A "revolution in the self-understanding of the Catholic Church"
George Weigel on Pope Francis. Excerpt:
He is a man of broad culture, well-read theologically but more given to literary references and illustrations than to scholarly theological citations in his preaching and catechesis. Thus one of his recent daily Mass sermons praised Robert Hugh Benson’s early 20th-century apocalyptic novel, “Lord of the World,” for raising important cautions against dictatorial utopianism, or what the pope called “adolescent progressivism.”
Pope Francis also grasps the nature of the great cultural crisis of post-modernity: the rise of a new Gnosticism, in which everything in the human condition is plastic, malleable and subject to human willfulness, nothing is simply given, and human beings are reduced, by self-delusion, legal definition or judicial dictums to mere bundles of desires.
And the conclusion:
As he wrote in “Evangelii Gaudium,” Pope Francis is not a man of “political ideology.” He knows that “business is a vocation and a noble vocation,” if ordered to the common good and the empowerment of the poor. When he criticizes the social, economic or political status quo, he does so as a pastor who is “interested only in helping all those who are in thrall to an individualistic, indifferent and self-centered mentality to be freed from those unworthy chains and to attain a way of living and thinking that is more humane, noble, and fruitful.”
Pope Francis is a revolutionary. The revolution he proposes, however, is not a matter of economic or political prescription, but a revolution in the self-understanding of the Catholic Church: a re-energizing return to the pentecostal fervor and evangelical passion from which the church was born two millennia ago, and a summons to mission that accelerates the great historical transition from institutional-maintenance Catholicism to the Church of the New Evangelization.
I agree with Weigel's summary.
I don't.
ReplyDeleteI am in broad agreement with Weigel, although I've never found it helpful to call someone a revolutionary who isn't involved in armed revolt.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I think he ought to have said something about Pope Francis's repeated, and pointed, criticisms of both self-referential traditionalists and careerist clergy, neither of which group has a role as such in the program proposed by Evangelii Gaudium. To call out the Gnostics without calling out the Pelagians distorts the Pope's message.
Yes; but I don't think Pope Francis is a "message" kind of guy. I think he is an action man who lets the message take care of itself.
DeleteOn further reflection, I think Pauli's onto it with Pope Francis being an "action man" rather than a "message" guy. Benedict was a very precise writer and speaker. We got used to that precision and so tend to look at Francis in the same way -- which may well miss the point with him.
DeleteI think we may need to wait for the actions from Pope Francis to find out what he is all about. It may turn out that those actions are exactly what we and the Church need (but we just don't realize it yet).
Wouldn't you say, though, that Evangelii Gaudium is a pretty explicit message as to what Pope Francis wants the Church to be all about? Not at the detailed program level -- he disavows that intention, which is probably for the best -- but in terms of "guidelines which can encourage and guide the whole Church in a new phase of evangelization."
DeleteI think he's made clear what he thinks being a good Catholic entails, particularly at this point in history.
Weigel's calling him a "revolutionary" because it's nicer to do that than to call him someone who can't articulate the church's teaching well so we just have to observe how nice his actions are, and proclaim the salubrious effect this exhibited niceness may or may not have on nonbelievers.
ReplyDeleteHey, turns out George Weigel co-authored a book with Elizabeth Lev this year, she of the secret 9yo love child with Zenit publisher and erstwhile media priest Thomas Sullivan. guess Weigel was in on the cover up as well, especially since it's great for business. no wonder he likes a relativist Pope.
ReplyDeleteI mean erstwhile priest Thomas Williams, of course. Or I guess I could just call him "Father" ahem.
DeleteCould someone comment on this article in TAC?
ReplyDeleteI always thought that when Patrick J. Deneen writes about something he usually had something intelligent to say, though maybe debatable. But the above article in TAC just seems strangely whacky to me.
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read: "most visible and famous Catholics who fight on behalf of Catholic causes in America focus almost exclusively on sexual issues (as Pope Francis himself seemed to be pointing out, and chastising, in his America interview), but have been generally silent regarding a century-old tradition of Catholic social and economic teaching." riiiiiiight. who is patrick deneen and what planet does he live on?
DeleteI didn't notice anything particularly whacky. A large bloc of Catholics in the U.S. has publicly opposed -- and in a fairly well organized way -- Church teaching on economics for decades. They have patronized the bishops, and changed the subject with the last two popes.
DeleteThey can't change the subject with this pope, though, since they aren't happy with what he says on the topics that they have long insisted constitute the scope of legitimate Church teaching. All they can do is insist that *he* change the subject -- and, while he's at it, to get it right (which is to say, to say things that in no way challenge their own understanding of the Catholic Faith, which they are no more prepared to change than their own understanding of economic morality.)
This is what Patrick Deneen is writing about. It's not a particularly original piece, but it does seem to have given the TAC readership something to think about.
"A large bloc of Catholics in the U.S. has publicly opposed -- and in a fairly well organized way -- Church teaching on economics for decades." -- REALLY?!! Maybe you haven't noticed, William F Buckley is dead. Hey, is this "large bloc" larger than the "bloc" of catholics who promote catholic social teaching? do tell, Tom. Your planet sounds nicer than mine. To quote Liz Lemon, I want to go to there.
Delete"A large bloc of Catholics in the U.S. has publicly opposed -- and in a fairly well organized way -- Church teaching on economics for decades."
DeleteTom, that's because most American Catholics know full well that the bishops don't know squat about economics. For that matter, they don't know squat about the teaching they claim to uphold (cf, Absp. Wuerl and Canon 915, for starters).
The bishops make absolute fools of themselves for attempting to influence matters out of their immediate control while allowing those matters for which they are responsible run out of control.
"A large bloc of Catholics in the U.S. has publicly opposed -- and in a fairly well organized way -- Church teaching on economics for decades."
DeleteTom, that's because most American Catholics know full well that the bishops don't know squat about economics. For that matter, they don't know squat about the teaching they claim to uphold (cf, Cdl. Wuerl and Canon 915, and JPII and capital punishment, for starters).
The bishops make absolute fools of themselves when they attempt to exert power over matters they cannot control while allow matters for which they are directly responsible to run out of control.
Basically as I understand it, there are two parts to an economic system; creation and distribution. The bishops want a "fair distribution" and I'm all for that. That doesn't mean an "equal distribution". But before anything gets distributed it has to be created. And that seems to be where they are lacking in knowledge.
ReplyDeleteObama just raised some sort of federal worker schedule from $7 to $10. A bunch of people cheered, but it was sad to me because he didn't come up with the plan for creating the extra $3. So it is just going to be "re-distributed" from other labor costs, e.g., shorter hours, other people not being hired, etc.
I'm totally against a 100% "meritocracy" or what people call "unbridled capitalism". But this has never existed in America in recent history in the way I see things.
The big thing people are hollering about now is the disparity between "the rich" and the poor. The interesting thing to note however is that every year the list of the 300 richest people changes significantly. The land of opportunity provides plenty of downward mobility for people. That's why I put "the rich" in quotes.
My thoughts for now.