Catholic (C) talks to Agnostic (Ag) and Atheist (Ath).
Ath: So, Pope Francis has died. He might have been controversial to some because of his focus on social issues like climate change and immigration, but I believe he had a sincere regard for human secular destiny. Seeing the October 7 attacks and the immediate aftermath and knowing about the ongoing conflicts like the one in Ukraine, he said, “War is a defeat, every war is a defeat.” That short statement summarizes every anti-war song, poem, and book written over the last 150 years as composers and authors have voiced their concerns for humanity’s secular fate. In my opinion, all we have is the Here and Now, so I appreciate that focus on humanity.
Ag: But shouldn’t his concern have been humanity’s ultimate destiny in an afterlife? I’m a little up in the air on this. Not sure if it matters one way or another.
C: I think he was a spiritual leader whom the World Press wanted to mold into a social figure by isolating some of his statements like the one about homosexuality, when he said, “Who am I to judge?” Francis was, as we all are, a product of our times.
We live in an era of decreased moral formality and increased public acceptance of lifestyles previously publicly denounced. That’s not to say that there weren’t many other times of informal morality, times and places when and where situation ethics prevailed. I suppose we Americans are still emerging from the Puritanism associated with previous eras. The problem more conservative Christians, and particularly conservative Catholics, had with him was that he seem to imply an indifference or misunderstanding of what they believed to be a breakdown of faith or of morality. Was Francis suggesting a widespread acceptance of lifestyles once not only rejected but also condemned? Christians might practice situation ethics, but they don’t want their pontiff voicing it. They might sin, but they don’t want ambivalence. They don’t want a “sinful” lifestyle dismissed in a refusal “to judge” that they interpret as permission for pedophilia. Many still think homosexuality is not only “sinful” but also criminal in the context of those abuse scandals that rocked the Church. Remember that during the Victorian era and early twentieth century being gay was a civil crime as well as a “sin.” In 1950s in England the genius Alan Turing was convicted of homosexuality, or“indecency. ”Turing was subsequently ostracized from the government work for which he had received high praise prior to the conviction. Then he died under suspicious circumstances that indicated either suicide driven by mandatory hormone treatment or, even more controversial, murder by the British Secret Service. In the later twentieth century and in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, the “situation” has changed, homosexuality has been decriminalized though pedophilia is still a crime. Conservatives balk at the seeming change from an Absolute Morality to a Relative Morality. However, Francis was echoing what Christ said in John 8:7.
In saying, “Who am I to judge?” Francis was echoing Christ’s “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” So, there was in his statement a tie to the Church’s tradition of forgiveness and mercy. “Let God be the judge,” he implied. For those whose ethics influenced them to associate homosexuality with pedophilia because of the clergy scandals, Francis was opening a long-closed door that the masses wanted to lock. Was Francis okaying pedophilia? He did make other comments that suggested ambivalence.
He made at least one comment some that many conservatives took as permissive. He said, "Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it,” and then he reportedly said in a closed meeting that priesthood colleges were too full of “frociaggine" (excuse my pronunciation), a vulgar Italian term for “faggotness.” Making contradictory comments did not sit well with the faithful who wanted a pope to be consistent in a time when so many priests we’re accused of pedophilia. Yet, he did side with traditional morality when he said, “Before God and his people I express my sorrow for the sins and grave crimes of clerical sexual abuse committed against you. And I humbly ask forgiveness."
Ath: Contradiction and hypocrisy are two reasons I’m not a member of any religion. When a priest ventures into social matters, he opens himself up to social influences of his times. He…I’ll come back to this in a moment, but first I want to say that most of the faithful want a “tradition” that doesn’t undergo the vicissitudes of popularism. Why practice what undergoes willy nilly change influenced by the vocal minority? At least on the surface, the faithful don’t want the morality of today to be different from the morality recognized in the religion of their past.
