Viganò v. Francis: Interim Thoughts

Archbishop Viganò's "Testimony" about Archbishop McCarrick, accusing Pope Francis of ignoring reports about McCarrick and lifting sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict XVI, has people paraphrasing Sen. Howard Baker's question at the time of Watergate.

The simple answer is that we don't know yet. Not only don't we know about Francis. We also don't know about Benedict, St. John Paul II, or the other hierarchs whom Abp. Viganò accuses of protecting McCarrick or being part of the "Lavender Mafia," or being his protégés. Daily stories quoting this or that person who may know some of the facts have served to emphasize the uncertainties.

One item in the "Testimony" was Abp. Viganò's reference to my archbishop, Cardinal Seán O'Malley. He said that the Cardinal's statements on the matter were "disappointing" and that the Cardinal has thus lost "transparency and credibility." I find this absurd. In what way were the statements "disappointing?" What, specifically, did the Cardinal say, and what was wrong with it? How do the unquoted words of the Cardinal destroy his "transparency and credibility?" If there is anything wrong with the Cardinal, the Archbishop doesn't even begin to establish what it is. The Archbishop's words here have no substance to them, and they strike me as an unfounded smear — the more so in light of the fact that it was Cardinal Seán whose public rebuke led Pope Francis to finally take seriously the accusations against Bishop Barros in Chile. So I find that what Abp. Viganò says about Cardinal Seán undercuts his own credibility, not the Cardinal's.

But we're still left with a mass of accusations (and innuendoes) which are neither proven nor unproven. They are serious enough to warrant serious investigation, and the leadership of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for one. I hope it will be organized and begin promptly, that the results will be published, and that responsible individuals will be appropriately punished according to the seriousness of their responsibility.

Meanwhile, I think everybody should take seriously the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 2478  To avoid rash judgment [assuming as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of another], everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.

This is why I find it wrong for people who are not privy to all the facts to say about a specific hierarch, "He knew," or, "He should resign now." We just don't know enough for a fact to draw such conclusions.

I also think that Pope Francis, if he mishandled Abp. McCarrick's case, was far less consequential than those who were involved in his becoming, successively, Auxiliary Bishop of New York, Bishop of Metuchen, Archbishop of Newark, Archbishop of Washington, and Cardinal. The New York appointment came under Pope Paul VI, and all the rest happened when John Paul II was Pope. It was  the people who were involved back then who are most responsible. On the other hand, if there has been an ongoing cabal of supporters and protectors, we need to know about it.

Pope Francis on Homosexuality

A couple of months ago, Pope Francis was asked if there is a "gay lobby" at the Vatican, and he answered that there is. On his way home from Rio yesterday, he gave an 80 minute press conference in which -among other things — he was asked about it. Here's a translation of what he said according to one report.

"There's a lot of talk about the gay lobby, but I've never seen it on the Vatican ID card!"

"When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem … they're our brothers." —Emphasis added.

Another report gives a bit more context.

Addressing the issue of the gay lobby, Pope Francis said it was important to "distinguish between a person who is gay and someone who makes a gay lobby," he said. "A gay lobby isn't good."

"A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will -- well, who am I to judge him?" the pope said. "The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn't this (homosexual) orientation -- we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby."

The thing is, as the reference to the Catechism makes clear, this is not exactly novel. What is new is hearing it directly from the lips of the pope. Hopefully the publicity it gets will help more people learn what we've been saying all along.

I realize that this won't satisfy people who insist that the Church must not teach that gay sex is wrong, but hopefully it will help other people — people who can see nuances — realize that the Catholic Church doesn't hate, condemn, or exclude gay people.

Some Thoughts about Pope Francis

When I heard Cardinal Tauran announce that the new Pope was "Georgium S.R.E. Cardinalem Bergoglio," my first thought, before he got to the last name, was, "What Cardinal is named George?" I couldn't think of any. I did recognize the last name, but I couldn't have told you anything about him. Since then, of course, I've read and learned a fair amount.

My impression is that he will change things more than any Pope since John XXIII and Paul VI. Pope Paul VI made some significant changes in the trappings of the papacy, doing away with the portable throne in which popes had been carried at public events, doing away with the triple crown with which popes had been crowned, and traveling outside Italy — the first pope in ages to do so voluntarily. John Paul I, in his month as Pope gave an image of a papacy that was approachable. His successors followed suit in this scaled back version of Renaissance monarchy.

Of course, what John XXIII did was to summon the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, gave the Church a new way of understanding itself and its work. George Weigel has suggested that with Vatican II the Counter-Reformation was over. Conventional wisdom is that it takes decades for the Church to assimilate the work of a council, and John Paul II and Benedict XVI did a lot to further that assimilation with their teaching.

Now comes Pope Francis. It's obvious from his actions of the past couple of days — ditching the red shoes in favor of black, popping into the hotel to pay his bill, placing his own call to the Superior General of the Jesuits — that the monarchical trappings are going to be much further reduced. But I think that the direction the actual work of the Church will take under his papacy is far more significant. Here he'll bring the most change since John XXIII and the Council.

Recently the phrase "New Evangelization" has become very common as a way of describing the task before the Church now that we're leaving the Counter-Reformation behind. As I understand it, it consists of an outreach to people around the world, but especially perhaps in lands and cultures which were formerly Christian but are now thoroughly secularized. This outreach, unlike that of earlier times, is seen as the responsibility of all members of the Church, not just priests and nuns. This is a role for which the laity need to be prepared.

In a pre-conclave piece on Cardinal Bergoglio as a possible Pope, John Allen had this to say:

Bergoglio has supported the social justice ethos of Latin American Catholicism, including a robust defense of the poor.

"We live in the most unequal part of the world, which has grown the most yet reduced misery the least," Bergoglio said during a gathering of Latin American bishops in 2007. "The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers."

and

Bergoglio may be basically conservative on many issues, but he's no defender of clerical privilege, or insensitive to pastoral realities. In September 2012, he delivered a blistering attack on priests who refuse to baptize children born out of wedlock, calling it a form of "rigorous and hypocritical neo-clericalism."

and

He's also seen as a genuinely spiritual soul, and a man of deep prayer.

"Only someone who has encountered mercy, who has been caressed by the tenderness of mercy, is happy and comfortable with the Lord," Bergoglio said in 2001. "I beg the theologians who are present not to turn me in to the Sant'Uffizio or the Inquisition; however, forcing things a bit, I dare to say that the privileged locus of the encounter is the caress of the mercy of Jesus Christ on my sin."

and, finally

"We have to avoid the spiritual sickness of a self-referential church," Bergoglio said recently. "It's true that when you get out into the street, as happens to every man and woman, there can be accidents. However, if the church remains closed in on itself, self-referential, it gets old. Between a church that suffers accidents in the street, and a church that's sick because it's self-referential, I have no doubts about preferring the former."

Elsewhere, I've read of his visits to the poorer areas of Buenos Aires. What this all sounds like to me is what we read about Jesus: that he went around the villages of Galilee proclaiming the kingdom of God to all. All of which leads me to expect that the face of the New Evangelization will be more like the face of Jesus and less that of an institution recruiting new members than it would have been if Francis were not Pope. I'm hopeful.