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 Francis Effect
According to a comprehensive Pew poll, since Francis became the supreme pontiff, the number of Catholics in this country has remained unchanged, the rate at which Catholics attend mass has remained unchanged, and the rates at which Catholics go to confession or participate in volunteer activities in their churches and communities has remained … unchanged.
In view of all this, Mollie Hemingway on the Pope’s visit:
It’s wonderful that some people say that Francis makes them feel the church is more welcoming to them. But if it’s just making people feel more comfortable in their politics, instead of making them feel the comfort of absolution, communion and strengthening of faith, that’s not much to get excited about.
Time, I suppose, will tell.
Published in General, Politics, Religion & Philosophy
I didn’t really mean to be flip in my answer, but it’s true that more talented people than I are talking and writing about this topic. But I will write what I see. Allow me to start this way:
I believe that every great lie is wrapped around the truth. And when you question the lie, the liars point to the heart of truth and say, “But this is true, isn’t it?”. Well, yes, but….
So it is with Liberation Theology. LT seems to take the structure of Christianity, and hollow out its central message (the saving Grace of Christ and reunification of the Soul with God) and supplants it with the message of ‘social justice’. Christ’s central message is sent to the background, and the ‘take care of the poor’ message is brought to the forefront and made the new central message – the new imperative.
Yes, Christ spoke often about loving our neighbors and helping the poor. It was very important to him – he stressed it. But he spoke to us as individuals. We are supposed to see the need around us, the stranger on the road, and help them. For this we will be held accountable, as individuals. But we’re never going to ‘solve’ poverty. Christ said there would be poor always – we’re supposed to help when and where we can. (I agree we could and should do more than we do – part of the ‘heart of the truth”). continued below:
Pope Francis, in his home country, was surrounded by LT. And in his message, I see the shifting away from Christ’s central message to social justice concerns. Other people see this too – some to their joy, others to their heartbreak. He stresses living simply, environmental responsibility, collective responsibly to the poor, etc. He de-emphases Christ’s call to our SOULS. And some people like him BETTER because Christ’s central message is de-stressed. Many people have tried to sell “Christianity without Christ”. This seems to have wide appeal to the world.
Sadly, his attempts to improve the plight of the poor will only lead, I believe, to more poverty and to the degradation of the individual. Because that is what happens when you empower governments occupied with power-hungry, self-interested individuals to have control over the people. And what happens when you use artificial methods to ‘redistribute’ wealth, with only some superficial and immature notion of what ‘equality’ really means.
One more thing: I could talk for hours and hours to people about how our materialism and selfishness is destroying our character, our happiness, and our souls. And we could all resolve to do better, and maybe we would do better for a while, before falling back into our old habits and patterns.
Or I could share Christ with them and they would be a ‘new man’ and God would take them and remake them. True Joy is then possible. True Selflessness.
OK, so now I’ve read it, too. I think I know what she’s trying to say, but I’d also say her argument strikes me as impatient.
I’m not Catholic, may never be Catholic despite having seriously considered it, and I don’t like the current Pope’s politics, either. But my understanding is that Pope Francis’s biggest gift is supposed to be one of pastoral care, and building up pastoral care takes time. So the one thing his papacy is expected to be outstanding at is something that is by nature a long-term “investment” which may quite reasonably be slow to “show returns”.
Having been disaffected from some denominations myself, or only tentatively drawn toward others, two years is surprisingly little time where deep, (hopefully) permanent changes of heart are concerned. Wake me when more people aren’t going to mass ten years from now.
Well, no.
How long does it take for the typical seminarian to make it to ordination? (Lutherans take three years of graduate study; I am pretty sure it is similar for Catholics.) That means that all those ordinands of 2013 and 2014 and 2015 entered the program during the papacy of Benedict XVI. In fact, most of them probably made a decision to pursue the priesthood an average of six to eight years before achieving ordination.
I think it is a mistake for Mollie to conclude from “no increase” that there is no “Francis effect.”
Weren’t the numbers in decline previous to Benedict XVI ? Haven’t they been flat for a long time?
And, how long is the lag before any papal effect shows up in the numbers? Probably several years.
I didn’t catch that, you’re right.
