Watching certain groups of Catholics respond the Pope Francis has been fascinating to say the least. LifeSiteNews has been an interesting study since the election of Pope Francis. They are keen to highlight Francis’ pro-life and traditional family comments, of course, but seem uncertain as to how to process his priorities. They are baffled, for instance, when he indicates that something other than abortion might be “the most serious moral evil” of our time, even when Francis’ candidates for such evils (loneliness, hopelessness) have obvious and organic links to the culture of death.
They are particularly at a loss as to his critiques of certain ways that Catholics engage contemporary culture. They profess, over and over, that they cannot imagine who Francis has in mind when he voices his critiques, while assuring their readers that it simply cannot be they themselves. (One gets the impression of protesting too much.) It is difficult to escape the conclusion that their basic, though unarticulated and unarticulatable (to articulate it would be to take off the necessary mask), goal is to insulate themselves and their readers from any suggestion that the pro-life movement has anything to learn from this Pope. (See this, for example.)
After watching this pot boil for the last few months, I found it summed up remarkably in two posts written earlier this week. The first was John Henry Westen’s assessment of Evangelii Gaudium, tellingly titled “Who is Pope Francis Talking About? ‘Obsessed,’ ‘self-absorbed,’ ‘sourpusses.'” The whole piece deserves a thorough fisking. Suffice to say that it takes insulating oneself from criticism to new levels. In lieu of a full-fledged (and probably superfluous, if highly tempting) engagement, I offer here simply one lengthy quote, followed by another quote written by Westen’s editorial partner, Steve Jalsevac, the Very. Next. Day.
So many and so strong are his condemnations of a particular type of Catholic it seems almost as if the Pope had someone particular in mind as he was penning his words. [Almost!?!?]
Perhaps the most common question asked in response to the pope’s harsh criticisms of this type, is “Who is he talking about?” Many faithful Catholics and Christians of other denominations are confounded by these statements castigating persons or groups unknown to them, wondering what would justify such strong emphasis. [If this is true, it is also true that many more know exactly who is being criticized. And the Venn diagram of those who are being criticized and those who have no idea who is being criticized is about as round as a well-thrown pizza.]
One clue comes courtesy of Professor Scott Nicholson, of Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy, an Ontario Catholic college renowned for its faithfulness to Catholic teaching. It is to be remembered that in the same city as the Pope’s own former Archdiocese of Buenos Aires was located a seminary of the schismatic traditional Catholic group the Society of St. Pius X. Moreover, the rector of that seminary duing Archbishop Bergoglio’s time was none other than Bishop Richard Williamson.
Yes, that same Bishop Williamson who, according to many, scuttled Pope Benedict’s attempts at uniting the SSPX into the Catholic fold. [According to many who have absolutely no idea about the actual facts of the case and need to console themselves with fantasies. The SSPX refused the Vatican’s doctrinal preamble insisting they accept Vatican II, full stop. Williamson was long gone by this point and makes an unconvincing, if convenient, scapegoat.] The same one who made controversial statements to the media that led to his being accused of denying the Jewish Holocaust, for which the SSPX expelled him from the Society and the Government of Argentina urged his departure.
Despite appearances, it’s clear that the Pope’s condemnations are not directed at faithful, tradition-minded Catholics because his descriptions of his target include key factors that eliminate them. Those whom he is condemning, he writes, are not “really concerned about Jesus Christ or others” and have a “self-centredness cloaked in an outward religiosity bereft of God.” [Every single person who has engaged in what the Pope is criticizing would insist that they are concerned about Jesus Christ and others. This paragraph simply tries to define away a problem. See also Jalsevac’s quote below.]
However, it seems rather obvious that Pope Francis would benefit from more personal experience with faithful, tradition-minded Catholics of many varieties. Those who, while having a desire for orthodoxy in doctrine and liturgy, also naturally have a great love for Christ and their fellow man, and live their whole lives with that love as their primary motivation. [And never, ever, make a mistake or misread a situation or let their egos get in the way. ‘Cause if they do, we just define them out of our group.]
That he may have a substantial misperception concerning faithful or traditional Catholics would not be surprising considering his very-likely disturbing experiences in Buenos Aires. Adding to this would be many distorted perceptions he has received as Pope from the more liberal bishops around the world who disdain Catholics who are enthusiastically and uncompromisingly pro-life and pro-family. [This is a cheap shot. Name names. Who, exactly, are these liberal bishops who have the Pope’s ear? Mahony? The group of 8? Give me a break.]
One further consideration in all this is Pope Francis’ native language of Latin-American Spanish which has a tendency to the superlative, to exaggerated expressions or hyperbole. [Wow. Just wow.]
Jalsevac writes in his piece, Moderating LifeSiteNews Comments Can be Brutal:
But this time, there was also a different problem from the usual. That is, there were all the usually expected pro-abortion, pro-gay diatribes and propaganda, but for us, much worse was the flood of horribly low-grade responses from “anti-abortion” persons rejoicing over the death of abortionist Booker and wishing him to be in Hell. Literally hundreds of these had to be removed because of the hatred they reflected.
I call these commenters “anti-abortion”, rather than pro-life, because that is what they were. These were unlikely to have been persons involved in the pro-life movement [because we have defined the pro-life movement as always and everywhere loving, so whatever they were in, and whatever they understood themselves to be in, and whatever their opponents thought they were in, it wasn’t the pro-life movement] which strongly discourages hatred towards abortionists, their staff and women seeking abortion. Many of the comments from this anti-abortion mob were also downright racist.
Who is the Pope talking about? A not insignificant portion of your own readership, LSN. That bears reflecting on. Defining them out of existence doesn’t convince anyone.
Brett Salkeld is Archdiocesan Theologian for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Regina, Saskatchewan. He is a father of four (so far) and husband of one.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In