One virtue to not reading all the speculation about the new pope until after he was chosen is you can see how most of it was wide of the mark. An Italian cardinal was not picked. None of the four or five supposed leading names was picked. And the man who was picked actually finished second last time, only people had forgotten that.
So, perhaps the election of Argentine Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio (pronounced ber-GOAL-io) should not have been that surprising.
The “firsts” are getting attention: First pope from the Americas, first from outside Europe in 1,200 years, first Jesuit pope, the first to choose the name Francis. These may or may not be all that significant, but they are worth a look.
Firsts
No pope had chosen the name Francis before. As a measure of just how conservative this institution is, the last time a pope didn’t have the second or higher number after his name was Pope Lando in 913. Pope John Paul I chose a new name, to be sure, but it was the combination of the names of his two predecessors.
Given the importance of St. Francis of Assisi in Catholic, indeed all of Christian, imagination, this is an unusual omission. St. Francis is noted for being a rich youth who gave up everything for a life of poverty and lived with profound gentleness and compassion for all living things.
Is that a sign of how the new pope sees his mission? Francis as archbishop of Buenos Aires was noted for his lack of ostentation. He lived simply, rode the bus and cooked his own meals. Will he scale down the wealth of the Vatican?
The Jesuits (more formally The Society of Jesus) is a Catholic religious order noted for their learning, their role in missionary work and their role as theologians. Jesuits of note include Daniel Berrigan, the radical priest who came to fame in the 60s, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a French theologian who argued the universe in its entirety is building in complexity and consciousness, as well as Robert Drinan, who served eight years as U.S. Congressman. Many leaders of the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America were also Jesuits.
As this list indicates, Jesuits have not always been those who toed the line of conventional orthodoxy. Liberation Theology was long condemned by the Vatican for being too Marxist, Drinan and Berrigan were far more liberal than the church liked, indeed Drinan was an advocate for abortion rights. De Chardin’s theology does not map onto a conventional reading of the book of Genesis or any traditional view of creation. In its 500-year history, the Jesuits have been on the receiving end of church persecution from time to time.
What does it mean that a Jesuit is now pope? Especially in that the gentle image of St. Francis does not readily match the intellectual warfare of the Jesuits. Perhaps only that the Jesuits are now fully assimilated into the governing structure of the church.
There now have been three popes in a row from outside Italy. This is, again, a radical move given the innate conservatism of the institution. But what sort of choices were they? As the last two popes have shown, mere geographical variation does not equate to radical change: Both were quite conservative individuals.
What about Francis?
Francis’ views are being cataloged: He speaks out for the poor, so he’s liberal! No, he hates gay marriage and abortion, so he’s reactionary! He stood up against the government; no he is part of the ruling circle, etc. etc.
Part of the problem is not understanding that in the context of the Christian world, issues do not divide the same way as they do in secular politics.
In this religious context, there is no contradiction seen in being both for social justice for the poor and against homosexuality. Both are seen as biblical commands, the first from Jesus, the second from the Old Testament and church tradition.
Nor is it felt to be a contradiction to oppose homosexuality but care compassionately for those with AIDS, as Francis does, even to his washing the feet of those sick with AIDS. The phrase is “love the sinner, hate the sin” and while that can strike many as hypocritical, the church’s tradition of forgiveness and seeing everyone as a sinner allows this view to be sincerely held.
What Pope Francis might do
The two previous popes, indeed, a long line of popes have spoken out against unrestrained capitalism, and for charity to the poor. But the nub of the issue is what practical policies does this support? Preaching to call the wealthy to care for all and to give more generously is certainly a good thing, but crucially it does not translate into any support for a structural analysis of why there is so much poverty. The antipathy to Liberation Theology proves that. We might expect more of the same from Francis.
His commitment to living a simpler lifestyle may mean a scaling back of ceremony and pomp in church rituals. Perhaps it might mean the Catholic Church itself gives more aid to the poor.
There does not seem to be much in Francis’ background that would suggest he would move the church to expand the role of women, become more progressive on social issues or much else. The U.S. Catholic bishops will likely not pause in their campaign against Obamacare.
Bishops from countries with significant AIDS epidemics or population explosions have been pushing for a relaxation of the ban on contraception of all types, including condoms that might slow the rate of infections. But will Francis yield to that pressure?
The sexual scandals
What will Francis do about the ongoing issues of clergy misconduct? Perhaps he won’t do much other than to accept the forward progress already made and let the church muddle through to a more modern way of responding to this problem.
And then there is sex
In its 2,000 year history, the church has seldom had much positive to say about sexuality beyond its role in creating children. However much other denominations are moving to accept gays, the Catholic Church is decades away from any open acceptance. Of course, for generations, the celibate priesthood has been a safe place for gay men to hide from the world. When it comes to a more open recognition of sexuality in all its dimensions, that is more than decades away.
That the subject of women is often paired with the subject of sex is itself revealing of assumptions. Francis is not going to suggest women be ordained, but he might be able to appoint some women to more senior roles in the Vatican. That will be worth watching.
There are two things that popes do that are as impossible to predict as they are significant for the future direction of the church — how he administers the institution and who he selects as cardinals. All the speculation about names and personal style does not give us insight into these.
Small, slow radicalism
The Catholic Church, for all its hierarchical nature and its top-down declaration of what people should believe, is also a rather open place in a different way. For what unites Catholics is not so much doctrine (as it does in other branches of the Christian church) but unity itself: that all belong to the “one, true, catholic and apostolic church,” as the creed says.
This means that while the cardinals and bishops pronounce, there have always been, away from their sight, much diversity going on. Many U.S. Catholics practice birth control, have abortions, live together outside marriage, accept gays as equals – and go to church regularly and think of themselves as good and loyal Catholics.
So in the end, the church is more subject to social forces than it seems. It just takes a very long time.