Is the Pope Catholic?

Yes, this is a rhetorical question, but one particularly reflexive in nature. Yes, I'm writing about Pope Francis. (The confused reader may ask, why am I writing this in a political blog instead of a religious blog? In fact, I've thought of expanding my blogs to include a religious or finance blog but haven't made the commitment. I have occasionally touched on Catholic issues, in particular because of the blurring of the lines between political and religious morals (e.g., theft, murder, lying, etc.) and I have been a conservative critic of the permissive culture (sex, drugs, etc.) This is not a contradiction of my libertarian beliefs; just because I think you are doing something wrong, though short of violating a fundamental right of life, liberty or property, doesn't mean I believe in using force/government policy, versus persuasion, to impede your behavior. There is nothing virtuous about your doing the right thing if you are doing it not for intrinsic reasons but fear of legal sanctions.)

I particularly have a strong dislike of Catholic "progressives" (and most Catholic Democratic politicians) whom are not only judgmental hypocrites but subordinate core religious/moral principles to the tepid emulation of politically correct secular humanism. I have repeatedly pointed out with scriptural examples that Jesus rejected political interpretations of His teachings and mission; He focused on spiritual development not policies of material redistribution. Charity is something you do as an aspect of your love and fidelity to God; you do not do it for public recognition or for reasons of legal compliance. Misguided social policies, far from promoting spiritual development, can be morally corrosive and dubious: "I've done my part: I've enabled compulsory charity: taking money out of other people's pockets and giving the money to needier people." In fact, it is morally hazardous and stunts personal and spiritual development.  It is also a pathetic reduction or poor substitute of charity. Let us recall  this sequence from A Christmas Carol:

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not....
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.

I've mentioned in past posts that I thought I had a vocation to study for the priesthood when I started college at 16 (and graduated as a teen); I hadn't even had a girlfriend until college. But that was only one reason I deferred a decision to pursue the priesthood; I didn't like what I saw as a misguided effort by the Church to become "relevant", in my view, to accommodate (versus rebuke) the godless hedonistic culture. It's difficult to pick the "straw" that broke the camel's back, but I distinctly remember what I call the "Olivia Newton John" sermon while pursuing my first Master's degree at a Catholic student center at the University of Texas. It was a homily focused on the Australian singer's monster pop hit "Have You Never Been Mellow?" I don't recall God making a guest appearance in the sermon.

Then familiar readers may recall a couple of incidents in my experience at the University of Houston Catholic Newman Center. In one case, some feminist ideologue had gone through the missals scratching out, from the fourth-century Nicene creed  "...for us men...". It was patently absurd to interpret this from a judgmental presentist, politically correct context. The Church has always recognized and promoted female saints, starting with Jesus' mother Mary. (In fact, some male religious use 'Mary' as a middle name.) The term "men" was meant to emphasize our lowly, short-lived, frail human condition, not some he-man, women haters' club. Were the ideologues so small-minded and trivial, so devoid of a scintilla of common sense that they had to censor missals (under what "higher" authority?) and vandalize property that wasn't their own in the process?

Second, I often served as a reader (typically one of the two Old Testament or apostolic readings before the priest or deacon reads the gospel) and/or lay Eucharistic minister. Typically the Newman priests had a practice of mixed-gender reader pairs. One Sunday, a scheduled reader was a no-show, and the coordinator was scrambling for a last-minute replacement and spotted me sitting in the congregation. It turned out the missing reader was a woman and after mass at our doughnut and coffee social, half a dozen feminist coeds were pitching a temper tantrum over two men as readers. I think the harried coordinator took most of the abuse, but I got my share.... Funny--I thought I was doing a favor; I had not sought the opportunity, and this was not premeditated. The reaction was just so pathetic and over the line; they were clueless how inappropriate and un-Christian their judgmental behavior was. And the funny thing is they are alienating some of us whom are gently but firmly pushing for relevant reforms.

I have concerns about Pope Francis. One of my signature quote/criticisms of Barack Obama is that if there is one thing he knows, it's symbolism. I'm beginning to think the same may be true of the Holy Father. Now, to be honest, I thought His groundbreaking washing and kissing of two women's feet on Holy Thursday (including a Serbian Muslim's) was charming; it reminded me of Mary Magdalene's washing Jesus' feet and drying them with her hair; as most Christians know, Jesus after the Resurrection first appeared to Mary Magdalene. But lately he's sent out mixed messages, which I think have been taken out of context by the mainstream media; he needs to avoid the appearance of saying things that seem suggestive of equivocating thousands of years of unambiguous moral teachings. He has to control the message and not let the "progressives" define it.

In particular, I'm referring to:

• the pontiff pointed out Jesus' redemption for all of us, including atheists; some progressives have confounded redemption with salvation: the Holy Father didn't say or imply that good-works doing atheists would go to heaven, that being a believer is inconsequential;
• the pontiff talked about ministering more to women whom have had elective abortion; first, the Holy Father is not questioning the abomination of murdering a preborn child; he's underscoring the importance of ministering to any repentant sinner whom has murdered anyone, preborn or born. It's not clear to me why he's emphasizing this point in the context of abortion, e.g., are some priests refusing to grant absolution in the confessional? I suspect, as in the case of atheists, he is simply trying to fashion a more inclusive message, that God's gift of love is available to all men (and women) of good will.
• the Holy Father infamously asked "Who am I to judge" gays. First, only God can judge; priests through the grace of God can forgive the authentically repentant sinner in the sacrament of penance. Second, "hate the sin; love the sinner"; the Church is open to all sinners, even gay ones. Third, the Church regards sex outside the sacrament of traditional marriage, including homosexual sex, as sinful; that's not open to question or equivocation. Again, the pontiff understands that most homosexuals were born with an alternative sexual preference and wants to fashion an inclusive message, but believers are expected to be chaste (including straight bachelors like me) outside of marriage; we must control our sinful urges.
• the Holy Father's second, his Secretary of State Archbishop Pietro Parolin, has suggested the traditional practice of priestly celibacy, i.e., married priests, might be up for discussion. This should not be that much a surprise because the Vatican in 2009 allowed married Anglican bishops to convert as priests; in fact, the first Pope, the Apostle Peter, had a mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14), and tradition has it all the apostles other than John were married. Personally, I'm open to this reform; the reason for the vow is that it has been thought that unmarried priests would be freer to service all the people of God better not being tied down with worldly obligations.
• the pontiff is frustrated that the Church is being typecast by the mainstream media by controversial moral teachings on abortion, gays, and artificial contraceptives.

In short, yes, the Pope is Catholic, and the teachings of the Church remain consistent. I think the Pope is trying to reinvent the image of the papacy by saying things that get the mainstream media buzzing: "any publicity is good publicity". However, I do not want him to be the equivalent of the pop songstress Madonna, doing or saying the unexpected. I don't want leadership by gimmick; I don't want the Church to appease the hedonistic culture but to challenge it, just as John the Baptist called out King Herod and Jesus cleared the Temple of money changers . I would like to see him challenge the failed godless Statist culture, the "progressive"/collectivist ideological claptrap.