I expect a pope to make comments on the immorality of war, crime, injustice, and yes, on pedophilia that I find wrong on psychological and humanistic grounds. But Francis, as they say, veered out of his lane. He made comments on climate and immigration. I found him venturing into matters and views popularized by the media. He wrote in 2023, "The world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point. Despite all attempts to deny, conceal, gloss over or relativize the issue, the signs of climate change are here and increasingly evident.”
Sorry, but as one who’s looked at all the damage to world economies done by climate activists who have increased the cost of energy, the most fundamental human need because it underlies all activities, I find his comment unwarranted. The “breaking point”? On what grounds? What are those “signs”? I think he bought into the idea that weather events are climate, that droughts in places prone to droughts somehow signify a world “climate system” out of control. It’s always been out of control, thus migrations of the last 60,000 years to more suitable places—though why people moved into the Arctic befuddles me.
And then there were those comments on immigration that I believe he made without reference to the reality of economic loss and hardship to countries undergoing mass migration. Francis said, “We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories.” Okay, Frankie, ten to twenty million such stories in just four years crossing into the United States? Many of them getting free stuff on the people’s dime while Americans citizens saw their taxes going to those who paid no tax? Violent criminal gangs, deadly fentanyl, and overloaded health care and school resources? Is that how the Vatican treats immigrants, or is the Vatican still sticking to its restrictions on immigrants? Has the Vatican taken down its wall or gotten rid of the Swiss Guard? Charity, sure, Francis; mercy, yeah, I can see it; but more than ten million in four years? Who can listen to individual voices under those circumstances?
But Francis put the burden of morality on the invaded, not on the invaders. He said, “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.” Yet, the Vatican still has that wall.
That brings up another reason I don’t belong to any particular religion: Those in leadership proclaim but don’t always follow their proclamations. It’s the “do as I say” crowd of hypocrites.
Ag: I think the guy was well-meaning in all he said but that he didn’t quite grasp how people can distort comments. Did he approve of Islamic “martyrs” when he said, “Politics is a noble activity. We should revalue it, practise [sic.] it with vocation and a dedication that requires testimony, martyrdom, that is to die for the common good.” Were suicide bombers justified in such a “practice?” Francis probably had no such thing in mind, but in an age of distorted meanings precise and thorough language is necessary. No one can predict the inferences people make, of course, but language interpretation has consequences. I could see, for example, that women could infer their role in the Church makes them second class faithful because they can’t be priests, er, priestesses. Yet, Francis says they are a significant part of the Church: “A church without women would be like the apostolic college without Mary. The Madonna is more important than the apostles, and the Church herself is feminine, the spouse of Christ and a mother.”
So, if I’m a devout woman, I would want to know why I can become a nun but not a priest. Hey, he also said, “I dream of a church that is a mother and shepherdess.” Lots of pontificating about women, but little practical action, I’d say.
C: Here’s the problem I think many have with regard to religion and religious leaders. It is difficult for us to separate the two. We expect the leaders to be the embodiment of the faith. We don’t want to see the leaders as human like us. We want them to be somehow special, and by that I mean not prone to violating the Church’s tenets. We seek consistency because our lives are enveloped by chaos and inconsistency. The world outside the Church—whatever church it is—is overflowing with contradiction. How many people have looked to religion for a firm foundation? How many have you heard sing, “I was lost, but now am found?”
In matters of faith, Francis appears to have been consistent. That some of his comments upset his flock isn’t necessarily his fault. Every statement that bred controversy was subject to inference. Some took his statements to mean more than he intended or to be different from what he intended. His statements on immigration, for example, were the product of his own experiences as an immigrant to Argentina.
