...
Lastly, fraternal correction is an act of charity and mercy, and a duty; but it is not good, and possibly a sin, when it has no reasonable hope of success, when it is done out of anger or out of ignorance, or when it is done by someone in a way that impedes with its right end.
Whom must one correct? Any fellow Christian, but especially subjects to whom one is bound as superior. One ought to correct superiors as well, but only under more narrow conditions: when one’s correction can be actually be respectfully and successfully communicated…
…and when correction would not cause more harm to the superior, particularly by imperiling his due authority, thereby harming the common good. Any correction must proceed from moral certainty, about a matter of serious sin, and done from and with charity, not pride or anger.
But moral certainty is often rare with knowledge about another’s actions. Therefore, one must proceed with caution, and prefer to interpret another’s actions charitably (CCC 2478), so to avoid rash judgment. Correction should not be about hearsay, gossip, or reasonable debate.
Finally, correction of a superior must be done from charitable motives, with kindness and respect. Are such conditions satisfied with Pope Francis? First, it may not be morally certain that he has done anything worthy of correction. Debated questions are not reason enough.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say he is in need of correction. Who should correct him?