What kind of Pope is Leo?

Many have insisted that Leo XIV will clean up the Francis messes left behind by a pope who is, by most accounts, one of the worst in modern times.  I suppose that is the hope but so far he has not impressed me with his words or actions.  Everyone knows of the way Francis seemed to delight in creating controversy and instituting controversial programs.  Among them was Amoris laetitia.  Cardinals submitted formal questions to Francis which he chose to ignore.  While seemingly addressing the pastoral care of families, it did far more than this.  Controversy arose almost immediately following the publication of Amoris laetitia specifically over Chapter 8 and whether Roman Catholic doctrine was changing with the easing of the  sacramental discipline concerning the access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist for divorced persons who have civilly remarried. So if this was a problem, who might Leo ask to sit down and talk about it all?  Well, the list of personal guests invited by the Pope to the meeting from October 7 to 14, progressive names in favor of the document but excludes all of those who criticized Francis’s exhortation.

So when these cardinals and bishops from around the world sat down with Leo XIV at the Vatican to discuss the family in light of Amoris laetitia, they were preaching to the choir.  Among the names of those attending at the Pope's invitation are names like Cupich, McElroy, Tobin, Cobo, Hollerich, Fernández, Tagle, David, and others who had a hand in setting the agenda of the previous pontificate on the veru questions the document addressed.  None of those who questioned it have been summoned.  While I do not have a stake in this, the glaring omission of any visible critics of the document seems to say a great deal about the Leo style and agenda when dealing with Francis' legacy.  

The document which sparked such intense debate seemed designed to allow more radical interpretations of its own words -- especially after the bishops of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region interpreted it as allowing, following a process of accompanied pastoral discernment, access to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist for some Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried “when a person judges that he or she would fall into a further fault by harming the children of the new union.”  Then in 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith confirmed that this interpretation was the intent.  In my mind, this is one more instance when more talk seems to be code for keeping Francis legacy alive without really dealing with the objections.  I am sure that many more traditional Roman Catholics hope that this does not become the Leo way of dealing with things.   

 

Give good gifts. . .

Once I was given a very expensive leather bound floppy KJV Bible.  I had already completed three of the four years leading to my ordination.  I appreciated the sentiment but wondered if the givers had really thought about the gift.  Did I really make it nearly to ordination without having a copy of the Bible?  Or, is that what they thought?  Fortunately, some quiet diplomacy allowed me to return it and take the money to purchase a silver private communion set from Almy which still serves me to this day.  That led me thinking and asking other pastors about the gifts they were given. 

One mentioned how his whole seminary class was given an impressive study Bible from a well-meaning organization.  Another mentioned a fine leather bound copy of a book they had been required to purchase in the first year of seminary.  Another mentioned a cheap stole.  And the list of gifts neither requested nor needed went on and on and on.  I think you get my drift.  Seminarians need money for books and living expenses and the freedom to decide where to spend that money when given.  It may seem cold and thoughtless but I wonder if it is not the most warm and thoughtful gift you can give them. 

Then there is a pen and letter opener set that still sits on my desk.  It is wood and a nicer version of the usual fare but the life insurance fraternal that gave it to me thought it was more impressive than I thought.  I keep it more as a remembrance of those who thought this is what I needed than any useful purpose I might have for it.  It has joined the countless plaques given to note my (financial) support of this cause or that and the mountain of insulated jugs, mugs, and other coffee cups that I have accumulated over the years.  When it doubt, give the pastor a coffee mug or an insulated jug.  I am not trying to be mean or to disdain the obvious generosity of the giver but to suggest that other things might be better chosen to answer a real need or want on the part of the pastor.  Oddly enough, other than the candy and breath mints I snarfed from the vendors at the last Synod convention, the one thing I looked for most of all was a microfiber cloth to clean my glasses.  The rest of it was, well, not my style.  Oh yes, and do not forget the accumulation of logo adorned bags dutifully provided by vendors.  Who needs more bags?  Not me but I got at least three or four at the same convention.  I did appreciate the post-it notes, though.  Pens, not so much.  None of them were fountain pens (my choice) and I was not impressed by the soft tips used for the endless screens we are all on.  

I do appreciate the single malt scotch and gin and even the occasional rye.  Thanks to those who have braved the sea of labels to give me some liquor.  I do appreciate restaurant gift cards but some of them were to places I have never been and probably will never go.  I am still trying to figure out what to do with a $25 Uber Eats card.  Amazon cards and cash cards are always good -- not to mention Lowes or Home Depot.  I cherish the hymns commissioned from Steven Starke and set to music by Benjamin Culli.  Wow!  Those are amazing one of a kind sort of gifts.  But I am not sure I need anymore throw blankets or knickknacks.  I expect when I am gone my heirs will be fighting each other for one of those favored trinkets.  Well, maybe not.  Offer up your prayers for me.  I always covet such gifts.  Maybe I am alone in my perspective on gifts given to seminarians and pastors.  Or maybe not.  In any case, think a bit before you come up with a gift for your pastor and wrap it up in his name.   

