The Public Pope

[DonViejo]

Why the intense fascination paid to Pope Francis—or any pope—isn’t good for the Catholic Church.

By Paul Baumann

hat are popes good for? In the quarter-century I’ve been writing about Catholicism, I’ve learned that popes are good for the pope-arazzi and for a bit of exotica on the nightly news. On occasion, of course, they are good for producing reams of copy. Time’s Man of the Year! The cover of Rolling Stone! Ten thousand words of aggrieved vindication—“A Radical Pope’s First Year,” insists the recent tendentious headline—in The New Yorker! Apparently there is something about popes that a mass media otherwise skeptical of religious authority finds almost irresistible—which is why, from time to time, popes have even been good for getting me on television, called upon to comment on this or that papal action or utterance. Modern popes also function as job creators for church historians and for biographers. Wait a week, and we’ll get yet another instant life of Jorge Mario Bergoglio or collection of his table talk. How else would we know that Pope Francis was once a bouncer? Essential training, one presumes, for a guardian of orthodoxy.

On this first anniversary of Bergoglio’s elevation to the throne of Peter, kudos and lamentations keep piling up. To some extent it’s not difficult to understand the allure—after all, there aren’t many celibates or absolute monarchs left, let alone one who can claim the allegiance of a billion people. Still, there is something mismatched about this dalliance between the vicar of Christ and the celebrity-obsessed mass media, and one can’t help but wonder at the secular fascination with the papacy that it signals. In a world of limitless choices and seemingly unresolvable conflicts, here is a man and a creed that preaches the renunciation of worldly things and a promise of otherworldly justice. Is the pope offering merely an escape from the burdens of modern freedom or a real alternative? For many Catholics the question still matters. Churches are not quite as empty as rumor has it.

Whatever people think Pope Francis is offering, he is no magician; he can’t alter the course of secular history or bridge the church’s deepening ideological divisions simply by asserting what in truth are the papacy’s rather anemic powers. In this light, the inordinate attention paid to the papacy, while perhaps good for business, is not good for the church. Why not? Because it encourages the illusion that what ails the church can be cured by one man, especially by a new man. In truth no pope possesses that kind of power, thank God. The very first pope, let us recall, was a man of legendary weakness, denying his Lord three times before the cock crowed. And the most recent pope, Benedict XVI—a man of towering intellect and inspiring, if fusty, piety—retired from the ring, overmastered by palace intrigue within the Vatican. John Paul II, to be sure, was a media superstar and arguably played a historic role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet even he could not effectively confront the most critical challenge facing his church, the clergy sexual-abuse scandals.

The truth is that the more the world flatters the Catholic Church by fixating on the papacy—and the more the internal Catholic conversation is monopolized by speculation about the intentions of one man—the less likely it is that the church will succeed in moving beyond the confusions and conflicts that have preoccupied it since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). The church desperately needs to reclaim its cultural and spiritual equilibrium; it must find a density and richness of worship and mission and a renewed public presence, which far transcend mere loyalty to the pope. Lacking such equilibrium and self-possession, the church cannot find its true voice. But to find this voice, Catholics will have to turn not to Rome but toward one another, which is where both the problems and the solutions lie.

more
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/03/pope_francis_at_one_year_why_intense_focus_on_the_papacy_is_bad_for_the.html?

[cbayer]

1. He makes a compelling argument for bottom up change,

but does that negate positive movements from the top?

Is it the press or the pope himself that has created this superstar status? He seems to be the kind of unassuming, listening leader that the author advocates for.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. The Pope takes part willingly, but it is the press and the 'believers' who aggressively

twist Francis words into some narrative they need to tell themselves. The man is opposed to marriage equality, to adoption by gay parents, but his followers tell me he says 'who am I to judge?'. Good question, considering he clearly judges us as inferior and unworthy of family, love, of legal protection. No person can oppose the rights of others without judging them. Those who claim they can do that are liars.
Take a look at the claims that Francis said 'he might support LGBT civil Unions'. He never said that. On DU, when I pointed out he did not say this I was told I just hate Catholics. Next day, Vatican released a 'clarification' saying Francis did not say he might support LGBT civil Unions. Those who attacked me never apologized, and worse, the rhetoric train continues, just this morning there was another OP posted about how Francis said he might support LGBT civil Unions. But he never said that, his followers will attack if you tell the truth. It's vile. And it is not 'the press' so much as the rank and file, those who constantly post here false claims and refuse to correct them, for example, are to blame.
Those who promote this man falsely own Uganda.

