Pope Francis: The Poison Oozes to the Surface

Larry Chapp, ex-seminarian and renowned, retired professor of theology for 20 years has written an excellent analysis of the papal comments in Singapore.

He commences by endeavouring to interpret the Pope’s remarks within their rightful context, scrupulously resisting the allure of hyperbole, so as not to exacerbate the situation further than it already stands:

"Before I proceed, however, a couple of caveats are in order. First, these remarks by the pope are clearly not in any way definitive teachings of the papal magisterium. Even if we judge them as imprudent and ambiguous, there is no need to throw accusations of formal heresy around. Let’s not invent crises where none exist. The remarks are problematical, but can also be dismissed as the mere incautious musings of a pope speaking off the cuff."

I recognise the need for a caution which seeks to avoid any further undermining of a papacy which is doing enough of that all on its own, but how much "informal heresy" do we think is acceptable from a pope? Interviews with Scalfari where he denies fundamental principles like the existence of hell? Giving prominence to pagan idols in the Vatican? The signing of a document which asserts that God wills a multiplicity of religions? Chapp will get into that shortly...He continues:

"Second, the pope was not engaging in a sophisticated discourse, attempting in a few remarks to resolve a thorny theological topic. He was speaking to a group of children who were from a variety of religious backgrounds. And as a pastor, he was trying to communicate to them why the path of rancour and division is not a healthy one, and that it is of the very essence of “religion” to seek God first which should, by all accounts, put us on the path to dialogue rather than confrontation."

Yes but THIS IS THE POPE!! You would have expected the Pope to have gone some way to giving a reason for the Christian hope: The unique nature of the revelation of Jesus Christ, and if that would be offensive, why were these children there? I mean what would you expect from THE POPE???

"Therefore, when the pope says “All religions are paths to God” I think we need to cut him some slack since in context what he was alluding to were the major “higher” religions of the world, most of which he goes on to specifically name (“Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian.”) So no, I do not think the pope would view Baal worship, Moloch worship, and modern Satanism as paths to God. The word “all” in this context is one of those ambiguities we often see when this pope speaks extemporaneously. And I think that it needs to be interpreted charitably in its context."

The problem here I think is that we do not know what the Pope meant, because, as usual it is incredibly unclear and unhelpful, as well as un-Catholic!

I think this opening from Larry is what managers call a "compliment" or "feedback" sandwich (there's a more colloquial name which I won't use here). It involves structuring feedback by beginning with praise, then addressing the criticism, and concluding with another positive comment. This approach is designed to cushion the impact of the negative feedback and make it more palatable for the recipient. Basically you qualify your criticism in the context of some positives; say something positive before you deliver the critique.

Given that the above paragraphs' constitute Larry's "praise" aspect of this piece, you can properly gauge the level of criticism Larry is about to drop.

He exposes the paucity of the Pope's language analogy (the Holy Father said "religions are like languages that try to express ways to approach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian.”):

"it is the Absolute nature of the Christian claim for Christ that is directly undermined by this comparison between all religions with language. Because it implies that Christ merely gives us one “grammar” among many other religious grammars, all of which, in their own idiosyncratic ways, are attempting to express the inexpressible, which is what we call “God”."

Chapp explains that the language analogy weakens the claim that the Pope is merely referencing Church Fathers' teachings on the “spoils of Egypt,” logoi spermatikoi, Lumen Gentium on truth in other religions, or Lewis and Tolkien on mythopoesis, while affirming natural religion and the Church's broader view of salvific grace beyond its visible bounds.

Importantly, Chapp recognises that the Pope "spoke in a manner that was evocative of a theological movement known as the “pluralism of religions” school of thought that has a pedigree in the Church that stretches back sixty years or more." How interesting in this context that Pope Francis rehabilitated one of the main exponents of this theory, as well as the Liberation Theology Francis has often been accused of favouring, Leonardo Boff, in 2017, when, in an interview with a German newspaper, Boff explained that he was consulted on Laudato Si and said that Pope Francis 'is one of us'. Pope Saint John Paul II published a notification to Boff which stated "the options of L. Boff ...endanger the sound doctrine of the faith". Pope Francis sure can pick 'em!

Although Chapp has given this article a gentle tone from the outset, we now see that none of this has passed him by either. He states:

"Nor is this the first time that he has made such allusions, as we saw when he signed the Abu Dhabi declaration which pointedly affirmed that the “pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom…”"

He goes on to summarise what this pluralistic theology looked like historically and that it is a reality that the Pope has strayed into this thinking quite often. One has to wonder, are we ignoring what the Pope is openly saying in order to interpret his remarks in a more orthodox sense?

After all, as Chapp states, we never see any walk-back or clarification from Pope Francis when he makes these "unprepared remarks" that panic the faithful. Chapp puts it this way:

 

"It is more likely these off-the-cuff comments are actually unguarded comments and, it seems, unfiltered comments. They are, in other words, what poker players call a “tell”."

Chapp also identifies the way in which the pope’s remarks problematically essentialize and reify religions as fixed entities, a notion criticized by scholars and linked to the Enlightenment's effort to institutionalize religion, particularly Christianity, to domesticate it and place it under state control. He has got the Pope sussed and what he reveals is deeply concerning. Perhaps more concerning that the plain sense of the Pope's comments in Singapore!

Finally, Chapp questions the theological foundations of Pope Francis' approach to dialogue, suggesting it may be less Christ-centred and more influenced by modern sociological and psychological perspectives. While Christian dialogue is inseparably linked to faith in Christ, requiring empathy and understanding, the reluctance to explicitly mention Christ's love and message raises concerns about aligning with modern religious egalitarianism, rather than a more overtly evangelistic stance.

There is a lot of concern in this article and it is worth pondering carefully. Chapp masterfully draws together a lot of the threads we see in this papacy: globalism, pantheism, a tendency toward the anthropomorphic ego-drama rather than the theo-drama.

It helps me to see that I am not alone in feeling very concerned with what I see going on and the fact that each thread I see from Pope Francis leads to an increasingly old, rotten and debunked ideology. We can only hope this is all of this poison's last gasp!