Sunday Meditation: Real Catholicism is This!

One of my readers left a link to a good sermon that outlines how we should respond to the pope. I found it personally challenging and a bit of a reprimand. The unnamed priest talks about "real Catholicism." He begins by making the distinction between the two ways the pope speaks, the first as the authoritative head of the Church expressing Catholic truth that is binding on the flock. 

The second way of speaking is to express his personal views. Catholics experience much confusion by not knowing the difference. It is just as wrong to believe that every viewpoint and opinion of the pope is Church dogma as it is to reject everything the pope says as heretical. The fact that a pope is personally immoral or creates tremendous confusion by teaching ambiguously does not invalidate his papacy and his authority. The fact is, however, that his authority is limited. He can't tell you what you must eat for breakfast. 

The priest goes on to express what real Catholicism is, but you need to listen to the entire sermon to really get it. Here's a bit as he describes the opinion of Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine:

Real Catholicism is this: 

St. Catherine of Siena....once reminded us, "Even if the pope were the devil incarnate, we ought not to raise our heads against him, but rather, be prepared to rest firmly on his bosom."

Keep in mind that she lived in a time ocorruption and scandal in the Church, and yet she never lost her trust in its divine guidance. It is not because of the pope's personal virtue; it is because  If we strike at that visible unity we wound the body of Christ and quickly we will fall into error. And so we pray. We suffer with the Church. We trust that Christ is still at the helm even in the storm. Many assume that St. Catherine's correction was rebellious when in fact it was a respectful filial plea for reform....St. Catherine called the pope sweet Christ on earth even as she begged him to act differently.

St. Catherine is a doctor of the Church. The Church recognizes her wisdom. The priest also talks about St. Ignatius and his rules for obeying superiors. He goes on to challenge the position of the "Recognize and Resist" (R&R) movement in the Church. 

Eric Sammons at Crisis Magazine wrote an article in 2021 describing himself as a member of R&R. Here is how he described the two terms.

The first R, “Recognize,” is simple: it signifies that those in this camp recognize that Jorge Bergoglio is the current and valid Roman Pontiff, reigning as Pope Francis, and as such has legitimate authority over the Church, most especially as defined at Vatican I.... Essentially, to “resist” means to oppose the overall program of Pope Francis, which embraces the cultural elites’ dominant narrative on issues like Climate Change and COVID-19 and seeks to marginalize traditional Catholic liturgy and theology. It’s not just a matter of a few criticisms here and there, but instead a rejection of Francis’s vision for the Church.

The priest describes this position as equivalent to "Protestantism with incense." Instead of promoting "sola scriptora" like the Protestants; it says "The past magisterium alone." I think he makes a good case. Sammons definition of resist meaning "to oppose the overall program of Pope Francis...a rejection of Francis's vision for the Church." Now that is a vague position. 

Certainly, Francis said many confusing things and created "a mess" in the Church, but what was his overall "vision for the Church." He also said many orthodox things about babies in the womb and the immorality of gender ideology." It is certainly legitimate to criticize his actions of gutting the Pontifical Academy for Life, refusing to answer the dubia of the Cardinals about giving Communion to those in immoral marital situations, etc. But is it, indeed Catholic to judge a pope's "vision for the Church?" Doesn't that require judgment of the internal forum?

Father brings up a number of other issues and asks, "What happens if every Catholic becomes a pope checker?" Good question. Do I trust Anne Barnhardt or Taylor Marshall enough to put their opinions ahead of the saints like St. Ignatius of Loyola and Catherine of Siena?

I'm challenged by this sermon, but I don't agree with everything the priest says. Does he advance the attitude of ultramontanism? He points out that the term was first developed by Protestants. I'm not sure that eliminates the problem when one speaks generally about obeying the pope. Were those of us who refused the COVID vaccine despite Francis telling everyone to get it, guilty of disobedience? Father already made the distinction between authoritative teaching and opinion, but even that is not always an easy discernment, especially for poorly formed Catholics. It involves discriminating between doctrine (in this case on charity and the fifth commandment I suppose) vs a prudential decision with the freedom to agree or disagree. It goes without saying that no one may ever follow anyone, including the pope, into sin. But what about lesser matters?

It's interesting that this priest was preaching at a Traditional Latin Mass only days after Pope Leo was elected. I urge you to listen to his sermon (below) and I would be interested in thoughtful responses in the comment section.

Father ends with several quotes: one from St. Teresa of Avila on her deathbed, "I die a daughter of the Church." He also quotes St. Ignatius of Loyola and offers the response by the bishops during the disputed Council of Chalcedon who acknowledged the teaching by Pope Leo the Great in his letter to Flavian, the Bishop of Constantinople. They honored his teaching saying, "This is the faith of the Fathers," and condemned those who disagreed as anathema. 

I do question Father's final statement urging all Catholics to recognize "the Holy Spirit has chosen a shepherd appointed for this hour in history and that we the faithful may have hearts humble enough to recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd speaking through Peter and the courage to follow wherever he leads." 

As Cardinal Ratzinger said before he became Benedict, the Holy Spirit doesn't "choose the pope." Unless Father was speaking in a general sense about God's permissive will, his statement is questionable. But he is absolutely correct in urging us all to respect the office of the papacy and to presume good will on the part of the pope. (I haven't always done that, mea culpa!) On the other hand, Cardinal Ratzinger was expressing a theological opinion and one can disagree with him as well. There is no doubt in my mind that the Holy Spirit attends the conclave. Whether the cardinals are listening is less sure. EWTN explains how it all works here. But even if God's perfect will in a conclave is not achieved, He works all things together for good to those who love Him and serve according to His purpose. One prays for cardinals who are true shepherds, but even if they aren't, they have no power to destroy the Church because Christ Himself is the head. The gates of hell can never prevail against Jesus Christ and His bride.

And now that we have a pope, let us pray for him every day and love him like a father. Even less than ideal fathers deserve love and respect for the office they hold and the authority granted to them by God.