Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Catholic Church Appears to Be Divided
I’m a Protestant, so I tend to stay out of the discussions of Catholicism on this site and elsewhere. On the other hand, as a devout Christian, I believe that the Catholic Church is very important to Christians worldwide; perhaps as Americans admire England because of our shared heritage and ethics, despite the fact that we split long ago.
Anyway, this post on Powerline is interesting to me. It shows that Catholic priests have been trending more politically conservative since Vatican II in the mid-1960s. The trend is profound — around 20% of Catholic priests described themselves as conservative in 1965 — now it’s over 80%. Steven Hayward thinks this is related to the influence of Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict, although Pope Francis has been the Pope for over 10 years now, and the trend toward conservatism among priests continues to this day.
Pope Francis famously said he would not be surprised if he were remembered as the Pope who split the church. Like President Obama who vowed to “fundamentally transform” America, Pope Francis has been clear from the beginning that there is much about the Catholic Church that should be changed. It would appear that others in the Catholic Church take a different view. Like the priests, for example. And there are over 400,000 Catholic priests worldwide.
Martin Luther felt that the Catholic Church was straying from the teachings of Jesus Christ, and he lashed out forcefully. He felt that he was a more faithful Catholic than the Pope and other leaders in the church. He wanted the Catholic Church to return to its original mission.
I really, really, really don’t want to discuss Martin Luther here, other than to acknowledge that there appears to be a similar movement of division within the Catholic Church today. When Pope Benedict voluntarily stepped down and Pope Francis replaced him as Pope, the highest leadership of the church lurched far, far to the left. But the church itself appears to be steadily moving to the right, despite the changes at the top.
I find that interesting.
I’m not Catholic, but I feel that the Catholic Church is very, very important to me and other Christians around the world. And the Catholic Church appears to be profoundly divided right now. I don’t see how this can continue. Pope Francis is a polarizing figure – even more so when over 80% of his priests are conservative.
I wonder what’s going to happen?
Despite the teachings of Robespierre, progressives remain enamored of revolution – they believe that they must destroy the status quo first, so they can build something better in its place. They know better than all the greatest thinkers of Western Civilization over the past 3,000 years, of course.
Does Pope Francis have similar plans as Wilson, Obama, Robespierre, Castro, Mao, and others? More importantly, is there a chance that Pope Francis could be successful? Many of his own priests seem skeptical.
How do you see this playing out over time?
Published in General
Grew up in Oklahoma going to Benedictine schools. Cool nuns and priests. Smart, made us work hard on the basics. In high school had to attend the 6:30 am masses (knees still hurt) and whacked on the butt with paddles when I screwed up but managed it. Yet we were always told the Jesuits were the Catholic superstar priests. Lots of high schools I competed against in debate tournaments were their schools. Now with this Pope not so sure. At least the Dominicans are only two blocks away.
This current “schism” such as it is actually mirrors the changes that came about from pre-Vatican II to post-Vatican II where the priests lurched far to the left due to the explosion of “liberation theology”, especially in Latin America. When I was a child, the Priests were tending towards becoming more and more socially and economically liberal and many were espousing what we would call Marxist beliefs. This was strongly countered by JPII who was an ardent anti-communist and he attempted to stamp out the liberation theology priests and sideline them from promotion. It worked, sort of, but, as with all things, it also had some unintended consequences. Similar to the drive in the ’60s and later to quietly push men who expressed homosexual desires into the priesthood. Seemed like a good idea, but it ended up leading to the child abuse cover-ups, and the “pink mafia” that has managed to reach high levels of influence and power in the Church. Similar things happened with JPII’s drive to stamp out Marxism…it sort of drove it underground where priests, bishops, and cardinals all hid their views as Marxists using more “traditional” working, but Francis sure seems like a socialist more than a capitalist. JPII hated communism in part because it was evangelically atheistic, but socialism doesn’t have to be atheistic, and often clothes itself in pseudo-religious words that imply that a person who gets the gov’t to solve a social problem is doing what Jesus wanted and thus attaining grace. It’s a truly messed up appeal to religion to stop people from doing good works themselves and voting to take money from someone else to do good works in the name of the State. One would almost say it was the Devil itself undermining the teachings of Christ. Prominent Clergy (in many denominations) espouse this belief which surprises me.
I see a split coming that starts in Germany. History would repeat itself it seems.
