Is this Catholicism?

Asks the very unnerved Elliot Bougis in this essay.

Yes, I have been linking a lot to him of late, but (1) he presents a lot of what I'm thinking, only much better, and (2) misery loves company.

What I'm learning about Catholicism is that how it is lived by those who genuinely love orthodoxy is rather at odds with how it is presented by the Church.

When push comes to shove:

• We will in effect defend as infallible, despite the clear limits of the charism, every statement that comes from the Pope's mouth. In some cases, we will argue that the statements are inerrant. On a par with Scripture. No, I've seen this--and felt gut-punched. Blessed Pius IX may have lost the battle at Vatican I, but the faithful have ensured that he won the war.
• Related: if we like the new Pope enough, we will always have been at war with Eastasia.
• Even (especially?) if that Pope preaches eloquently against the evils of clericalism. Pardon the relevant aside:

• In the name of charity, we berate those who honestly disagree with us.
• In the name of a big, welcoming Church, we shoot the wounded.
• We deride as Pharisees those who fail to agree with us on every particular.

But--please--dismiss my views as those of the jealous older brother, a hateful Pharisee who longs for a Church that the size of phone booth. With mirrors on the inside.

I'm getting used to it.

It has become increasingly obvious to me that my problem isn't so much the contents of the Pope's statements (though the content is sometimes deeply problematic), but rather how it is being defended by the Faithful. And that's the most disorienting and dismaying part of it all.

The other "Francis Effect."

The one I've been warning about--the re-energizing of the previously-chastened thugs of AmChurch:

This weekend our pastor wrote a column in which he compared people who identify as pro-life to his old friend Tim, a morbidly obese individual who washed down his bacon-cheeseburger and fries with diet coke in the hopes of losing weight. He went on to say that the agenda of pro-lifers is far too often anti-abortion, when it should be much broader and include gun control, environmental issues, the death penalty, yada, yada.  Abortion “cannot trump the vast myriad of other life issues”.  He cited the Pope’s interview as “long-overdue” support of this position.  Needless to say, those of us on the parish pro-life committee feel as if we’ve been punched in the gut.  

Very, very pastoral, her padre.

They're baaaaack...

Buckle up, brace yourselves, batten down the hatches, dig the hole for the survival bunker--as is your wont. Things are going to get uglier.

And where from here?

I've come to the conclusion that, regardless of the actual temporal length (and may God grant Pope Francis many healthy years), this is going to be a loooooong papacy.

1. The first problem is what my crisis buddy Elliot colorfully describes as "soft ultramontanism." To which I will add "by reflex."

This manifests itself in instant circle-the-wagons mentality against any criticism. Sorry, Mark, but this is emblematic. The fact that Scalfari didn't take notes is majoring in minors. No less an authority than the Vatican itself offers the interview for perusal on the official website.

That strikes me as a sotto voce endorsement of its accuracy. Not very sotto, in fact. More like a megaphone admission.

Also, it seems to me that criticism from such respectable non-fringe figures as Fr. Germain Grisez, fellow Jesuit James Schall and the very level-headed Carl Olson deserve a hearing. Ditto Robert Royal, who was clearly thrown by the first interview.

In other words, those who "get Francis" need to try to understand those of us who don't. And, yeah, I don't.

Frankly, the most evident fruit of the papacy thus far seems to be the willingness of orthodox Catholics to break out the cutlery and start stabbing whenever someone expresses unease over the Pope's actions and words.

2. The substantive criticisms are worthy of consideration.

Arguments like "the Pope is acting just like Jesus" or "you're just like the elder brother in the Prodigal Son!" aren't really arguments: they're declarations of the speaker's moral superiority, QEDs that are supposed to batter the benighted sinner on the other side into repentance. Quite simply, they won't do.

That said, I'll limit myself to two examples of problematic statements by the Pope from each interview. First, his quote about the Gregorian/Extraordinary Form Mass:

The Tridentine Mass was meant for those who could not make the transition from Latin to English [or other languages] after the Council.

Oh, no, I'm sorry--that was Roger Cardinal Mahony, not the Pope. Still, the despicable, Hell-ish Mahony is a big fan, I think we have to admit. Not that I blame the Pope for that. Bad people can like you, and there's nothing you can do about it. Manson and the Beatles.

