Pope Francis has been laid to rest. And now, the truth must be faced: the Catholic Church is in a state of crisis -- perhaps the most serious crisis the Church has faced in nearly 100 years.Francis (aka Jorge Mario Bergoglio) was a highly authoritarian pope who ruled in an autocratic manner. During his reign he kept even his allies guessing regarding his next move, was distrustful of the Church hierarchy and, whether intentionally or not, sowed runaway confusion about the core teachings of the Church as well as the Church's commitment to those teachings.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to what two renowned Catholics and Church experts have to say on this subject. First, columnist and author Peggy Noonan:
There is broad appreciation for the man and his efforts but not deep sadness at the end of his papacy. In its dozen years, Francis was often confusing, with striking impulses followed by unexplained silences, with a lack of doctrinal clarity. For me the whole blur culminated in the Synod on Synodality, essentially a conference on having conferences. His liberalism seemed uncertain except when it was aggressive, even belligerent . . .
Remember, Noonan is a devout Catholic. Now, here's an observation from another devout Catholic and respect Church scholar, the esteemed biographer of Saint John Paul II (John Paul the Great), Paul Weigel. Here, he describes the Great Divide that the Church now faces:
Fundamental questions are at stake in the choice of a new Bishop of Rome . . . the fault line within Catholicism has been defined by two competing understandings of the Church’s approach to the modern world, especially on questions of religious authority, human dignity and the place of sexuality in our lives.
According to one interpretation, the [Second Vatican] Council began the Church anew, and if that means jettisoning or modifying truths held for almost two millennia, so be it. The other interpretation holds that Vatican II reformed the Church in dynamic continuity with its settled tradition, as the Church finds fresh ways to present ancient, enduring truths.
Both New Model Catholicism and Dynamic Orthodoxy, as we might call them, seek to make the Church attractive to Christians and others looking for spiritual insight and guidance amid today’s cultural turmoil. Only Dynamic Orthodoxy has been successful in drawing growing numbers of people to the Church, especially outside the regions where the faith began. Which view will prevail?
Again, Weigel adds that "Francis has been the most autocratic pontiff in centuries."
Will the Church now modify or jettison 2,000-year-old core truths and "so be it," as Weigel explains or will it opt for a "dynamic" return to core teachings in an manner that has already proved successful in growing the Church both in emerging nations as well as in some Catholic communities in North America? This is a critical question and one which must be confronted because, from all indications, this Church's fault line is at a perilous point. Indeed, under Francis it most assuredly grew deeper and wider.
About a week from now the cardinals will begin their conclave to select a new pope. How will the voting break? Who will emerge to lead the Church through this quagmire?
Again, we turn to Weigel, writing in today's Wall Street Journal, who warns against assuming that all those cardinal electors appointed by Pope Francis (about 80% of them) will necessarily choose a new Pope in his mold:
Today, 13% of the cardinal-electors are from sub-Saharan Africa, the Church’s greatest area of growth, and 17% are from Asia. Latin America and the Caribbean will provide 13% of the electorate, North America 10%, Oceania 2%, and Europe 39%, despite much of the Church there being on life support.
Let's do the math. It takes a two-thirds vote (67%) of the cardinals to become Pope. Europe still holds the biggest block of votes with 39%. They're followed by Asia with 17%, Africa with 13%, Latin America with 13% and North America with 10%. But Europe and North America (49% combined) do not seem likely to vote in a block. Africa and Asia, as a block could bring in nearly a third of the vote. Africa, Asia and Latin America could bring in 43% -- a significant number, far exceeding that of previous conclaves for these regions. Suppose these newer areas of Church dominance decided to show their mettle? Combined with North America, they could put a papal candidate over the critical 50% mark.
Yet, it may be personalities more than regions that will eventually sway the vote. And, cardinal electors may still be feeling sentimental toward the Franciscan era following the pope's funeral, thus impacting their judgement. Under such circumstances, if traditionalism is to prevail, the new pope will need to be a sort of stealth candidate. He may need to look and sound gentle, merciful and vaguely modernist while actually committing those very traits to a return to bedrock teachings. Or, he may present as a compromising bridge-builder while actually skewing traditionalist. Indeed, he may appear to be a product of the moderate/progressive wing but once ensconced, restore some semblance of orthodoxy. Barring that, we're in for more of the same -- not a good scenario!
