By every tangible measure, Pope Francis is no different from his predecessors. He opposes abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, adoptions by gay couples, and has not called off the inquiry into the social activism of American nuns. And yet simply by saying a few things about gays and atheists that were not outright hateful and that many other Christians had long ago said, and by expressing some gentle criticisms of the current scandalous state of wealth inequality, he has driven the right and the Republican party in in this country into a tizzy. It just shows how much they have assumed that successive popes were Tea Party members in all but name.
But I think the pope has gone as far as he can in softening the image of the Catholic church by words and symbolic gestures alone. These are not insignificant but unless he takes some concrete steps that go beyond what his predecessors did, he risks becoming seen as merely a public relations pope.
There are things that he could do without changing church doctrine, such as cracking down on the clergy who committed sexual abuse and those in authority who covered up for them, speaking out strongly against those nations that are actively persecuting homosexuals and atheists, reining in the lavish lifestyle of some church leaders, telling the leaders of countries to leave gays and atheists alone and not persecute them, because only god can judge them.
I don’t expect his words to have much effect in the US. Religious people here have long become accustomed to doing what they want to do for other reasons and then picking and choosing from religion to justify it. But in some poorer countries where the church still is the focus of local life, his words could be a significant force in easing persecution.
If he takes such kinds of steps, then he could have a real impact on the world, especially in the developing world. Otherwise he risks sliding into irrelevancy.
This report does seem encouraging at least:
One thing he did that may or may not end up changing the RCC for good: the launch last november of a survey of the world’s Catholic population about their feelings on “modern family life” (including contraception, same-sex marriage, etc.) with the view to prepare a series of synods this year and the next. If a pope wanted to actually nudge the Church toward a little more liberalism, he’d need to outmanoeuver the ecclesiastical hierachy, more entrenched than ever since the last two popes only named conservative cardinals. An overwhelming support from the flock for reforms might be then the point from which to start a new “aggiornamento” of the Church… or it might peter out in good words but no action, again.
If Francis even just managed to change the strict hierachical, autoritharian government of the RCC, and give some real power to elected representatives, it would go a long way to get the Catholic world on the road to the 21st century.
“He has driven the right and the Republican party in in this country into a tizzy.”
Unfortunatley, he’s also driven a lot on the left to fawn over him. (I am somewhat hopeful, though, that some good could come out of this — hopefully the left will be more aggressive on income inequality issues thinking they are doing God’s work…or something.)
I was discussing this with a friend who, though not religious, as a occasional professional singer performs at masses for his fathers choir.
He told me it’s remarkable how the Catholics there feel better for having Francis as a Pope -- he finds an actual tangible relief and lifting of, oh, some kind of guilt, at having a more humane Pope permeating peoples discussion.
When I mentioned that it seemed all talk and no substance he pointed out that Francis has been suspending Cardinals for abusing their position and if one thinks about it has a mighty messy hierarchy that needs cleaning out before anyone could, whether or not they will, enact real change. And that’s not just a years work.
Otherwise he risks continued sliding into irrelevancy.
It’s only a matter of time.
fentex @ # 4: … Francis has been suspending Cardinals …
A search for “Pope Francis suspends cardinal” at the BBC site turned up only a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=pope%20francis%20suspends%20cardinal"<story about the Monsignor busted for smuggling 20M Euros last year.
The same search at DuckDuckGo produced a spate about the Bishop of Bling‘s sad downfall the very same year.
Please name the cardinals now dangling before the Pope’s iron justice, with cites.
Apologies for the htmlmess @ # 6 -- here’s a functional link, IPU willing…
Why would conservatives appoint such an allegedly liberal pope, especially if he plans to clean house? Wouldn’t they want the status quo? My feeling is that they saw the writing on the wall (and the numbers from developed countries crashing) and knew they needed to LOOK more open, tolerant, welcoming, with the times, etc. I still think it’s mostly a public relations gambit but am prepared to be proven wrong.
Pierce, I’m with you. I’m getting tired of the suspension of the Blingshop brought up every time I ask if the pope has actually done something progressive.
He suspended one bishop, who had been outright flaunting his extravagances. The whole thing feels like he got fired for being caught, not for the amount of money he wasted.
He pointed out, I did not. I think he meant the German Bishop suspended for his excesses. At the time we were speaking I tihnk we both thought there was more than one.
My personal opinion, expressed on these blogs before, is that until he hands over molesters, stops the church from actively thwarting secular authority and opens his banks books I will reserve judgement on his actually improving anything.
He is an individual and not the institution, no matter what his personal feelings and intentions I doubt he will effect a lasting change to the good.
But his power within the institution is vast. There is no procedure for removing him, and if he promulgates a new doctrine (say, that punishing people for homosexual acts is wrong, or that contraception and abortion are matters of private conscience, or that women can occupy any post within the church on the same basis as men) and declares that he is speaking ex cathedra on the matter, then that becomes Catholic teaching for all time. On a smaller scale, nearly half of Ugandans are Catholic: if he had threatened to excommunicate any Ugandan member of Parliament who voted for the atrocious anti-gay Bill, he’d at least have shown he was really interested in stoping it. The good he could do is enormous; he chooses not to do it.
fentex @ # 10 -- that your friend remembers the solitary case of an egregious bishop and turns it into multiple instances of those ~two ranks higher in the hierarchy provides a prime example of the unreliability of human memory.
IF Pope Francis really wants to change his church, at the age of 77 (the full biblical allotment + 10%) he will have to move faster to make a lasting difference.
True and if he bent his efforts to effecting lasting change he might do so -- thus I reserve judgement until it is seen if he does or not. To date his actions have been good P.R but not apparent improvements in church policy worth mentioning.
I do think a year is too early to judge him as the institution he has to shift, if he wants to, is vast and the political game play involved complex. It would take time to position allies and remove opponents.
If he wants to carry Catholics to a better place he has to win them over first, prevent internal disagreement that questions his lead, establish interests vested in his ambitions. He’s a Jesuit, he knows these things.
Time will tell what he bends his efforts to -- though as pointed out at 77 he hasn’t got too much to squander.
I think both he and I conflated reports of other investigated bishops with the suspension of one.
Meet the new Pope… Same as the old Pope.
Summary: Vatican refuses to extradite an archbishop under investigation for child sex abuse. They’ve moved him to another “parish” (i.e. brought him to the Vatican from the Dominican Republic, the scene of his alleged crimes).
This is absolutely clear evidence that Francis is pure PR manipulator, with no real intention of bringing about substantive change.
This report is not encouraging with regard to covering up child abuse:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/world/europe/un-sex-abuse-panel-questions-vatican-officials.html
fentex -- Maybe your friend has psychic powers, or some other special connection to Vatican inside dope:
Pope Francis Cans All But One Cardinal Overseeing Vatican Bank.
They’re all still cardinals, but now they have a lot more time on their holy hands.
David Wilford@15,
Yes, high time for you to take your head out of your fundament and come to terms with the fact that Bergoglio was elected to improve the RCC’s image without making any significant change to the reality, and that’s exactly what he intends to do.