Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition

By Dave Armstrong

It seems that everyone wants to make the pope into their own image. Those outside the Church want him to be so-called “progressive” and are more than willing to project this attribute onto him, in a huge campaign of wishful thinking. But radical Catholic reactionaries, on the extreme right on the Catholic ecclesiological spectrum, become alarmed that the Church is compromising itself. A third group of obedient orthodox Catholics understand the pope's role and the nature and status of Catholic dogmas (which do not change), yet are confused by something a new pope says or does. Their concern is harmony with the existing tradition. For each “controversy” or supposed “scandal” or thing that Pope Francis said or did that has people in a confused state, I will attempt to show that the pope is in complete harmony with Catholic tradition. My hope and prayer is that my efforts will lessen the confusion of those who are sincerely seeking what the pope intends and means.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Jan 23, 2014
• ISBN: 9781304833235

Book preview

Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition

Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition 

© Copyright 2014 by Dave Armstrong

All rights reserved.

ISBN 978-1-304-83323-5

Biblical citations are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America); unless otherwise noted.

DEDICATION

To the Holy Father, Pope Francis I. Be who you are and don't change! Some may not get it, but it was the same with Jesus (which is almost the entire point). Those who are intended to get it, will get it.

INTRODUCTION

It seems that everyone wants to make the pope (like they often do with God Himself) into their own image. Those outside the Church do this in proportion to how contra-Catholic or secular they are: up to and including atheists; as well as  dissenting modernists and theological liberals within the Church (the cafeteria / pick and choose types).

These all want him to be so-called progressive and are more than willing to project this attribute onto him, in a huge campaign of wishful thinking, if in fact it is not there. This group includes (very much so) the media.

They long and yearn and (except for the atheists) pray for the day when a truly enlightened pope will come around to bring the Church out of the Dark Ages into our marvelously happy and fulfilled modern world: one who will fundamentally change things. This latter expectation, in turn, reveals their own fundamental ignorance about the role of the papacy and the scope of his power, as one who preserves tradition and dogma.

On the other end of the scale, the radical Catholic reactionaries, on the extreme right on the Catholic ecclesiological spectrum and a hair's breadth away from schism, exaggerate new popes' differences (if any) from previous popes, and become needlessly alarmed that the Church is revising or transforming itself; going to pot because of the new liberal pope.

Or, conversely, if they actually like the new pope (as they did, Pope Benedict XVI; as did also, mainstream traditionalists), they do the same, but in an approving, rather than disapproving sense.

Thus, we have a scenario whereby folks on both the left and the right of the theological spectrum massively misinterpret what a new pope says and does. I aim to show both factions the errors and illusions of their ways.

Unfortunately, there is a third group as well: obedient, devout, observant, orthodox Catholics who understand the pope's role and the nature and status of Catholic dogmas (which do not and cannot change), yet who are confused by something a new pope says or does. Mainstream traditionalists (i.e., basically those who prefer the Tridentine Mass) are a big part of this group, too, but not all of it, by any means.

They have no desire to make him into something he is not, whether to the left or the right. Rather, their concern is to harmonize and synthesize the pope with the existing tradition. Many Catholics  felt the same dilemma with regard to Vatican II, which was widely presented (and/or wrongly perceived) as a departure from traditional precedent, whereas in reality it was a somewhat startling and dramatic but nevertheless consistent development of what came before.

As an apologist and observer of the Catholic scene, I have watched all these dynamics occur with two new popes: Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, and Pope Francis in 2013. I calmly observed on both occasions, that there was to be no sea-change; only a change in focus or emphasis or outward style. When it was said that Pope Benedict XVI would not engage in ecumenical conferences as Blessed Pope John Paul II had done (scandalizing a fair-sized number), I said that the two men in fact did not differ in that regard at all. I was right. Those activities were continued.

The same is true today. Nothing essential has changed. What we have is a striking, even radical difference of style and emphasis, but not of substance. I wrote in September 2013:

For all of you out there worried about the pope: relax; chill. All is well. We have a pope who says the unexpected: a lot like Jesus. And, like Jesus, those who don't get it and are outside looking in, will misunderstand, and those who are in the fold will grasp what is being said, in the context of historic Catholic teaching, if they look closely enough and don't get hoodwinked by silly media wishful thinking. Those who are outside often hear only what they want to hear (God loves everyone, even sinners!!!) and not what they need to hear (stop sinning; stop this sin . . .).

