The Church after Francis: A Cardinal Speaks
By Larry Chapp
The 1976 movie “Network” was a satirical critique of the blurring of the lines between news journalism and entertainment. The central character, Howard Beale, played by the late Peter Finch, was a disgruntled news anchor who, after learning that he is soon to be fired due to low ratings, goes on a live televised rant about everything that he thinks is wrong about everything. And quite unexpectedly, his “angry man” persona sent ratings through the roof, prompting management to run with it and double down on the money-making to be had via the pathway of angry man rage. And in one final scene, Beale goes on TV and urges his viewers to go to their open windows and scream out to the world, “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!”
I thought of that movie as I was reading some of the negative responses to “Demos II,” which is a document purportedly written by a cardinal (who calls himself “Demos II”) to fellow cardinals, which contains strong denunciations of many aspects of the Francis papacy. The document is a follow-up to “Demos I” which was a text, as we now know, written anonymously by the late Cardinal Pell and which referred to the current pontificate as a “catastrophe.”
I thought of the movie because what strikes me is that there is a danger that this important open letter will be dismissed and then ignored as just one more example of the “angry man” syndrome from the right wing of the Church which, it is claimed, falsely accuses the pope of all manner of perfidy simply because they are “afraid” of his “reforms” and seek to cling to power by any means.
The matter gets even more complicated when one realizes that there has indeed arisen in the Church of today an entire cottage industry of angry man internet warriors who have flooded social media with all manner of accusations against Pope Francis. Much of the criticism is valid, but much is not, and many of the provocateurs are little more than click bait grifters in constant need of tossing red meat to their followers in order to keep the subscriptions flowing.
The danger therefore is that Demos II will be lumped in with the Howard Beales of the Church and dismissed as just one more example of hyperbolic hyperventilation. We have seen this dynamic in play over and over, even when the criticisms have come from prelates of impeccable credentials such as the former head of the DDF, Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, among many others. The rhetorical strategy of the defenders of this papacy is the same no matter from where the criticisms of this pope arise. In their eyes, to criticize Pope Francis is an act of disobedience, and even schism, and the arguments leveled against Francis are never dealt with head-on and are summarily dismissed as nothing more than fearful, right-wing cranks venting their spleen.
This is precisely why those of us who are critical of this papacy need to make arguments that are sober, measured, specific, and devoid of incendiary accusations that are unsubstantiated by the facts on the ground. We need, as the old saying goes, to “keep our powder dry,” and to remain calm, even serene, avoiding all scorched-earth approaches that see nothing but papal apostasy under every utterance from Pope Francis.
Which brings me back to Demos II. The text, though highly critical of this papacy, is neither incendiary nor hyperbolic. It is indeed straightforward and sober in its critique no matter how serious the charges that it levels. It never accuses the pope of heresy even as it points out that he has said and written things that have introduced a muddy ambiguity into certain doctrinal matters. And the motivation for criticizing such ambiguities is not a desire to tear down the pope, but to point out that they confuse the faithful. The desire therefore is the healing of the Church in an era of confusion and not the promotion of some kind of far-right ideology of its own.
And here again, what Demos II states is simply an empirical reality. The pope has energized a certain faction within the Church, but in so doing he has demoralized many others by interjecting confusion into what many Catholics believed were settled matters of doctrine. This is just a fact, and he has done so without any apparent regard for their sensibilities, or for that matter, their faith. Indeed, he has gone out of his way to criticize such Catholics as “rigid backwardists” who only want to preserve a moribund model of the Church.
I have often stated that the central role of the Petrine ministry is to unify the Church by clarifying matters that are in dispute. Instead, this pope sows confusion and then labels the ensuing mess the product of reactionaries with bad motives. Demos II is therefore entirely correct that the ambiguities fostered by this pope have had a deleterious effect on many Catholics and that this should be of pastoral concern as the Cardinals think about the kind of pastor the next pope should be.
Demos II also criticizes the pope’s autocratic style of governance but does so without implying that the pope has no right to do so. Instead, it points to this pope’s own stated desire to build a more decentralized (synodal) Church in line with Vatican II’s call for a more collegial form of ecclesial governance and, therefore, that his autocratic actions undermine his own stated project. There is no hint in this open letter of any kind of desire to undermine the legitimate authority of the pope to make unilateral decisions. There is instead a call for the pope to pay heed to his own claim that the Church needs a more collaborative form of pastoral leadership.
It seems therefore that lurking in the background of this critique is the realization that there is a legitimate odor of suspicion around many of the pope’s actions since there is such an evident incongruity between his words and his deeds. Demos II is not alone in noting this incongruity and it is an observation that raises serious questions. Once again, there is nothing incendiary in such an observation from Demos II since such questions, in light of these incongruities between papal words and deeds, are thoroughly legitimate questions to ask.
For example, is it merely “angry man” conservative backwardism that wants to know why, if the Church’s official moral theology is normative, the John Paul Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Rome was purged of its faculty (without academic due process) and transformed into a new institute larded with moral theologians more at home in proportionalist modes of thinking rather than the theology of Veritatis Splendor? Or that prelates and priests who are in open dissent from the Church’s moral teaching on homosexuality are favored, promoted, and given important roles at the Synod? And what of the kind letters of papal support to Sr. Jeannine Gramick of New Ways Ministry thanking her for perduring in her ministry in the midst of great suffering? From whence did that so-called suffering come? To what suffering is the pope referring? Her censure by Cardinal Ratzinger for openly heterodox moral positions? And why the private papal audience after which Sister Gramick was gushing about the “new” attitude in Rome?
