Michael Kelly
Much of the criticism directed at Popes is unchristian and has a common thread, writes Michael Kelly
In his first letter to the Church at Corinth, St Paul excoriates the early followers of Christ for their disunity. He urges them to “make up the differences between you” before going on to explain: “what I mean are all these slogans that you have, like: ‘I am for Paul’, ‘I am for Apollos’, ‘I am for Cephas’, ‘I am for Christ’.
“Has Christ been parcelled out?” Paul asks pointedly.
It’s natural that some people feel more personally attracted to certain individuals. It’s the case with Popes too: some people are devoted fans of Pope John Paul II, but not that keen on Pope Benedict. Others are thrilled by Benedict XVI while not that pushed about Pope Francis. Still others who have long given up on the papacy are finding a new interest in Francis.
To what extent, I wonder, is this based on the fact that we tend to grade people – and Popes – according to whether or not we imagine that they agree with our own particular worldview?
Many Catholics fall into the trap of seeing the papacy as a personality contest. I must admit, I love the fact that Pope Francis is spectacularly popular – and not just among Catholics. I love the fact that when I sit in a television or radio studio I will not be faced by a barrage of oft-rehearsed falsehoods and half-truths about John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I love the fact that by and large, Pope Francis is adored by the media.
But am I right to love Pope Francis based on nothing other than the fact that I feel more comfortable in media outings discussing the Pope? Is the Pope elected to ensure my personal comfort? Of course not.
John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis are the only Popes I have known – I was born six months after Karol Wojtyla was elected the 256rd Successor of St Peter. They have had their fair share of critics. I’ve heard commentators dismiss John Paul II as a “cold wind from the East”, excoriate Benedict XVI as “a hapless fool” and reject Francis as “desperate for popularity”.
There is a legitimate place in our Church for a critique of particular aspects of a particular papacy. However, much of the criticism directed at Popes is unchristian and has a common thread: they disagree with the Pope because he does not agree with them and therefore follow their position or vision of the Church. Often when people speak of a ‘listening Church’, they really mean that the Church should listen to them.
Some Catholics are also guilty of cherry-picking. I met a young couple recently who proudly described themselves as “John Paul II Catholics” much like the early Christians introduced themselves as “I am for Paul”. They were a wonderfully inspirational couple and explained to me how they felt called to work to eradicate abortion as a result of the ministry of John Paul II. Later in the conversation, however, I winced as they expressed the view that most poor people are to blame for their own problems. I thought to myself, John Paul II without the seamless commitment to uphold human dignity that sees abortion and poverty eradication as part of the same mission, is not John Paul II.
Similarly, some very enthusiastic supporters of Pope Francis seem greatly troubled when he stands up for marriage and family values and critiques those who would say “Jesus ‘yes’, Church ‘no’”.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington DC recently wrote about how recent Popes have been subject to dissent within the Church. He spoke of harsh critics of Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and, of course, Pope Francis.
“Unhappiness with a Pope’s position on issues whether doctrinal, pastoral, canonical or as simple as clerical vesture, seems always to be present in some form,” Cardinal Wuerl says.
“One of the things I have learned,” Cardinal Wuerl says, “is that on closer examination there is a common thread that runs through all of these dissenters. They disagree with the Pope because he does not agree with them and therefore follow their position.
“Dissent is perhaps something we will always have, lamentable as it is, but we will also always have Peter and his successor as the rock and touchstone of both our faith and our unity,” Cardinal Wuerl concludes.