What was the Pope talking about?

A while back, the Pope was poping again, which precipitated much ballyhooing by his detractors. While I find the Pope's penchant for "shooting from the hip" ill advised, particularly in the age of sound bytes, there is a method to his theology that a lot of people overlook. I did track down the Meme source, and it appears to be somewhat accurate in recounting what the Pope said. (The translation from Italian was a bit suspect, but for sake of argument, I will pretend he did say exactly this.)

As such, I had the following question posed to me with the included meme:

So I am very catholic curious, I would not say I am catholic as I still have a few hang ups, but I find a lot of Catholic teaching to resonate and be intriguing. That said, this has been a hangup for me for a while now. If I understand correctly, the Pope is divinely inspired when making Papal ordinances correct? So is this simply a greater demonstration as to the divine nature of ordinances and ecumenical councils when he is this far off not in those settings?

 My response is as follows:

First of all, you have to understand that this is a translation. He was speaking in Italian, and the theological nuances he was using in his original speech are lost in this translation, which makes it sound like it's some sort of oobie doobie heresy of indifferent-ism.

Secondly, you have to understand the context. He was in Singapore, which is not a Christian nation by any stretch. Less than 20% of the population is Christian. They are primarily Buddhist or other Asian religions and Muslim and, interestingly, atheist, as a lot have escaped Communism in China. It's a very small country that has had a lot of feuds historically between all these groups. While it appears to be a stable, even secular, style republic with a Parliament, throw in the vestiges of colonialism, Singapore is basically an authoritarian style government with a corrupt underbelly. Singapore masks a lot of internal problems between various groups.

 

The Pope is not just a spiritual leader but a head of state. So, when he makes visits to foreign, particularly, non-Western countries, there is a whole lot of diplomacy going on as well. A lot of people don't grasp that. A lot of people think the Pope is just a super-Bishop speaking only to Christians on Christian doctrines that only Christians understand. There is a whole other level of political stuff going on any time the Pope makes an official visit. Politics being what they are, sometimes when the Pope makes statements like this, he is not necessarily speaking only Christian things to other Christians. He's speaking to the masses. Ideally, he is working in the message of Christ and the Church, but to people completely outside the Christian (and Western) worldview, sometimes the Pope has to use the language of diplomacy and hit basic topics that seem like common sense See Spot Run stuff to Christians who have been going to Mass their whole lives and are well verses on theology and the Bible, etc. Sometimes you have to feed people milk because they are not ready to process solid foods yet.

 

The Pope is trying to be a peace maker. He is trying to foster international good will. He is trying to create rapport with people from other faith traditions. Sometimes that comes off as flaky theology or what have you. The current Pope is also not the greatest orator or philosopher. We got spoiled with John Paul II and Benedict XVI who were luminous minds and brilliant communicators, each in their own way. JPII was more the philosopher and public speaker. Benedict was an academic who was well trained in precision point theological points, particularly in written form. Pope Francis is neither of those, and to his credit he admits as much. Pope Francis has the penchant to proverbially shoot from the hip when he is publicly speaking. I think he also tends to be a verbal processor, so he sort of works out what he is saying as he is saying it. The results are...to be charitable...mixed. 

 

He also comes from a tradition that is not your standard Western academic background. He's more a man of the people who speaks first with the heart and not necessarily the head. He's also a Jesuit, and Jesuits from the beginning have largely had a charism of shaking up the established "we've always done it this way" mentality. I mean, Ignatius of Loyola was kind of radical in his counter-Reformation forms of spirituality and evangelism. To be fair, what Rome was doing in response to the first wave Protestant Reformers was not working. Pope Francis, whether you like him or not, comes from that same school of thought. He rubs some people the wrong way, and that's a Jesuit trait that he comes by honestly. 

 

Combined with his shoot from the hip public speaking idiosyncrasies, this is why the Catholics that don't like him really don't like him. But, he is still the Pope, and we have to respect him for that by virtue of his office as the Vicar of Christ. We do not have to agree with every single thing that comes out of his mouth, but we do have to pray for him and give him the benefit of the doubt because he is the Holy Father. 

 

Now, to go back to this meme question, again, look at the context. He was speaking to children. He is speaking to children, most of whom were not Catholic. If you have ever been to a school Mass at a Catholic School, the homily is usually not what would be preached to adults on Sunday morning. A good preacher generally speaks in ways and about things his general audience can understand. So, in this particular instance, the Pope was speaking to children in an interracial and interfaith context.

