Ive been meaning for some time to write a column defending Pope Francis. What drove me to wait no longer was Terry Mattinglys Opinion page column (Vatican chatter about another anonymous Demos epistle) in Wednesdays Register. High-ranking Church hierarchy continue to bash Pope Francis. But before I go further, let me say a few words about what brought me to where I am as a Catholic in todays Church.
During my 80-plus years as a cradle Catholic, I have had, and still have, days as a doubting Thomas. However, during all these days, I have never worried about the survival of the universal Roman Catholic Church here in America. I continue to believe the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
As a pre-Vatican II Catholic, with Pope Pius XII at the helm, the Church I grew up in had a simple, albeit somewhat humorous formula: pray, pay and obey. I never gave much thought to the pope; he was there and I couldnt envision that a day would come when hed be gone. But it came.
Pius XII died, at age 82, in October 1958. Later that month, Cardinal Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was elected pontiff and took the name John XXIII. Much to the chagrin of papal-power politicians of the Roman Curia, he hit the deck running. The cardinals and archbishops of the Curia, the Churchs governing body, thought John would be a sort of place-holder, an interim pope until they could ready a more worthy man for the post. It was not to be.
In January 1959, John called for an ecumenical council. Hed see it start in October 1962 (the same month that the world saw the United States of America and the Soviet Union teeter on the edge of nuclear annihilation). Hed die in June 1963. Vatican II would end in December 1965, with Pope Paul VI and the council members having brought about many of the changes John had championed. But change didnt come easily; change never does to any organization that likes the status quo and wants it maintained.
The Curia, the princes of the Church, mostly older prelates out of touch with history and culture outside their sphere of spiritual and worldly influence, liked the Church just the way it was. Their reaction to the council call was to put together the agenda for the worlds bishops, about 2,400 of them: They would come to Rome, meet and rubber-stamp the Curias we-like-the-Church-just-as-it-is plans, and go home. No way.
The bishops revolted and put together their own agenda and action plans. And by the time the fourth session ended in 1965, thered been some changes made that are still debated pro and con today by in-the-pew Catholics.
I admit that nearly 60 years after Vatican II ended, Im just getting around to reading Vatican II: The Essential Texts and really appreciating the changes that the Church needed.
Three takeaways enhanced my Catholic faith: the Declaration on Religious Freedom; the Declaration on the Churchs Relation to Non-Christian Religions; and the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. Time here for an alhaigian caveat: these are Kubals curmudgeonly non-theological views. No imprimatur. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
The religious freedom statement tells me that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
Ive read sources that say the American hierarchy of bishops was a driving force behind this declaration. At least a few popes have had less than favorable views of the American brand of Catholicism. In 1899, Pope Leo XIII wrote a not too flattering document on the Church in the USA: Americanism. Ive heard, but cannot verify, that Pope John-Paul II portrayed Americans as having full bellies and empty heads. Urban legend, maybe?
As to the Catholic Churchs relation to non-Christian religions, including Judaism, Islam and Hinduism, once sentence sums up this issue: The church therefore condemns as foreign to the mind of Christ any kind of discrimination whatsoever between people, or harassment of them, done by reason of race or color, class or religion. The bottom line for me: there may be salvation outside Christianity.
Then theres the issue that continues to drive a wedge between American Catholics: The liturgy.
Not unlike American politics, were divided into two camps: progressives (liberals?) and conservatives. However, I must also mention independents. If theres an American Catholic camp here, Im in it. I like most of the changes in the liturgy, especially in the Mass. Let me focus on that alone: Liturgy is too big a topic for one essay.
I grew up with the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. As an altar boy serving Mass, I could respond in a language I did not understand; I later studied Latin for two years in high school and wish I had studied two more years. Back then the Mass was celebrated by the priest and observed by the laity. The priest had his back turned to the congregation and prayed in a language they couldnt understand and barely hear. No more.
Today, worldwide, the Mass is celebrated in the vernacular, with the celebrant facing and praying with the people, who now have a participatory role. I love the new form of the Mass and participate as a lector and occasionally as an altar server. Girls and women can now fill that role.
Quite a few Catholics would like the Church to return to the Latin Mass which, with some restrictions can still be celebrated. They see the Latin Mass as a big step on the road to returning the Church to what it was instituted by Jesus to be.
I strongly disagree.
In a very circuitous way, I bring you to Pope Francis, who today is under fire from many conservative Catholics. Some of them even question his legitimacy as Pope.
I respect and admire him and will continue to defend him. He is the right pope for this time in the Churchs history. As long as he leads the Catholic Church, the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
Have a nice day.
Leave a Reply