No, what the Pope actually said was:

I think the decision of Pope Benedict [his decision of July 7, 2007, to allow a wider use of the Tridentine Mass] was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity. 

Honestly, Mahony's contrafactual take was the first thing that leapt to mind when I read the Pope's words on the "Vetus Ordo" (a telling formulation in itself). The dismissive mindsets are certainly kissing cousins. Throw in the Pope's repeated jabs at Pelagianism, Rosary bouquets, "restorationism" and the like, and it's clear he's not a good friend of the old Mass nor of traditionalists in general.

Yes, the Pope had a bad experience with jackhole traditionalists in the Argentine. I readily accept that that would legitimately poison fair-minded people against the proponents of and possible spiritual fruits of the old liturgy. It would me. Straining at gnats doesn't begin to describe it.

But here's the thing: we've been told--in yet another of the many declarations of moral superiority by his myriad defenders--that the Church is bigger than the concerns and experiences of American Catholics. True enough. But likewise: She is also bigger than the concerns and experiences of the even smaller population of Argentine Catholics. Even those experienced by the Archbishop Emeritus of Buenos Aires. The traditionalists I know and rub elbows with, that my children weekly attend co-op with, haven't disappeared human rights activists, nor cheered the work of a fascist state. They are struggling to pay bills and raise children in our increasingly dysfunctional economy and culture, driving long distances to pray, share and teach such things as art, Latin, and literature, and I imagine much the same obtains among traditionalist communities worldwide.

Frankly, the Pope's take on the Extraordinary Form discounts entirely the rich theological work of Benedict XVI explaining why the older rite is important, and should be widely celebrated. The break in the continuity is obvious on this point. And it is a source of legitimate concern.

The second example is the notorious "Catholic God" statement in the second interview:

And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being.

Hoo, boy. First of all, substitute "Christian" for "Catholic," and you start to cringe, right? You'd better.

Honestly, I think it is only because we have an ecumenism-of-self-flagellation, one that regards any hint of "triumphalism" as the sin against the Holy Spirit, that more people didn't cringe at the actual formulation. If you are Catholic, you believe in the God revealed in and through the Catholic Church, one that has defined numerous formulae about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, pondered and filtered by numerous saints and a protective magisterium, about how to understand the Triune God, going so far as to defend them at the cost of martyrdom. If you don't accept that, you are not Catholic. Full stop. As Elliot pointed out in a discussion on Facebook, the Pope's formulation wades into some dangerous riptides, providing ammunition for an argument against the Church herself.

3. The final analysis from my perspective:

For the love of God and His Saints, no more stream of consciousness interviews. EVER.

There are many things I appreciate about this Pope--preaching Christ, reaching out of the bubble to touch people, especially going into impoverished areas, pointing out the corrosive evil of unemployment (even if it's far from the worst of evils--yeesh) and its ripple effects on the family and even family formation, the choice of a simple lifestyle (though Benedict was far from opulent, contrary to the popular false meme), his prayer life, his joyousness and ability to connect with people. All to the good.

But his undisciplined, erratic streak keeps me from embracing and trusting him. I'm getting older, and I need a steady hand at the wheel. Apart from the substance in the interviews, the problems are many: the unnecessary jabs at decent Catholics, and the failure to recognize the harm that it causes. The offhand dismissals of his predecessors' work. The empowering of the stripped-altar left. The promises of big change, and the horizontal emphasis unnerves me greatly. He's in the same position now as Pope Paul VI after the leak of the Majority Report endorsing birth control in 1967: expectations--feverish ones--are rising, and the backlash will be brutal when/if he disappoints. I wonder if he fully understands the nature of the expectations (declarations of humility aside) and the demands that will follow. Riding the tiger is easy--compared to the dismount.

For my part, he's the Pope. I'll pray for him and offer filial respect. But I'm going to gird myself and my loved ones with Tradition, and I'm not remotely going to try to defend every stray sentence that comes out of his mouth or pen. Down that path lay madness, and in my case, despair. The Papacy is not one long run-on infallible monologue, and can't be defended as such. At least, it shouldn't.