Francis was raised up in radical liberation theology in South America and the Curia (the political bureaucracy to end bureaucracies) and the cardinals who elected him knew it. I’ve long believed him to be a Marxist first and therefore not actually Christian, regardless of his position. I do expect Francis and those supporting him in the Curia to cause schism. I miss Benedict and his loving pastoral intellect.
The US has been very good for Catholics. There about 51 million Catholics in the US. Catholics are not monolithic in their political outlook. Traditional Catholics tend to be conservative at the ballot box.
Regardless of this Catholics are the target of the ACLU involving health care to involve abortion, euthanasia, and transgender so called health care.
Established in 1861, the Congressional Medal of Honor was awarded to four Protestant chaplains during the Civil War. In the wars following, five chaplains received the honor, all Catholic priests, two having open causes for canonization.
Simply said Pope Francis does not understand American Catholics. Unfortunately, there may be those that do understand Catholics, which does not bode well for Protestant denominations that believe they will escape the scrutiny of the secular Left.
By the way it’s not all gloom and doom. I’m partial to the Dominicans as a Catholic. From the Dominican Rite Mass that dates back to the 1200’s, and the Hillbilly Thomists.
The Reformation reformed the Church.
It was a good thing. One human organization with all the power will always become corrupt.
The Cardinals are all lost. The next Pope will be, at best, just as bad.
I really think when they say priest are conservative, they really mean orthodox in their beliefs, teachings, and liturgy. This mess would be easy to correct if we largely had reverent masses (no altar girls, priest facing the altar, Roman canon only and in Latin, and widespread and generous allowance of the pre-Vatican 2 mass).
A pope is to be a uniting figure. Pope Francis is the pope of chaos, confusion, and division. He is 87 years old and hopefully we’ll make a new pope soon.
Pope’s do not have the power to change any doctrine. Their job is to make sure truth, which was handed down from the apostles, continues. I’m skeptical that any pope has the power to ban the mass of the ages.
Either Dr. B is prophetic (likely) or he just finished reading a Steve Barry thriller I started today – the Malta Exchange. Fiction about Pope Francis dying and a political conservative outcast cardinal plotting to take over. Traditional beliefs – gays not cool, no abortion, etc. etc. all the stuff I learned by 7th grade. Only exception to me were gay sailors; they did not deserve Undesirable Discharges.
But the conservative cardinal may be the bad guy in the story involving, somehow, documents Mussolini had when he was killed and the Malta Knights. Barry has one weird imagination -2 unknown offspring of Eva Braun who was saved from Hitler’s demise running against each other for German chancellor 75 years later, Martin Luther King, thanks to the FBI, plans his suicide in Memphis. Stuff like that.
At least the hero, Cotton Malone, who solves all problems and survives, was navyjag. Good stories. No idea what will happen with the Church. Almost too old to care anymore.
I’m not Roman Catholic, and I’m not persuaded: Apparently there was a poll where they asked Priests if they considered themselves theologically more or less orthodox. That doesn’t necessarily mean these are the movers and shakers, nor does it necessarily mean the polled are politically conservative. Neither does it mean they reflect the body of Roman Catholicism. Could be all of those things, could be none of those things.
Interesting that less than 10% of the Priesthood elected Pope Francis. Sort of supports my first premise.
I’m going to toot my Pacepa horn again, because I’ve read all his (English) books.
Ion Mihai Pacepa states that he had a hand in creating liberation theology in order to expand communism.
Former Soviet spy: We created Liberation Theology
and so on. This interview has a lot of doubters, but it certainly explains Francis.
The Catholic Church is a divine institution with Christ as the head of the Church, which is his body. Jesus founded the Church upon Peter. The pope (Peter), as Vicar of Christ (steward of the visible Church), has essentially one job: to defend the faith as it has been handed down by Divine Revelation and the Apostles and their successors (the bishops). An interesting side note: there is an official book kept with all the titles of the pope; Francis deleted “Vicar of Christ” as one of them. Make of that what you will.
All popes have their fans and detractors. JP2 was a huge personality who had Joseph Ratzinger (B16) as his right hand man to help defend the faith. Francis certainly has his fans and detractors but he’s done such a poor job of defending the faith that so many so called Catholics want to become Protestants while remaining Catholic (see the Church in Germany).