I am a convert, and was confirmed under JP2 in 2004, but consider B16 my man. I love his precision of thought and word, his love of liturgy, his kindness, his orthodoxy.
Holy Father Francis is an enigma to me. He seems nothing like my hero B16, but my friends at the Gregorian Institute at Benedictine College shed light on Francis for me today.
Francis is like the readings for this 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time – they explore the meaning of merely believing. Popes always stress the importance of belief and faith. But Jesus tells us “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” At the Last Judgment, we won’t be separated according to our beliefs, but according to our deeds.
To be sure, the Catechism (CCC161) states that “Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.” But it also says that (CCC2443) “It is by what they have done for the poor that Jesus Christ will recognize his chosen ones.”
This is the Francis Effect to me. He calls me out of my self-righteousness and shows me that even though I believe all that the Church teaches, I have miles to go until I am Christ-like.
Francis is Peter, a flawed man, and I am happy to seek the kingdom of God with him.
Oh, and since Mollie called the “Francis Effect” a media phenomenon, lets take a look at the stories they won’t report.
I am skeptical of anything the MSM reports on religion, let alone Catholicism.
Nonsense. This pope is certainly concerned with recruitment which is precisely why most Protestants distrust the Vatican in the first place.
Ricochet has been a bastion of Protestant Pope-envy for the past week.
Tocqueville said that the reason religion thrived in America was because it was separated from the state. Too many lumped the state with the church and losing faith in one meant losing faith in both. In the America Tocqueville found, you could lose faith in a church, and find another – lose faith in the state, and find solace in the chapel.
The last week is evidence to me of that point. The Pope has a right to speak on any topic of his choosing, and it may be that God is moving him to speak on these subjects so as to use his influence for good in the world. However, we also have a right to express disagreement and even frustration with those views.
I hope the faithful are able to keep politics separate from the church. That would be easier if the politics were kept from the pulpit.
I hope all my Catholic friends found joy in the visit from the Pope.
The characteristics which the Left claims Pope Francis possess have been prevalent in the western Church for some time. The Left claims that Francis’ lack of emphasis on the sin of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and divorce finally makes the Catholic Church more welcoming to folks. In my observation of priests and parishes around America, those that take Pope Francis’ approach have been running the show for some time. Most (not all by any means) priests over 45 years of age are very reluctant to “lay down the law” on controversial issues (with the possible exception of abortion) and instead put forth an orthodox message in a VERY tolerant packaging. So many complain that the Church has been dogmatic and damning for the past 40 years and credit Francis for finally bringing a love and a softer message. But most parishes and diocese have been operated with the very philosophy that the Left wants to credit Francis with, and here we are.
Let’s be honest. If the press reported on what he has to say on matters spiritual, would it put butts in pews?
The words are very specific. Love your neighbour as you love yourself, but not more than.
There are a lot of former Catholics because of the Leftie tyranny Francis proselytizes the world to follow and suffer.
Ah sorry. Note to self: Next time read someone’s entire comment before commenting on it.
Let me tell you several reasons why Mollie’s point is ridiculous and Peter’s applaud of it just as bad.
The overall point of her piece is that the Pope, while possibly filling people with the spirit, is not filling American churches.
Take a closer look at the New York Times article she cited and the numbers pulled from Pew stated therein. The numbers say the opposite of her contention. Of those polled, 13% said they were going to church more, 12% said less and 74% said attendance was the same.
That’s a net increase of 1% in attendance. Considering the size of the American congregation, that would be 700,000 more church attendees each week. That would be a huge “Pope Francis effect” in only 2 1/2 years. Consider further that the Roman Catholic evangelical focus is on the world’s poor who aren’t here, one can only fairly conclude that Pope Francis has had a huge positive affect on church attendance.
Normally Peter (and I suppose Mollie – I don’t really know her) would catch the New York times in shenanigans like citing a verbal conclusion that is the exact opposite of the numerical proof in the polls. I don’t read Ross Douthat but if that’s his analytical skills he belongs at the NY Times.
Mollie and Peter Robinson standing behind typical NY Times pseudo-journalism can only be explained by a blinding papal prejudice.