If that approach leaves me as easy insult-bait, the target of Gospel proof-texting, snarky assaults and the like--whatever. There are worse fates.

Like the loss of faith.

A mixed message.

The high wire was 150 feet in the air, trembling as the turbulent air buffeted it, first from one direction, then from another. Below, there was no net.

The veteran trapeze artist climbed with confidence, a large wicker basket secured to his back. His ascent was purposeful and quick, reaching the platform in less than three minutes, the spotlight following him smoothly as he rose. With him went the encouragement and praise of the enthusiastic MC, barking adulation as the artist neared the platform.

"This is one of the high points of the night, ladies and gentlemen: in center ring we present to you the Amazing Rollo, unicyclist and juggler extraordinaire--working, as always, without a net! You've never seen anything like this, folks!

And I'd like to take the time to remind you that, as with every show, a generous portion of the proceeds go to the ASPCA to fund the good work they do with animals every single day! Let's hear a round of applause for both Rollo and the Society!"

When he reached the top, Rollo doffed the basket, placing it on the platform. With practiced ease, he loosened the straps, then reached over to grab the unicycle lashed to the side of the platform. He mounted the unicycle on the wire, then reached into the basket and removed four golden retriever puppies. Clutching the puppies, he did a backflip onto the unicycle and pedaled backwards to the middle of the wire.

"You can really tell how much Rollo loves those puppies, folks: see how glossy their coats are?"

More shiny happy people.

Elliot Bougis is doing yeoman's work. Keep scrolling down. If you're ever in the neighborhood, Elliot, the brewpub rounds are on me.

And my real-life as well as blogging buddy, Steve Skojec, offers this cry of the heart.

Losing the narrative.

I'd barely had a chance to process my vertigo about the first interview when the second broke. I have a more detailed list of concerns about it for another post, but I'm just going to focus on the popular conversion exchange:

And here I am. The Pope comes in and shakes my hand, and we sit down. The Pope smiles and says: "Some of my colleagues who know you told me that you will try to convert me."

It's a joke, I tell him. My friends think it is you want to convert me.

He smiles again and replies: "Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense."

Uh...OK. Sure, proselytism has--now, in ecumenical dialogue--a negative connotation, smacking of coercion of the will. It has a rather more mixed one in the New Testament, just to let you know--sometimes negative, sometime merely descriptive of converts to Judaism.

The point is, Scalfari was talking about conversion, not coercion. From the context, it doesn't appear the Swiss Guards had their halberds menacingly lowered at Mr. Atheist. Scalfari was making a joke about mere conversion, not force.

Here's an analogy: an Eckrich salesman invites me over to his house, and I joke "Are you going to try to sell me some hot dogs?" and he replies: "Bratwursts are ridiculous."

Er...all right.

Now, those of you who have no problem with the interview are probably going: "A-ha--see how clever the pope was: he was playing a smart rhetorical game with Scalfari here!"

Well, no. First, is it fair to Scalfari unlikely as he is to be up on the distinction between good evangelizing and bad proselytism? Isn't wordsmithing here a bridge too far?

Second, the distinction gets watered down later in the interview:

Your Holiness, you said that you have no intention of trying to convert me and I do not think you would succeed.

"We cannot know that, but I don't have any such intention."

Okay...so...um...

I'm at sea here. Is any intent or desire for conversion of another, expressly-stated or not, proselytism?

No, no, no, no, no, we're reassured. No, not at all.

Well, I respect Jimmy and Kathy a lot, but there's a difference between terminology in a limited, technical church-y sense and terminology as it is understood by non-believers. Jimmy especially notes the difference between the common and the church-technical version.

But none of that was stated in the actual text of the interview. He's not being more precise, for whatever reason. Unfortunately, he's not giving you the material to make him say what you want him to. When you have to supply that much subtext and cross-referencing to make it "work," it's damage control. Pure and simple. All damage control at this point, and that's how it comes across.

Non-Catholics have this rather exalted notion that the Pope is a dictator, we hang on his every word, and that we march to him lighting up the Pope Signal or getting the Secret Message from the PBS test pattern after sign off.