How fragile is Rome?

I read a while ago that there are some 55 permitted places where the Latin Mass is being celebrated.  Imagine that.  There are Roman Catholic dioceses that are routinely closing more parishes than that.  Yet the mere existence of 55 or so parishes where the Latin Mass is being celebrated is apparently so dangerous that it is something which must be regulated from Rome, allowed under the most rigid of rules, and segregated away from the ordinary population of Roman Catholics overall.  Wow.  That makes the Latin Mass a ticking time bomb bigger than nearly everything else which is happening in Rome today.  More urgent and of greater threat than synodality, rogue bishops being ordained, China administering a Roman Catholic province according to its rules, the fading number of nuns and monks, priests in costume, dance and pop music used for sacred purpose, the declining numbers of those who believe the Eucharist is actually the body and blood of Christ, the diminishing numbers of children for baptism or confirmation, the scandal of priestly sexual abuse, the declining numbers of priests overall, the routine nature of merged parishes and closed churches, etc...  I could have added so many things to that number.  I am sure you could have added to that list as well.  The point is that Rome is so fragile, the worst of the problems it is facing are 55 permitted places where the Latin Mass is celebrated and the request for more.

The Vatican granted permission to a very small number of parishes to celebrate the traditional Mass-- just 55 parish churches across 33 dioceses last year-- according to the exemptions permitted by the Dicastery for Divine Worship to the restrictions outlined by Traditionis Custodes.  Yet look at the news.  Some bishops are sure that the very essence of Rome is threatened by such permissions and have attempted to restrict them further than had been.  Pope Francis repudiated Pope Benedict for his generous permission and clamped down on it like the whole of Roman Catholicism was at stake.  It does not matter which side of this issue you are on, Rome is weak and fragile if this kind of thing has become an existential threat to the largest formal community of Christians throughout the world.  And we think we have problems in the LCMS.  At least we are talking about doctrinal issues and about those who wish to jettison the forms of liturgical worship which have become the formal face of our Confessions on Sunday morning.  Rome is so fragile that those who want to restore a form of the Mass effectively the exclusive form used for 400+ years are a threat to its very existence.  Wow.  And I thought we had problems. No wonder Pope Leo seems to have no clue what to do about this despite advice being offered from every side.  Apparently if he gets this wrong, Rome will collapse.

The new religious. . .

Reading an old self-defined style of spiritual without being religious, the author suggested he was a believer without faith—a religious atheist.  At the time I read this I dismissed it.  Thinking on it again, I am not sure it is far from the truth.  The truth is that it is hard to eradicate religion and it is inherent in the persona of humanity overall and each person in particular.  We invent gods when we reject the God and even when we refuse to grant classic definition to any particular deity, we insist upon having some sort of god and some sort of religion.  It seems impossible to escape from religion or some form of god.  So we are left with believers who have no faith and atheists who are also religious.

Believers without faith are those who acknowledge the need for some kind of deity and some sort of supernatural.  They love this spiritual side of humanity and they insist that simply because they have rejected God does not mean they have also rejected some sort of religion to fill in the cracks of modern day life.  Indeed, they find the spiritual intriguing and interesting even if they refuse to grant a God the honor of their faith.  They believe in many things, some of them contradictory, and so they cannot admit to an organized religion but they insist upon being acknowledged as honestly and with heartfelt feeling upon being religious.  They like the idea of Scripture but refuse to grant to Scripture its ultimate authority and claim as the Word of God that endures forever.  They seek a bendable word which can be formed to fit the moment and the need.  They like the idea of a holy book of wisdom but are not sure it has all that much to do with salvation.  Salvation is less the redemption of the sinner than it is an accommodation to sin, at least the favorite and culturally acceptable sins of the day along with the ultimate command and goal to be true to yourself, wherever that might lead.

They are atheists, to be sure, but they do admit that religion can be important.  Symbolism and all.  Emotion and feeling.  Ritual and ceremony.  They all beg for a place without the inconvenient baggage of dogma and a God.  They admit that civil religion once filled the gap even as they also posit the old civil religion as too narrow to fit the diverse character of modern society and different people.  Global causes have eclipsed individual redemption but the person still matters if only because religion is only one person wide and one person deep.  It is sort of the same kind of attraction some have for a monarchy.  It is a good show and fills the bill for national ceremony and pride but don't take it too seriously.  It is just for show.  In the end the monarchs are as impotent and confused as the deities ascribed to modern folks who don't want to believe but who don't want to abandon religion entirely.

