March 31,
2013
David
Timbs
Pope
Francis the Disturber
It
has been quite intriguing to study the first impressions of Jorge Bergoglio, the
newly elected Pope Francis, from different perspectives within the Catholic
Community. Of special interest has been the response of the so-called
Traditionalists. These are loosely connected groups within the Church who share
a strong bond of identification with the more
conservative magisterial governance of Popes John Paul II and Benedict
XVI. They share a common conviction that the pontificates of these former Popes
represented a welcomed period of restoration and corrective to what they regard
as the misinterpretations of Vatican II and the alleged excesses of the post
Conciliar years.
One
of the rock solid principles of authentic Catholic liturgical and
semi-liturgical practice during the pontificate of Benedict XVI was, for
Traditionalists, that dimension of his magisterium, namely the will,
wishes and example of the Holy Father. This became the criterion of how
things should and even must be done in Catholic worship throughout the universal
Church despite the authority of local episcopates guaranteed by the Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church and the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
Paradoxically,
it is precisely this guiding principle of the Pope’s wishes and example which has now come under close scrutiny by these
Traditionalists but for a different reason. Francis is demonstrating, at least
in some small but important ways, that he does not regard himself bound by the
conventions of former papal practice in the way he describes himself as first
and foremost the Bishop of Rome, in
his less regal attire, his security and accommodation arrangements or even in
the way he treats prescriptive liturgical law. Some of these rather dramatic
departures from precedents have been interpreted by some irate Traditionalists
as offensive to the memory of the recently resigned and venerated Benedict XVI
whom Pope Francis refers to simply as the
emeritus Bishop of Rome.
Grief
and betrayal
Some
Traditionalists are sensing the end of a kind of golden age in recent Church
history. They did not waste time in their attempts to deflect attention away
from their initial shock, alarm and despondency. Within days, Francis’
expected doctrinal conservatism was seized upon as a key reason for a speedy
backlash against him by the liberals and modernists, the much maligned Spirit
of Vatican II generation. This was clearly a stunt, a ploy rooted in narrow
sectarian self-interest. To the collective chagrin of the Traditionalist groups,
from Cardinals to laity, Francis soon provided further evidence that he was
shaping up to be a serial offender.
The
Rupture, the straw that broke.....
The
great tipping point came on Holy Thursday evening when Pope Francis did what
Jorge Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, had done repeatedly along with
the countless other Bishops, priests, deacons and laity throughout the world had
done for years. He, like they, had been washing not only the feet of women and
men alike, some even sufferers of HIV/Aids. But this time a Pope publicly broke
a universally binding liturgical law last Thursday and it happened in a Roman
Juvenile Correctional Facility. Two of the twelve youths to whom he ministered
as he wore a deacon’s stole, were
Muslim, one of them a Serbian female. [2]
What
Pope Francis did on Holy Thursday night was nothing new. He was simply following
the example of Jesus, his master and teacher. In washing the feet of the twelve
he did something very Christ-like. He was modeling a centrally important
biblical virtue. He offered the hospitality of God to those fringe-dwellers,
society’s worthless rejects. Jesus did it. Francis did it.
What
is unnerving many of the conservative elements in the Catholic Church was Pope
Francis’ insistence that the Kingdom of God, in all of its grace and
inclusion, is not co-extensive with Church law and protocols. The Church is not
an end in itself but merely a servant of that greater mystery of salvation which
is founded on Jesus Christ. He
cannot be contained, limited or domesticated by a structure and its governance.
A
further source of discomfort to the ones who describe themselves as
Traditionalists – who find security in boundaries – is that Francis is
calling for the Church’s conversion to the deepest levels of God’s limitless
compassion towards all humanity. The riskiness of the Gospel is a challenge to
those who seek solace and security in fixity and elitism. The Tradition is not a
mummified corpse. It is alive and developing because it is an integral part of
the story and identity of the living People of God.
The
Traditionalists’ dilemma is founded in a cultural bind of strict, unthinking,
unqualified obedience to the Pope or the need to re-nuance this pattern of
loyalty and acquiescence with a rationalised criticism of him when he shatters
established conventions and liturgical laws. The hurried solution seized upon in
the last few days is that a Pope can dispense himself from law while others
continue to be bound by it. Inevitably, the bottom line for Traditionalists is
that the Pope has in fact set a very bad example in breaking established
prescriptive law and rubrics of the Church without formally promulgating
changes! For these people, such behaviour is tantamount to meddling with divine
revelation.
Francis
the law breaker
What
is at stake for those most disturbed by the early behaviours of Pope Francis is
that he has rearranged the mental furniture of Cardinals, courtiers and the Ultramontanists
in particular. He has quite consciously chosen not to associate himself with
some accepted symbols of papal power and dignity. To the dismay of Catholics so
long accustomed to the pomp and ceremony of Benedict XVI and, to a lesser
extent, JP II, Francis has made it clear that all that is indicative of their
needs, not his.
Washing
the feet of women for many of the Traditionalists is to dishonour the memory of
Benedict, to be in a state of rupture from established practice, to subvert the
Apostolic Tradition of the Church and undermine the centrality of the
priesthood. Washing the feet of non-Christians is tantamount to religious
relativism and indifferentism so roundly condemned by Popes JP II and Benedict
XVI.
One
constant monitor of doctrinal and ritual purity suggested in a Good Friday
commentary that Pope Francis may have compromised the integrity of the Liturgy
by engaging in a form of theatrics on Holy Thursday night. The commentator also
charges that the Pope tampered with an ancient tradition which may not lightly
be altered. Francis, it is claimed,
has done precisely that,
“Pope
Benedict taught that although aspects of the liturgy can be modified, parts of
it cannot. Are the rules about whose feet can and cannot be washed part of that
inviolable Divine-Apostolic tradition? Perhaps not – but it is surely part of
the Apostolic-Ecclesial tradition, these traditions whose origins go back to the
earliest days of the Church, and are therefore not lightly to be discarded.”
[1]
A
commenter on this article has elevated the symbolic gestures of the new Pope to
the level of hyperbole when writing that Francis has brought to a brutally
abrupt end the golden era of Benedict XVI’s programme of Reform of the Reform.
The person has a rather short memory. Cardinal Ratzinger launched the program of
the Reform – regression – the
moment he took over the CDF in 1981. The poster even goes so far as to equate
Francis’s behaviour with the catastrophe of Good Friday,
“Jerusalem
desolata est
8
years of the hermeneutic of continuity, torn up in 2 ‘humble’ weeks.
A
slap in the face for the priests and lay folk who have fought, and suffered, to
uphold Church teaching and law in the face of systemic disobedience .....
tradition and symbols matter. They define who we are.”
These
sentiments echo the hysterics and disingenuous commentary in Rorate
Caeli which, two weeks ago, declared the election of the Archbishop of
Buenos Aires to be a total disaster for the Catholic Church.
Another
source of Traditionalist outrage and fearful apprehension can be found in one of
blogdom’s most conservative and widely read sites. Its owner and moderator is
Fr John Zuhlsdorf (his moniker is Fr Z),
He is an American protestant convert who, for some reason, is incardinated into
the Italian diocese of Velletri-Segni. He spends most of his time apparently in
the USA.
Like
many of his like-minded followers, he has consistently made the mistake of
confusing faith with Traditionalism, belief with ideology. Indicative of his
agenda, Zuhlsdorf espouses priests facing to the east at Mass (back to the
people), communion kneeling and on the tongue, to say nothing of the ornate,
effeminate liturgical drapery of the post Tridentine era as the epitome of
devotion, culture, taste and profoundly indicative of the greater glory of God.
Zuhlsdorf
is the epitome of clericalism and would believe wholeheartedly in the phrase
attributed to St John Vianney in his more bizarre and neurotic mode, After
God, the priest is everything. Clearly, and to his dismay and disgust, Pope
Francis has other ideas.
Especially
since the beginning of Benedict’s papacy, he has assumed the role of spokesman
for a loose constituency of Catholic Traditionalists. In the last two weeks he
has demonstrated a rather subterranean, pouting teenage reactiveness to and
theatrical outrage at the liturgical minimalism of Pope Francis. Zuhlsdorf’s
recently revised version of his confusion, hurried rationalisation and
resentment are thinly disguised. The hubris is palpable and almost overwhelming.
And still, his weak-minded followers simply adore him! [3]
And
it is this fellow, along with many like him, who is attacking Pope Francis
because he puts his own understanding of the Gospel, his pastoral experience and
instincts before Church law, protocols and liturgical rubrics. Zuhlsdorf has
admittedly toned himself down somewhat over the last day not because he is not
angry and resentful but because the successor of Peter has done what to him is
inconceivable. Francis consciously
broke the laws of the Church entrusted to his care.
What
all too many Traditionalists seem incapable of doing is to move beyond a
comfortable dogmatic and historical fundamentalism to expose themselves to the
rigors of the big, uncomfortable, critical questions about the origins of the
Church, its structures and its ministries. If they took that route, Francis
would prove not be their only disturbance.
---------------------------
[1]
This blog reflects the despondency and disappointment that publisher and
supporters experience in Pope Francis’ setting aside of liturgical laws. Click
here
- the author, in a rather nervous Holy Saturday article, gets tied up in a
tangle of relativism in concluding, “Respect and obedience does not mean
subservience.” Subservience worked just fine for the author when the Pope was
JP II or Benedict XVI! Click
here.
[2]The
Holy Thursday papal Mass in the Rome correctional facility as reported in NCR,
click here.
[3]
Fortunately, many respondents add some balanced, commonsense, enlightened,
observations which, I think, are beyond Zuhlsdorf’s ability to comprehend. He
and many of his camp followers have far too much to lose by quietly accepting
the legitimacy of Francis’ departure from, what for them, is a fixed and
unchangeable manual of rubrics. See
here. On the other
hand, an English conservative cleric and blog master is equally confused,
bewildered and even angry at having to hose down the house fire at his Mary
Magdalen blog.
Jimmy Akin treads carefully through the mine-field of the semantics of
papal continuity, embarrassment and nuanced loyalty, here.
David
Timbs writes from Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Holy
Saturday, 2013