[cbayer]

3. I agree that he didn't really lend support to GLBT civil unions.

And I don't expect that he will.

In terms of GLBT civil rights, I don't hold out much hope for change from the catholic church in my lifetime.

However, I do see some hope in other areas and will support that when he (they?) appear to be moving in that direction.

I think it's possible to support parts without supporting the whole, but I know others do not see it the same way.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Of course he didn't, but I was called a Catholic hating liar for stating that truth.

My issues 'with Francis' are really not with him, they are with Democrats on a political board selling a narrative about Francis that is not factual. It is also their clear bigotry in attacking LGBT people who seek honest discussion not fake narratives. I was attacked for pointing out Francis had not really said he might support civil unions. Later, when the Vatican clarified that he had not said that, not one of the 'believers' who piled on me apologized for their hate soaked actions.
The 'believers' around Francis have zero ethics, their morals are all self service and they do harm to others with a casual impunity that suggests something very distant from the teachings of Christ.
I expect Popes to be hate bags of superstition, I do no expect to see Democrats lose all decency to support those superstitions.
If they were just honest about it.....

[cbayer]

5. Sorry that happened to you, but there are a lot of reactionary responses

on both sides when it comes to the catholic church in general and the pope in particular.

It seems to me more driven by defensiveness than by GLBT bigotry, but my perspective is clearly different than yours.

He is neither all good nor all bad, imo, so I tend to object to those who want to paint a purely black and white picture.

So I reiterate my position that I think it's possible to condemn the church when it is on the wrong side of things while supporting it when it is on the correct side.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. 'Both sides do it'? Seriously?

Uganda.

[cbayer]

7. Uganda. I would guess that not a single person who is a legitimate

member of this board supports what is happening in Uganda or the role of some religiously based people that are feeding it. Not a single one.

[cleanhippie]

8. Meh. That's just what equivocators need to tell themselves.

Saying "both sides do it" alleviates the cognitive dissonance.

When confronted by such nonsense, consider the source.

[skepticscott]

9. "Both sides do it"

Or "it's that way with believers and non-believers" (or one of many variations on that theme) are a regular habit with this poster. As noted, convincing themselves of that is the only way some people cope.

[okasha]

10. The Pope may be doing nothing about Uganda.

On the other hand, he may be working through private diplomatic and Church channels. It's a basic principle of good management, whether in the classroom or in the office, not to ream out subordinates in public or in front of their peers. That kind of public airing has almost split the Anglican Communion and may yet do so. The Pope may have taken note and proceeded more quietly. So I'm in wait-see mode.

[skepticscott]

11. You have to understand that there are a lot of Catholics on this site

who have been conditioned for a long time, many essentially since birth, to BE Catholic, and who are deeply uncomfortable with even the idea, let alone the practice, of being anything but. And when they find themselves belonging to and supporting an organization that vehemently opposes many of the things that liberals and progressives (all decent people, in fact), are supposed to be in favor of, it is profoundly unsettling to them. Even when calling themselves "lapsed", "disenchanted" or some such euphemism, they grasp desperately at any excuse, any justification, to resolve that conflict and let themselves be both liberal and ardent supporters of the Catholic church at the same time, without being ashamed, or feeling like they have to defend themselves every day. Hence their need to convince themselves that this pope is wonderfully different, that he is saying things that he hasn't actually said, but are what they desperately need him to be saying. What will happen to these people as it gradually becomes clear that nothing important is going to change under Francis, is anybody's guess.

Not excusing these people in any way, btw…their behavior in that thread was mean and dishonest. Just offering my take on the deeply rooted cause.

[Goblinmonger]

12. I was raised very serious Catholic

Even after college when I had admitted to myself that I no longer believed in a god much less the teachings if the RCC, I still felt guilty about not going to church. Even had my kids baptized in the church. Took my son coming home from First Communion class asking why his teacher said that gays were going to hell for me to finally say enough. Best decision I every made.