How to Detect High Papalism

Published on by D. G. Hart

If your bishop calls you on the phone, would these tips on how to receive a call from Pope Francis apply? Or is the pope in an area code of his own?

1. “Papa Bergoglio is maybe the last guy on earth who actually calls land lines. If you hear your home phone ringing, therefore, get ready.”

2. “Even if the pope tells you to use tu, thank him but stick with the classic Lei or the Spanish-ized Voi. Try not to go overboard, in one direction or the other. Calling him ‘Frankie,’ for instance, would be inappropriate. Exclaiming ‘Your Holiness!’ is predictable, but getting carried away with appellations such as ‘Your Magnificence’ or ‘Your Megagalacticness’ would be a little grotesque.”

3. “Listen before speaking, and don’t bring topics up yourself. If the conversation turns to his native Argentina, ask the pope how his countrymen behaved when he received the national soccer team. (Chaotically, the delegation was three times larger than anticipated.) While you’re at it, ask what he thought about Ezequiel Lavezzi sitting on the papal throne.” [Note: Lavezzi is an Argentine soccer star.]

4. “Don’t be afraid to be normal, because a light touch is a gift. If Pope Francis wanted to be bored, he would have called a government minister.”

5. “Don’t talk about recent problems in the Vatican, which aren’t his fault, and anyway are already very much on his mind. If the conversation turns to animals, it’s prohibited to use the word ‘crows’.” [Note: ‘Crows,’ in Italian i corvi, is a popular euphemism in the Italian press for the presumed architects of the Vatican leaks affair.]

6. “Pope Francis has a good sense of humor. Tell him that’s a beautiful thing, because irony is the sister of mercy; allowing yourself to smile and to forgive the imperfections of the world.”

7. “Ask about Benedict’s health, which will make him happy.”

8. “Don’t ask for anything practical – the pope is an important man, but he’s not a bureaucrat. If you start requesting recommendations, permission slips, concessions and favors from him, the pontiff will be sorry he ever called anybody in Italy and will disable the ‘+39’ country code on his phone.”

9. “Don’t end the conversation yourself, but let the pontiff decide when to say goodbye. If your mom, your wife or your husband starts yelling from the kitchen, ‘Come on, move it, the food’s ready, get off the phone!’, ignore them. Then, while you’re pouring the wine, say: ‘The Successor of Peter says hello. So, what’s for dinner?'”

How do you know you’re a Protestant? You wouldn’t follow these tips when your pastor calls (even if you would if the pope rang you).

35 thoughts on “How to Detect High Papalism”

  1. Well, I know Francis speaks Spanish, so I would refer to him as “usted” and not “tu” just out of formality and the respect with which I speak to all people older than I. But, this “usted” would go with, “Usted necesita leer el blog de Darryl Hart para saber de las muchas fallas de sus otros obispos Romanos. Ustedes Catolicos Romanos han tenido una tendencia tremenda para error. Tambien necesita hablar con los ‘Callers’ y decirles que paren de molestar.” I would add, “Usted necesita leer las obras literarias de Horton para entender el evangelio verdadero.”

    It would be great to get a call from Francis. We could ask him about the over zealous converts and apologists that seem to speak authoritatively for him and have a few laughs.

    Like

  2. Darryl, if the Successor of Peter were to end up “Call”ing you and discussing the historical illogicality of the Roman Catholic Church (particularly pre/post VII), I’m sure he’d apostasize to the O.nly P.erfect C.hurch and embrace classic Old School Presbyterianism, chowing down everything from the Institutes to Machen to Calvinism: A History. Maybe he’d be the next Erik Charter, the fanboy of all fanboys, and hang upon D.G. Hart’s lips. But probably not.

    Like

  4. Chicago’s Archbishop at the Barricades

    By NICHOLAS G. HAHN III

    It’s been over a year since the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George, submitted his resignation letter—mandatory when princes of the Catholic Church turn 75—to then- Pope Benedict XVI. In a highly unusual turn of events, Benedict was the one who resigned. That left Cardinal George—whose intellectual vigor is matched by a forceful defense of the church—still on the job.

    Some wish he weren’t. In late July, eight Illinois state lawmakers signed an open letter criticizing Cardinal George, among others, for threatening to end the church’s financial support for a rights group. The church had cited the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, because the group came out for the legalization of same-sex marriage in May. The politicians—all Catholic Democrats—said the threat of a funding withdrawal was “not worthy of the church we know, love and respect.” They said Cardinal George and others were using “immigrants and those who seek to help them as pawns in a political battle.”

    But the decision had nothing to do with politics. The church doles out money to organizations on the assumption that they will not violate church teachings. If a church-funded environmental group announced its support for abortion, for instance, it could lose funding. In supporting marriage equality for immigrants, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights clearly broke an orthodoxy compact with the church.

    In response to the politicians and other critics, Cardinal George—never one to mince words—took to the pages of the archdiocese’s newspaper, the Catholic New World, to respond. “It is intellectually and morally dishonest to use the witness of the church’s concern for the poor as an excuse to attack the church’s teaching on the nature of marriage,” he wrote in an August column. He reminded the politicians that “the church is no one’s private club,” adding that in a few years they would “stand before this same Christ to give an account of their stewardship.

    “Jesus is merciful,” the cardinal warned. “But he is not stupid.”

    This isn’t the first time Cardinal George’s gloves have come off. In the church’s ongoing battle with the administration over part of ObamaCare, Cardinal Timothy Dolan has been among the most visible critics. As president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, he has articulated the religious-freedom issue raised by the insistence of the Department of Health and Human Services that the church provide insurance that covers contraception for all its employees, in violation of church teachings.

    But it was Cardinal George who was the most blunt. In a February video interview with the Catholic News Service, he criticized the Obama administration for behaving “as if a right to free contraception were now a constitutional right” that presumes to supersede “the genuinely constitutional right of freedom of religion.” In this, Cardinal George announced, the church “will simply not cooperate.” In the same vein, he predicted in the Catholic New World in November 2012 that “the greatest threat to world peace and international justice is the nation state gone bad, claiming an absolute power, deciding questions and making ‘laws’ beyond its competence.”

    The issue of competence came up in a different way when I interviewed the cardinal in 2011 and asked whether bishops are the best authority on policy issues. I pointed out that he has urged his flock to “support and promote the passage of the Dream Act and the eventual goal of the passage of compassionate comprehensive immigration reform legislation.” When I asked him whether he ought to be so vocal about these things, the cardinal smiled. “The bishop has authority to teach,” he said, lowering his head to peer directly at me over his eyeglasses: “And he has authority to teach you.”

    Cardinal George’s newspaper column often reads now like a battle plan against government overreach. He recently decried how “this tendency for the government to claim for itself authority over all areas of human experience flows from the secularization of our culture. If God cannot be part of public life, then the state itself plays God.”

    The cardinal takes a particularly grim view of what this intrusion by government could mean for church and state relations. More than once he has warned for dramatic effect that, “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”

    Death is an important motivator for Cardinal George’s thinking these days—and not just because of his age. He is also recovering from a second bout with cancer.

    But Pope Francis has so far not replaced him, leaving the Archbishop of Chicago to lead his fractious flock in this world while he considers the mystery of what comes next. Clearly, he has decided not to leave important things left unsaid.

    Mr. Hahn is the editor of RealClearReligion.org.

    Like

  5. Picked up “John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist” on ebay for $9.95 + $3.95 shipping. Supposedly “brand new”.

    The buy of the month was “Religion and American Politics – From the Colonial Period to the 1980’s” edited by Mark Noll for $.25. Contributors include Ruth Bloch, Richard Carwardine, Robert Handy, Nathan Hatch, James Hennesey, Daniel Walker Howe, Lyman Kellstedt, George Marsden, Martin Marty, John Murrin, Noll, George Rawlyk, Harry Stout, Robert Swierenga, David Wills, John Wilson, Robert Wuthnow, and Bertram Wyatt-Brown. No Hart or Tom Van Dyke.

    Like

  11. Haha, thanks Darryl. I’m glad Erik’s new name is catching on.
    I have a question though: with all your qualms against high papalism and the like issues/arguments (e.g. belief contrary to the Callers’ claim that the CC is “founded” by Christ), why don’t you go all Eastern Orthodox? I definitely see how old school presbyterianism fits your mantra as promoted by this blog and your writings, but (to me) though the system is relatively consistent/orthodox, it just doesn’t seem to square with anything from the first 1500 years of church history to basic common sense (I used to go to a small PCA congregation just one block away from another tiny OPC church).

    Like

  13. Erik — sorry about that!! I only see Hart comments over there, so I just assumed … (and yes, all that stuff they say about “when you assume” is right in this case!).

    Like

  16. The “common sense” dude wants to school The Dude on history. Just when it looked like the nitwits had left us, here comes Jonathan. But he’s a different variety, so that’s something I guess.

    Like

  17. Jonathan – why don’t you go all Eastern Orthodox?

    Erik – Well there’s this dude named Jesus and this book called the Bible…

    I was thinking tonight, have you noticed how little Jesus is mentioned at Called to Communion? We get on evangelicals for assuming the gospel. What do the Callers do? It’s as if the gospel is old hat and all the exciting stuff is their ecclesiology.

    Like

  19. Jonathan, I actually believe in development. Maybe I have to. But no church (East or West) is doing what Paul and Peter were doing. Too much water under the historical bridge. So I don’t think Jesus founded John Calvin. I think providence gave us John Calvin (and Zwingli and Ursinus and Knox etc.).

    Like

  21. Charles: They are roughly the exact same in numbers at this time.

    DG: I think I understand. I don’t trust anyone who argues their church is an exact and demonstratable copy of the early, ancient, and nonarguably apostolic church. Thatwithstanding, mainline catholic apologists, including I’d hope many of the Callers, would prolly agree that Pius X, Francis, Gregory the Great, Pope St. Leo I, or Alexander VI weren’t being exactly being Sts Peter and Paul (at least to some extent). Nonetheless, just as you’d trust in our Lord’s providence through Calvin et cetera onto modern confessional presbyteries, I’m sure you can imagine some putting their trust in the continuation of the Bishop of Rome throughout the centuries, believing (though I’m sure you’d disagree) that the gates of hell would not prevail against that church/office (Babylonian Captivity et al) and that when the Spirit of truth comes, He has and will lead the apostles/church into all truth.

