Who Am I?

The pope talks about gay people. Continue reading

Pope Francis made an extremely peculiar remark about gay people yesterday: “If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them?” The pundits and Vaticanistas went into a frenzy of speculation as to whether this signaled his intention to change the Church’s policies in any number of areas. My interest was more in the phrasing that the pontiff chose: “who am I to judge them?”

Who is he? He is the guy with the Keys to the Kingdom. He lives in Rome; he must have seen the crossed keys that are displayed nearly everywhere. There must be at least one hundred sets of them in St. Peter’s Basilica alone. According to the most central doctrine — bar none — of the Catholic Church the pope, and only the pope, possesses the authority to determine the requirements for eternal salvation. The words of Matthew XVI encircle the dome of St. Peter’s: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Other opinions are immaterial. “Roma locuta est, causa finita est.”

The Church has never made a big issue of homosexuality. No pope has ever come down as hard on gays as, say, the nineteenth-century popes did on the Freemasons. So, the inclusive tone of Pope Francis’s message did not surprise me, but I found the wording to be absolutely astounding. I have read a considerable amount about every single pope, and I can never recall even one of them who expressed the slightest doubt that he had the authority to condemn a set of acts, a lifestyle, or a specific person. I also cannot remember any pope who considered “good will” as an overwhelmingly mitigating factor when exercising his pontifical judgments.

It is inconceivable that Pope Francis does not know the official interpretation of Matthew XVI. It is the sole basis for the canonizations that he recently announced. So, the only conclusion that seems reasonable is that this pope considers himself qualified to judge that at least two men were worthy of eternal salvation, but he does not feel that that his authority allows him to condemn actions done with “good will.” Pope Urban VI, for one, certainly felt no such reluctance. He formally excommunicated King Charles of Naples three times a day for several years.

Revisiting The Indulgence Trick

Tweet away your time in Purgatory. Continue reading

So, you can win an indulgence if you follow the pope on Twitter, eh? OMG, OMG, let’s all sign up.

I have already written a short chapter on papal indulgences. Basically, all that you need to know about the subject is this:

  1. The theory is derived from the story in Matthew 16 in which Jesus tells Peter: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
  2. Indulgences do not apply to serious sins. If you murder someone, and you are not forgiven, the indulgence is worthless. You are looking at an eternity in the Inferno.
  3. Indulgences apply only to venial sins that have already been confessed to a priest. This is the part that is seldom mentioned.
  4. No one, including the pope, has any idea how long the sentences in Purgatory will be; there are absolutely no established standards. An indulgence of a year might be just what a sinner needed, or it might be meaningless if the sins have earned one tens of billions of years of suffering.

Of course, the faithful go to confession with the express intent of getting their sins large and small forgiven. If they have already been to confession, what need do they have of indulgences? Well, there is the little matter of penance, which is the punishment imposed by the priest. The sins are not technically forgiven until the sinner completes the penance. So the indulgence would be helpful if, and this is a big “if”, one happens to die in the period between the priest’s granting of (conditional) absolution and the sinner’s completion of the prescribed penance, which ordinarily consists of reciting a few prayers. It might help to think of the indulgence as an insurance policy against the possibility of the roof of the church collapsing at the exact moment that one leaves the confessional.

It could happen! The demise of Pope John XXI, the only Portuguese pope, occurred when the roof of his medical laboratory collapsed and crushed him. Whether he had enough time to grant himself a plenary indulgence was not recorded.

This whole scheme would be pretty funny if not for the fact that so many people historically had not fallen for it. Hundreds of thousands of people gave their lives in the crusades, and the motivation for many of them was to earn the way into heaven for themselves or someone else. Countless thousands have made pilgrimages to Rome or other locations in order to rack up indulgences. During the Renaissance a fair number of unscrupulous marketers of indulgences bilked people out of quite a bit of money, which, in many cases the marks desperately needed. This provoked so much resistance that people began to protest. You might have heard of them. They were called Protestants.

The Two New Saints

I did not see this coming. Continue reading

The Vatican recently announced that Pope Francis would canonize two popes, John XXIII and John Paul II. This is truly astounding news. Only three popes since the eleventh century have been canonized. Each of those should probably include an asterisk.

  • Detail of a fresco in Castel Nuovo in Naples.

    Detail of a fresco in Castel Nuovo in Naples.

