So, yes, I have heard that many conservatives are royally pissed off at Pope Francis for actually speaking candidly on issues such as economic inequality, and the excessive greed of the very wealthy. These are things that should make right wingers nervous, after all, since our entire economic system in the West (and nowhere is this more true than in the United States) is essentially geared towards favoring the very wealthy.
Traditionally, the Vatican has had a voice that is much more clearly aligned with what passes for conservative ideology and values. But things are different with this new pope, who seems to speak his mind as he sees it, with little to no regard to the political realities involved. When he sees unfairness, he speaks out against it, even if he is inconveniencing the established powers.
Frankly, that seems to me to be the real role of our religious leaders, and Francis I is doing exactly what he should be doing, so far as I'm concerned. It is not entirely unlike Jesus chasing out the money changers from the temple, from the place of worship, a Biblical lesson that this pope has apparently studied, understood, learned from, and is now applying in his new role.
Call me naive, but a religious leader should be exactly that. When a religious leader, even the Pope himself, gets bogged down in politics, he fails to transcend the political issues of his day. When a pope fails to transcend the issues of his day, how can we possibly look to him, and perhaps, by extension, the office that he is representing, when he himself compromises all of that?
When Pope Pius XII seems a little too close to the fascists, particularly the Nazis and Hitler, how then can we easily dismiss that? There have been other popes, as well, who have not been regarded very highly in history, such as Pope Boniface VIII, who went to extraordinary lengths to increase the political power of the Church. Or Pope Alexander VI, also known by his surname, Borgia. So legendary were his "values", which were in obvious and direct contradiction with those that he was supposed to represent as the head of the Church, that it prompted his successor, Julius II, upon taking the office, to say this:
"I will not live in the same rooms as the Borgias lived. He desecrated the Holy Church as none before. He usurped the papal power by the devil's aid, and I forbid under the pain of excommunication anyone to speak or think of Borgia again. His name and memory must be forgotten. It must be crossed out of every document and memorial. His reign must be obliterated. All paintings made of the Borgias or for them must be covered over with black crepe. All the tombs of the Borgias must be opened and their bodies sent back to where they belong – to Spain."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI
If the Vatican has long maintained that the pope is the living, human embodiment of God, and thus infallible, then how can such glaring failures, mistakes and compromises of virtue and values be made by the very man who is supposed to represent the very best that the Church has to offer?
When politicians, or in this case, prominent people with a certain political leaning, advocate a pope because he essentially is friendly to their cause or their thinking, does that truly make the pope, or the Vatican for that matter, truly ethical? Or is it precisely the reverse of moral guidance? When Pope John Paul II, who understandably took a strong stance against communism, which was the political system in his own country, Poland, is lionized, much the way President Reagan is lionized, does this make it right? Is he really merely a figure that helped to dismantle one particular political system in one particular part of the world? Did he do things that transcended that? Or should we relegate him to the field of politics and, if so, what business does he have heading a faith, let alone the largest existing faith in the world today? (If interested, here is an interesting article on Pope John Paul II and his legacy of anti-communism that seemed informative: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pope/communism/)
In any case, my point is this: I applaud Pope Francis I for speaking his mind about issues that truly matter, and pointing out the inherent unfairness within this global economic system as he sees them, even if these are deemed inconvenient, or possibly even treacherous, by certain icons of a political ideology that is currently enjoying it's moment in the sun. What Francis is doing is speaking of eternal issues, and echoing the very words of Jesus himself. Unlike some other religious leaders who seem to pick and choose only those parts of the good book that suit their ends, this pope has not forgotten the main point that Jesus was trying to make - a message that really should transcend time and particular circumstances. it is a message with a universal and timeless appeal, and I applaud Francis for reminding us that this is what the Church is supposed to be saying in the first place.
Personally, I have a Catholic background, largely buried under years of being completely removed from church services or activities, and, yes, not really believing in the literal interpretation of the Bible that so many religious leaders insist upon.
There are a few prominent voices, however, that have made me at least scratch my head and think about what their faith meant to them, and what it could mean, at it's best. I am thinking here of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who exemplifies the very best that Christianity (although not Catholicism, specifically), has to offer. The same can be said for Jimmy Carter (also not a Catholic). When he speaks of his religious beliefs, I almost feel at times that I could get on board with that, even though, again, I do have that not so little problem with a literal interpretation.
Now, I feel that way with the sitting pope in the Vatican. He seems uncomfortable with many of the same things that made me uncomfortable about Catholicism, and in particular, the Vatican. He seems to be bringing the message back to a spiritual one, back towards trying to find way so of unifying people not through coercion or politics, but with true and sincere aspirations of the best that humanity has to offer. And so, I now place him with those few other prominent figures of Christianity that have made me pause for thought, and take the faith a little more seriously than I have been accustomed to doing when summarily dismissing it for all of the contradictions and, yes, even betrayals of what seem to be the core values of that faith.
In Pope Francis, I see a true Christian, in the most ideal sense.
But he is obviously not without detractors, and his message is not without controversy. That, too, is a part of him that I admire. And let us remember that Jesus also had his detractors, and his message also was not without controversy. Which seems further proof that Francis takes his spirituality seriously and, thus, embodies in a more positive light, represents it in such a way that makes him stand out as truly unique. I have not converted back to Catholicism, no. But if the Church was more in line with what Pope Francis seems to stand for, I could almost see myself becoming a practicing Catholic.
Here is the article that provoked me to write this particular blog entry:
"The Francis factor: Pope’s economic ideas rattle GOP: It’s unclear whether Francis’s views will fray the ties between the right and the Vatican." Reuters, by Katie Glueck, December 25, 2013:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/pope-francis-catholic-church-republicans-gop-economics-101522.html?hp=f3
No comments:
Post a Comment