Not long ago, Cardinal Gerhard Müller made some comments during an interview in The Times of London which caught my attention. They echo sentiments he has repeated before but which now, with the conclave to elect a new pope upon us, struck me. “‘No Catholic is obliged to obey doctrine that is wrong,’ he said, adding: ‘Catholicism is not about blindly obeying the Pope without respecting holy scriptures, tradition and the doctrine of the Church.’”
I mention these statements because I find them to be so painfully obvious that I can scarcely conceive how anyone could disagree with them. But in practice, many do.
When news of Pope Francis’ passing broke, I posted a message on my Facebook page reminding everyone that the Holy Spirit does not directly choose popes in a conclave and quoting Joseph Ratzinger to that effect (from a 1997 interview, which I saw being posted in several places). I am aware that, in a sense, everything happens under the direction of the Holy Spirit and, in some way, guides the cardinals in their choice. But that is not what decent, pious Catholics mean when they say things like “we must pray that the Holy Spirit picks a holy pope in the conclave.” What they mean is the Holy Spirit directs which person the cardinals elect as pope. The implication of this is that every pope must, perforce, be a holy pope since the Holy Spirit cannot err.
It is just this sort of idea I wished to dispel, and the reactions to my post were mostly positive. But still, some people left comments arguing that Joseph Ratzinger changed his mind about this when he became pope, or insinuating that I called into question the Holy Spirit by suggesting such things. I wish I could say that I have grown used to these sorts of interventions from people, some of whom I know and care about, but that would not be true. I must admit, I am simply floored by them, as I am by pretty much all defenses of the record of Jorge Bergoglio I have encountered.
This is especially true of Francis’ doctrinal adventures. The past twelve years have felt like being forced to read a Jack Chick comic, ghostwritten by publicists for the Human Rights Campaign. When I sometimes point out that popes can err, these types of people will agree; but then when I point out this or that defect on the part of Francis, they will deny any such thing has taken place.
Amoris Laetitia? It was a “nuanced” document that doesn’t give license to people in adulterous relationships to take Communion. That’s a misinterpretation. The Abu Dhabi Statement? The pope didn’t mean to suggest that God directly willed all religions, just that He permissively allowed them. To suggest otherwise is ill will on your part. Fiducia Supplicans? It merely says the Church can bless individuals not couples. Why do you hate the pope and/or gay people?
No matter what the subject may be, there is always some excuse that exonerates the pope, and if you object, then the problem is with you. No facts or patterns of behavior make any difference.
Things are even worse when we come to Pope Francis as person. When I came into the Church, I read and was told that the pope was infallible but not impeccable. Popes can and often do sin. Again, you might get agreement from some of his defenders on this, but the moment you descend to specifics of his reign, the refusal to countenance the idea that Francis committed any but the most venial of sins kicks into high gear. It is as if these defenders have a syllogism wired into their brains, which they cannot turn off: the Holy Spirit picks the pope; the pope cannot commit serious sin because the Holy Spirit chose him; if the pope appears to do anything bad, it must be a mistake, a media distortion, or a malicious lie.
I am simply gobsmacked whenever I see, even in “conservative” Catholic periodicals, articles with titles such as “Pope Francis’ Grandfatherly advice on venial sin” or “Pope Francis on how gossip can harm you.” When I think about all the sexual predators Pope Francis promoted and protected (the list is long), I cannot fathom anyone seeking Jorge Bergoglio as a moral guide of any kind.
When an Argentinian court convicted Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta of abusing his seminarians, Pope Francis brought him to Rome so he could avoid prison. Francis restored Mauro Inzoli to the priestly state after Benedict XVI had laicized him; and he only removed him from that state after an Italian court convicted Inzoli of molesting minors. The accusations against Marko Rupnik, whose excommunication Francis lifted, are too disgusting to relate.
These are not isolated incidents, and they are not the actions of a good person. No, Francis was not as awful as the people he protected. And yes, he did some good things as supreme pontiff. But none of this made him a good person worthy of trust, which he never was.
It is hard for many Catholics to face the fact that a pope has erred in his teaching or that he has done terrible things. Many tend to think the “bad popes” are something from the past, safely tucked away in the pages of a history book where they can no longer harm us. In recent times, the Church has exalted the authority of the pope so much that, for some, it is the center of the Faith itself.
During the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, many seemed to understand the papacy this way and defended those pontiffs when many criticized them for upholding unpopular teaching such as that on contraception. But I get the impression the same people felt they could not criticize the obvious problems with the Franciscan pontificate because they had defended those pontiffs not because what they said was true but merely because it was the pope who said it.