    So maybe these conflicting paradigms of epistemological knowledge/truth fundamentally disagree on God’s providence for His Church? This is something I’ve been noticing more and more, despite my inability to more adequately convey the notion.

    Like

  22. Jonathan, my sense is that both sides trust God’s providence to protect the church. But one side trusts one office it seems almost as it trusts God — as if the persistence of the church depends on the pope. As we now know, the papacy has not been dependable. CTC doesn’t seem to acknowledge that lack of dependability. When some of them do — things about Rome I don’t like — all you get is a shrug, wish it were different. No call for reform.

    And that fear of or unwillingness to call for reform is not healthy. As I’ve said many times, the sexual abuse scandal is an easy target and hitting proves nothing. But the way the church has adjudicated that controversy — it sure seems to me — arises precisely from a corporate culture where you only shrug at the “this sucks” moments of the Roman pontiff.

    Like

  23. There’s a doctoral dissertation waiting to be written (good luck getting at the sources) on the financial impact of the sexual abuse scandal on the finances of the church. How much has been paid out in defense? How much has been paid out in settlements and judgments? How much of a damper has it put on giving? Fascinating stuff.

    A financial history of the church throughout history would likewise be an amazing read.

    Like

  24. Imagine a judgment that could get at the collection of art and relics in the Vatican. It would make selling off the collection in the Detroit Art Museum seem a pittance in comparison. No chance of it happening since the Vatican is a state unto itself. Who would enforce the judgment?

    Like

  25. Erik, interesting you bring that up. Much of the dissent between certain dioceses and archdioceses with Rome is on this very issue. For example, Ireland basically feels like it got thrown under the bus by the Vatican because the Vatican issued a letter to the bishops of Ireland effectively telling them to delay notification to local authorities(police) on sexual abuse claims(this was how the Irish bishops interpreted the letter, Vat denies) on grounds that preempting an internal investigation/notification by the diocese itself, was in violation of canon law procedure and therefore violated church law and jeopardized the outcome of cases brought against offenders in church court.

    It’s an example du jour of more echoes of temporal(local civil) powers vs. church powers/concerns. But additionally, and more to your point, the Vat has to disown the letter and the accusation by the Irish Bishops because if a claimant can ground the Bishop’s decision in a Vatican directive, the claimant may acquire grounds to bring suit against the Vatican itself.

    This is why every case to date, has been settled at the diocesan level. In spite of the fact that EVERY single abuse case goes through the Vatican and Ratzinger oversaw/evaluated every case up until the early 2000’s

    Like

  27. The question for churches is, how do you deal with offenders in positions of power and authority, care for victims, but at the same time protect against false accusations and claims.

    Like

  28. Erik, on June 1 the second count was dismissed by the Court. That was the one that alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress. On August 9 the URCNA was dismissed from the suit.

    Like

  29. mikelmann, that was a rough morning service the day that was announced… thanks for the update of the dismissal of the denomination….

    Like

  30. @Erik August 25, 2013 7:32 am comment

    The thing about the Catholic organizations in the United States is many of them are legally financially independent and some quite a bit richer than the local diocese or arch diocese. Their relationship is much more like the OPC’s relationship with Crossway than some simple subsidiary. This has been the big issue especially with regard to the organizations run by nuns. In theory they should be under rather direct control but when the tell the US hierarchy to go pound sand (as they have) the US hierarchy is confronted with a choice between:

    a) Backing off

    b) An all out attack (excommunications, etc..) which might very well turn a disobedience problem into a full on formal schism.

    A good example of this was the healthcare debate. Sister Carol Keehan had no problem undermining Cardinal Dolan (ArchBishop Dolan at the time for most of this) in his negotiations. Dolan rejected the Joe Biden compromise, Keehan thought it was fair, said so publicly and from then on it really didn’t matter much what Cardinal Dolan thought. And I should mention that Catholic laity were somewhere between 2/3rds and 3/4s in agreement with Keehan and against Dolan’s hard line. There was no meaningful objection to Keehan undermining the Bishops and the hierarchy openly among the laity.

    The fact is the hierarchy ain’t holding cards, and they know it.

    Like

  31. MM- On August 9 the URCNA was dismissed from the suit

    Erik – That’s good news. I wonder how they even got them served? It’s hard to serve a P.O. Box when the stated clerk is probably a thousand miles away. Organizing as a Federation looks better and better.

    Like

  33. Erik, it’s more like the Little Rascal’s He-man women haters club but in reverse.

    On the ground the priests can pull rank on the nuns. The ‘shop-class’ nuns then go; “the heirarchy is not the church” and get Conrad Hilton to fund their efforts and voila it’s all filed somewhere below infallible considerations.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.