People in glass houses should not throw stones. Or, the
person who is without sin casts the first stone. Lastly, a house divided cannot
stand, at least in the long run. Yet houses are so rarely as fundamentally
divided as the one in which I grew up. Regarding religious institutions,
theological differences can be allowed to blow up into major, life-threatening
disputes, or papered over by sins of omission pertaining to just how deep a
fissure goes. Conflicts, in other words, can be exacerbated or mollified,
depending on the temperaments.
On February 7, 2018, Joe Ratzinger, a former pope of the
Roman Catholic Church, wrote a letter pertaining to a multi-volume book on the
then-current pope’s theology. Reading from the letter at the book’s
presentation the next month, Dario Vigano, the prefect of the Vatican’s
communications office, said that Benedict, the
former pope, confirmed that Francis, the current pope, had a solid
theological and philosophical training and that the book showed the “interior
continuity” between the two papacies.[1]
This “left the impression that the 91-year-old retired pope had read the [book]
and l endorsed it, when in fact he hadn’t.” The retired pope had not read the
book!
Vigano was guilty of bearing false witness; he lied. He also
conveniently left out the last two lines of the first page of Benedict’s
letter, and the Vatican went so far as to blur the lines in a digitally
manipulated photo of the page released
to the public. The former pope noted in those lines that the author of one of
the volumes—a progressive theologian by the name of Peter Huenermann, “had launched
‘virulent,’ ‘anti-papist’ attacks against [Benedict’s] teaching and that of
Pope John Paul II.[2] But
is criticism of the theological interpretations of two popes in particular the
same as criticizing the papacy itself?
It apparently felt so to the retired pope, who consequently decided he had
insufficient time in a retirement confined to the Vatican to read the book. He had
not read the book, so he could not possibly have found in it an “interior
continuity” between him and Pope Francis.
As if bearing false witness were not hypocritical enough for
the Vatican, the Secretariat for Communications made reference to the “presumed
manipulation” of the letter even though the office had just released the entire
letter, in focus, publicly, which clearly showed that manipulation had taken
place. Indeed, the Vatican admitted that it had blurred the final two lines of
the first page of the letter. The Secretariat “said its decision to withhold
part of the letter [had been] based on its desire for reserve, ‘not because of
any desire to censor.’”[3]
Recalling the detective Perot reacting to the old countess in the film, “The
Orient Express,” I answer in a similarly raised, shrilled voice, obfuscation and another lie!
The inherently irresolvable, Kierkegaardian sort of irony
can be found in Pope Francis having dedicated his annual message for the church’s
social communications day to fighting fake news and the distortion of
information. That pope had “frequently criticized journalists for only giving
half of the story.”[4] Francis
probably had had the United States in mind, and deservingly so, for the
splinting of network news had resulted in some very partisan news networks,
and, perhaps relatedly, U.S. President Trump had presented his country and the
world with a gaping loophole: the possibility that lies can slip through with
impunity such that truth itself becomes, as Nietzsche had urged, a problem
rather than a given.
As bad as fake news is in the media and government, the
added element of hypocrisy in a Christian church that recognizes the Decalogue
as truth renders the Vatican’s lapse much more severe. Alternatively, the
Vatican could have produced the entire letter and mollify any perceived cleft
between the two living popes as that which exists between theology and pastoral
care. A woman who thought I might make a suitable pastor at her church, said to
me when I visited her church, “I know you got the theology down, but can you care
for the people?” I answered affirmatively; she should have asked about my
theology instead, for I am indeed a deep thinker who transcends reigning
assumptions, sometimes treating them as problems rather than as given. I
suppose folks could make my propensity into a big deal, or not, depending on their penchant for conflict.
Certainly the two co-extant popes could be said have differed. I submit that they were closer on Catholic social ethics than people
who conflate style for substance have realized. Both popes resisted the
institution of women priests, and both men maintained that homosexuality is a
sin. Perhaps Benedict put more emphasis on God’s judgment while Francis pointed
to God’s mercy. Is such a “division” worth fighting over? Can it instead be
transcended? I submit that a focus on transcendent, religious or spiritual
experience, which is oriented beyond the limits of human cognition, sensibility,
and perception, can relegate differences of emphasis on theological and
pastoral matters. Put another way, the people invested psychologically in
turning mole hills into mountains with troops digging in on both sides are not
transcending in a religious sense. This includes Vatican officials, for time
devoted to lying and manipulating could otherwise be more focused on what
really matters in a religious organization. The worldly, our realm of quotidian
activity in which we live, can be viewed as merely a surface that can be
transcended in a distinctly religious sense. What I remember about Pope John
Paul II was images of him kneeling whether in prayer or raw yearning for God.
His views on women or gays in the church pale in comparison. So too, his
anti-communist view and work similarly have fallen aside. A religious
organization is primarily about religiosity. Perhaps both Benedict and Francis
could emulate their common predecessor in this respect.
For more on religion and leadership, see "Christianized Ethical Leadership," and "Spiritual Leadership in Business."
1. Nicole Winfield, “Vatican Bows to Pressure, Releases Retired Pope’s Letter,” Religion News Service, March 18, 2018.
