An outlet called the Daily Compass recently ran a brief interview with Singapore’s Cardinal William Goh. Goh offers both praise and criticism for Pope Francis and expresses high hopes for Pope Leo XIV, generally in terms that we in the English-speaking West associate with “conservative” ideological and structural elements within the Church. He appreciates Pope Francis’s emphasis on the Church-as-mission and favors continued political and pastoral sensitivity to Catholicism’s position as a minority in most of Asia, but he hopes for greater doctrinal “clarity” and does not understand the rationale behind Pope Francis’s restrictions on the pre-1970 form of the Mass. We hear a lot of this and have for many years, although Goh expresses it more respectfully than most. This interview generated more buzz on the Anglophone Catholic internet when the Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, approvingly quoted a piece of Catholic Herald reporting on it that emphasized Goh’s comments on the Mass. This Herald piece spoke of “liberating” the pre-1970 form and in general didn’t attempt or even pretend to be unbiased. Cordileone, too, hasn’t bothered lately to disguise his longstanding biases and axes to grind on this; his recent remarks on the platform formerly known as Twitter include the claim that Pope Francis, being dead, no longer needs to be defended. (I wonder if he’d say the same about, say, John Paul II.)
But this, like most subjects and most events, isn’t about Archbishop Cordileone’s hobbyhorses. When it comes to Cardinal Goh it’s worth noting two things about the aspects of his interview that come across to us as conservative boilerplate. First, Goh tended not to be this critical of Pope Francis when he was alive, although he was always on the straitlaced, cautious, conservative side for someone made a cardinal in the last few years of Francis’s pontificate. I don’t want to assume anything bad about Goh because of this, since there are any number of legitimate personal or cultural reasons why he might have held off, but for me personally it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, I do have some sympathy for Goh here because of the second thing I want to point out, which is the fact that he was asked obvious leading questions, especially the ones about the liturgy. For these reasons, among others, I don’t really think most of what he has to say in this specific interview is all that interesting, except as context for Cordileone’s much crasser and more ideologized intervention.
I do think, though, that there is something interesting about the broader current of thought that Cardinal Goh seems to represent—the current of Church life in which Pope Francis’s legacy isn’t being loudly repudiated or scorned, but criticisms are emerging in combination with optimism about Pope Leo.
The general congregations before the late conclave became more enthusiastic about Francis’s legacy as they went on, and Leo was of course one of Francis’s closest collaborators in the last two years of his life, but one less positive point about Francis seems to have persisted throughout the process. This was the ruling or governing style in which spontaneous declarations or legislative acts circumvented the usual Curial channels and advisory processes that would have come from regular meetings of the cardinals. Pope Francis did these things for what I believe were usually good reasons, but it might fairly be said that it was not very “synodal.” Indeed, Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu’s harsh criticisms of Fiducia supplicans specifically included the allegation that it had harmed trust in Francis’s commitment to synodality within Africa. So from this “conservative-synodal” perspective it is reasonable for someone like Cardinal Goh to be more optimistic about being listened to or heard out—parrhesia!—under Pope Leo.
Where Peter Is has always engaged in this parrhesia itself, on the side of strongly supporting Pope Francis. We have carried that editorial line prioritizing loyalty to the Pope (which might itself be considered an expression of Pope Francis’s Ignatian and Jesuit tradition) into our perspective on Pope Leo. But I don’t think we’ve ever advanced the idea that absolutely every criticism of the reigning Pope’s ideas or policies is out of bounds. It was a very good thing that Pope Francis faced enormous pushback in the Juan Barros episode in 2018, for example; also that his advisors brought him around to adopting a more substantive and morally clear stance on the Russo-Ukrainian War.
There are also lingering questions around things like the Marko Rupnik case and, again, this issue of Francis circumventing his own preference for discernment and consultation in decision-making when doing so suited his priorities. So too with past Popes—e.g. John Paul II’s mishandling of sexual abuse cases and excessive trust in right-wing anticommunist organizations; Benedict’s inability to keep the Curia in line and generally dubious fire in the belly for the papal ministry. Such questions and points of valid criticism will emerge with Leo as well. I’m sure they’ll be pursued doggedly, by his critics and sometimes even by his allies or supporters. I’m sure less-valid points will be as well.
Cardinal Goh seems to think that Leo will be popular, evenhanded, and doctrinally and pastorally clearsighted enough to bring back the days of Roma locuta, causa finita. Maybe he’s right, although I think that ship has sailed. In any case, I am confident that if Leo does take that approach, he will maintain and continue and deepen Francis’s introduction into Church life of new ways for popes to discern, consult, take advice, and listen to the faithful and to the Spirit before Rome’s decision comes down.
Image: Pope Francis with Cardinal William Goh.
Nathan Turowsky is a native New Englander, an alumnus of Boston University School of Theology, and one of the relatively few Catholic alumni of that primarily Wesleyan institution. He works in the nonprofit sector and writes at Silicate Siesta.
Popular Posts