Here is an early assessment of Francis’ papacy, which suggests a perspective on changes within Roman Catholicism since 1960 that the Callers can only fathom as a straw man:
For the past 34 years, the church has been run essentially by two men: Karol Wojtyla, who became Pope John Paul II, and Joseph Ratzinger, who served as a kind of first lieutenant to John Paul for most of 25 years and then served nearly eight years as Pope Benedict XVI.
The church owes an enormous debt of gratitude to the two men for their distinctive and substantial intellectual offerings and for leading the church into more profound interfaith relations. Those achievements, of course, have been amply documented and heralded, sometimes to the exclusion of any mention of the serious ills within the church that also characterized their tenures.
It became evident that the church’s troubles had grown to such proportions that they could no longer be ignored, not even by the gathered cardinals. This interregnum and conclave were quite different in tone and content from the last precisely because subjects that were swept aside in the tide of sentiment accompanying John Paul’s death came roaring back to shore. Curial corruption and infighting had been documented and were no longer a matter of mere speculation. Figures like the late Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado and his order, the Legion of Christ, still seen eight years ago as unfairly under siege, were now, beyond dispute, a world-class fraud and a failed project respectively.
John Paul II’s notions of heroic priesthood lay in tatters, his episcopal appointments too often a collection of hot-blooded and imprudent ideologues who love to parade around in yards of silk and fine lace. Eight years ago the gathered cardinals would have smirked at talk of a church in crisis; this year they spoke of it themselves.
The 34 years of Wojtyla and Ratzinger comprised a three-and-a-half-decade attempt to rein in the impulses of the Second Vatican Council. The first 15 post-conciliar years were alive with a rich, if at times messy and excessive, enthusiasm for the possibilities of this Christian community called Catholic. Wojtyla and Ratzinger set out to re-square the corners and redraw the lines. What once was so outward-looking became inward and withdrawn, in Francis’ term, “self-referential.” Both popes spent an inordinate amount of time and energy going after those who raised inconvenient questions or explored areas of theology that didn’t fit their prescriptions of church. All the while, the real sins against the community were being committed by priests and hidden for years, under elaborate schemes and at unconscionable cost, by the community’s bishops.
Francis will, very soon, have the opportunity to show how serious he is about re-establishing integrity and sound judgment within the church with appointments to major sees, such as in this country the Chicago archdiocese, and with appointments to the Curia. Our hope is that his humility and sense of service and concern for the poor will guide his choices. Without such qualities, his wish that the church look beyond itself will remain unrealized.
Old Life 
“Habemus Papam! Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina has been elected to be the successor of Pope Benedict XVI, and has chosen the name Francis, the first pope to take the name ‘Francis.’ ”
So you’re telling me his name is Francis?
LikeLike
“Francis may be realizing what is thickly in the air: Catholics really want to like and believe in their leaders. As has been demonstrated, it doesn’t take much. Catholics are not so much in search of world-class theology or grand international gestures as they are of authentic holiness and personal integrity. A few days of a leader speaking compassion and acting in a way that suggests he understands everyday Catholics and their struggles has moved a great deal of the world in Francis’s direction.”
Francis was clearly the second choice after this man, who was unfortunately no longer available:
LikeLike
On one hand I can follow the arguments CTC is making. I can even respect their militant adherence to coherence, regardless of how incredible the task. I do think for a group so committed to philosophical certainty, that the turn toward noumenal truth considerations is a bit odd, but if you’re going to base certainty on paradigmatic considerations it makes sense to by and large house those propositions in the noumenal plane, if you will. At some point though, history and theology and supernatural verification;canon for instance, has to come to bear on theological, supernatural and historical claims. I’m uncertain of the usefulness of perfectly round circles on a chalkboard that leave relatively unattended the aforementioned considerations. It’s a museum piece, but a museum piece which fails to accurately reflect the history or explain the substance of the time and place it claims to represent.
LikeLike
Sean, don’t you think it’s a museum piece that also makes a lot more sense if Pius X is the one on the throne? In other words, constructing this museum now makes almost no sense (unless you’re living in a bubble).
