Like most of us I’m scrambling to learn more.
Here’s what I do know: Francis is a conservative Jesuit, but in some ways a revolutionary, as almost all modern Jesuits are. He’s like Benedict in the sense of not having any restorationist impulses. He recognizes that the idea of princes of the Church is an anachronism. At the same time he’s against the emerging secular consensus in the West, which includes South America. He has engaged in conflicts with Cristina Kirchner in Argentina over gay marriage and gay adoption. She punches below the belt. He knows what the Church is up against.
I worked with Jesuits for twenty years. They break the rules. So far Pope Francis is true to form. He took an unprecedented name, which is the name of the most severe critic of the papacy before Martin Luther. He bowed to receive the crowd’s blessing.
The Spiritual Exercises serve as the central and powerful basis for Jesuit formation. This mode of interior union with God’s will can have a tremendous effect, which is why Jesuits really, really believe in what they’re doing. That makes them powerful forces in the Church, for good and for ill. The Church is an incredibly immobile institution, but this fellow may effect some changes.
March 13th, 2013 | 6:10 pm
Let’s hope for great things. So far what I read are good signs. Personally I hope we have another ” Francis” in him and will pray leads the faithful with firm love and bring many back into the fold. God bless everyone !
March 13th, 2013 | 6:14 pm
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam!
March 13th, 2013 | 6:37 pm
Let’s just say the Acton Institute is likely to be very disappointed
March 13th, 2013 | 6:37 pm
¡Gloria a Dios!
March 13th, 2013 | 7:00 pm
I wish him “all the best”.. I have known a few Jesuits in my time and they have always been a little out of the box.. hopefully he can bring Catholics back to the faith and restore the church’s dogma in the face of the Muslim threat.. and it is a threat.
March 13th, 2013 | 7:12 pm
I like the first impressions.
March 13th, 2013 | 7:26 pm
I think it presumptuous to say that the Holy Father asked for the crowd’s blessing. (See the text of his remarks.) Rather, he asked the faithful to pray that God would bless him. Big difference and certainly not in the line of the modern confusion of the “priesthood of all believers” vs. the “ministerial priesthood.”
As a good priest friend of mine said, this was a sign of a good pastor–that he asked the people to pray and the throngs in St. Peter’s were silent…because they were praying.
March 13th, 2013 | 7:58 pm
“He’s like Benedict in the sense of not having any restorationist impulses.”
Huh?! What about the red shoes and the revival of particular papal vesture under Pope Benedict? The whole dignity of worship/restoration of Catholic identity dynamic under Benedict. The encouragement of communion in the hand, kneeling. The placement of an altar cross to blunt the congregationalist self-referential dynamic of versus populum worship as a half way house towards restoration of ad orientem – which the Pope used to do (especially each year at Epiphany in the Sistine Chapel).
But, I fear you are right as regards Pope Francis’s own preferences; he has characterised an inward turning Church as one being ‘self-referential’. He may well include revival of venerable dissciplinary and liturgical practices as being just that. If so, how sad.
“He recognizes that the idea of princes of the Church is an anachronism. ”
I know…Pope Francis is going to abolish the College of Cardinal’s! Although, given his generation and proclivities as a ‘man of the poor’.
Just a few thoughts
March 13th, 2013 | 10:14 pm
R.R., I don’t know from what perspective you’re coming at this, but allow me to make a few observations.
First, Ratzinger/BXVI was many things, but impulsive he was not. That said, I think you’re trying to square a circle in comparing him to Pope Francis. BXVI was a restorationist in the sense that he approved the motu proprio regarding the Tridentine Rite, saying that that it had not, in fact, been abrogated by Vatical II. See his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” for more.
Ratzinger/BXVI also has a large body of work that could fairly be classified as the natural extension of the works of Hans Urs von Balthasar. Both men believed strongly that a key to renewing the Church lay in the rediscovery of the Church Fathers. Von Balthasar focused on Gregory of Nyssa, while Ratzinger studied Augustine and Bonaventure extensively. This is hardly anti-restorationist.