Here’s another point for Mollie: Roman Catholic numbers are rising worldwide at a faster rate than world population. At the same time, Mollie’s Lutheran synod reports that their numbers are down 12% over the last decade alone.
Here’s what I see: John Delorean telling Enzo Ferrari he’s doing it wrong.
Each week on social media I push Ricochet to get more readers. Not this past week though, because of Ricochet’s papal-prejudice. This past week I was too embarrassed to say I was a part of it.
Really I thought it was mediocre the leads were better actors than previous Kendrick brother movies but I thought it was nothing special. I would not call it their worse movie but not great either. Then again I am in a minority around my friends who have seen this movie.
There are a lot of former Catholics due to indifference. But then there are a lot of former everythings due to indifference. If you want to know what is important to someone, say yourself, watch and see what that person does. Not the talk part, the do part.
If someone is urging you to help the hungry eat, and then is trying himself to ensure that they eat, that might be a clue. A clue to the hungry about his concern for them, and a clue to you. Should you be indifferent to that call, then you might not be physically hungry, but you’d be morally indifferent to the command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” A different but very real hunger.
E, are you now going to flog the poor for being hungry? Or perhaps display your checkbook to the Lord?
I watched the Pope ride down a street in NY with church bells pealing – the tears came – the phone rang – my sister in MD said are you crying? I said yes – she said me too and neither of us knew why – we’re not Catholic. Side by side sat Boehner and Biden – both Catholic – one weeping – one not, in fact in every picture of Boehner standing near the Pope, he weeps…. The next day Boehner announces resignation, like a man who found permission to lay down the weight of the world finally.
Pope Francis embodies the Holy Spirit and when you feel that presence you cannot help it – it’s spontaneous – especially if you’ve been humbled. You can’t make people more spiritual – only God can do that if the person is willing – if they are just looking for more political correctness, and not looking for God, things won’t change – in any denomination.
I read the Pope packed light during the conclave – expecting to leave – he was not even a contender. They said the Holy Spirit made it obvious – supernaturally – but they did not say how. I feel he sees evil rising quickly and his mission is to unite and bring as many souls to God as he can, as time is short-no person or place is off limits. I felt that was the reason Pope Benedict stepped aside- not done in 600 years. Popes are also only men-not perfect and high target for the devil.
Front Seat Cat, I know exactly what you mean. Our (then) not particularly religious 20 year old son was in a crowd in St. Peter’s Square two years ago when the Popemobile drove by. He’s tall, so could reach over lots of heads. The Pope’s hand brushed his as he passed. We met him a half hour or so later, and he was still shaking. He said the emotional impact of that fleeting contact took him completely by surprise.
I think we have no idea yet of the potency of this pontificate in opening hearts and minds to grace, and hence to everything good and true.
We know our system was designed for a religious and moral people. The main reason it’s falling apart is that we have become irreligious and immoral. The fastest route back to national sanity is a religious revival.
Conservatism (in the best sense) has no truer or more efficacious friend than Pope Francis.
Katievs, wow!! That last sentence really has me buffaloed. I really don’t see the truth in it, but absolutely no disrespect intended. I hope you are correct. Also the statement, “We know our system was designed for a religious and moral people.”, gives me pause. I have total agreement with the moral part and, to a great extent, morality comes from religious teaching, but radical Islamists are religious and our system sure wasn’t designed for them. I say that our system was designed for enlightened people of the Judeo/Christian bent and others who are willing to work and live within those parameters and our Constitution. Thanks for your input.
Well said katievs – that sums it up for me perfectly.
Yes I think that is what she meant – since our country and its founders never referenced Islam – but made provisions for freedom of religion irregardless of belief or none at all – somehow that part of the Constitution has been turned on its head.
Do you mean because he has more power than other, more conservative, people (eg. Stephen Harper, David Cameron, Mike Lee, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Dolan, Father Sirico) or that his ex officio connection to God makes him more conservative than people who voice conservative views, or something else?
Do you think of him as standing in the Burke/ Hayek school of conservatism, the Burke/ Kirk school, the WFB school, the Reagan school, the Pat Buchanan school, or some other?
Perhaps in the Roger Scruton school: