Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

There Is Not Just One Way To Be Pope

One of the things that's been bothering me (as well as several other good bloggers I read) in the days since the election of Pope Francis is the seeming need of many to identify a single cookie-cutter model which every "good" pope most follow. I recall some of this when Benedict succeeded John Paul, but it was perhaps more muted both by a certain gravity stemming from John Paul's very public death and funeral, and also by the fact that the although we certainly lived in a "new media" age then, it hadn't gained the dizzying speed which social media has since provided to "reax".

Thus it seems as if much of the coverage of the new pope boils down to, "Francis isn't as intellectual and liturgically focused as Benedict, so he's not as good" or else "Francis is so 'humble' and focused on the poor, he's clearly a much better pope than Benedict". Then there's the next level of escallation in which each side tries to steal the virtues of the other: Oh yeah, well if Francis were really humble he wouldn't insist on simplicity, which is really a subtle exercise in saying "look at me"! You say Francis cares about the poor and about simplicity? Well look how much Benedict cared about the poor and about simplicity!

I think this quickly gets silly, and more to the point it starts to act as if there is only gone right way for the pope to act. The fact is, being the shepherd of God's flock on earth is a job large enough that there are multiple different ways of doing it that are right. (Which is not to say that every way is right, obviously, we've had some pretty bad popes over the centuries.)

It seems to me that John Paul II's dense intellectualism combined with his oversize and highly charismatic personality was arguably exactly what the Church needed at the time of his pontificate -- as we emerged from a time in which it seemed like the roof was coming down and everything was up for grabs. Benedict's liturgical focus was another thing that the Church desperately needed at the time that he was chosen -- and I think that his ability to write deeply yet clearly was also a huge need. If John Paul II's struggle to incorporate Catholic teaching and a moderl philosophical understanding of the human person were something very much needed in our modern era, I at the same time suspect that Benedict's books (both his books about the life of Christ and the many books he wrote prior to his pontificate) may actually be read more often by ordinary Catholics in the coming decades than anything that John Paul II wrote.

Similarly, I think that Francis' intentional simplicity is something that we need to see in our pope at times. This is not to say that Benedict and John Paul were not simple. They were, though in different ways. But while not every saint needs (or should) be simple in the sort of over-the-top way that our pope's namesake St. Francis of Assisi was, St. Francis nonetheless remains a good saint to have. That it is good that we have St. Francis as an example does not mean that every other saint is the less for not being St. Francis. (I mean, let's be honest, St. Francis could be kind of nuts.) And similarly, admiration of Pope Francis's qualities need not, and indeed should not, be turned into a criticism of other popes for not being like him in every way.


Karie, the Regular Guy's Extraordinary Wife said...

I agree with this post 100%. But it also crystallized something that was niggling in the back of my head now. Pope Francis is really a champion of the poor and the "signs" (at one week, how many are there really?) point to his desire to lead people to act with charity toward the poor. I am afraid this will get all the "social justice" people jumping up and down saying, "See the Pope is on OUR side about (whatever left-leaning social justice thing they are on)". Just my $.02.

Kristen @ St Monica's Bridge said...

So agree with all you have said here. I heard Cardinal Turkson speaking on Vatican Radio a couple of days ago and he mentioned that there is a tendency in our world to compare each new person in a position to that person's predecessor and he cautioned against doing that in the case of the Pope because each one was made perfectly by God and deserved to be judged by his own merits and actions. Quite sensible words during this time when a lot of silliness is permeating the Catholic blogosphere (in particular).

Literacy-chic said...

It should perhaps be noted that there's not only one way to be an intellectual, a Catholic intellectual, or a theologian. I see him as intellectual, and very much the theologian. Why should he be judged as less on an intellectual simply because he is in the world? Why should we prefer an ivory tower pope?

And... what about his being a New World pope? Couldn't some of his characteristics that seem un-pope-like actually derive from his cultural separation from the Old World of Europe? Monarchy and the New World--the trappings of monarchy and the New World--are not easy bedfellows. Maybe I've missed it, but that hasn't seemed to be part of the conversation. But I haven't been looking for the criticism, either--just reveling in the beauty.