I have received questions related to my recent essay in Where Peter Is titled “The Demos II Affair.” In the interest of clarification, I have summarized them and provided brief responses.
Q1: Why did you criticize Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI for being monarchs?
A1: The article compares Demos’s criticism of Francis to the common critiques of John Paul and Benedict offered by others, which is why I began those sections with quotes, “Critics have suggested,” and “Benedict’s papacy was known for.” I included links for anyone interested in investigating further. The accusation of absolutism that Demos charges Francis with is similar to the one made against his predecessors. This is not my criticism of any of them.
The papacy was a monarchy for centuries, but Vatican II began the process of moving away from that model. Developing new habits requires time and practice. Paul VI auctioned his papal tiara and used the proceeds to feed the poor. John Paul and Benedict eliminated some symbols of monarchy. John Paul refused to be carried on the sedia gestatoria, and Benedict refashioned his papal coat of arms by removing the tiara and adding a mitre. Informed observed noticed that Francis had accelerated the process within the first week of his papacy by “ignoring Vatican pomp” in contrast to the overall tenor of his predecessors.
Many traditionalists long for a return to a pre-conciliar papacy guided by the principles of Quanta Cura in which the pope is an absolute monarch and a pope like Pius IX or even John XXIII could expect the faithful to kiss his foot. They just don’t want Francis or a potential John XXIV to be that pope. Regardless, all popes must make complex decisions that only they can make, and that may feel monarchical to those who disagree with him.
Q2: Can you understand why Demos remained anonymous?
A2: There are times when anonymity is essential. Journalists may need to stay anonymous to save lives. However, anonymity is not necessary here. Cardinals and bishops are tasked to defend the faith, even to the point of shedding their blood. That is symbolized by the red cardinals wear.
Demos says they remain anonymous because they fear reprisal. What reprisal? Losing prestigious jobs? Isn’t that a small sacrifice to make for the Church and the institution of the papacy they claim to be protecting? If Francis is as egomaniacal as Demos seems to think, retaliation against them would be nearly impossible because it would cause him to lose face.
The job of cardinals is to advise the pope. These ones need the courage to bring their criticism to him personally in a spirit of fraternal correction, as Matthew 18:15-17 would suggest.
In Evangelii Gaudium (32) Pope Francis wrote, “It is my duty, as the Bishop of Rome, to be open to suggestions which can help make the exercise of my ministry more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization.” Francis is on record asking for input, and the Demos group should offer theirs face-to-face.
Q3: Red shoes and ermine? Really?
A3: Popes communicate through their clothing. Those particular sartorial elements hearken back to a pre-Vatican II papacy, even a medieval one in which the pope was the absolute monarch of a large secular state that fought wars. While accusing Francis of absolutism, Demos remains silent on the imagery and symbolism used by other popes. The issue is consistency, not clothing.
Q4: Are you saying Cardinals Burke, Müller, and Sarah were the ones behind Demos?
A4: No. I have no idea who the authors were. While they appear on the outlet that published the letter, all three have aired their issues publicly. With the exception of Cardinal Sarah, the other two waited until they were out of their positions before criticizing Francis on major Catholic media platforms like the EWTN outlets.
Q5: Are you just a Pope Francis apologist?
A5: No. I would feel the same way if cardinals and bishops had published an anonymous attack on John Paul or Benedict with the intention of influencing a future conclave. Cardinals and bishops should not attack popes, especially anonymously.
(Nevertheless, I agree with Demos on a significant point. With his emphasis on synodality, it undercuts Francis to issue important statements that are on the synod’s agenda without first going through the synodal process. Synodal decision making allows time for wider listening and discernment. Synodality includes consideration of perspectives and consequences that might not have otherwise been weighed, thereby providing greater acceptance of the results compared to unilateral Vatican announcements.)
Conclusion
No one will agree with any pope 100% of the time. The Church is global and its members have cultural, political, ideological, and theological commitments that will shape their views of anything any pope does. Most of all, a billion people will never agree on everything.
People love to know who’s papabile. Oddsmakers take bets on who the next pope will be almost immediately after a new one is installed. Going back to the earliest times, selecting a pope has been a messy business. Political intrigues, dynastic squabbles, and military threats have influenced papal elections. This is not getting easier in our days of mass disinformation, technical innovation, and transnational conflicts.
The pope’s job is hard enough without cardinals and bishops plotting out a strategy for the next conclave to get the pope they want. It’s treacherous, distasteful, and, above all, beneath the dignity of the men involved.
Kevin Beck is a former educator who lives in Colorado Springs with his family. After being diagnosed with a rare neurological disorder, he began writing on disability, grief and the intersection of disability and faith.
Popular Posts