In that, I see a shortcoming. We often err when we try to apply the personal to the general. His own experiences were not indicative of the experiences of millions of people in developed countries overwhelmed by millions of Third World immigrants flooding neighborhoods, overtaxing public services, and disrupting the lives of citizens. Mass migration can’t be seen by the “invaded” country as an individual looking for a better life. Sure, mercy and help are ethical, but not necessarily doable, not necessarily practical on the scale of millions of migrants in just four years. And the criminal element among the innocent migrants has been composed of well organized drug dealers and killers. Would Francis see practicality in letting MS-13 into the Vatican? Theoretically, he could forgive, counsel, and provide, but in dealing with the incorrigible, he would be ultimately frustrated as they pushed drugs, assaulted, and stole artworks. He no doubt would forgive and counsel individuals, but gangs mean dealing with mob mentalities infused with loyalty so powerful that it can influence members to kill just for the sake of killing.
Nevertheless, in spite of the controversies, Pope Francis was a good guy, maybe a bit of a socialist, but definitely well-meaning, as you said, Ag. That he stepped out of his lane on matters like climate change I can blame on the influence of a Press obsessed with the topic and maybe on his never having time to study climate science. He was correct, however, in tying morality to care for the environment. At the heart of Catholicism is the fact that we are all finite and that there will be other generations who will want to occupy our temporary homes.
As to your concerns, Ath, Francis thought in terms of stewardship. So, given the hype by alarmists, he was inclined to tie morality to care for the planet because its care is inextricably tied to care for the poor who suffer the most under natural disasters.
And I can see that you might be upset by any inkling of hypocrisy. It probably bothers most people that those at the top of any social order or organization might see themselves “above the law” or might act in contradiction to tenets everyone else must follow.
Ag: So, what’s next? I guess we’ll see whether the next pope is more like Benedict or Francis, more like Pius XII whose Vatican didn’t outright condemn the Holocaust or St. John Paul II who independently helped Reagan dismantle Communism in the Soviet Union. Will the next pope be a man of the people like John XXIII? Will he call a new Vatican Council to reexamine the Church? One thing is certain, in spite of the Church being in the words of Francis “feminine,”“mother,” and “bride,” the next pope won’t be a woman, probably not even a trans woman.
C: Time will tell. Anyway, goodbye, Francis. As the proverbial “they” say, “The good you did will live on.”
Ag: I doubt that, but then, I doubt everything.
Ath: So, Pope Francis has died. He might have been controversial to some because of his focus on social issues like climate change and immigration, but I believe he had a sincere regard for human secular destiny. Seeing the October 7 attacks and the immediate aftermath and knowing about the ongoing conflicts like the one in Ukraine, he said, “War is a defeat, every war is a defeat.” That short statement summarizes every anti-war song, poem, and book written over the last 150 years as composers and authors have voiced their concerns for humanity’s secular fate. In my opinion, all we have is the Here and Now, so I appreciate that focus on humanity.
Ag: But shouldn’t his concern have been humanity’s ultimate destiny in an afterlife? I’m a little up in the air on this. Not sure if it matters one way or another.
C: I think he was a spiritual leader whom the World Press wanted to mold into a social figure by isolating some of his statements like the one about homosexuality, when he said, “Who am I to judge?” Francis was, as we all are, a product of our times.
We live in an era of decreased moral formality and increased public acceptance of lifestyles previously publicly denounced. That’s not to say that there weren’t many other times of informal morality, times and places when and where situation ethics prevailed. I suppose we Americans are still emerging from the Puritanism associated with previous eras. The problem more conservative Christians, and particularly conservative Catholics, had with him was that he seem to imply an indifference or misunderstanding of what they believed to be a breakdown of faith or of morality. Was Francis suggesting a widespread acceptance of lifestyles once not only rejected but also condemned? Christians might practice situation ethics, but they don’t want their pontiff voicing it. They might sin, but they don’t want ambivalence. They don’t want a “sinful” lifestyle dismissed in a refusal “to judge” that they interpret as permission for pedophilia. Many still think homosexuality is not only “sinful” but also criminal in the context of those abuse scandals that rocked the Church. Remember that during the Victorian era and early twentieth century being gay was a civil crime as well as a “sin.” In 1950s in England the genius Alan Turing was convicted of homosexuality, or“indecency. ”Turing was subsequently ostracized from the government work for which he had received high praise prior to the conviction. Then he died under suspicious circumstances that indicated either suicide driven by mandatory hormone treatment or, even more controversial, murder by the British Secret Service. In the later twentieth century and in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, the “situation” has changed, homosexuality has been decriminalized though pedophilia is still a crime. Conservatives balk at the seeming change from an Absolute Morality to a Relative Morality. However, Francis was echoing what Christ said in John 8:7.
In saying, “Who am I to judge?” Francis was echoing Christ’s “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” So, there was in his statement a tie to the Church’s tradition of forgiveness and mercy. “Let God be the judge,” he implied. For those whose ethics influenced them to associate homosexuality with pedophilia because of the clergy scandals, Francis was opening a long-closed door that the masses wanted to lock. Was Francis okaying pedophilia? He did make other comments that suggested ambivalence.
He made at least one comment some that many conservatives took as permissive. He said, "Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it,” and then he reportedly said in a closed meeting that priesthood colleges were too full of “frociaggine" (excuse my pronunciation), a vulgar Italian term for “faggotness.” Making contradictory comments did not sit well with the faithful who wanted a pope to be consistent in a time when so many priests we’re accused of pedophilia. Yet, he did side with traditional morality when he said, “Before God and his people I express my sorrow for the sins and grave crimes of clerical sexual abuse committed against you. And I humbly ask forgiveness."
Ath: Contradiction and hypocrisy are two reasons I’m not a member of any religion. When a priest ventures into social matters, he opens himself up to social influences of his times. He…I’ll come back to this in a moment, but first I want to say that most of the faithful want a “tradition” that doesn’t undergo the vicissitudes of popularism. Why practice what undergoes willy nilly change influenced by the vocal minority? At least on the surface, the faithful don’t want the morality of today to be different from the morality recognized in the religion of their past.
I expect a pope to make comments on the immorality of war, crime, injustice, and yes, on pedophilia that I find wrong on psychological and humanistic grounds. But Francis, as they say, veered out of his lane. He made comments on climate and immigration. I found him venturing into matters and views popularized by the media. He wrote in 2023, "The world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point. Despite all attempts to deny, conceal, gloss over or relativize the issue, the signs of climate change are here and increasingly evident.”
Sorry, but as one who’s looked at all the damage to world economies done by climate activists who have increased the cost of energy, the most fundamental human need because it underlies all activities, I find his comment unwarranted. The “breaking point”? On what grounds? What are those “signs”? I think he bought into the idea that weather events are climate, that droughts in places prone to droughts somehow signify a world “climate system” out of control. It’s always been out of control, thus migrations of the last 60,000 years to more suitable places—though why people moved into the Arctic befuddles me.
And then there were those comments on immigration that I believe he made without reference to the reality of economic loss and hardship to countries undergoing mass migration. Francis said, “We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories.” Okay, Frankie, ten to twenty million such stories in just four years crossing into the United States? Many of them getting free stuff on the people’s dime while Americans citizens saw their taxes going to those who paid no tax? Violent criminal gangs, deadly fentanyl, and overloaded health care and school resources? Is that how the Vatican treats immigrants, or is the Vatican still sticking to its restrictions on immigrants? Has the Vatican taken down its wall or gotten rid of the Swiss Guard? Charity, sure, Francis; mercy, yeah, I can see it; but more than ten million in four years? Who can listen to individual voices under those circumstances?
But Francis put the burden of morality on the invaded, not on the invaders. He said, “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.” Yet, the Vatican still has that wall.
That brings up another reason I don’t belong to any particular religion: Those in leadership proclaim but don’t always follow their proclamations. It’s the “do as I say” crowd of hypocrites.