I really don’t see Pope Francis being clear on anything. Weaponized ambiguity is the phrase coined for his modus operandi. He knows he can’t change doctrine (so he has the look of orthodoxy) but he can be so vague that orthopraxis gets changed to a free-for-all of implementation and practice. It is a huge scandal to the faithful.
So what will happen? The faithful will remain at the foot of the Cross, suffering with Christ until He comes again. Francis can’t split the Church (gates of Hell etc.) but he can lead many souls astray, which sadly seems to be happening.
If Francis has done any good, he has shown that ultramontanism is not good for the Church. The pope is a man, not an oracle or a god. There are many Francis sycophants who live on any and every word from Francis; particularly when he veers into the ditch and spouts off on climate change, vaccine mandates, immigration, etc., essentially anything in which he has no competence but which might satisfy a political agenda.
The Catholic Church always will be. Try as he might to change it, Francis will fail. To use a famous Francis-Jesuitical expression, it is up to us to discern the good from the bad. And with Francis, there is a lot of bad.
This Advent will be a particularly good time to prepare oneself for Christ’s coming in glory. Stay confessed. Stay faithful.
I (a conservative Protestant) once had an online debate with a liberal/progressive Catholic. It was strange. He defended doing penance to make up for one’s sins, praying to saints and the Catholic understanding of the Mass. But he also was good with gay marriage and various forms of sex that are clearly nonbiblical and sinful.
So, I am closer to the conservative Catholics though they tend to be a bit more anti-Protestant. I especially liked JP2 who was conservative regarding both moral matters and politically (anti-communist). Ratzinger was pretty good, too. But I cannot figure out Francis. He makes no sense to me.
There are a couple of “liberal’ reforms I would like to see. I am in favor of a married clergy. Maybe this would help them keep their hands off the altar boys. The Apostle Paul said one should marry instead of “burn” with passion. They also should “allow” contraception. Most Catholics use it anyway.
Of course, as a non-Catholic it is really none of my business what they do. I just know that the pope and the Catholic Church have great influence.
I’m not sure many conservatives realize this . . .
There are quite a few Ricochet conservatives who favor the same method.
Francis is the worst pope of my lifetime. He denigrates the west and free enterprise. He capitulated to the CCP on Hong Kong and allow Xi to pick the Chinese Bishops. He seems to care more about Climate Change and the soul and health of the church. He seems to have a grudge against those who prefer the Latin Mass.
Conservative v Liberal is a mistaken terminology-it is kind of anachronistic. A more appropriate term is Communio vs Concilium Catholics
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-trajectory-of-twentieth-century-catholic-thought/
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/05/11/tracey-rowlands-guide-through-the-catholic-academic-zoo/
Touchy subject Doc. With only a few comments for one of your big posts I will stir the pot too.
As a Catholic we believe Saint Peter is the first pope. I am no expert in Catholicism, but I have been brought up to believe the pope, as the lead pastor of the Catholic church, is a messenger of God. He is not to be a speechwriter of God. Unfortunately, that is where we are today. It’s like we said, hey God, the best we can do as humans is Jorge Bergoglio to represent You. He’s really cool from South America.
I can go along with a lot of things, but I can’t go along with that. I can’t understand Francis’s disdain for America. He always said how wrong we were about rejecting illegal immigration while ignoring far worse atrocities, while he sits behind a giant wall encircling his country. He hid it at first but now it’s completely obvious with the firing of Bishop Strickland in Texas. I don’t recall Pope John Paul ever saying anything discouraging about anyone.
I guess this is my main point. As a Christian pastor would be, no matter what your denomination, it’s your #1 job to save souls, first and foremost. Once you pick a political side you have already resigned yourself to being half a failure.
Here is an example of how it’s done wrong from Drudge last week. There was an article on how Francis intends to be more inviting to the transgender. That is completely wrong. How about there is a lost person X(Y) that needs saving. It is still an individual child of God. Do your job. Take that inclusivity.
Everyone needs encouragement to head in the right direction, especially me. Francis by default had my respect then lost it. And don’t call me Francis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pA1h1FjBZg
Agree. So let’s elect a descendant of St. Benedict and see what happens.
Have a feeling we went to the same kind of schools.
The Catholic Church has never taught that the pope is a messenger of God.
I prefer orthodox v heterodox.
My declaimer is I am weak on that. He doesn’t channel God. But he is to be a representative. Like I said, touchy subject.