Honestly, I get the attraction.  The Church has disappointed us too many times and the holiest of men have acted entirely unholy in ways that make it hard to take religion seriously enough to grant it any real faith.  Which pope was it who in conversation with someone seeking to sack Rome and destroy the Church admitted that the clergy and popes had been trying to do that from the inside for years and failed so what makes this fellow think he can do it now?  If only the Church were not filled with sinners I might find some consolation for my suffering soul.  But it is.  So faith is as much as I can give it and the only thing I can offer.  My eyes are constantly drawn to the good which falls short and the evil which cannot be overcome so if I am to believe in God, religion is not enough.  Faith is required and faith in a real God who cannot be reasoned out or His mystery explained away.  He must be take with the paradoxes that our minds struggle to swallow.  Simil justus is a fairly small one compared to the Three in One and One in Three.  

I fall asleep every night wishing I had something more than faith to hold onto and every night I admit to God that it is faith alone by which I come to Him or kneel before Him.  The cross assures me that I can hope for mercy but it insists upon the paradox of the innocent for the guilty, the God/man who cannot die to expire His breath and be carried to a grave.  In the end I do not believe in a God but in the God who face I see in Jesus even with all the uncertain and unreasonable baggage that comes with it.  I wish religious atheism were enough or religion without faith but it is even more disappointing than a God who cannot be controlled, a wild God who refuses to be tamed by man but binds Himself to the blood that cleanses us from all sin.  I end up sympathetic to those who are the new religious without having a real God but I must pity them rather than joining them.  The God whom creeds confess and whose voice speaks through Scripture is not simply what I must settle for but the only God worth believing in.  Perhaps the answer to Christianity is not trying to add a little belief into the religion of atheism but challenging the spiritual to give up the semblance for a messy reality made clean only by the splash of baptismal water and the gift of the Holy Spirit.  In the end it is only faith, the great dare to trust in what you cannot see or control but also cannot live without.

O Thou who changest not. . .

One of the modern fallacies and heresies is that the Church and Scripture and, well, God should change, evolve, mature, develop, and morph -- that this is the stuff of real life and if God is real, He and the things of God should also reflect what is a characteristic of man.  I do not need to rehearse the litany of voices all over the landscape of Christianity who believe that "change or die" is the most fundamental truth of the universe.  Perhaps Darwin and his ilk created the idea and the ideal of evolution but we have turned that into the most universal truth of our age -- a truth so common that about the only thing modern conservatives and liberals disagree over is the extent and pace of change.  Change is the sacred reality that under girds nearly all of modern life. 

The problem is that change is a primal characteristic of creation -- not of the Creator.  We are captive to a changing world and we change because time cannot be paused or stopped by anyone or anything within the sphere of the creative world.  This does not quite bode the same for Jesus who is the eternal Son of the Father who once in time was incarnate, born, lived, died, and rose again.  But for the rest of us, this is who we are.  It is not who God is.

To make God captive to change or to impose upon Him the demand that He and all His being evolve is to make Him cease to be God and turn Him into a creature like you and me.  We have a beginning and an end while God is.  He just is.  He is forever.  Jesus is the alpha and omega not in some symbolic sense but in the most real sense of all.  A God who changes is not worth having at all.  A God who must evolve is the mere elevation of a creative to a higher claim of status and ends up being no God at all.  

The modern quest for God is not a real pursuit of the eternal but the imposition upon God and His being all the limitations and foibles of our own temporary reality.  We are not in search of God as much as we are on a sacred journey to dethrone God and make Him no more than us and we no less than Him.  This God changes His mind and its fickle.  The God has no eternal truth but only His truth for the moment and ends up having to reinvent Himself just as we seem bound to do minute by minute of our lives.  This God has no Word that endures forever but a voice captive to a situation and to a snapshot in time.  The facts and history associated with His revelation and disclosure are quaint but nothing more.  They are left with only the relevance we assign and the meaning we define and the value we bestow.  Who needs or wants such a worthless God?  It is the curious pursuit of a God who simply cannot be real or at least any more real than we, our thoughts, opinions, and desires, are real. 

This is the Roman problem.  If the East stops everything at one point in time, say the last of the seven great ecumenical councils, Rome does not stop it at all.  The development of doctrine is not a nod to continuing revelation or an office with a conduit to the almighty but the admission that God is really no different than we are.  We access such a God with understanding and appreciation but not with dogma that is eternal.  God's mystery is cut down to size and becomes a solvable puzzle rather than something which must be grasped by faith and confessed without definition or explanation.  Sometimes I think we Lutherans have also forgotten this.  We want people to get worship when only God does -- it is His arena and His purpose and will which unfold within the Word that does what it says and the Sacraments that bestow what they sign.  We make ourselves too big when we presume to speak for Him what He has not said once forever.  We make ourselves too important when we assume that God is a nut to crack and an idea which evolves.  In the end, it also makes God small and relatively unimportant and certainly impotent when we elevate our own experience and characteristics into His and presume that this is God.  While the creeds do not go there, those who confess the creed seem transfixed by the idea that if God is more like us, all the problems of religion and the world will be solved.  What a joke!