This is what I mean by his incongruities creating an “odor of suspicion” that is in no way the fruit of delusional conspiracy theories. Since the pope’s words do not match his actions is it really illegitimate to ask what is going on here? Is it angry man paranoia to wonder then if events like the Synod are not stalking horses for promoting radical alterations in doctrine under the guise of democratic and collaborative consultation?
But the most pointed criticism lodged by Demos II, it seems to me, is that the pope’s autocratic style often appears as something “vindictive.” Critics might pounce on this as contrary to the kind of sobriety I am calling for but, in reality, I think it is merely stating something that is empirically true. There is an appearance of vindictiveness toward more conservative bishops and cardinals who have been demoted and even stripped of office when other cardinals who have openly dissented from Church teaching on matters of moral theology, especially in sexual matters, are not only tolerated but promoted. I am thinking here of Cardinals Hollerich and McElroy, who have openly stated that the Church’s teachings on these matters are wrong and need to change. And yet, the former was made the Relator General of the Synod and the latter continues to enjoy papal favor.
This gives the pope’s actions in this regard the appearance, at the very least, of a double standard, and at worst makes them seem “personal” in the sense of demoting anyone who dares offer a criticism. It is true, as the pope’s defenders point out, that he made the strong papal critic Cardinal Mueller a voting member of the Synod and has made no moves against him. But this is a defense based on a one case induction that goes against the general trend, the reasons for which remain obscure. It may simply be the case that Cardinal Mueller is not someone the pope wishes to alienate for largely political reasons. And it is to be remembered that the pope did fire Cardinal Mueller from his position as head of the DDF.
Demos II also notes that this pope seems to follow canon law, and indeed even his own laws such as found in Vos estis lux mundi, only when it suits him. A pope can do as he pleases of course, but when it comes, for example, to the sexual abuse crisis in the Church, such indifference toward the rule of law is a pastoral failing of the highest order and is an issue of the gravest importance. No single issue has so deconstructed the prestige, authority, and legitimacy of the Church as this issue. No enemy of the Church could have concocted in their wildest fever dreams a scenario involving the Church’s suicidal self-immolation such as we see here. And yet, Fr. Marko Rupnik remains a priest in good standing, and the pope has failed on numerous occasions to hold his episcopal friends accountable for their own malfeasance in these matters. Once again, his words on paper seem wonderful. But the devil is in the details.
Demos II goes on to list issues that the next pope must rectify and clarify. And in each case, they are a response to problems created by this papacy. First, the next pope must reassert that Jesus Christ is the one and only path to salvation. This is a clear reference to the ambiguity created when Pope Francis signed the Abu Dhabi statement that implied that God wills the plurality of religions. Pope Francis has never clarified whether he meant God’s direct or his permissive will, leaving many in confusion. The remaining points listed by Demos II seem more ambiguous to me since they are more the product of the confusion created by this pope than of anything he has directly taught. They are as follows:
That God is both merciful and just, and that he holds everyone accountable for his or her actions.
That man is a creature of God, that we are not self-invented, and that we transcend our emotions and appetites. Our intellects must guide us to our eternal destiny.
That Scripture is binding, accurate, and normative.
That sin is real and that it kills the life of God in the soul, leading to spiritual death.
The Church still has the duty to evangelize and to make disciples of all nations.
I say these are more ambiguous and yet I think that they remain legitimate criticisms and that the next pope must attend to them. I think that for the most part these issues are part of an observation of the kind of ecclesial “ethos” or “mystique” this papacy has generated. There is a palpable air of moral and doctrinal latitudinarianism that this papacy has created that accounts for the concerns raised by each of the above points. For example, is there not a runaway “gradualism of the law” that animates and grounds much of this pope’s words concerning moral culpability? Is it even possible to commit a mortal sin anymore and are we dealing with a pope who really does adhere to some version of the fundamental option theory wherein specific deeds are not so important as one’s inward overall disposition for or against God? Are our inner emotions and affectations so powerful that the intellect recedes into an attenuated state as the final moral arbiter? Is the moral conscience formed out of those emotions more than it is by the intellect?
And do not this pope’s constant condemnations of “proselytism” prompt a concern that any overt sharing of the faith with others is now deemed an illegitimate form of discourse? Of course proselytism is bad. But there seems more at play here than just that. And what is concerning is that there seems to be no urgency placed upon the evangelizing enterprise. What gets communicated instead is an urgency surrounding some rather superficial concepts of “dialogue” in a kind of milquetoast globalist tonality. The Church thus becomes just another philanthropic endeavor among many but with Jesus sprinkles on top of the essentially secularist ice cream. This is the “ethos” that I think Demos II is trying to capture in its critique.
Finally, Demos II has been criticized for remaining anonymous, but from where I sit that adds to its credibility since the cardinal cannot be accused of trying to gain notoriety for himself or of trying to build up a following of some kind for personal gain. The author himself states that his reason for remaining anonymous is that the current climate in Rome would only invite reprisals. And I see no reason to doubt this since, given this pope’s predilection for engaging in punitive actions towards his episcopal critics, the fear of reprisal is a real one and therefore the author’s stated reasons for anonymity has a prima facie plausibility that should not be doubted. In other words, only someone reading this with a desire to “debunk” the text by impugning the motives of the author could possibly detect some deeper and darker motive.
I commend Demos II for daring to air this critique. And the stakes are high, which is why it would be unwise to dismiss it as simply the dyspeptic musings of yet one more angry man with a keyboard. Because Demos II is no Howard Beale, what we need now is for this cardinal’s criticisms to be taken seriously.
Dr. Larry Chapp is a retired professor of theology who taught for twenty years at DeSales University. He now owns and manages, with his wife, the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker Farm in Harveys Lake, Pennsylvania. He can be visited online at Gaudium et Spes 22.