...We Catholics listen...respectfully and receptively. Not obediently. Critically.
In the current pope/president brawl, JD Vance said two things that are helpful in that they contradict but thereby correct each other. On the one hand, he minimized the dispute in that such differences are ordinary and to be expected. On the other hand, he suggested the pope stay in his lane of faith and morals and avoid policy. Logically, if the pope avoids policy then disagreement will not be normal.
To be precise, the pope is not infallible in faith and morals. He is only fully infallible in the rare occasions when he speaks "from the chair" in a clearly articulated use of that authority. We believe his charism is to teach authoritatively but his statements are on a scale of authority. Casual comments to journalists on the jet ride home are very low. Higher would be, for example, the redefinition of capital punishment by Francis in the Catholic Catechism where it is ruled permanently impermissible. That too, however, is fallible. Many of us reject it in fidelity to centuries of magisterial teaching that allows it, aware that he did this without consultation with bishops, dismissive of tradition, and with clerical authoritarianism withdrew it from the prudential discretion of the the political process. The death penalty is not really pure morality but political policy, so not the realm of papal definition. Nevertheless, even in the worst case scenario, the pope enjoys in morals and faith charismatic authority and the presumption of obedience.
Regarding political policy the pope enjoys no such charism. Does that require him to remain apolitical and "stay in his lane?" No!
He has freedom of conscience and of speech. Beyond that, as universal pastor of the Church he has a pastoral concern for the world even beyond the boundaries of the Church. Part of his role is to address the moral dimensions of policy,
Consider: Catholic approval of labor unions throughout the 20th century; support from many Churches for MLK and civil rights; John Paul's endorsement of the Solidarity movement in Poland; the Vatican's sometimes critical but then conditionally supportive view of liberation theology in South America.
It is the task of the hierarchical Church to teach broadly on the morality of public policy. But it is another thing to cross a line into endorsement of specific policy, parties, ideologies, and personalities. In the examples above (unionism, civil rights, solidarity, liberation theology) the Vatican and bishops in general respected the line between principle and concrete practice.
Political Messianism of Catholic Progressivism
Unfortunately, Pope Francis saw himself as a global guru on key policy issues: open borders, global warming, anti-populism, and other. He habitually crossed the line into concrete policy. This indiscretion is continued by his disciples in the USA: recently the progressive trio of cardinals (Cupich, Tobin, McElroy) went on 60 Minutes to inflame the pope/president fight with a partisan attack on Trump. Apparently, Trump watched this show and went on to insult the pope in his typical vile manner. It seemed that he conflated the cardinals with the Vatican. McElroy stated authoritatively that the Iran action was unjust by Catholic teaching; he recognized no ambiguity, uncertainty, possibility of legitimate disagreement or exercise of prudence. He pronounced it absolutely. Tobin condemned the masking of ICE agents as allowing them to abuse innocents but showed no concern for the safety of the agents themselves. With this unrestrained, ideological righteousness the three misuse their authority. Of course, they are known to be the "squad" of the episcopal left and are outliers within the body of bishops who on the whole maintain proper restrain and balance.
Pope Leo
Our American pontiff is a man of discretion, restrain, modesty, balance, and respect for institutional boundaries. He is admirably passionate in his empathy for victims of warfare and refuge homelessness. But he has erred in stepping over the line into social advocacy.
By encouraging the American bishops to oppose Trump's policy he risks associating himself with a political position, alienating those who disagree, and increasing polarization. Regarding his recent meeting with David Axelrod, I am not critical as the pope meets with many people without endorsing them. But immigration policy...for example that of Biden and Trump...is complicated and open to honest dispute. Leo risks reprising Francis' role as the anti-Trump.
Along with his appropriate Easter calls to Peace, he exhorted Americans to call representatives to demand immediate peace in Iran. That is a mistake. "Peace at any price" is not a binding moral imperative when dealing with imperialist totalitarians as in Iran.
Why to Trust and Why to Scrutinize the Pope on Policy
We do well to receive respectfully papal pronouncements, even if they slip over the line into advocacy, for several reasons. First, his is a clear conscience, informed by Revelation and the natural law. Second, he is global, transcendent of nations/ideologies/parties, and relatively (but not absolutely) objective and free of prejudice. Third, he has pastoral concern for all peoples, all religions, all ethnicities. Fourth, he draws from a rich tradition of international diplomacy. Fifth, he has connections with all groups...Jews and Arabs, leftists and rightists, poor and rich...and so has an unrivaled catholicity or ecumenicity of perspective.
However, he is not absolutely free of prejudice but does have a specific position or perspective which itself is finite, limited, and not entirely universal or objective
Firstly, Churchmen of our time are temperamentally, educationally, and professionally disposed to mercy, understanding, dialogue, healing, reconciliation, and forgiveness. They are systemically unprepared to deal firmly with psychopaths, terrorists, murderers, totalitarians, pedophiles and the like. Innately, popes and bishops are the least qualified to deal with the Putins, Ayatollahs, and Xi's of the world. It is like pitting a ballet dancer against a Sumo wrestler.
Secondly, the Vatican itself as an institution with a long memory and strong perspective. For example, despite deep differences it retains a positive attitude to the United Nations. There are strong practical reasons for this. But this is not infallible teaching. In many ways it is European. It renounces the modernity of the West in many of its anti-Catholic dimensions. But under Francis it clearly imitated much of elite cosmopolitan elite culture: embrace of the LGBTQ agenda; environment; anti-populism.
Thirdly, the particular pope has his own history and perspective. Regarding the USA for example, John Paul and Benedict shared an implicit gratitude to the our country and the Allies for the defeat of Hitler and eventual release from the USSR. Critical of the dark side of our culture, they nevertheless shared a core positivity about our role in the world. By contrast, as a South American man of the poor, Francis did not disguise his disdain for American power, wealth and conservatism. Leo is more complex: a moderate, politically Republican American he spent his adult life as a missionary in Peru and an administrator in Rome. Not professionally a theologian, he came of age in the catechetical confusion of the USA 1970s. She shares Francis' inclination to a soft theo-politics of the Left: quasi-pacifism, pro-immigration, aversion to use of force. The abomination of Trump's behavior and rhetoric cannot but provoke him.
Conclusion
Imagine: a troubled boy in a Catholic high school has become a problem: bullying, disrupting class, theft. The Dean has administered progressive discipline and now wants his expulsion for the good of the school. The Counselor has been working with him and sees progress. She knows his father has abused the family and just abandoned them while his mother is depressed. She see him benefiting from from friendships and coach mentors in the school. She strongly advocates for him. The Headmaster makes the final call: he must weigh the factors against each other.
When it comes to political policy, the pope and bishops are like the counselor. They are not the headmaster. The political authority must make the decision to go to war, to arrest the undocumented, to use the death penalty. So, like the headmaster listening attentively to the counselor, the political authority, including us as voters, listen to the pope/cardinals on policy. But we are not bound to their opinion as they have a specific, valid, but limited point of view.
And so, Vance, a newborn in the faith, is right in both statements. The pope's mission is faith and morals. But he does have a role to play as a moral voice about public policy. But his perspective is itself limited and biased in specific ways so it is not binding upon the Catholic conscience in the way of his authoritative teaching. And so, we listen to the Church on things like war and immigration. We expect a strong advocacy for welcome and nonviolence. And we expect some disagreements along the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment