Much discussed these last days, the Pope disregarded the rubrics surrounding the washing of feet.
Also much discussed, the Pope has rejected tradition in multiple other very visible ways.
Also, widely reported is the Pope’s commentary that the Church should not be inwardly focused.
It is not my intent here to discuss whether the Pope is right or wrong, authorized or not, to do what he has done. Father Z and Ed Peters do an excellent job of summing this up and I recommend you read it. My concern now is elsewhere.
The Pope’s disregard for established law and rubrics coupled with his statements has an effect and I am afraid it is not all good.
I fear that the Pope is inadvertently setting people in the Church against each other.
This is how the Pope’s actions are now being framed in the popular mindset:
If you think that law and rubrics are there for a reason, the reason being the order and good of the Church and the faithful, and you are troubled about the violations then you are part of the problem. You are one of the inwardly focused people that the Pope is trying wrest the Church back from. If you think that law, rubrics, and tradition matter, you are the other–you are the problem. You are not humble and simple like the Pope. You are the past.
If, on the other hand, law, rubrics, and majesty in the worship of God have never been your thing, then life is good. The Pope, by example if not by word, is validating your worldview. You have never really cared about such things and have often violated them. The Pope has just shown that, as you always suspected, these things don’t really matter, that things like law, rubrics, and majesty hinder evangelization and are simply the products of an inwardly focused Church. You are part of future Church.
But this unfortunately sets the good of the Church against itself, truly a house divided. This division makes its way down to the people. Look how quickly that happened forty years ago.
Is it alright, in the name of simplicity, for a Catholic not to go to Church on Sunday as long as he keeps the day holy in some way? Why not?
If you think that abstaining from meat on Fridays is silly and anachronistic and a sign of an inwardly focused Church, can you dispense with it if you abstain from something with more meaning to you? Why not?
Which laws, rubrics, and traditions still matter? Which are still binding?
But see, if you even ask the question, then you are part of the problem and part of the past.
I don’t believe that this is the intent of the Holy Father, but to some degree it is already the result. If Pope Francis continues to show disregard for law, rubrics, and tradition, I fear this dreadful result.
There are many things the Pope can change, law and rubrics among them. If the Pope wishes to change them, he should do so properly. For one thing the Pope cannot change is human nature. Disregard for the law breeds only more disregard for the law.
[Note. I love the Pope and want him to succeed. I think renewed focus on the poor is wonderful and I support it wholeheartedly. But I do not accept, as some would have you believe, that law, rubrics, and tradition must be thrown overboard to achieve this renewed focus on the poor. I don’t think the Pope supports this either, but I fear some of his actions give encouragement to those who do.]
April 1, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Lynda, how exactly did Pope Francis betray fundamental principles, and where were you when Pope John Paul II betrayed centuries of teaching with his arbitrary, abolitionist teaching on capital punishment?
April 1, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Joseph, I agree that JPII was wrong in his judgement about capital punishment not being needed any more, he didn't "betray centuries of teaching with arbitrary, abolitionist teachings" about it.
He (wrongly, in my view) believed and argued that the situation had advanced to the point where the wrong-doers could be sufficiently removed from society to not be a threat, and be punished that way, so killing them wasn't needed. Given that murderers regularly spend less than a decade in jail, and can kill while in, I disagree…but he didn't try to argue it was inherently wrong, just wrong in this situation. (B16 said it better in the famous letter about abortion, war, capital punishment and being able to receive communion.)
April 1, 2013 at 10:55 pm
I see myself as something of a "traditionalist". This relates to my personality. I also believe that the Universal Church comes before my feelings. In this I mean to say that regardless as to how any of us feel about what any Pope does, the Church belongs to and is the Mystical Body of Christ. Our Lord was very clear when He said (and I paraphrase) This is My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against It.
I think we have to keep in mind that no matter what any of us sees in Pope Francis, this is Christ's Church and we have to have faith that there is some bigger plan than any one of us including the Pope. We of course are all part of the plan. But when you stand as one piece in the middle of a several billion piece puzzle it is very easy to get tunnel vision. After all God's timing is not ours!
April 2, 2013 at 12:19 am
Foxfier, I suggest you read the following:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1463
Here's a quote from JPII during his 1999 visit to St. Louis:
“The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”
That was during his homily at an outdoor Mass.
So, Foxfier, was JPII speaking unofficially as a private citizen or as the offical head of the Catholic Church? In either case, why would he be contradicting his own catechism??
As far as Benedict goes, he is continuing the abolitionist policy despite his "paragraph" about capital punishment vis-a-vis abortion and euthanasia.
Which are Catholics supposed to believe, words or actions?
April 2, 2013 at 12:57 am
What part of "modern society has means of protecting itself without denying criminals the chance to reform" do you not understand?
They did not teach that it is an intrinsic evil, like abortion– they taught that it has a time and place, and they did not think it was currently justified.
Reading the very quote you supply as meaning "killing criminals is always wrong" is like taking opposition to a specific war as trying to change binding teaching to hold that all war is wrong.
April 2, 2013 at 5:31 am
Foxfier, what part of "I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary” do you not understand???
Moreover, what part of Genesis 9: 5-6 do you not understand??
April 2, 2013 at 5:34 am
Finally, when a pope declares the death penalty to be "cruel," isn't he saying that it's an intrinsic evil?
Frankly, I'm so sick and tired of the way Catholics parse words to justify their theological and ethical vanity. This is why I left the Catholic Church; it's fundamentally dishonest. It abandons divine revelation for its own agendas and lusts for power.
April 2, 2013 at 7:15 am
….You think killing somebody doesn't cause pain or suffering? That's what "cruel" means. Intrinsic evil, meanwhile, doesn't mean "a thing that is bad." Intrinsic evils are bad, but not all bad things are intrinsic evils.
Yes, shockingly, when talking about matters where there are fine shades of meaning, some people pay attention to what the words actually mean. That's not "vanity"– and it's insisting that the sloppy interpretation that doesn't hold up when you pay attention to what they actually said that is fundamentally dishonest.
April 2, 2013 at 7:19 am
Since you have made it clear that you do not bother to pay attention to what people actually say, no matter how carefully they say it or how many times they hammer it home that they are not saying what you want them to be saying, I am done speaking to you. It is useless to try to talk to someone who wants to control both sides of a supposed conversation, and your obsession with denouncing prior popes for the words you put in their mouths is not even related to the topic.
April 2, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Foxfier, go read Genesis 9:5-6 and tell me how the late pope's words compare.