Certainly by the close of 2023, a
group of American Roman Catholic clerics, informally headed by Cardinal Raymond
Burke (a traditionalist and legalist), were actively opposing Pope Francis. The
problem for the members of the opposition faction was that, as traditionalists,
they would take seriously the specific oath of obedience they had made to the
pope and his successors. Lest such oaths be construed as only binding when they
are convenient, which would effectively dissolve any binding, the
traditionalist were at risk of being caught by their own hypocrisy. How to
deal with such people? The pope had doubtless asked himself this very
question on multiple occasions. How does enforcing the oath square with loving
one’s detractors, even enemies? The American president Abraham Lincoln put his
political rivals on his cabinet; should Pope Francis follow suit, or should he
expunge his disloyal opposition and risk Burke’s charge of dictatorship? Does
such a charge even make sense, however, given the oath of obedience? I submit
that a Christian organization—any Christian organization—ought to be run not by
the world’s methods, but according to a radically different kingdom, possible
here and now, in the transformation of one’s own heart by serving, and even
caring for, one’s detractors. Otherwise, a Christian organization is so in name
only, and thus inherently hypocritical.
On November 11, 2023, Pope Francis
removed Bishop Strickland from the office of Bishop of Tyler, Texas. The bishop
had “been an outspoken critic of Pope Francis, challenging his leadership over
social media and even daring Francis to fire him during an interview in 2020.”[1]
To challenge the legitimacy of Pope Francis as head of the Roman Catholic
Church is in direct conflict with the oath of obedience to whomever is
the Vicar of Christ (i.e., the pope). Clearly, having “accused Francis of
undermining the central teachings of the church, including on politically
charged issues like abortion and same sex marriage,”[2]
Strickland didn’t believe that the pope, or at least Pope Francis, stands as the
Vicar of Christ to the Church. The bishop’s hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Along
with the other American traditionalists, Strickland didn’t like Francis’ “focus
on migrants and the climate crisis.”[3]
Yet Strickland himself had been very ideological in posting anti-vaccine
messages during the Covid pandemic and calling President Joe Biden an “evil
president” over his support of abortion rights.”[4]
To be sure, Francis’ choice of issues, including economic inequality and the
environment, reflect a certain ideology, but the pope war right in his
criticism of the American traditionalist clerics as too preoccupied with
(human) ideology.
Both sides, and indeed even there
being sides in this fight, could transcend ideology itself by letting go
of all of the political issues and instead focusing on putting into practice what
Jesus says and demonstrates in the Gospel narratives about how people should
treat each other. Beyond neighbor love, and much more difficult, caring for opponents
is how the Kingdom of God grows within and thus in the world, changing it fundamentally
in the process, for faith without love is for naught, Paul wrote.
Although Pope Francis had “frequently
turned the other cheek, going so far as to say he does not seek to crack down
on opponents,” even appointing “to Vatican departments” people “who held
different views than his own,” he decided that Cardinal Burke would “lose some
of his privileges, reportedly including a subsidy for his 4,488-square-foot
apartment and monthly stipend.”[5]
Austen Ivereigh, a papal biographer, told CNN that while meeting the pope on
November 27, 2023, “Francis told me he was taking away the apartment and salary
of Cardinal Burke because he was using these privileges ‘against the church.’”[6]
In what sense? “For so long, Cardinal Burke had been calling into question
Francis’ authority and his teaching. This would be shocking in any
organization, but particularly shocking in the Catholic Church, given the
special role the papacy has in upholding unity,” Ivereigh said.[7]
I contend, however, that the pope
should not only have resisted the temptation to take away his detractor’s
privileges, but also could have been personally serving and caring for Burke on
both a personal and a professional level. This does not mean agreeing with the
Cardinal, or even promoting him to a cushy Vatican office; rather, it means
going beyond the natural tendency to retaliate, and even less convenient route
of turning the other cheek to actively love the Cardinal by caring for him as a
human being, and in that way being a servant leader as Jesus is in the Gospel
narratives. Doing nice things on a human level, such as volunteering to do some
of his errands, like picking up dry cleaning for the Cardinal when he is busy,
does not signal ideological agreement or capitulation. Rather, strength of the
sort that Jesus evinces in the Gospels is shown. Not that there would be any
publicity; the caring must be selfless. To be sure, this may be difficult, as
we’re talking about a pope here, but perhaps he could have less visible people
care for the Cardinal to make his life easier. In theological jargon, going
beyond turning the other cheek to reach out to detractors and even enemies
enables us to go beyond Augustine’s notion of caritas to the relatively
selfless notion of agape.
Cardinal Burke also could have
been acting in compassion for his ideological opponent. That the Cardinal too
was a leader in the Church means that his efforts to help the pope personally would
count as servant leadership. The matter of the oath of obedience would be transcended
by selfless love operationalized as helping the older man with life’s
challenges. What use is jousting over which ideological issues get the
microphone of the Church if its very leaders are resentful and angry at each
other and thus evince not Jesus’ way but that of the Romans and the Sanhedrin?
If an organization can be characterized as being hypocritical, then what’s the
point? Hasn’t the institution already lost?
Lest it be concluded that such a response would only encourage more dissent, it might, but the things being fought over would be relativized—transcended as the Church goes from ideological agendas to focus on something deeper: ultimately, the spiritual feeling that God is present in a very curious way in interpersonal relations run contrary to egos. Hopefully, eventually such love that is not at all convenient, if earnest and sincere, would seep into the fabric of the institution and transform it into something that Jesus would recognize. Gradually, the focus would shift from political ideological agendas on both sides to behaving as Jesus advocates in the Gospel. This would be the focus. A spiritual experience in interpersonal relations would be increasingly felt and even valued and thus the movement would gain traction. The Kingdom of God would be growing as if from a mustard seed. Although hopefully not motivated to serve as a model, the pope’s change of course could rub off on local bishops and parish priests around the globe, as they start to help out those parishioners and employees who have been “pains in the ass.” It is easy to care for, and in this sense serve, friends; it is not easy to enter the Kingdom of God, as it is antithetical to the ways of the world. People who would view Francis as strong for caring for Burke are the authentic Christians, whereas even believers in Jesus who infer weakness and even capitulation on Francis’ part are not Christian. This is admittedly a different litmus test than the one that has enjoyed hegemony throughout the history of Christianity, and the two can lead to different verdicts concerning the same person.
2, Christopher Lamb, “Pope Francis Takes on Unprecedented Attacks from American Opponents,” CNN.com, December 13, 2023.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