I also wrote at about the same time, in a letter to a friend:

It's the same old dumb misunderstandings: media misreports what the pope said; never understand what he means in context, and in context with past teachings. Don't fall into their trap! Pope Francis is a good Catholic; nothing to be alarmed about at all. The world wants Christians to renounce their teachings. We're the guys who have never done so. We keep the same moral teaching that the Church had from the beginning: no abortion, no divorce, no contraception, no same-sex marriages, etc. Virtually no one else has done so! So the attack is against us to change traditional morality, and we will never do that.

That is what this book is about. For each controversy or supposed scandal or thing that Pope Francis said or did that has people in a confused or even (sometimes) angry state, I will attempt to provide a cogent explanation, by first noting (using the survey method) what was actually said, then how it was spun by the media and the religious and secular left, and how it was spun (or received) by the religious right.

After I provide that documentation, I'll proceed to show that the pope is in complete harmony with Catholic tradition,  give biblical support (where relevant and  possible), and make further observations in defense of the Holy Father, in my role as an apologist / defender of the faith.

My hope and prayer is that my efforts will lessen the confusion of those who are sincerely seeking what the pope intends and means. But for those who don't care, at bottom, what he intends, the book might be said to function as an exposé of the nefarious methods used to twist and distort his words and actions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication

Introduction

1. Foot-Washing

2. Rorate Caeli Website Hysteria

3. Atheist Salvation / Salvation by Works

4. The Blessed Virgin Mary at the Cross

5. Homosexuality

6. Franciscan Friars / Tridentine Mass Controversy

7. Pro-Life

8. Evangelii Gaudium and Alleged Marxism

9. La Civiltà Cattolica Interview and Ensuing Myths

Afterword: Those who are willing to understand Pope Francis, can and will do so . . .

Chapter One: Foot-Washing

BBC News: Europe[1] announced:

During [Maundy] Thursday's intimate service at Casal del Marmo, the Pope washed and kissed the feet of 12 young detainees to replicate the Bible's account of Jesus Christ's gesture of humility towards his 12 apostles on the night before he was crucified.

The 12 inmates included two girls, one Italian Catholic and one of Muslim origin, local prison ombudsman Angiolo Marroni said ahead of the ceremony. . . . He has broken with tradition for the foot-washing ceremony, which is normally performed on lay people in one of Rome's basilicas.

In his homily on this occasion, the pope stated: We need to go out... to the outskirts where there is suffering, bloodshed, blindness that longs for sight and prisoners in thrall to many evil masters.

In this particular instance, it was straight media reporting, minus spin and wishful thinking and miscomprehension.  But many Catholics reacted with shock and dismay. The new pope had broken with previous liturgical tradition or custom, by 1) performing the ceremony outside of a church, and 2) washing the feet of two girls, including 3) a Muslim girl.

The Vatican’s chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, stated on 29 March 2013 that the pope’s act was:

. . . absolutely licit for a rite that is not a church sacrament. Francis also took into account the real situation, the community where one celebrates, Lombardi added.

The Casal del Marmo prison where Francis celebrated houses both young men and women, and it would have been strange if girls had been excluded, Lombardi said.

This community understands simple and essential things; they were not liturgy scholars, Lombardi said. Washing feet was important to present the Lord’s spirit of service and love.[2]

Canonist Ed Peters observed:

If liturgical law permitted the washing of women’s feet at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, no one would have noticed the pope’s doing it. What was newsworthy (apparently, massively newsworthy) is that, precisely because liturgical law does not authorize it, the pope’s performance of the action was huge news.

. . . What is not good is to leave a crystal clear law on the books but show no intention of expecting anyone to follow it. That damages the effectiveness of law across the board. [3]

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (a very popular traditionalist blogger) expanded this mild protest understanding, and expresses concern about how liberals will (much as they did with Vatican II) distort the pope's actions:

What this foot washing issue does is reveal how vast the gulf is now that divides those who maintain that order, law and reason are necessary in the Church and society and those who, like gnostics who possess secret powers of interpretation of even more secret teachings, apply super-principles which trump lesser matters such as reason, law and order.

The new gnostics (liberals) call upon fairness and feelings. There can be no valid response possible by argument or reason or precedent.

. . . we may be seeing more clearly, in reactions to what Francis is doing (not necessarily in what Francis is doing), the exaltation of the golden calf of immanence.[4]

Daniel Politi, writing for Slate[5] exhibited the classic ultra-broad liberal spin (we'll be seeing a lot of that as we continue our survey) in how he described the implications of the act:

In the short time since Pope Francis became leader of the Catholic Church, his every move has been scrutinized for signs of what his plans could be for his rule. And while his focus on austerity and the world’s poor has excited many who thought the Church was too out of touch with reality,