Introduction
One obvious and incontrovertible result of what has been called the “Francis Effect” is the sharply increased journalistic interest not only in Pope Francis himself, but also in the Vatican and even the church on the local levels.Footnote 2 While this results in a wealth of material related to my chosen topic, this advantage poses many particular challenges. It is a bit like trying to score a bull's-eye on what is very much a moving target.Footnote 3 In the Koine Greek New Testament, a term from archery is used for this failure to hit the target: hamartia, rendered by the Latin Vulgate as peccatum (usually translated as “sin”). However, trusting in Pope Francis’ overarching message of mercy, I hope that I shall be forgiven for missing the mark, if not sidestepping certain targets altogether.
Even to scratch the surface of my proposed topic would occupy this entire issue of Horizons. So instead, I wish to propose a briefer treatment, presenting some concepts drawn from cultural anthropology and rhetorical studies that can serve as a framework for analysis and reflection on the significance of some of the more important ongoing developments in the munus docendi et gubernandi of the church in the current pontificate. The end product then will be a bit like a mosaic, with pieces that illustrate certain key aspects of the effect and effectiveness of this papacy. Thereby I hope to avoid another Koine term for “sin,” hubris, presuming that I have produced a finished tableau.
A mosaic consists of smaller individual pieces set within sketched-out sections that can progressively reveal a much larger work. While at this point I am unable to produce the entire picture, a preliminary reading of the “Roman tea leaves” can illustrate key aspects of the Francis Effect, including the following divergent perspectives:
• The ecclesial landscape ad intra and ad extra
• Attitudes toward the “world” and the “pope”
• Legal versus pastoral paradigms
• Deductive versus inductive readings of “Truth”
• Moral and pastoral analyses of concrete situations
• Doctrine and tradition, continuity and change
• Conflict of duties and the hierarchy of truths
• Politics and primacy of conscience
• Sensus fidelium and the magisterium.
Morto un papa, se ne fa un altro
Morto un papa, se ne fa un altro (A pope dies; they just make another) is an Italian adage combining the sentiment of “It's not the end of the world” with those of the French Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (The more things change, the more they remain the same) and the Latin motto Semper idem (Always the same).Footnote 4 However, proving that all these generalizations indeed are false, Pope Benedict XVI immediately shocked not only the cardinals gathered on February 11, 2013, in the consistory aula (those whose Latin acumen allowed them to understand the pope's discourse) but also the rest of the world, once the translation was delivered, with the announcement that for the first time since Pope Celestine V in 1294 a pontiff was resigning on his own initiative.
Shortly after discerning that the smoke pouring out of the little chimney over the roof of the Sistine Chapel on the evening of March 13, 2013, was indeed bianca, the bells in churches around most of the world began to ring in anticipatory confirmation of the announcement of the results of the papal election. While waiting on the phone with one of the local Boston news outlets, I was watching the events on my computer when the senior Cardinal Deacon of the College of Cardinals, Jean-Louis Tauran, stepped out on the loggia of St. Peter's, proclaimed the traditional formula “Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: Habemus Papam!”Footnote 5 and continued with the phrase “Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Bergoglium.” The only “Bergoglium” I knew was the reputedly notorious former Argentine Jesuit Provincial who was reportedly against liberation theology and had supposedly handed some of his own men over to the military government during the period of the infamous “Dirty War,” when so many thousands of people simply “disappeared” if they were suspected of being in any way on the side of the poor.Footnote 6 Tauran then concluded with the formula “qui sibi nomen imposuit Franciscum,” and I thought, “Well, at least he didn't pick as his papal moniker John Paul III or Pius XIII.” I thought “Francis” was a clever touch for the first Jesuit pope, as it would allay some of the fears connected with the prediction that the endtime would begin with the election of a Jesuit who, with the humility characteristic of Our Least Society, would take the name “Peter.”
What came next in the ceremony, though, revealed to me—and to tens of thousands of others around the world—the first sharp contrast of the “Francis Effect.” Papa Bergoglio appeared and spoke his first public words as pope: “Fratelli e sorelle, buona sera!” His accent was far better than that of his two non-Italian predecessors, though I thought his choice of words a tad too folksy (I wondered if he were at a loss for words in the vernacular of his new diocese).Footnote 7 But as he continued it was clear to me that he was quite fluent in the language. His next words and actions began to cement further my hope that this would not be just another morto un papa, se ne fa un altro moment accompanied by the usual pomp and pageantry. Most remember the moment when he bowed his head and asked for the prayers of the gathered throng in St. Peter's Square before imparting his first Urbi et Orbi pontifical blessing.
While many were also both struck and pleased to see the new pope had eschewed the scarlet mozzetta, gold pectoral cross, and red Prada shoes employed by Benedict XVI in his first public appearance, some on the loggia were heard to mutter in horror, not quite sotto voce: “Questo é il fine del mondo” (This is the end of the world).
The Overarching “Francis Effect” Thesis
While it did prove to be “the end” of a certain type of world, it was not quite the eschaton prophesized to accompany the election of a Jesuit pope.Footnote 8 Clearly a variety of paradigms had begun to budge, and any number of established guidelines in the art of reading Roman tea leaves would shift dramatically as well.
As my central thesis on the so-called Francis Effect, I would propose the following. In their pontificates Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI focused primarily on presenting the church itself as the best bulwark of “truth” in a modern age severely disturbed, in their eyes, by the scourge of secularism, with its infections of relativism, nihilism, gender ideologies, and so forth. Antidotes to these serious diseases were provided in magisterial documents such as the papal encyclicals Fides et Ratio, Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, and the Declaration Dominus Jesus by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to name but a few.
