A Caution Against Papal Criticism

Pope Francis has yet again come under fire for his newest publication: Dignitas Infinita.  Among the criticisms that traditional Catholics articulate against this document are, most notably, both his explicit stance against the Death Penalty and the concept of humans having infinite dignity in themselves as persons.  There is no allowance for discussion concerning the truth behind asserting that the death penalty is inadmissible as a practice today in light of modern judicial capabilities, though in principle it could be thought of as legitimate - thus bringing up the question on if something is true in theory but in practice is inapplicable, how much consequential weight ought such a theory to have in the dictates of real life (this is a worthwhile discussion).  As to the dignity of the human person, it doesn’t matter to critics of Pope Francis that Aquinas himself asserts that humans in one sense have an infinite dignity in themselves, nor does it matter that Dignitas Infinita specifically says that the dignity of persons is due to the Image of God and is only held in being by God: well meaning Catholics across the nation are quick to jump on the semantics of the English language to more or less declare “not my pope”.  Such critics do not shy from even going so far as to regard the clear teachings within the document concerning transgenderism and abortion as tainted because of their confusion in reading the controversial portions of the document.  Before we add to our own national religious demise, we would do well to remember the largest political and societal rejection of Humanae Vitae was spearheaded (and is still spearheaded) by American Catholics.

The American response and rejection of Humanae Vitae was immediate, nearly universal, and well organized.  Beginning with a secret meeting at the Catholic University of America, many priests were encouraged to sign a document in objection and refutation to the pro-life messages of the encyclical without even being allowed to read the document.  In fact, similar to the widespread reaction to Henry VIII when he broke from Rome, only one priest at that original meeting refused to sign and asked to read Humanae Vitae before he was asked to vehemently oppose it.  This priest was all but ejected from the meeting and held as a naysayer: no discussion would be permitted surrounding the contents of the encyclical.  

The rejection of Humanae Vitae took root quickly in Catholic Churches and their CCD programs, adding to the already swelling sexual revolution happening on our own soil and enshrining it through an apparent endorsement by the largest religious body in the world (if you were not Catholic how would you know any better?).  The opposition to the document did not simply remain within the Church.  It also pervaded American politics, with many politicians declaring that they could set aside what their faith taught in order to politically vote for counter-Catholic policies.  Some of these politicians still maintain this same logic today, and are rightly decried as not living up to their own faith.  

No traditional Catholic today would bless the actions of the liberal radicals who were so instrumental in making abortion almost untouchable in the US today.  How does this relate to criticisms of Pope Francis?  It is a word of caution against the free flowing, ready, vehement and vocal public decries against his publications.  Look how successful the rejection of Pope Paul VI was on a societal level, both in Churches and the community at large.  If we wish to have any semblance of legitimacy in the Roman Papacy after Pope Francis departs the throne, we would do well to echo the sentiment of Thomas More from the play A Man for All Seasons.  When asked if he would sign the document attesting his assent to Henry VIII, he answered that if at all possible, he would indeed sign it.  We cannot go against Church teaching, but we can read the documents from the Vatican through a lens of already settled Church teaching - even if that means pointing out the technicalities which make these teachings consistent.  If we continue to bash the papacy with such vocal and public veracity, we lose all appeal to the See of Peter as authoritative in itself.  I myself am interested in reading some of the articles concerning the Papacy that will be published during the next Papal Reign: will the same authors who so freely criticize the Papacy now be quick to defend the teachings authority of a Papacy that they happen not criticize?  Or will they see the inherent hypocrisy of such an action as a discredit not only to the authority they will then be defending but also to themselves?