Fiducia Supplicans and the Shattering of the Modern Papacy
Can the Modern Papacy Survive Loss?
A week into a world after Fiducia Supplicans (the DDF declaration that attempts to offer a way to bless same sex couples without blessing same sex unions), we are beginning to see some clarity in a rare (but not unprecedented) time in the Church. As we go over the fallout, I do not feel it needed to list out what the Declaration does (outside of a few necessary points for the narrative), does not, etc. People can go read that elsewhere. I also do not think its needed to spend much time about whether or not this will lead to schism. While always possible, I think that overhypes what is happening on the ground. Communion will bend but not likely break. Rather I would like to focus briefly on what this says about several trends in the modern Church.
The Centralizing Pope vs the Decentralizing Church
One of the great trends of the Church since the Second Vatican Council was that the Church, while remaining a fundamentally European institution, began to become less and less European. America left the peripheries of the Church and began to enter the mainstream. Latin America dominated the papacy of the 1980s. The Church exploded outwards in Africa. To rule over a multicultural empire (whether a civil or religious empire) is often listed as a cause of death on many imperial powers. There will always be cultural blinders among the ruling class, biasing their own backgrounds to the extent of everyone else.
Despite the protestations of Cardinal Fernandez and other papal courtiers, this is not a “Latin American” papacy. The priorities of the pope are mostly the priorities of the episcopal conferences of Western and Northern Europe. Trying to understand FS without this in mind is bound to cause problems. FS is written in a society that has not just ‘lost’ the cultural war over homosexuality, it has surrendered almost entirely. Homosexuality is a normative experience, and the Church needs to accept this normative experience. All poles of society accept this normative experience. (By normative I do not mean that homosexuality is a majority, or even a large minority, but an acceptable choice among many in orientation in life.) The Church, attempting to face this reality, tries to concede as much as possible without giving in on something essential. That is what FS is: how close can we get to blessing a regular occurrence in society without going over? It should come as no surprise that the strongest levels of support for FS are in places like Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.
It was inevitable that these two tensions (A Northern European agenda for a global Church) would come into tension, and with FS, that tension has burst onto the scene. In Africa, this cultural understanding just doesn’t exist. Even in lands where homosexuality isn’t illegal, it is something viewed as not normative. If you talk to any priest who is ministering in Africa (I have been blessed to talk to 10 or so), the first question every one of them is asking is: Why does the Pope feel the need to do this? This isn’t an issue here.
Francis’ Church of Virtue
The other noticeable trend within Catholicism the past decade has been the attempt by Francis (and the papal court) to redefine, as much as possible, what is an acceptable Christian outlook, and that outlook is entirely based upon the person of Jorge Bergoglio. In many ways, Francis has tried to make himself the center of Christianity, a symbol of unity in a fractious world. He decides how much emphasis everyone should put on something. (Americans focus too much on abortion.) He has attempted to remake national episcopates into his image, with very limited success. (His allies like Cupich and McElroy are treated as foreign puppets by their brother bishops and many of their flocks, and the first complaint they give is the conferences do not adhere to Francis’ desire for the Church.) To papal courtiers like Tony Annett and Austen Ivereigh, Francis has become what Comrade Stalin was to communism: the very point. Hence Annett could complain that seminarians have different priorities deviating from the pure Christianity of Francis. (A quick test: anytime you see a papal courtier praising Francis, change his name to Comrade Stalin, and see how absurd it sounds.)
In some sense, this attempt to dissolve the previous Church and build another was inevitable: The Church before Francis was in a deep crisis, and by the end of Benedict’s pontificate major fault lines had developed, in addition to Benedict solving (or ending) old problems. The rise of social media allowed Francis’ pontificate to be covered, live, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This was impossible in the papacies of Benedict and John Paul II.
Yet like previous polities centered around virtue (let the reader understand), everything becomes intensely personal. Those with different priorities are not men of goodwill: they are wicked individuals trying to sabotage the institution. If virtue is selfless, they are selfish. Since the entire pontificate is founded upon rooting out this selfishness and instilling virtue, the papacy inevitably goes looking for fights to pick, since there will always be insufficient virtue in a Church of virtue.
This relentless push upon subordinates to increasingly adopt a program with increasing devotion and vehemence continues right up until the moment it doesn’t, and then previous allies quickly become enemies. It is not surprising that former allies of the Pope and bishops appointed by the Pope are now among his fiercest critics on FS.
The Vatican Loses Control
These two trends against the modern papacy (the globalization of the Church and individuals who no longer feel the program pushed by the top represents them) didn’t start with FS, but FS has ignited them. FS is essentially a dead letter in Africa and Eastern Europe. The Americans, with their talent for legalism, are showing once again how to reinterpret a papal decree in living color, as it is supported but robbed of any meaning. (Using the foil of the media to accomplish this very cynical but rather brilliant game.)
The Vatican is attempting to show strength, but you should probably not invest heavily in it. After being clear that Bishops could offer no guidance of their own, various national conferences and individual bishops began offering their own guidance. Faced with this de facto rejection of papal authority, Rome attempted to say that such guidance was welcomed, but it could not be used to ban priests from carrying out the blessings of same sex couples. Multiple national conferences (and even a sui iuris church!) have done precisely that. Reassurances from both Cardinal Fernandez and Pope Francis that FS doesn’t change Church doctrine have fallen on deaf ears, because for these bishops, the issue isn’t whether or not a statement can check a “doctrinally orthodox” box on a piece of paper before being shoved into a filing cabinet. There are serious concerns about what is the limiting principle (gay couples can be blessed, but what about polygamous couples? Why a couple and not an institution? What’s stopping a private blessing of abortion clinic workers, or even an organized crime outfit? Surely they have positive elements!), and how this works out in reality. (99% of gay couples, including the most prominent couple blessed, saw the blessing as validating their relationship. ) There is serious doubt a couple can be blessed but the union of that couple cannot. Simply repeating it won’t satisfy their fears, especially in light of the two previous tensions mentioned.
We have not reached the end as to how this plays out, but one thing is increasingly likely: the previous conception of the papacy is likely gone and not coming back. It is no longer culturally relevant in a globalized Church, and people increasingly aren’t buying into its current occupant, who did I mention is 87 and in poor health? The Church in Rome may double down on an attempt to keep the Church in the past, but she may find herself increasingly a spectator in the governance of the global communion she heads, without providing a coherent ecclesiology for this reality. Those betting that this will calm down in time should probably buckle up for a wild 2024.