In contrast, I believe that Pope Francis is trying to refocus the attention of the church on the gospel itself, and his view of the church as a missionary field hospital populated by many deeply wounded souls who need the healing of the gospel through the ministrations of health-care workers not afraid to go out to them. While there is obviously an overlap between these recent papal perspectives, they are neither mirror images nor copies of one another. I would argue that this core perceived difference accounts for both the strong support and the considerable resistance the Jesuit pope has occasioned.Footnote 9 A logical corollary to this thesis is that voices have been added that during the previous two pontificates were either largely silent or quite muted in their utterances.Footnote 10
Optic of Global Pre-Scientific Convictions, Fundamental Values, and Root Paradigms
While theologians, historians, and journalists employ distinct categories and concepts in analyzing pontificates, some underutilized methods come from cultural anthropology and rhetorical discourse. My experience of living for well over a decade outside of my native culture, both in Asia and in Europe, has convinced me of two important, interconnected truths: that culture is one of our core modalities of being human, and that cultures vary considerably in shaping not only our basic institutions, art forms, and the like, but more fundamentally how we view the world, and moral categories of right and wrong, good and bad, and even nature itself. “Culture” is a polyvalent term that is quite impossible to define or even describe in fifty words or less. Thus we must also track what we mean by a particular use of “culture” in a given context.
Since Vatican II much has been written on these themes.Footnote 11 Karl Rahner used the expression “global pre-scientific convictions” to describe core cultural perspectives that are often incorporated (or, as Rahner says, hineingeschmuggelt [smuggled]) into argumentation largely unawares by those making the arguments themselves.Footnote 12 Rahner's insight functions much like what many cultural anthropologists term “fundamental values” and “root paradigms.”Footnote 13 Fundamental values express deeply held cultural assumptions about the world as a whole, and in particular about human nature and concomitant appropriate behavior. For most Americans an example of one such “fundamental value” might be our notion of “justice as fairness,” expressed as egalitarianism and enshrined in the “one person, one vote” principle. Other cultures do not necessarily share this particular egalitarian understanding of justice or fairness.
Root paradigms are the ways in which these fundamental values are organized, modeled, and instantiated (e.g., in our legal systems, electoral processes, checks and balances in our government, church structures, etc.). Fundamental values and root paradigms are easily found in our theological cultures as well, and differing views on these may help to explain not only any number of theological debates, but even the more deeply troubling and perennial issue of the odium theologicum.
Theologically it is crucial to realize the inherent limits of any paradigm theory. If we can accept the not overly daring premise that only God can fully know the whole of created reality exactly as it is, then perhaps we might be able to grant a logical corollary, namely, that for the rest of us creatures our own knowledge will be necessarily incomplete and partial. Epistemologically we need to understand complex realities according to models and paradigms. If this is true, can we accept—at least in theory—that there might be a legitimate pluralism of such paradigms, and that these paradigms are not destined to be eternal and unchanging? The next conclusion would be the necessity of a basic stance of openness to revision of our paradigms, both because of the changing reality (which is a “constant” of human nature) and refinement in light of new insights.Footnote 14
The Epideictic Genre of Rhetorical Discourse
I will be returning to these concepts throughout the remainder of this article, but before proceeding to reading our Roman tea leaves in earnest I need to introduce one additional analytical approach to the subculture of moral discourse, what church historian John O'Malley has labeled the epideictic genre of rhetoric.Footnote 15 Related to my thesis on the Francis Effect, a considerable amount of the change we have witnessed in this papacy can be attributed to a return to this epideictic rhetorical discourse. O'Malley describes this genre this way:
The purpose of the epideictic genre, the technical name for panegyric in classical treatises on rhetoric, is not so much to clarify concepts as to heighten appreciation for a person, an event, or an institution and to excite emulation of an ideal. Its goal is the winning of internal assent, not the imposition of conformity from outside. It teaches, but not so much by way of magisterial pronouncement as by suggestion, insinuation, and example. Its instrument is persuasion, not coercion.Footnote 16
The documents of Vatican II for the most part are characterized by this epideictic genre in that “they hold up ideals, then draw conclusions from them and often spell out practical consequences. This is a soft style compared with the hard-hitting style of canons and dialectical discourse. It is rightly described as ‘pastoral’ because it was meant to make Christian ideals appealing.”Footnote 17
Regardless of whether Pope Francis has explicitly adopted an epideictic rhetorical genre, a good deal of the exercise of his papal munus docendi and to a lesser extent his munus gubernandi fit its broad characteristics.Footnote 18 In this, Francis has echoed the “medicine of mercy, rather than that of severity” enunciated by John XXIII in the latter's address that opened Vatican II, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia Footnote 19—an echo that any number of people have clearly caught. Many of those who have caught the echo have been encouraged and enlivened, and have also noted a contrast with a number of the themes and approaches of the two predecessors.Footnote 20 But as the fallout since the October 2014 Extraordinary Synod has made abundantly clear, others also have caught both the echo and the contrast, but without the accompanying optimism and encouragement. A central reason for these widely divergent responses to the same ecclesial events in the Franciscan papacy can be traced to significantly conflicting fundamental values and root paradigms operative in our contrasting ecclesial cultures.
Borrowing further from O'Malley's typology of the four aspects of cultural discourse (prophetic, academic, rhetorical, and performative), I believe that whether the many who witnessed the initial papal appearance did so with either optimistic hope or pessimistic horror depended significantly on how they had been enculturated into differing ecclesial fundamental values and root paradigms. In the treatment of “culture four,” the artistic/performative, O'Malley concentrates largely on what we might term “high art,” concluding that “in our era culture four tends to stand on its own, unintegrated into a larger scene, though a huge exception must perhaps be made for its popular forms, commercialized though they often are.”Footnote 21 Regrettably he does not probe the cultural underpinnings much for differences and disputes in style, which is an oft-missed opportunity, since in the church today some aspect of the “culture wars” certainly can be traced back to this important artistic/performative dimension.
For example, I believe a considerable amount of the pushback and criticism of Pope Francis’ simpler liturgical vestments can be traced back to the fundamental values and root paradigms inherent in differing conceptions of what constitutes legitimate “performative” culture. One of the most visible icons here would be Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke. His preference for the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy with its accompanying baroque vestments is not just a matter of personal style à la an ecclesial instantiation of the old philosophical bromide de gustibus non disputandum est.Footnote 22 This may be true in the limited arena of O'Malley's “culture two” (the academic) but certainly cannot be verified in the other three cultures.
The Francis Effect on the Pope Himself
While the focus of this article is on how the other parts of the church have registered, amplified, resisted, or rejected the effects of the new papacy, it will be helpful to delineate briefly some of the major effects of the papacy on Jorge Maria Bergoglio himself. Before he stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter's, the newly elected pope reportedly experienced a profound “consolation.” In Ignatian spirituality this sort of consolation is not just a positive emotional feeling of well-being or success, but more deeply a quite special grace, given by God and for God's own purposes, though primarily to encourage and strengthen us for the inevitable difficulties that lie ahead. I suspect that Pope Francis interpreted this grace not as a validation of his success at coming in first in the conclave balloting, but probably more in line with the consolation Ignatius received at the little chapel in La Storta before entering Rome in 1537. Like Ignatius, if we accept being placed with Christ under the standard of his cross, God will bless our efforts in the way that Divine Providence (rather than human wisdom) judges to be best.
Recalling my thesis, I believe Pope Francis is trying to focus the attention of the church on Jesus’ gospel itself, rather than on the church as an institution. This represents both a significant cultural change and a real paradigm shift in what Francis sees as a necessary return to the priority of the “fundamental values” that Jesus’ own public ministry aimed to incarnate.Footnote 23 Mercy, not sacrifice, would be chief among these fundamental values, and here we see that Pope Francis has stayed remarkably on message. The root paradigm he has used repeatedly is the metaphor of the church as a missionary field hospital that must refocus on the necessary triage of responding first to the deepest wounds of souls who desperately need the healing ministrations that the gospel can provide through a church if it is not afraid to go out to them.Footnote 24
The Munus Docendi and the Munus Gubernandi
Arguably the most pronounced evidence of the Francis Effect is how the core munera or official duties of the church have been impacted and re-envisioned. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) the munus docendi (service of teaching) is treated at length in Book III. Its exposition is hierarchically presented from the pope down to the baptized layperson, but it is worth keeping in mind that the CIC does explicitly allow for lay exercise of the munus docendi, as long as this is in cooperation with bishops and priests (cf. CIC c. 759). In the canonical paradigm the munus docendi is closely linked therefore to the munus gubernandi (service of governance), and for legitimate governance and jurisdiction sacramental ordination is presumed.
Since this canonical paradigm has not shifted appreciably in terms of who is empowered to exercise these munera since Bergoglio has assumed office, in discerning the Francis Effect we will have to focus instead more on “what” is being taught and “who” is now doing the governing. In these two areas we can discern both important changes in the various subparadigms and fundamental values, but also—and perhaps not surprisingly—we also see increasing resistance and outright rebellion. These latter negative dynamics give further evidence to support my basic thesis that what is essentially in play here are tensions akin to what the seminal thinker of paradigm theory, Thomas Kuhn, has termed a “revolution” in operative paradigms.
Material to be marshaled to support this premise is plentiful and diverse, and we cannot even briefly touch on the principal exemplars. So I will offer simply as additional “mosaic pieces” the following topics (recognizing that an even larger set of potential themes will be passed over without so much as honorable mention):
• The 2014 International Theological Commission (ITC) document on the sensus fidei, contrasting this with the 2009 document on the natural lawFootnote 25
• Ongoing efforts to reorganize and reform the Roman Curia, including the Franciscan consistories creating new cardinals
• Appointment of bishops in key diocesan sees, such as Chicago, San Diego, and Santa Fe
• Dealing with the sexual abuse crisis and episcopal responsibility
• Follow-through on unfinished business from the Benedictine pontificate, such as the visitation of the American communities of religious women and oversight of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)
• The Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy and its accompanying Bull of IndictionFootnote 26
• The October 2014 Extraordinary Synod and the October 2015 regular triennial Synod on the Family and Evangelization.
Sensus Fidei in the Francis Pontificate
Roman dicasterial documents can furnish one gauge for measuring change over time. In 2009, at the midpoint of the papacy of Benedict XVI, the International Theological Commission (ITC) published a document on the natural law as furnishing a basis for a universal ethic.Footnote 27 One year into Pope Francis’ papacy the ITC released another document, “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church.” Certainly this project was in the works prior to the resignation of Benedict XVI, but it does indicate some recognition of the new pope both explicitly and implicitly.Footnote 28 Some things brought forward in the ITC “Sensus fidei” document definitely would not have appeared in the days of the John Paul II-Joseph Ratzinger collaboration, but one still is left with the strong impression in the current document of two baby steps forward and one and a half in reverse, as we see continued emphasis on the nearly exclusive role of the hierarchical magisterium in the exercise of the munus docendi and the proper response of acceptance on the part of the faithful.Footnote 29
In the past, we would do a careful reading of these tea leaves in what O'Malley would probably term “culture two,” the academic,Footnote 30 scrutinizing such passages very carefully to see if we could discern any shifting sands in the official magisterial positions. But one of the key aspects of the Francis Effect is that reading the Roman tea leaves has taken quite a different tack, based on a much larger variety of leaves in the cup, with residue much easier to see (and more difficult to ignore).Footnote 31 More recently Pope Francis has even called for a “listening magisterium,” and anecdotal evidence is emerging that some bishops heretofore noted for their reluctance to engage in dialogue now are entering into genuine conversations over contested matters.Footnote 32 This seems to be another piece of the mosaic of the Francis Effect that time should flesh out in greater detail.
Reform of the Roman Curia
When Vatican II opened, curial officials and theologians in the Roman institutions predicted a short and peaceful meeting. After all, these people had done all of the homework and had all the schemata ready for the assembled bishops’ collective placet. Events obviously proved them quite wrong, but the curia officials were not overly disturbed, for, as the Italian barzelletta went, “Granted the bishops and their periti may have found the ‘key’ to the Council, but we [the Curia] will change the locks after they leave.” A strong case could be made that the church locks had indeed been remastered. In the run-up to the 2013 conclave it became clear that a significant number of cardinals voiced hopes for “reform,” but probably both they and the world were just expecting a little more lubricating oil poured into the locks’ chambers and not a wholescale conversion.Footnote 33
This time, though, it seemed to more and more bishops and cardinals that the curial lock system needed more than a few squirts of oil, or a largely cosmetic rearrangement, as had occurred the last time the Curia had been threatened with an overhaul with John Paul II's 1988 Pastor Bonus. If culture is indeed foundational in any society or organization, then it should come as no surprise that attempts to confront long-standing and deeply embedded bureaucratic offices, practices, and personnel provoke more than a little pushback. When finances are involved the difficulties are magnified exponentially. Historians analyzing the Francis Effect will undoubtedly credit Pope Francis’ initiatives in these areas as being of particular significance. Actual deep-seated reform is a very tricky business that cannot happen quickly or by fiat, and there will always be a push-pull effect—a sort of tug-of-war between those who feel events are moving too quickly and others who hold that the pace needs to be picked up considerably.Footnote 34 So far, it seems that Pope Francis has resisted throwing his lot in with one side or the other.
It was also a strategic stroke to turn over the mandate for the Vatican finances to Cardinal George Pell of Australia. As he is the only cardinal from the continent of Australia, it was virtually impossible not to include him in another of Francis’ bold initiatives, the so-called Gang of Nine—the cardinals who would act as an extracurial cabinet to assist the pope.Footnote 35 While Pell is the most conservative of the group, by giving him this new “day job” the pope both got him out of Australia and has kept him very busy, leaving less time and freedom for the interview circuit in the style of Cardinal Burke.Footnote 36 Changing culture, especially when it is interwoven with finance, is particularly challenging. And so it should come as no surprise that some of the old guard of the Curia have resisted these efforts in a variety of ways.Footnote 37
With the other curial posts the pope moved cautiously but deliberately, and key changes in the Secretariat of State, Congregation for Religious, and consulters for the Congregation of Bishops are probably the areas that most amplified the impact of the Francis Effect on the munus guberandi of the church. Administratively at least Francis is seeking to steer a middle course so that no faction or wing can claim total vindication or lament absolute defeat. Benedict's last major curial appointment, Cardinal Gerhard Müller as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), remains firmly in place,Footnote 38 and the liberty he has taken to outline repeatedly positions that most would consider to be at odds with the pope's agenda may point to another key aspect of the Francis Effect—namely, the freedom to disagree publicly.Footnote 39 It is not, even for Gammarelli's and its preferred customers with a penchant for baroque brocade, the fine del mondo.Footnote 40
Creating cardinals eligible to choose one's successor has always been a most important way in which popes can continue to affect the church from beyond the grave. In this sense Pope Francis is simply mirroring the strategies of his predecessors, but obviously the “who” of the cardinalatial Who's Who bear strong witness to the Francis Effect in the munus gubernandi. The February 2015 consistory included men from eighteen different countries and many diocesan sees that either had never had a cardinal or had not had one in centuries. Here the pope clearly moved away from the cursus honorum tradition. New cardinals truly represent genuine diversity and underscore the efforts of the pope to make the hierarchical church more the “voice of the voiceless,” to echo the vocabulary of the new Ethiopian cardinal Berhaneyesus Souraphiel.Footnote 41
In a follow-up to this latest consistory on April 13, 2015, Pope Francis appointed these new cardinals as consulters to a number of Vatican congregations. This is where the real work and corresponding influence take place, and where past prelates such as Cardinals Justin Rigali and Burke excelled. Burke's replacement on the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Dominique Mamberti, was named to several of the posts formerly occupied by Cardinal Burke, such as the Congregations for Bishops, Divine Worship, and the Causes of Saints, and the Secretariat of State. The other new cardinals who were among the “surprises” named by the pope were named consulters to the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples: Cardinals John Atcherley Dew, archbishop of Wellington, New Zealand; Pierre Nguyen Van Nhon, archbishop of Hanoi, Vietnam; Francis Xavier Kriengsak Kovithavanij, archbishop of Bangkok, Thailand; Arlindo Gomes Furtado, bishop of Santiago de Cabo Verde, Cape Verde; and Soane Patita Paini Mafi, bishop of Tonga. Despite the positive dimension of bringing the periphery into closer proximity with the historical center of Roman Catholicism, some honest concerns have been voiced about the overall, long-term effectiveness of this increased geographical and cultural diversity.Footnote 42
Appointment of “Francis Bishops” in Key Diocesan Sees
Reforming the church must include the appointment process for new bishops. It would be ludicrous to think that any pope could master the personnel dossiers of every possible episcopal candidate, but there is probably nothing more significant in the practical realm that a pope can do to leave a legacy of change that will last beyond his pontificate, whether it be long or short. The emergence of what are now being termed “Francis Bishops” was prepared for by Pope Francis himself by first reconfiguring the consulters on the powerful Congregation for Bishops. Vis-à-vis the United States episcopacy, the removal of Cardinals Rigali and Burke has proved to be of monumental importance, as we now are beginning to see a run of new appointments that differ dramatically from the protégés of these once nearly almighty “king makers.”Footnote 43 Examples of “Francis Bishops” would include recent appointees such as Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago; Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego;Footnote 44 Bishop John Stowe, OFM, of Lexington, Kentucky; and Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe.Footnote 45 This cultural paradigm shift has been welcomed by many, including President Barack Obama,Footnote 46 though conservative blogs such as Pewsitter.com make it clear that the sobriquet is meant only in the pejorative sense, usually adding to their headlines captions such as “Not a word about abortion, contraception, or gay marriage” to nail down the condemnation and dismissal of these new hierarchs. And to be honest, they have a limited point: indeed part of the Francis Effect seems to be picked up in these newly promoted bishops’ political agenda, which does indeed focus more on the common good, economic issues, resistance to the death penalty, a more Christian approach to immigration reform, and so on.Footnote 47 “Listening,” as Archbishop-elect John Wester put it, is the verb of choice in the exercise of the munus gubernandi.Footnote 48
Dealing with the Sexual Abuse Crisis and Episcopal Responsibility
While Pope Francis’ removal and reassignment of Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst of Limburg, Germany (the so-called Bishop of Bling)Footnote 49 could possibly have been carried out by John Paul II, and perhaps more reluctantly by Benedict XVI, membership on the episcopal endangered species list during these pontificates was largely confined to those considered doctrinally suspect such as for supporting women's ordination.Footnote 50 Dealing with the scourge of the dysfunctional episcopal administration that allowed for the cover-up of decades of clerical sexual abuse was a much larger and more complex cultural manifestation of clericalism that neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI could really even “name,” much less effectively address.Footnote 51
Of course, some of the initiatives undertaken by Pope Francis had been prepared by both the 2002 “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the efforts of then Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, to confront better the insidious evil of clerical sexual abuse. However, it was only Francis who was finally able to take the logical “next step,” which Benedict and the American bishops frankly were loathe even to contemplate, namely, bringing into the consultative process laymen and laywomen who had been abused, and finally to take action against a bishop guilty of a relatively recent effort at business as usual in the cover-up game. The “de-Finn-istration” of the deeply conservative Kansas City Opus Dei prelate Robert Finn was a pill too bitter to swallow for those who looked first and foremost to preserving the interests of the institutional church, and like many other similar changes in the munus guberandi this too exhibits a line of action never really possible in the previous two pontificates.Footnote 52 Even after Finn's belated resignation, many conservatives,Footnote 53 led most notably by William Donahue of Catholics United for the Faith, lamented the forces that had driven this “orthodox” and “traditional” bishop from his officeFootnote 54 without even the benefit of the usual exit gambit of promoveatur ut amoveatur (promote in order to remove). Some of the conservative postings noted, not without some justification, that the left exhibited a mixed reaction, with the genuine relief that the church was finally rid of the meddlesome bishop, accompanied by a certain amount of delectatio morosa as well.Footnote 55
The Francis Effect on Diplomacy
Pope Francis and the Francis Effect are being increasingly felt in the world of diplomacy as well. Space does not permit an in-depth treatment here, but the following are some bullet points that deserve further study:
• Regime change in the Secretariat of State: Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone out, Cardinal Pietro Parolin in
• 2014 Prayer Service with Shimon Peres of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority in the Vatican gardens
• Being “undiplomatic” in denouncing Armenian genocide in Turkey
• Brokering a breakthrough in United States-Cuba relationsFootnote 56
• Recognition of the Palestinian stateFootnote 57
• Beatification of Oscar RomeroFootnote 58 and normalization of relations with liberation theologians.Footnote 59
The Francis Effect and Women in the Church
As in every other section in this overview, a proper consideration of issues relating more directly to women in the church would demand more than the allotted paragraph. To support the thesis on how the core cultural concepts of fundamental values and root paradigms mark this papacy we could point positively to the happy, though frankly unanticipated, conclusion of the Apostolic Visitation of communities of American religious women, and more especially the de facto truce arranged in the Vatican oversight of the LCWR.Footnote 60 Neither felicitous endgame would have been in the playbooks of the curial benches in the last two pontificates—or indeed in any pontificates’ similarly peaceful “nondefinitive” resolution of such an acrimonious conflict since the Borghese Pope Paul V mandated a cease-fire peace between the Jesuits and Dominicans over the “will and grace” dispute of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
In other areas the scorecard is decidedly somewhat mixed,Footnote 61 though on the whole the pope is clearly more progressive than his predecessors.Footnote 62 He has repeated that the women's ordination issue has been settled, but it no longer seems quite the litmus test it once was for the granting of nihil obstats or episcopal promotion or demotion. He welcomed Lutheran Archbishop Antje Jackelen of Uppsala, the first woman to head the Church of Sweden, to the Apostolic Palace on May 3, 2015.Footnote 63 Women have been appointed to more positions of responsibility in the Vatican Curia,Footnote 64 and in American dioceses women have a much higher percentage of key positions than in the workplace at large.Footnote 65 Pope Francis has also called for equal pay for women, based on the Christian concept of radical equality, a stance that John Paul II would have been particularly uncomfortable with since the Polish pope stated repeatedly that women's highest vocation was to be exercised as wives and mothers in the home.Footnote 66 One of the more prominent “Francis Bishops,” Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago, named a woman as the chief operating officer for the entire archdiocese.Footnote 67
The Synods on the Family: October 2014 and October 2015
In terms of sustained media attention, clearly the two Synods on the Family would capture first place. Similarly, in the academy a good deal of scholarly reflection has been devoted to these meetings, so I will not attempt even a brief summary here.Footnote 68 In terms of my overarching thesis that the Francis Effect's primary focus is on the gospel as the healing message that should guide the church, let me briefly point out a few aspects of the recent October synods that can further support this thesis.
First, one can underscore the emphasis that the 2014 Instrumentum Laboris Footnote 69 gives to listening, which was then further underscored in the Relatio post Disceptationem Footnote 70 (the midsynodal relatio or report) in order to provide the organizing framework “Listen, Judge, and Act.” This tripartite schema was explicitly attacked in the second week of the Extraordinary Synod in the circuli minores discussion in the group chaired by Cardinal Burke, which argued that “Listen” should be scrapped and replaced with the “clearer” and more active “See,” and then should move decisively to “Judge” and “Act.” The October 2015 Synod, however, has retained the schema beginning with “Listen,” and this certainly represents not just a shift in vocabulary but in culture as well.
Another example of the Francis Effect came directly from the pope himself in his opening address, in which he explicitly called for openness or parrhesia, the Greek term meaning “to speak candidly or boldly, without fear.”Footnote 71 This also represented a cultural change of some significance, allowing for what in Italian is called a confronto Americano, literally, an “American-style confrontation.” Americans would retranslate this as a “frank discussion,” seen as an important and necessary step toward arriving at consensus on controversial issues. But in the ecclesial culture of Italy this confronto Americano is usually seen as a type of brutta figura (literally, “ugly figure”) to be avoided at all costs.
There was obviously plenty of parrhesia before, during, and after the Extraordinary Synod, and not just in the well-reported debates over the possibility of admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion. Even having this discussion represents a profound cultural shift in the church that would have been utterly unimaginable in virtually any previous pontificate.Footnote 72 Perhaps the most revealing example of both paradigm shift and culture clash came not in the discussion of Communion but almost as an aside in the speech given by two of the invited lay participants, Romano and Mavis Pirola from Australia, who recounted the following:
For example, the Church constantly faces the tension of upholding the truth while expressing compassion and mercy. Families face this tension all the time. Take homosexuality as an example. Friends of ours were planning their Christmas family gathering when their gay son said he wanted to bring his partner home too. They fully believed in the Church's teachings and they knew their grandchildren would see them welcome the son and his partner into the family. Their response could be summed up in three [sic] words, “He is our son.” What a model of evangelization for parishes as they respond to similar situations in their neighborhood! It is a practical example of what the Instrumentum laboris says concerning the Church's teaching role and its main mission to let the world know of God's love.Footnote 73
Strong applause broke out in the synod aula. But one person who sat on his hands, Cardinal Burke, quickly took to the airwaves, deploring the “aggressive homosexual agenda” present in society today and then addressing the Pirolas’ anecdote with these words:
If homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered, which indeed they are—reason teaches us that and also our faith—then, what would it mean to grandchildren to have present at a family gathering a family member who is living [in] a disordered relationship with another person? We wouldn't, if it were another kind of relationship—something that was profoundly disordered and harmful—we wouldn't expose our children to that relationship, to the direct experience of it. And neither should we do it in the context of a family member who not only suffers from same-sex attraction, but who has chosen to live out that attraction, to act upon it, committing acts which are always and everywhere wrong, evil.Footnote 74
Besides grievous scandal, Burke continued, a misguided “acceptance” of the gay son and his partner by the family would ultimately harm further the son himself, who was engaged in a lifestyle directly repugnant both to the natural law as well as Scripture and constant church teaching. This incident highlights a goodly number of clashing fundamental values and root paradigms that lead people to applaud one party and deplore the other, and undoubtedly the October 2015 Synod will provide additional examples of how these cultural concepts are played out in the concrete.
Mercy in the Papal Triple Munera: Docendi, Gubernandi, and Sanctificandi
Much more can be said on each of these topics, but I save the best for last as one of the most important aspects of the Francis Effect: the message of mercy. Vatican II's Lumen Gentium §25 lists “character, frequency, and manner” as the three principal criteria in helping the faithful determine the proper obsequium religiosum to give to teachings of the ordinary magisterium, that is, that which is not defined as infallible, irreformable, and calling for the assent of belief.Footnote 75
Theologically, “mercy” certainly is a core message of the gospel, and many would argue an essential characteristic of God as well.Footnote 76 Therefore, it ranks very high in the “character” criterion, and arguably much higher than some of the other neuralgic issues that are frequently denounced, such as the “grave evils” of masturbation, artificial contraception, in vitro fertilization, and so on.Footnote 77 While no one, apart from some in the ultra right wing of the church, would directly contest “mercy” in public, it nevertheless seems clear that many would not like to utter a profound “Amen” to Jesus’ words that God desires mercy and not sacrifice.Footnote 78
There is likewise no possible doubt of satisfying the “frequency” criterion, as “mercy” and related themes occupy Pope Francis’ exercise of the munus docendi on virtually a daily basis. He truly lives his episcopal motto, miserando atque eligendo (lowly but chosen),Footnote 79 and has consistently stayed more on the message of mercy than probably any other of the many themes he has covered in his various homilies, allocutions, and other writings.Footnote 80
While it would be both unexpected and unnecessary to present “mercy” as de fide definita exercised in the extraordinary magisterium, instituting the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, with its corresponding papal Bull of Indiction (Misericordiae Vultus),Footnote 81 would be nearly the highest “manner” available in the papal magisterium, and one in which Pope Francis has joined his munus docendi to the munus sanctificandi, which could also be interpreted as an exercise of the munus gubernandi.
The bull is also the best sustained reflection to date on Pope Francis’ understanding of the critical importance of mercy in the economy of salvation and the mission of the church.Footnote 82 While it merits much fuller discussion, consider this one key passage: “Mercy is the very foundation of the Church's life. All of her pastoral activity should be caught up in the tenderness she makes present to believers; nothing in her preaching and in her witness to the world can be lacking in mercy. The Church's very credibility is seen in how she shows merciful and compassionate love” (§10). Clearly Pope Francis’ message of mercy is not only one of the principal effects of his papacy so far, but also clearly satisfies three criteria for calling for a sincere religious respect of both the intellect and will on the part of all Catholics, starting with the ordained members of the church, who have been charged in a special way with this mission of mercy.
Resistance to the Francis Effect
For every action there is an equal opposite reaction, as Isaac Newton taught, and not even a pope is exempt from this law of (human) nature. Once again, at least a book could be written, this time outlining the growing resistance to and rejection of the Francis Effect in some conservative corners of the church community.Footnote 83 Some, like Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, have been breathtakingly frank in their remarks about Pope Francis after the Extraordinary Synod: “Pope Francis is fond of ‘creating a mess.’ Mission accomplished.”Footnote 84 Others, like Cardinal Burke's protégé Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, seem not to have gotten the full memo on priorities and policies that are currently endorsed by the Holy Father. This can be seen in a number of policy “priorities” in terms of “Catholic identity.” As Robert Mickens observed, even events such as the “March for Life,” which logically ought to include as “life issues” other social concerns beyond abortion and euthanasia, did not give these concerns much traction with many of the power brokers in the previous pontificates.Footnote 85 Michael Sean Winters makes a similar point vis-à-vis the American bishops and their perceived priorities: for example, why do we not have a “Fortnight against Poverty” along with the much ballyhooed “Fortnight for Freedom”?Footnote 86
Part of the resistance is due no doubt to the diminishment of power and influence of those who clearly held sway in the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.Footnote 87 However, the “sour grapes” phenomenon accompanying any significant regime change cannot account for the depth and energy of those bent on fighting any and all change attributed to the new pope.
The controversy over the possible change of discipline concerning admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments may be the most “high profile” example, but it is hardly a solitary instance. The combined anti-Francis Effect shows in a different way the truth of my thesis regarding how the core dynamics of fundamental values and root paradigms function in contested areas of church dogma, discipline, mores, and even morality in the exercise of the munus docendi and munus gubernandi. Using O'Malley's four cultures taxonomy, we might analyze resistance to the Francis Effect in terms of a preference for culture two (the academic) over culture three (the rhetorical). Attractive as this hypothesis may seem at first glance, it is insufficient in accounting for the depth and the breadth of the increasingly vitriolic, polarizing discourse coming from those who used to pride themselves on being on the front lines in the papal shock troops.
