Dear Friends,                                                                           Is the Pope a Catholic?

A humorous rhetorical non-question. Another one has something to do with bears. But it’s actually worth asking now – the Pope one, not the bear one – and for real. Is the Pope a Catholic? Yes he is!

I wasn’t much of a Francis fan, I wasn’t from the beginning – even before the white smoke from that dilapidated old chimney pot: lingering doubts about what went down in Argentina during the dirty war aside, I’m just not into the humility thing. And from the first moment that Francis’ election was announced I knew that somewhere the Grand Inquisitor – the real Grand Inquisitor, Schiller and Dostoevsky’s – was, not celebrating, the Inquisitor never celebrates, but recording his election on the + side of the ledger, did he play a role, even a decisive one, in Francis’ election? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

All the old reactionary dinosaurs were so appalled, much older than them all, the Grand Inquisitor knew that Francis’ election saved the Church, the whole thing: He’s so nice, and kind, and humble. He will make everything right, even all the abuse doesn’t seem so bad under his benevolent (and humble) eye. That worked for a while, but he didn’t do much, and that caught up with him, as the Inquisitor had foreseen.

The kind, loving, humble aura that he projected onto the Church, in which the long history of sexual abuse could somehow be explained and absolved, was irresistible, and no one could stand against him, not even the old dinosaurs. But that could only work for a while. When it became clear that he really wasn’t going to do anything more than be nice – and what could he have done, poor guy – the aura dissipated, people began to protest that he had betrayed the victims of abuse; and the old dinosaurs were ready, now they could attack him for the really important things.

So he saved the Church by questioning some of its basic teachings, but once he lost his aura that ceased to be a danger. He saved the Church without doing too much harm. And the Grand Inquisitor does not smile, he never smiles, he gives the smallest sign of approbation.

The Church lives, the Church endures (no Dude jokes). It endures in part because it draws all extremes into itself. Francis was not exactly an extreme, was even John XXIII? But he, and John, disrupted things a bit, both were attacked by the Catholic reactionaries. Both made the Church stronger by their disruptions.

The Church only changes a very little. Look back over the centuries, millennia. Disruptive popes often absorb new currents into the holy order. This does not mean that individual popes do nothing other than maintain the even flow of pastoral care. But the distinctive, individual, personal character that they express and project onto the faithful is more important than actual doctrinal change.

So what now?

Well, Leo is far less controversial (aside from being a White Sox fan). His views on women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights are more hard line, orthodox, than Francis’. Where Francis’ heritage lay outside the Papacy, going back to Francis of Assisi – he was the first Pope Francis – Leo is the XIVth Leo.

What difference will the difference between Francis and Leo on Catholic misogyny and homophobia actually make? Francis never tried to change doctrine, the difference is that Leo has made clear that he thinks that change would be wrong.

Misogyny and homophobia are essential elements of Catholic Doctrine. They may be (quite good) reasons for not being a Catholic. Demanding they be eliminated is like demanding that forthwith horse-racing will be done on pogo-sticks. So, first, given its misogyny and homophobia is it still possible that the Catholic Church may do good on other issues? Second, is it acceptable to ally with the Church on these issues, if such there be, given its stand on the others?

My answer to both questions is yes.

But always remember: the Pope is a Catholic (just like the bear … well let’s not get into that). If he’s going to be Pope he must hold to Church doctrine, that’s the deal. Everything a Pope can do for the world must be possible within that doctrine with just a very little wiggle room. That’s narrow, but still something.

So what about this new one, now? Leo took his name to honour and to continue the work of his predecessor, Leo XIII, pope from 1878 to 1903.

Leo XIII brought about real and continuing change not by changing (or trying to change) doctrine, but by revealing that it could enfold even such radical historical change as the rise of the capitalist mode of production. His encyclical of 15 May 1891, Rerum Novarum (new things), is one of the most influential of all papal encyclicals. The ordinary English translation is Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour. These are the new things.

Rerum Novarum understands that capitalism has a definite structure based on the social relation of wage-labour, and that this is a new thing in the world. Wage-labour brings into existence two new classes, the working class and the capitalist class, and together, for good or ill, they shape the modern world.

Leo accepts capitalism and its class structure. He defends private property and profit making, so, the place and role of the capitalists. The problem is not so much what the capitalists have but what the workers don’t.

And here is his revelation that doctrine holds more than it knew. The Church always claimed to have a care, even a special care, for the Poor. But who are the Poor? Well, they’re just that, the Poor. Undifferentiated; you know them when you see them. And what do you do for them? You mitigate their poverty in some way or other. That’s not the working class. The working class live under specific conditions given by their class position in the system of wage-labour. They are continually forced towards poverty by these conditions. When nothing limits the capitalists’ power this force is irresistible.

Rerum Novarum sees overall conditions today, 1891, as far too close to this uncontrolled state. It challenges all Catholics and all society not merely to mitigate these but to change them. It gives an important role to the state and the force of law, but also seeks to limit the need for state action through new institutions, for example, collective bargaining and the right to form unions. Above all, however, God-given human dignity, given to all without exception, is the animating principle, a principle that must be lived through action. Capitalists are enjoined not merely to follow the law, but to see their own human dignity as dependent on that of the workers.

Rerum Novarum is not a revolutionary manifesto. It enshrines private property and recognizes the capitalists along with the workers. But along with socialism and communism it rejects laissez-faire capitalism. It is the starting-point for Catholic Social Teaching, an active engagement of the Church with movements for human dignity, justice and the common good. It was an inspiration for Liberation Theology. Leo XIV seeks to continue and expand this work in a new and even more dangerous world.

He is understood to have more conservative and rigid on questions of “sexual ethics” – women’s rights including abortion; LGBTQ+ rights, including trans rights and same sex marriage; sex outside marriage, contraception, and so on – than Francis.

At first there was concern – I shared it – that he would try to advance both aims, social and sexual, and achieve very little on either. The concern was misplaced.

He has just made a remarkable statement about his policy priorities. He’s fed up with endless and futile wrangling about sexual ethics (his term): the Church is not going to make fundamental changes in doctrine; only such change will satisfy its critics. So remove them from the primary focus; it’s high time to start focusing on social justice, poverty, inequality, war, climate instead. He can let his known conservatism on sexual ethics stand for itself without wrangling about it all day and all night.

This is brilliant. Everyone knows that problems of justice, inequality, war, climate are supremely important, as important as sexual ethics. And all of those who oppose him on the latter will instead be with him on the former.

Yes, lots of reactionary hostility and opposition even to words such as “justice”, “inequality”, “climate”. But it’s much more uphill work embracing injustice, inequality, and the destruction of the Earth by climate change than attacking abortion or same-sex marriage.

In this case it’s a good thing to have the Pope (even if not God) on our side; and I’m totally cool working with anyone who starts from Rerum Novarum, there’s so much to do before any serious disagreements will arise.

Love and solidarity,

            Bobby

The Federal government no longer exists.