Agree with Chowderhead re: Pope the messenger of God. Nuns taught me the same thing. Seemed reasonable to me. Still does although a little reluctant to think God Ok with trans types.
He is Christ’s Vicar/Steward of the visible Church. His job is to be the sign of unity in the Church and to defend the faith. The Church has never taught that he is a messenger of God (see the CCC 871-945).
While I might agree with your views of their orthodoxy, I believe that as matter of debate one out to follow St Thomas Aquinas. At the outset one shouldn’t choose labels for them that they will outright reject, let their arguments show their position. None could honestly object to the Concilium label.
addendum-BTW you are absolutely correct the Church does not teach the Pope is the messenger of God. If anyone thinks that was taught, then they weren’t paying attention- see Catherine of Siena for instance.
I probably wasn’t clear in my point. I prefer orthodox v heterodox for the general lay faithful designation of conservative v liberal.
I’m not a theologian so I don’t know all the ins and outs of Communio v Concilium. I wasn’t suggesting to replace those terms with mine.
The papacy has had worse times. Alexander VI was a disgrace. Julius II donned armor and waged war on Catholic city states to establish the Vatican as a secular power (I always pictured St. Peter showing Julius an image of himself in combat gear, “Julius, what is wrong with this picture?”) He did sponsor some fantastic art, though.
The essential purpose of the pope is to say who Jesus is.
In Matthew 16, Jesus sent his disciples out to preach on their own with some ability to heal and cast out demons. When they came back at the appointed time, swapping war stories around the campfire, Jesus silenced them with a look. He then asked ‘who do the people say I am’ and the answer sounded like a Gallup poll: 22% have you confused with John the Baptist, 18% don’t know… so public opinion was going to be a lousy way to understand his nature. Then he asked who do you say I am (addressing an elite group of insiders who should have expert knowledge) and they were silent. Then Peter said “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” and Jesus said (a) Peter did not come up with that and his own and (b) he was the rock on which he would build his church.
A Catholic interpretation of that passage is that the question of Jesus’ identity is not an issue for democratic majority vote or for an elite panel but left to the successor to Peter. It is noteworthy that the lousy popes invariably shied away from major theological pronouncements. A pope whose main interests are climate change and international social welfare policies may do less damage than expected precisely because he is a tad removed from the core truths.
OB I think you just come up with a new plot for a Steve Barry “Cotton Malone” thriller. Will forward to him. He is really into all this ancient religious stuff.
I wonder how Rerum Novarum would have been received if there had been X and Ricochet back when Pope Leo XIII endorsed, gasp, trade unions (1891)? Francis is a South American and pehaps therefore more focused on Catholic Social Teaching than Catholic Sexual Doctrine than some would like.
If you think Francis might cause a schism, I wonder who would NOT cause a schism, given the times we live in. For any pope (or leader for that matter) there will always be a bell curve from approval to disapproval. The Catholic Church was never a monolithic institution. “Heresy”, “anathama”, “excommunicatio” are terms that have been hurled pretty much from the start, I think. So schism is always a possibility.
But since Christ said that the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against his church, we can perhaps relax a bit.
Having been confirmed in the archdiocese of Buenos Aires, I can tell you much of the problem is secondary to the peculiarities of Argentina. The Pope grew up in the ideological milieu that has festering been in Argentina.
Argentina isn’t truly a capitalist system- but many of the local critics of their system think it is. They blame the many failures there to capitalism- but it is really due to a cronyism/syndicalist system more akin to Mussolini’s Italy before the war. So the left thinks more government intervention is the key, all the while that is the cause of their problems (sounds like the Dems!).
Argentina is rife with a great deal of jealousy towards the USA. They were 1st world, but have sunk to virtual 3rd world status d/t terrible politics. They look at the USA & are mad we haven’t followed the same trajectory. To quote wikipedia:
“The economic history of Argentina is one of the most studied, owing to the “Argentine paradox”. As a country, it had achieved advanced development in the early 20th century but experienced a reversal, which inspired an enormous wealth of literature and diverse analysis on the causes of this decline…By 1913, Argentina was among the world’s 10th wealthiest states per capita.[”
The local Catholic Church often had significant and overt anti-americanism. Argentina prefers to blame others (such as the USA) for its problems rather than face up to their dysfunctional politics. Heck, the government ginned up a war against the UK to distract the people-and that ended disastrously.