The issue is more profoundly about truth claims contained in these various fundamental values. “Catholic beliefs are not simply a matter of opinion; they are a matter of fact,” asserted Reverend Dwight Longenecker in a recent blog post entitled “Why Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Is Impossible for Catholics.”Footnote 88 Clearly Pope Francis’ oft-repeated line “Who am I to judge?” cannot credibly be extended to signal a forthcoming change in church dogma on same-sex relationships, much less to advance the possibility of Catholic sacramental acceptance of same-sex unions.Footnote 89 But what probably discomfits some in the church is the pope's unwillingness to use the term “facts” in speaking of Catholic beliefs. Here we have a key clash of cultural paradigms. Father Longenecker goes on to “explain”:
Catholic teaching is a unified, coherent, and consistent body of thought that encompasses not only religious beliefs and behaviors, but also includes history, anthropology, political and economic theory, sexuality, cosmology, and ecology. In other words, what we believe about God and humanity touches everything….A sacramental marriage is between one man and one woman for life, and we can't change it any more than we can say the grass is purple or the sky is green. We can't change the content of the sacrament because that's the way things are. The fundamental definition of marriage between one man and one woman was established from the beginning of the human race and validated by Jesus Christ and established as a sacrament for our salvation. Catholic beliefs are not simply a matter of opinion; they are a matter of fact. Even if we want to, we can't change the essentials of the sacrament of marriage—not because we can't change our beliefs, but because we can't change facts.Footnote 90
Challenges and Opportunities for the Future
In conclusion, what are some brief takeaways from our all-too-rapid consideration of the effect Pope Francis has had on the church since his election? A key part of the Francis Effect is that a thousand flowers are beginning to bloom. Voices once quite muted and moderates long out of power have emerged clearly in both the religious and the secular spheres. Taking a cue no doubt from Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” some hierarchs on both sides of the ideological spectrum have begun to express themselves in terms unthinkable in the previous pontificates.Footnote 91
While the Synods on the Family have dominated these discussions, there are other examples, such as the cultural paradigm shift in process seen in both the lead-up and the aftermath of the Irish referendum on same-sex marriage that was approved by an overwhelming 62 percent of the high-turnout electorate on May 22, 2015.Footnote 92 While the Irish hierarchy clearly opposed the measure in voting no on the ballot question, there was comparatively little stridency in their public pronouncements, and two bishops even went on public record as saying that individual Catholics could in good conscience vote for the measure. Many Irish priests publicly parted company with the official party line, saying they were voting for the referendum, while some poll watchers estimate that roughly one-third of the Irish clergy voted yes. Reminiscent of the speech given at the 2014 Extraordinary Synod by the Pirolas regarding family acceptance of a gay son, a video by an elderly couple, Brighid and Paddy Whyte, in support of the Irish referendum, went viral.Footnote 93
After the vote, the bishop with perhaps the greatest credibility of the greatly beleaguered Irish hierarchy, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, said this to reporters:
The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people.… We have to see how is it that the Church's teaching on marriage and family is not being received even within its own flock….There's a growing gap between Irish young people and the Church and there's a growing gap between the culture of Ireland that's developing and the Church.Footnote 94
Bishop Juan Vicente Córdoba offers another example. Speaking at a conference about gay marriage and adoption hosted by the local University of Los Andes, he asserted that “no one chooses to be gay or straight” and then said that homosexuality is not a sin: “Sin is something else. It's not respecting the dignity of others. Not loving God and our neighbors as we love ourselves, not feeding the hungry, not giving water to the thirsty.” The bishop declared that it is far more important for Columbians “to have dignity, a proper health system, and food for all, rather than talking about whether they're gay or straight.”Footnote 95
Thus, while indeed many would still say “Amen!” to this gaudium magnum,Footnote 96 it is also now distressingly clear that significant portions of the Catholic community do not, or no longer, share in this great joy.Footnote 97 One part of most disquieting revelations of the pulse-taking in the wake of the Francis Effect is the level of acrimony that has surfaced. Not only those judged to be “too liberal,” such as Cardinal Kasper, but even the pope himself is increasingly subjected to a level of critique that could only be classified morally as calumny and slander.Footnote 98 The most visible church figure doing his best to counter what he considers the most dangerous evils of the Francis Effect would be Cardinal Burke. Most will be fairly well acquainted with the main thrust of his frequent interviews, homilies, and assorted obiter dicta. Troubling as these are, there is at least one helpful contribution Cardinal Burke and others are making to the world of theological discourse: the recasting of the understanding of the primacy of conscience. Until the papacy of Francis, many conservatives, such as the moral philosopher German Grisez,Footnote 99 pundit George Weigel, and Australian Cardinal George Pell, held such a strong Roma locuta, causa finita view of even the “noninfallible” teachings of the so-called ordinary magisterium that it seemed that if the pope had addressed an issue, the matter was closed.Footnote 100
We now see the outlines of at least a theoretical position from the right wing that allows dissent from church positions with which they might fundamentally disagree. Of course, in all fairness, Catholics on the other side of the ideological divide had come to a similar conclusion a few generations earlier. It may be that the October 2015 Synod will lift up again the position held firmly from the time of Thomas Aquinas through Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that we are required always to follow our conscience—presuming, of course, that we have taken sufficient care both to form and inform it.Footnote 101
The church remains a very human institution, which means it is necessarily a cultural and political organization as well. And so it should surprise none of us to see evidence of “lobbying” and “spin” in various corners. Hopefully Rahner's notion of “global pre-scientific convictions,” fleshed out in terms of cultural fundamental values and root paradigms, may provide another methodology for analyzing what is occurring in the church today. In theory, at least, virtually everyone can admit that human knowledge is always limited, and so it is not only “possible” but indeed probable that our individual and corporate views on any given issue will be culturally conditioned and paradigm dependent. Acknowledging this epistemological fact may lay a key foundation stone to build a bridge to cross over the conflicts that impede the spread of the gospel. This seems to be what Pope Francis was trying to do in his closing discourse at the October 2014 Synod.Footnote 102
Here too both Saint Ignatius of Loyola's “Presupposition” in the Spiritual Exercises Footnote 103 and Saint Augustine's guidelines for discernment may provide at least partial antidotes to the perennial problem of odium theologicum that are worth recalling here: “In fide, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas” (In matters of faith, unity; in matters of doubt, liberty; in all things, charity).Footnote 104
To quote Bishop Tobin of Providence again: “Relax, God is still in charge.”Footnote 105