    Celestine V (1294) should never have been pope. He was a reclusive and ascetic hermit, who had had little contact with humankind for decades. He never even made it to Rome; he took up residence in King Charles’s castle in Naples. After five months of incompetent bungling he was persuaded to resign by his successor, Boniface VIII. The latter promptly imprisoned Celestine, who died in his cell. The King of France, Philip the Fair, hated Pope Boniface, and, after the pontiff died, the king worked hard both to have Celestine canonized and Boniface condemned. He succeeded in the first, but not the second.

  • PiusVFacePius V (1566-1572) was a Grand Inquisitor before he was elected pontiff. He set up a network of spies and informants who fingered people who blasphemed or expressed opinions that could be considered heretical. He also tirelessly strove to rid the world of all forms of evil, and that included Protestants. He conspired with Catherine de’ Medici to exterminate the Huguenots in France. Their plot culminated in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, which occurred a short time after the pope’s death in 1572.
  • PiusXPius X (1903-1904) campaigned against “modernism,” which in his mind included nearly everything that St. Thomas Aquinas had not thought of by the time that he died in 1274. He banned much beautiful music (Mozart, Beethoven, Vivaldi, et al.) from the liturgy. I have long thought that he must have been tone-deaf. He continued the fiction perpetrated by his two predecessors that he was a prisoner in Vatican City. He did not take sides in the runup to World War I, but he definitely admired Kaiser Wilhelm.

All three of these men were saintly, in that they prayed both fervently and continually throughout their lives. I, for one, am happy, however, that very few of their prayers were answered.

When Pope Benedict XVI paid scant attention to the cries of “santo subito” that rang out during the burial ceremonies for his predecessor, John Paul II, I assumed that canonization would not be coming for decades, if then. Many popes have been beatified, but naming one as a saint has been considered by Vatican-watchers as a politically risky move. I never thought that John XXIII (1958-1963) had a chance.

TimeSmallBoth of these pontificates were somewhat controversial. Pope John called the Second Vatican Council, which, in the minds of millions of conservative Catholics, started the Church on a long downward slide. A strong feeling persists among a very large segment of the clergy that he lowered standards to the point that the Church lost its way. They played guitars during mass! Also, he told jokes.

MOYSmallThe highlights of John Paul’s pontificate included his many celebrated trips around the world. The first visit to Poland helped to coalesce the Polish people around the idea of Christianity as a counter to Communism. There is no question that the pope contributed a great deal to the struggle that eventually resulted in the fall of the Iron Curtain. The millions of dollars that the Church directed to the Polish Labor Union Solidarity enabled it to become a political force strong enough to oust the puppet regime and begin the process of freeing the central European countries from the clutches of Russia.

Pundits have speculated that John Paul’s seeming disinterest in the many clerical sex abuse cases would weigh heavily against the prospects of his canonization. Among the clerical hierarchy this might not be that important. Most of them would have done the same thing if they were in his brogans.

Bishop Paulius Marcinkus.

Bishop Paulius Marcinkus.

On the other hand, there is the little matter of the Vatican Bank scandal that spanned the last years of Paul VI’s pontificate and the early years of John Paul’s. If there were still a Devil’s Advocate process, I wonder how the person defending the pope’s reputation would answer the charges that the bank lost hundreds of millions of dollars while engaging in schemes that involved some of the shadiest characters around, at least two of whom ended up murdered. The director of the bank, an American named Paulius Marcinkus, was indicted by the Italian government, but he was never arrested because he avoided Italian soil by staying in Vatican City. Pope John Paul definitely protected Bishop Marcincus, who had twice saved the pontiff’s life by subduing armed assailants.

SGSmallOne good thing that may come from this unusual event is to diminish the emphasis on so-called miracles. These two men did not walk on water; in fact Pope John hardly ever walked on land because in his time the pontiff was still carried around in the outrageous sedia gestatoria! The miracles mentioned these days almost always are based upon testimony that someone was cured of a fatal disease or injury because someone prayed to the new saint or used an object related to him to effect a cure.

I assumed from what I had read that the conservatives in the Curia were too powerful for any pontiff to consider nominating John Paul II, much less John XXIII, for canonization. In theory the pope can do whatever he wants, but every pope in the last few centuries has been careful about stepping on the toes of those of high rank. Maybe their power was just overrated; maybe Pope Francis just doesn’t care. It will be interesting to see if any backstabbing results from this.

I know one thing: conservative American Catholics cannot be happy. John XXIII was an unrepentant liberal, and John Paul II, although conservative when it came to doctrinal matters, had absolutely no use for George W. Bush and his wars. He personally persuaded several leaders to vote against the UN resolutions concerning the invasion of Iraq.