LikeLike
Darryl, it does but then CTC is also polemically engaged with it’s own communion over who will control the narrative.
LikeLike
Sean, is it not a tad presumptuous for Callers to think they are part of that controversy?
LikeLike
Darryl, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt and lumping them in with the traditionalists but to the left of the SSPX crowd, maybe even the CL. Francis is going to go left of Ratzinger, I just don’t know how far, I don’t think the spirit of Vat II crowd is going to get what they want either. He’ll be a moderate with traditionalist leanings dogma wise I think, though on specific conciliar/papal authority issues he looks like he’s going to make a pretty significant left turn. Also, since he’s a religious, I would expect to see concessions made toward groups like the Network and very possibly some serious entertaining of the whole celibacy requirements(allowing marriage).
LikeLike
sean,
I would expect to see concessions made toward groups like the Network and very possibly some serious entertaining of the whole celibacy requirements(allowing marriage).
This, while of a little more consequence, seems to me to be about as useful as the no dancing/drinking/smoking policies of conservative Christian colleges, and about as adhered to. It would be interesting to see if the Benedictine (suddenly craving eggs benedict for some reason) oath were to be modified. Frankly, it might be necessary to save the priesthood in the West, where there are already so few priests, much less qualified ones – and it might go towards restoring some confidence in the clergy amongst RC’s who might find a married priest to be less given to sexual deviancy.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the hypothetical notion of Rome allowing married priests. Would this open the door for other significant revisions? Would it likely stop there? What do you see more likely, a married priesthood, or a move away from papal infallibility and back to conciliarism?
LikeLike
Get ready to address the CTC crowd as “Father Cross”, “Father Stellman”, etc. if that happens. Stellman said in his Cross interview that he might have to work at McDonald’s. This would solve that problem.
LikeLike
Jed, celibacy is technically a clerical discipline. So Francis could implement it or allow it selectively. Exceptions are already made for anglo-catholic priests(anglicans) and the Orthodox. Progressives would hail it as Francis making way for Vat II to come to fruition, some traditionalists like SSPX(Sacred Society of St Pius X) or maybe even CL(communion and liberation) might decry Francis as a false pope, for sure SSPX . CTC types would explain it similar to how I am, I imagine. The biggest changes would be on the practical/logistical and public perception level. Novitiates would look very different, formation centers would as well. The rectory setup might disappear from a number of parishes in favor of more traditional housing. The gay clergy situation might reach a critical mass, with an influx of married heterosexual clergy, certainly you risk a polarization. The whole contraception, homosexual clergy and gay marriage hot button items would be front and center in the press. Tonight on 20/20, “Is your priest making use of prophylactics at home and what does that mean for you in the pew!”(snicker snicker snicker). On Dateline, we have a story of the wife of a RC priest who some are saying had an abortion. blah blah blah.
I don’t know enough about Francis to say which is more likely. JPII and Benedict stacked the college with conservatives and Francis would’ve had to pledge his fidelity to the papacy and their understanding of papal authority in order to recieve office. So, they’re very much political appointees in the vein of the ideological parochialism that goes on with presidential administrations appointing justices to the supreme court. The twist is that he’s a Jesuit, so he’s a religious, and in this case a religious of the MOST progressive order in RC. The Jesuits are the marxists of the liberation theologians, they are the religion philosophers at the most respected RC universities and institutions. They are the educators and intellectual talking heads of RC academia, and are often found in the vanguard of the most progressive Vat II adherents. To give it an american political context, he’s a moderate among a group of flaming liberals.
I get the impression he’s of a more collegial mind, and I think he’s more progressive than many might imagine. However, I don’t think he’ll stake out his claim as the pope of the Vat II progressives. I do think he will use his papacy as a half-measure and if he’s in office long enough probably start paving the way for a pope who is a progressive of the sort that was being anticipated when I was in seminary. That and 5 bucks will buy me a coffee.
LikeLike
Jed,
Ithe world would be shocked to see a move away from papal infallibility. It would require an uprooting of the entire intellectual structure of the RC Church.LikeLike