Ag: I think the guy was well-meaning in all he said but that he didn’t quite grasp how people can distort comments. Did he approve of Islamic “martyrs” when he said, “Politics is a noble activity. We should revalue it, practise [sic.] it with vocation and a dedication that requires testimony, martyrdom, that is to die for the common good.” Were suicide bombers justified in such a “practice?” Francis probably had no such thing in mind, but in an age of distorted meanings precise and thorough language is necessary. No one can predict the inferences people make, of course, but language interpretation has consequences. I could see, for example, that women could infer their role in the Church makes them second class faithful because they can’t be priests, er, priestesses. Yet, Francis says they are a significant part of the Church: “A church without women would be like the apostolic college without Mary. The Madonna is more important than the apostles, and the Church herself is feminine, the spouse of Christ and a mother.”
So, if I’m a devout woman, I would want to know why I can become a nun but not a priest. Hey, he also said, “I dream of a church that is a mother and shepherdess.” Lots of pontificating about women, but little practical action, I’d say.
C: Here’s the problem I think many have with regard to religion and religious leaders. It is difficult for us to separate the two. We expect the leaders to be the embodiment of the faith. We don’t want to see the leaders as human like us. We want them to be somehow special, and by that I mean not prone to violating the Church’s tenets. We seek consistency because our lives are enveloped by chaos and inconsistency. The world outside the Church—whatever church it is—is overflowing with contradiction. How many people have looked to religion for a firm foundation? How many have you heard sing, “I was lost, but now am found?”
In matters of faith, Francis appears to have been consistent. That some of his comments upset his flock isn’t necessarily his fault. Every statement that bred controversy was subject to inference. Some took his statements to mean more than he intended or to be different from what he intended. His statements on immigration, for example, were the product of his own experiences as an immigrant to Argentina.
In that, I see a shortcoming. We often err when we try to apply the personal to the general. His own experiences were not indicative of the experiences of millions of people in developed countries overwhelmed by millions of Third World immigrants flooding neighborhoods, overtaxing public services, and disrupting the lives of citizens. Mass migration can’t be seen by the “invaded” country as an individual looking for a better life. Sure, mercy and help are ethical, but not necessarily doable, not necessarily practical on the scale of millions of migrants in just four years. And the criminal element among the innocent migrants has been composed of well organized drug dealers and killers. Would Francis see practicality in letting MS-13 into the Vatican? Theoretically, he could forgive, counsel, and provide, but in dealing with the incorrigible, he would be ultimately frustrated as they pushed drugs, assaulted, and stole artworks. He no doubt would forgive and counsel individuals, but gangs mean dealing with mob mentalities infused with loyalty so powerful that it can influence members to kill just for the sake of killing.
Nevertheless, in spite of the controversies, Pope Francis was a good guy, maybe a bit of a socialist, but definitely well-meaning, as you said, Ag. That he stepped out of his lane on matters like climate change I can blame on the influence of a Press obsessed with the topic and maybe on his never having time to study climate science. He was correct, however, in tying morality to care for the environment. At the heart of Catholicism is the fact that we are all finite and that there will be other generations who will want to occupy our temporary homes.
As to your concerns, Ath, Francis thought in terms of stewardship. So, given the hype by alarmists, he was inclined to tie morality to care for the planet because its care is inextricably tied to care for the poor who suffer the most under natural disasters.
And I can see that you might be upset by any inkling of hypocrisy. It probably bothers most people that those at the top of any social order or organization might see themselves “above the law” or might act in contradiction to tenets everyone else must follow.
Ag: So, what’s next? I guess we’ll see whether the next pope is more like Benedict or Francis, more like Pius XII whose Vatican didn’t outright condemn the Holocaust or St. John Paul II who independently helped Reagan dismantle Communism in the Soviet Union. Will the next pope be a man of the people like John XXIII? Will he call a new Vatican Council to reexamine the Church? One thing is certain, in spite of the Church being in the words of Francis “feminine,”“mother,” and “bride,” the next pope won’t be a woman, probably not even a trans woman.
C: Time will tell. Anyway, goodbye, Francis. As the proverbial “they” say, “The good you did will live on.”
Ag: I doubt that, but then, I doubt everything.
RSS Feed