A message that is being--stunner!--reinforced by the way the Catholic Left is brandishing him. Francis, unfiltered! The world's parish priest!

Compare Jimmy and Kathy with David Gibson of the Religion News Service. Also a Commonweal blogger, to say Gibson hates your orthodox guts...is entirely accurate. As he demonstrated on his Facebook page today, linking to his own deeply objective story gloating about the discomfiture of people who actually believe in what marriage really means, that abortion is evil, who struggle to follow Humanae Vitae:

"Don't worry about your right flank, Pope Francis -- American Catholics have your back."

But compare the first Gibson link with the attempted rebuttals. Gibson simply lets Francis speak for himself. There's nothing for him to have to explain, no multi-paragraph excurses on wayward sentences, none of that. Because there's nothing there to discomfit him. And just where do you think regular journos will get their Francis stuff from? Hint: RNS, the National Catholic Reporter, Tom Reese, Dick McBrien--the usual gang on speed dial. Not from Patheos.

And where do you think the average Catholic in the pews (you know, the ones who say "gay marriage--suh-weet!") will get their Francis fix from? The regular journos.

And why not? Gibson, NCRep, etc. are all poised, confident, and not engaging in damage control. But their read is wrong--or so I'm reassured.

In addition to drinking heavily, I recommend taking a look at this and pondering it carefully.

T'would be nice...

If I could doff the lead apron of gnawing anxiety that I medicate with sardonic humour and port.

Ah, well. Tough shit, as they say.

Good dhimmi!

Shorter Maureen Fielder: Krystallnacht was not anti-Jewish, it was anti-Versailles Treaty.

He first characterized the bombing as a "horrific act" without a shred of justification. He praised the Christian community in Pakistan, now more fearful than ever, and noted that he himself was educated by Catholic priests and later by Presbyterians. He counts many Christians as friends.

So I asked him point-blank, "Was this bombing an act of religious discrimination?" Was it religiously motivated? Without hesitation, he said, "No." He pointed to a statement from the Taliban themselves saying it was a response to the United States' frequent and continuing drone attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan. He said the Pakistani government's protests to the United States have been unable to stop the drones, so the frontier tribes have resorted to their ancient "eye for an eye" response to perceived injustice.

Nice to see Dr. Ahmed has "many" Christians as friends.

Much like the white bigot who's "friends with a black guy."

Yeah, despicable.

And of a piece with freshly-minted chickenhawk Michael Sean Winters' airy dismissal of concern about the fate of Syria's Christians, should Assad fall.

Say what you will about the Reporter, they always manage to find a new low. And if Catholics ever go into ghettos, you can guess from whose ranks the authorities will recruit the Order Police from.

OK, upon further reflection, it's not that worrisome.

But that's OK: they're now the home of "The Francis Chronicles, reporting on the ministry of the world's parish priest!"

The wind at their backs. The orthodox-as-Chip-Diller response is losing it's effectiveness. Just saying.

Hat tip to Pat Archbold for the link.

Charitable assumptions.

The Catechism is quite clear that rash judgment is a bad thing:

"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it."

CCC 2478.

True enough, and it has to be kept in mind at all times.

But there are some limitations. If a neighbor offers to make my family a dinner, I will assume that he does so out of kind decency and not because he's a serial-killing poisoner.

I will continue to make this assumption even if a godawful smell starts emanating from his kitchen whilst he cooks.

However, charity does not require me to believe that the meal will be a good one once the eau d'skunk wafting out starts making my eyes bleed. Nor does it require me to believe that my neighbor won an episode of "Iron Chef." Or "Chopped." Or even "Hell's Kitchen."

In other words, just because a gentleman might be trying to play 3D chess doesn't mean I have to think he's Garry Kasparov. Much less imagine he will be immune from making some awful moves.

Just a thought.

Another day, another scramble to understand and explain.

I know. I'm just "more Catholic than the Pope." Pharisee wanting a small church getting smaller, repel boarders, fortress Catholic, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Whatever. Once I manage to make sense of this, I might make some progress:

"The Council Fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little was done in that direction."

That's certainly an interesting take. From what I can see, it certainly is happening, right now, albeit with sometimes...interesting results.

Apropos of nothing in particular.