Now, here is what Paul Harvey on the radio used to call "the rest of the story..." The Catholic church has a strong root in what is known as Natural Law theology. I can go on a big discourse on this, but it is really important to understand this. Natural Law is the idea that God gives everyone, regardless of where and into what culture or religion one is born into, a very basic understanding of right and wrong and also an intellect to perceive that there is more to the world than simply the physical reality. There is something beyond just the here and now of the physical world. You see that in any culture across time, from cavemen art to Greco-Roman philosophy. There is this longing and reality for the something that is missing from our fallen state as sinners. We may not yet perceive that hole as God, but there is something that is not quite right in our life. Something missing, a hole that only God can fill. This is what we call Natural Law, the law that God wrote into the hearts of all people across time. These are gifts, fingerprints of the Divine, in all humans.

 

Part of Natural Law is the idea that God is also at work in his Creation. He is trying to bring all things back to Himself to counteract the effects of Adam's fall. He did not just give us this Natural Law and then walk off and abandon us to our devices for 1000s of years. He can and does use every means available to draw people to Himself. That means he can use things like non-Judeo-Christian religions. He can use the forest. He can use anything to make Himself know to those who are truly trying to find that missing piece that Natural Law left in the hearts of everyone.

 

Look at Saint Paul's sermon at the Areopagus at the altar of the Unknown God in the book of Acts. Paul, who was certainly influenced by Stoicism and Greek Philosophy which also believed in Natural Law, flips the script on Natural Law in that sermon. He does not tear down the altar and say, "You pagans are all going straight to hell for worshiping idols with this nonsense." He basically says, "Look, you Greeks and Romans. You have this altar to the Unknown God. You know something is there that you are missing, but you don't know this deity's name. Let me tell you who this Unknown God is..." St. Paul is using Natural Law to proclaim the truth of Christ to people who have no earthly idea who Jesus is or even necessarily who this Hebrew God is. God was using Pagan religion for the right time and place to make Himself known.

 

So, back to Pope Francis' quip here. The Pope is speaking to children and introducing this idea of Natural Law in the same way that Saint Paul was at the areopagus. In essence, he's attempting to use what is already there and understood by these children to further the message of Christ. He is saying, ok, you Muslims believe in one God named that you call Allah...which is the same word Jesus calls out from the Cross. It's usually transliterated into English from Aramiac as "Elah, elah, lama sabacthani" (Luke uses the Greek plural Eloi) But that's the Aramaic word for God: Elah, Eloi, Allah. God is present in some way even in Islam. Same can be true for Hinduism. All these gods are claimed to be manifestations of the One God. Well, let me tell you who that one God actually is. Again, using Natural Law to reach people via religious means and terminology that they already understand. The Pope could have droped a long winded homily on the two natures of Christ, fully man and fully God, and gone into the Athanasian creed, lecturing on "... And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence..."

 

Such a homily would have been precisely theologically correct, but would it have done anything to further the Kingdom of God in the minds of these children from Singapore who would not have understood a single thing he was saying? They would have said, "What is this crazy old man talking about? Essences? Confounding of persons? Crazy talk."

 

He also is taking a page from St. Paul with the bit about saying my religion is better than yours. On one level, yes, that is true. No one comes to the Father except through Christ. Other religions will not in themselves save anyone, but no religion is so far removed from the Natural Law that there is nothing that can't be mined by an astute theologian (or by God Himself) for the greater purposes of conversion and the furtherance of God's Kingdom. What the Pope was talking about here was rubbing other people's noses in your religion, even if (like in the case of Christianity) it is ultimately correct. In the language of children, saying "I'm totally right and you are totally wrong, you pagan poopy head!" does nothing for conversion and the changing of hearts. In fact, if does just the opposite: it closes doors that might have been cracked open just a touch to allow the peeking in to see the Kingdom of God.

 

Case in point: Portuguese raiders in 1613 under the flag of Portugal and proclaiming to be Catholics spreading the true religion, burned the island settlement that would one day become modern Singapore to the ground. Those people have not forgotten that. How different Singapore might be today if the Portuguese would have acted more Christ like at the time. Food for thought. 

 

Now, could the Pope was reworded what he meant here about Natural Law better? Certainly. It does come across, particularly in this flat translation, as some sort of universalism where all religions are the same and as long as you are on some stream, then all streams lead equally to God. That's not true, and I don't believe that's what the Pope meant. He was referring to Natural Law in the sense that God can take any religion or philosophy and use something from it that is gleaned from the basic right and wrong and knowledge of the missing Divine that God puts into the hearts of even some person in the darkest jungle away from Western society that can exist. God can and does move through any religion. That does not mean that religion can save. That is only done in and through Christ, but it can be the building blocks upon which true religion can sprout.