Second, I question your use of the terms “revolutionary” and “breaking the rules.” A key attraction of younger Catholics is the encounter with the orthodoxy found in ritual and liturgy. This is clearly a backlash against the innovations and heterodoxy unleashed by Vatican II. If I read you right, you seem to suggest that Bergoglio’s appeal lies in challenging the very tenets of the Church which have led to the fervent allegiance and piety of a new generation of Catholics.
Furthermore, if the New Evangelization under this pontificate results in a dismantling of sacred institutions because they are, in your terminology, anachronistic, the Church will surely be in dire straits. She is a hierarchy, and the faithful would not have it any other way. Taking the Church apart is to demystify her, and God knows how well the world has worked these days without mystery.
March 13th, 2013 | 11:02 pm
R.R.–Really helpful, hopeful post. I appreciate the Ignatian comments as well as the reminder of Francis’ severe criticisms of the papacy. You may appreciate some of the quotes I have compiled in the link below around the theme of Bergoglio and Mission.
http://debatingobama.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-missional-pope.html
Peace!
March 14th, 2013 | 1:15 am
Ratzinger is a reformer in the sense of the16th century Catholic reformers who sought to give an alternative to Lutheranism et al. which were so anti-traditionalist.
March 14th, 2013 | 1:16 am
I agree with the critique of Professor Reno’s assessment of B16. He was absolutely a restorationist. From his fashion to his desire to light Christianity afire in its cradle of Europe, and so on. And the the Latin Mass, etc
I am a huge B16 fan, and a liberal, and I recognize the restorationist drive of B16.
March 14th, 2013 | 3:03 am
@Tom Crawford:
“restore the church’s dogma in the face of the Muslim threat.. and it is a threat.”
Why is Islam a threat? Give them another 10-20 years and you will see its decline as economic growth reaches the Middle East.
March 14th, 2013 | 6:32 am
Based on what I’ve read, the new pope has shown himself to be a kind, loving pastor. he washed and kissed the feet of those suffering from AIDS, and others from drug addiction. He clearly is sending a message of peace, by choosing as his papal name Francis, after Francis of Assisi. The latter, of course, had a very special relationship with animals. My interpretation is that, by choosing the name “francis”, the new pope is attempting to convey several positive messages, not the least being that we humans have an obligation to treat animals with kindness and respect.
March 14th, 2013 | 6:49 am
St. Francis was a loyal son of the Church, especially the papacy. Go look at his statue in front of St. John Lateran, the pope’s cathedral!
March 14th, 2013 | 10:32 am
Liam – hate to disappoint you.
With the election of Pope Francis, the Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, Argentina, the Rev. Robert A. Sirico released the following statement.
“Pope Francis is a man of great spirituality who is known for his commitment to doctrinal orthodoxy as well as for his simplicity of life,” Rev. Sirico said. “Like Benedict XVI, he combines concern for the poor with an insistence that it’s not the Church’s responsibility to be a political actor or to prescribe precise solutions to economic problems. In that regard, he’s a model for all Catholic bishops and clergy throughout the world.”
March 14th, 2013 | 2:24 pm
While I appreciate the commentary, the suggestion that Francis of Assisi was a severe critic of the papacy is an odd assertion. I’ve read all of his writings and all of the hagiography that was written about Francis prior to Bonaventure, so I’m not sure where this claim comes from, unless it is from reading too much Sabatier. Francis’s life certainly stood in contrast to much of the clerical life of the time, but he actively sought out the approval of the papacy a number of times and I can’t think of a single time where he criticized the papacy in any way. There were severe critics of the papacy in other penitent movements of the time (Waldensians, Cathars, etc.), but Francis wasn’t one of them.
And by all accounts Francis’s relationship with Hugolino/Gregory IX was particularly warm.
And there were, of course, Franciscans who did freely criticize popes (Ockham was quite ticked off), but this was long after Francis.
So this strikes me as an odd claim, or one that requires a bit more explanation.
Though I generally agree with the larger point.
March 15th, 2013 | 6:32 am
Steve
Um, that’s SOP for Acton, and I expect a continued flow of spin from the sliver of partial truth. I didn’t say they’d publicly admit when they become disappointed. That’s not Acton or neoliberal way; rather, the SOP is to focus on the sliver of truth and spin a confection from that….
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact