Guffaw, since no one under sixty has even the remotest memory of an authoritarian Pope.

The future of this Pope may indeed be impressive, but the hype right now is embarrassing. Elsewhere here, William Doino’s FT piece is indicative, and more fitting as a press release than anything else. I agree with Mills that the early criticism of PF is out of place. But even more so may be the ridiculous spectacle of Pope-worship being demonstrated. This man might as well be Taylor Swift. Why can’t we simply let him rule, and allow his actions to define his new role? Instead, we will be subjected to umpteen columns and comments pointedly praising his INTENSE humility and RIVETING advocacy for the Poor. If I read a statement as controlled as, “He is reported to be a sincere man of faith and who in his ministry choices has also shown a strong advocacy for the poor,” I’d commend its writer. The only Catholic-authored piece I have seen so far that corresponds with journalistic sanity is that of Ross Douthat’s in the NYT, of all places. Sheeeeeeesh.

PF himself seems already pulled and tugged into pointless meetings and photo opps to the point one can rightly wonder, “How can the Pope ever even begin to get to his job?” No wonder the Church’s admin is such a mess. Makes one understand why Ratzinger ended up fleeing the position that is looking an awful lot right now like that of Friar + Hugger-in-Chief. That sound you hear is camera flashes in the background.

There is some wishful thinking going on, and it may be among those who see Pope Francis’s small gestures of humility as harbingers of more significant changes to come, or among those who do not. On the side of the former is Marco Politi of La Repubblica quoted at length by Father Komonchak on dotCommonweal. Here’s a brief excerpt:

In the breach opened by Ratzinger, Pope Bergoglio is proceeding on this path, convinced that to enter into communication with contemporary humanity requires a resolute return to the essence of the Gospel. From his first moment Francis has presented himself as “Bishop of Rome,” consistently referring to the cardinals, most of them archbishops of dioceses throughout the world, as “brothers.” It is the representation of a bishop-pope and not of an emperor-pope who with his red mantle and his purple shoes appeared for more than a millennium as an absolute monarch. The triple crown of the “triregno” symbolized that the pope was above any earthly authority. Thus gradually Francis is dismantling the power-papacy of Gregory VII, the absolutism of the Council of Trent, the claimed infallibility of Pius IX. . . .

Summorum Pontificum authorizes the use of the Extraordinary Form without the permission of the diocesan bishop. That’s what S.P. does.

So how exactly is a bishop supposed to implement something which effectively negates his authority (in a particular matter)?

Rad-trads (I’m looking at you, Rorate Caeli) … did Abp. Bergoglio violate S.P. in any way? Or did he merely continue to support the O.F., which, in a sober analysis of canon law, it was his duty to do?

To suggest that Bergoglio as archbishop actively violated a motu proprio is a pretty serious allegation. I would like to think that anyone who would make such allegations publicly would have a large array of material evidence to support such a claim.

Instead, we have the “more-Catholic-than-the-pope” Rorate Caeli crowd spreading rumors based on uncorroborated allegations of bloggers.

Oh, really. This is, um, sloppy and silly, though it is coherent.

There is, by the way, no evidence that Francis has “publicly” criticized the Anglican Ordinariate. We have just one quote from an interested party (an Anglican bishop) to say that he did criticize it and that man was reporting a private conversation. I have my doubts he (Francis) said it. But in any case, this kind of mistake doesn’t make one confident in the other claims or in the general claim that “These are the facts.”

Also, no one, as far as I can tell, is made at Mr. Daugherty.

Hopeless? I think not. The divine is never hopeless.