In reading religious scholar Peter Manseau's NYT op-ed, "What It Means to Be Catholic Now"--in which the author explores the "Pope Francis effect" on the world's oldest Christian faith--one is struck by its parallels to the now-dated "Obama effect" and The Democracy, the world's oldest political party.
"One year into his astonishingly popular papacy, Pope Francis has become the perfect divining rod for uncovering assumptions about the future of the Catholic Church," writes Manseau in an opening line reminiscent of Obama's original presidential candidacy and his first months in the Oval Office. From there, the Francis-Obama affinity becomes even more striking: "Wishful thinking is rampant where Francis is concerned, perhaps especially among those born into the faith who have grown distant from it."
Wishful thinking--the scourge of the twofold sports of religion and politics. You'll recall that early in Obama's national career there was a leftist faction opposed to his very core; he was, in this group's estimation, some sort of Rovian plant, a slick schemer, a conservative black sheep in liberal clothing. Nothing could dissuade this faction from its mission of gloomy wish-fulfillment; every moderating move made by Obama--especially, early on in his presidency, his tactical burial of healthcare reform's "public option"--was to them but confirming evidence of his always intended betrayal of the left, and no amount of pragmatic reasoning could bring them together with those favorable to Obama.
And yet among the favorable there was no consensus, no unity of opinion as to what Obama-ism meant. Manseau observes that "the 'Pope Francis effect' may be changing attitudes toward the word 'Catholic,' but it could also highlight a truth as old as the church itself: Despite its primary definition--universal--there is no universal agreement on what it means." So with Obama, and the Democratic Party under his leadership. The party has always meant vaguely different things to different constituencies only loosely compacted under the rubric of "Democrat," but under Obama those differences became chiseled and personified. To some, he was an unquestionable progressive (because of, say, Obamacare, his Keynesianism, financial reform); to others (and to me) he was a demonstrable conservative-progressive (for the same reasons); and to yet others he lay center to center right (again, same reasons).
As with Pope Francis, there simply was no universal opinion on what the "Obama effect" was, either through him or on his party. This only served to "highlight a truth as old as the [party] itself: Despite its primary definition--[the people's party]--there is no universal agreement on what it means." As Manseau concludes: "The poetry of faith remains open to interpretation."
Indeed it does.
Much fervent hope was invested in Pope Francis. I like the guy myself but it was pretty clear from every word he said that no fundamental change in dogma was to be expected. Not one little bit. His plan was to focus on good works. For a brief period in time however some self-identified progressives found it within themselves not to make pedophile priest jokes with every comment relating to the Catholic church. Alas the honeymoon is over. And now we are back to berating Catholics in general as idiots for their beliefs despite the fact that these beliefs are virtually indistinguishable from Orthodox Judaism or Fundamentalist Christian. And when someone like me points out that quite a lot of Hispanics are Catholic and may not agree that they are idiots well then I am a troll.
Posted by: Peter G | March 10, 2014 at 10:10 AM
Peter, just a couple disagreements. There is a liot of difference between Catholicism and fundamentalist Christianity. The most important is that the Roman Catholic church does not teach a literal interpretation of the Bible, is very accepting of science and accepts, among other things, the fact of evolution, climate change and other things the fundamentalists deny.
Secondly, I, for one, never expected a major change in the teachings of the Curch at this point. There are two reasons for this. As long as the Church is making a big deal about some things, i.e. abortion, birth control, role of women, it is very hard to alter the teachings relating to those topics. Francis has come out very firmly in saying there needs to be less of an emphasis on those subjects.
And just as important, as long as many of the bishops and cardinals put in place by John Paul II and Benedict are in place, getting any kind of actuall approval for changes would be near impossible. We are already seeing a change, however, based upon the new bishops appointed by Francis, potentially leading to changes. I never expect to see a change of teaching concerning abortion, but in other realms I can see changes coming.
Posted by: japa21 | March 10, 2014 at 10:35 AM