Controversies Surrounding Bergoglio (Francis)

For those interested in following the struggles and intrigues of the Vatican this article from The Guardian warrants a look.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/oct/27/the-war-against-pope-francis

It helps to explain some of the recent battles, actions and rhetoric taking place between the Papacy and groups like the Knights of Malta. These events have received what could be described as somewhat muddled coverage.

The main fault in the article is regarding Francis' status as that of a liberal or reformer. While I think this is not entirely false it fails to explain the larger context of Bergoglio/Francis, his rise and the direction he seems to be taking the papacy.

In all actuality Francis has been something of a disappointment to liberals. While they're thrilled with his man-of-the-people approach and his partial rejection of papal pomp he's actually done very little to suggest he means to change the doctrines of Roman Catholicism. He's hinted at a change in tone and style but he's not looking to shake up official dogma or cause the catechism to be rewritten.

That said, his actions are generating concern. In addition to trying to take on the curia and institutions like the Vatican Bank (IOR), he's trying to re-shape the Vatican hierarchy by appointing men from the developing world. While in some respects these figures are perhaps more prone to ideas like Liberation Theology, generally speaking many prelates from the Global South and Asia are likely to be conservatives. Regardless they will change the 'old boys club' mentality that has long dominated Vatican politics. Additionally these new appointments will reduce Western governmental influence. The Americans and other state players will not have the sway in the Vatican that they did under figures like John Paul II.

It could also be argued that in purging some of the hardliners Francis is setting the stage for future liberalisation. That could be. At this point I think there are many angles from which these questions could be considered.

One thing is abundantly clear. Francis has upset the status quo and the bulk of North American and European conservatives. They view him as a real threat and are even now angling to curtail his power, before more damage is done.

They realise the damage (as they see it) may come after Francis. Within a generation the whole face of the Vatican might be different and that's something that scares them.

Francis while at least outwardly holding to Roman Catholic dogma nevertheless wants to tweak how doctrine is applied and implement pragmatic changes which reflect already existing realities. The divorcee-communicant issue which the article deals with is what I'm referring to here.

Homosexuality has on a practical level already been embraced by Rome. They accept the idea that there are 'gay' Catholics, they simply want them be non-practicing in terms of their behaviour. Of course the fact that probably half the clergy are already sodomites creates an almost comical situation in which the Roman Catholic organisation continues to fight this point (contra the culture) even while a good number if not the majority of its clergy and members reject Catholic teaching on the subject.

Perhaps Francis realises something the conservative prelates don't. Hypocrisy breaks down the integrity and authority of institutions and ultimately generates chaos and disrespect.

One need only think of Prohibition in the United States. When you walked into the speak-easy and the local judge and police chief were sitting there breaking the law right along with you... it meant the law wasn't to be taken seriously and while there were legal consequences to defying it... they were not moral.

Rome has many dirty secrets and absurd sleight-of-hand practices that (contrary to their official positions) allow both divorce to happen and divorcees to take communion. Rome has all but looked the other way when it comes to homosexuality even among its highest ranks.

Francis wants to clean up this mess, work through it and find ways for Roman Catholicism to be honest both to the world and to its own membership.

And yet there are those within Roman Catholicism that are in crisis and have been since Vatican II. They wish to undo the changes in doctrine and practice which came about as a result of that council. The article deals with how they seek to go about this. The striking thing is that their hands are somewhat tied. They believe they must undo Vatican II but because of Catholicism's doctrine of the Magisterium and Papal Infallibility they must undo these measures even while appearing to uphold them.

It means that things have to happen slowly and incrementally. Thus far, under popes like Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, they've more or less had their way. John Paul I represented a significant threat, perhaps one even greater than Francis. Of course his papacy ended after a matter of weeks and not without controversy.

While the changes Francis seeks to implement are not revolutionary they mark a step back, a regression in the eyes of the conservatives who are involved in the long-term project of undoing Vatican II.

Additionally if Francis stirs up the curia and the College of Cardinals, then the rollback project risks further derailment. This is why they are desperate to stop him.

Francis cuts an intriguing figure and he has captivated many people. He entered the world stage with something of a 'bang' but the burst of optimism and even delight expressed by many has turned somewhat sour. Evangelicals longing for a conservative pope who will aid them in the culture war are disappointed. Roman Catholic conservatives are disappointed both in terms of the culture war and in terms of official dogma. Liberals hoping for real changes are not finding them. Francis is not going to allow for married clergy, women's ordination, divorce, birth control, abortion or an open endorsement of homosexuality.

He is an intriguing figure, not a Christian as the Bible would have it, but like Francis of Assisi a figure worthy of some (if limited) admiration. In the end I cannot support the blasphemous claims of his office nor his ultimate goals. If Francis signifies a liberalised Roman Catholicism, I find that nothing to celebrate. I appreciate his criticisms of Capitalism. As a Latin America he knows the dangers of Capitalism when it reaches its imperialist stage. That said, Bergoglio's own hands are probably less than clean.

If he represents a Roman Catholicism that is pragmatically more honest, that's nothing to celebrate either.

Either way Biblical Christians have little stake or investment in Rome's internal battles but it is nevertheless fascinating to watch. The relevance for us can be found in Western Deep State connections to the Vatican. These chapters and their lessons are worthy of consideration especially as we watch geopolitics and evaluate the moral claims of Christian and secular nationalists and political leaders.

Additionally as Dominionist theology has over the past twenty years forged a de facto ecumenical alliance with Rome, the direction of the Papacy bears watching. Like it or not what happens in the Vatican will play out on the American street and in the way Conservative and Evangelical politics frame and approach a multitude of issues. It's already happening.

For the liberals in Rome, they believe Francis marks a watershed, his papacy can help to set the stage for a new liberal pope or new ecumenical council that will complete Vatican II and forever change Rome. They believe this is not only right but necessary for Roman Catholicism to remain viable in the 21^st Century.

For others, Francis represents a great threat, one who will lay the groundwork for the aforementioned scenario and yet they believe this will result in apostasy and perhaps Rome's greatest wound since the The Great Schisms of 1054 and 1378 or perhaps the 16^th century Reformation... To the sacralist mind, secular liberalism represents an even greater threat than all these.

We might even see the first viable antipope since Felix V in the 15^th century.

Stranger things have happened. Who would have believed just a few years ago that we would see a pope resign? It hadn't happened for six hundred years. The Vatican is in turmoil. There is a largely silent civil war going on with a great deal at stake. It reflects the present crisis in the world order and unresolved questions that led (a century ago) to the world wars.