I've been a bad blogger. For anyone who discovered this blog and was even half interested in my ramblings, you would have been forgiven for believing that St. John's Tower had gone dormant, what with the absence of posts for the past two three weeks.
But I'm back. My work life has gotten incredibly busy of late with the taking on of new responsibilities. It's taken time to readjust, but now I intend to get back on track.
Let's begin with the photo above.
Yet again, Pope Francis has managed to make headlines, this time for kissing the hand of Michele de Paolis, an avowed homosexual Marxist priest, shortly before departing for the Holy Land. Is this a big deal? Yes, but one has to tread carefully so as to avoid the pitfalls into which some papal critics (the rabid Mundabor, for instance) inevitably fall. For what it's worth, here's what I see as problematic.
If this was just an instance of the Holy Father honoring a nonagenarian priest, we'd all be saying 'class act.' But de Paolis is not just any nonagenarian priest. He's published and professed ideas that clearly run counter to Holy Scripture. He's long associated with political groups that have, over the course of history, fervently attempted to take religion out of the life of man. He's also part of a neo-fascist effort to employ state sanctions against those, by their thoughts, are deemed homophobic.
To sum up de Paolis' ministry: heretical, anti-Church, and pro-thought crime. Though we don't know the man's heart, the outward form, as it were, makes it clear where his treasure lies. Nonetheless, the pope saw fit to kiss his hand.
The pope, if I may coin a term of art, has been somewhat hetero-flexible with regard to homosexuality. To be fair, he's not broken with orthodoxy, nor questioned the objective scriptural truth that God created man and woman to be fruitful and multiply. But strictly on the basis of his symbolic actions, there appears to be a subtext to the official line. As Cardinal Bergoglio, he wasn't exactly vociferous in his opposition to Argentina's homosexual "marriage" legislation. Since his election to the papacy, thus far, we've witnessed "Who am I to judge?" and now the hand-kissing of Michele de Paolis.
I hear a voice from the cheap seats pipe up: so would it be better if the guy was an in-the-closet homosexual? Is that what this is about?
Sit the hell down, dumbass, and learn something for a change.
The answer is: not exactly. By which I mean, if the whole encounter between Pope Phil Donahue Francis and de Paolis had been couched in the concept of forgiveness, it might have been easier to fathom. In other words, the pope might say: Allora, if some in the Church have been too harsh in their treatment of homosexual persons, please forgive us. In return, de Paolis might say: Ecco, forgive me for advocating ideas designed to hurt the Church.
But that's not the case here. Not even close. The Church goes out of her way to accommodate homosexuals--to the point of letting the anti-Church homosexual agenda run rampant, in my opinion--and has consistently advocated civil treatment of those persons. Nobody is repressing de Paolis. In fact, if he had his way, the government would repress heterosexuals merely for feeling a native revulsion in contemplating the physicality of homosexuality. Since there are more heterosexual Catholics than homosexual, I suppose the Italian government would be sending a lot of people to prison.
It's the symbolism that makes this little incident a big problem.
Since a pope is an intensely public figure--arguably the most public figure in the world--symbolic actions are part of the papal record, to wit: Urban at the Council of Clermont, St. John Paul II's visits to Poland, Benedict XVI's visit to the tomb of Celestine V. While not ex cathedra proclamations, a pope's symbolic actions are meant to demonstrate something important to the faithful.
What message was Pope Francis trying to send by kissing de Paolis' hand? If it's the sanctification of sinfulness, we're all in trouble.
The author here alludes to a serious problem with this papacy. It is increasingly a prisoner of its own symbolism. To be sure, the Catholic Church, with its beautiful works of art, its sculpture and stained glass windows and magnificent churches, share in the Protestant disdain for symbolism. Indeed, the Eucharist itself has an important symbolic dimension.
ReplyDeleteHowever, such symbolism has been in the service, and illustrative, of Church teaching. Increasingly, though, the symbolism of this Pope is being perceived through the prism of, and is being driven by, the expectations of a self-satisfied culture that generally seems to believe that it is willing to forgive the Savior rather than seek the Savior's forgiveness.
That the Pope drives an inexpensive car and lives - if the media are to be believed - in a utility closet in the basement of the Apostolic Palace, has been taken for humility. It is, in truth, pure hucksterism. It is an ostentatious lack of ostentatiousness that diverts attention from serious consideration of more important theological and moral questions. The Pope carries his own suitcase! --- and people lap this up as if it mattered, ignoring the more demanding teachings of the Church.
The author says, rightly, that the Pope has not altered Church teachings, Therefore, it might be argued, that no damage is done. Church teaching goes on regardless of how the Pope's actions are perceived.
This badly underestimates what is happening. The Pope is opening the door to confusion among the faithful, disillusionment among those who are getting a mistaken impression of what the Church means - and most of all, in extremis, relativism.
The Pope undoubtedly intended that his actions in the case cited here would be seen as an act of reconciliation and forgiveness. However, to reconcile and forgive a priest whose teachings are so obviously hostile to Church doctrine without first receiving from that priest a request for forgiveness "with a firm purpose of amendment" and an act of penance is crossing a line. To reconcile with error is not a Christian virtue, it is rather an endorsement of error, and so it will be seen.