Maureen Mullarkey’s characteristically vivid comments on Pope Francis and the environment have drawn much attention from participants in the Internet Francis Wars. One big reason is that her comments sometimes go beyond the vivid to the caustic (“press toads,” “ideologue,” “meddlesome egoist,” “megalomania”). Another is that they were made on her blog at First Things, a circumstance that seemed to give them institutional status and led Rusty Reno, FT’s editor, to criticize and dissociate himself from them.
The situation–both with the Pope and with MM, FT, and RR–could be discussed from a thousand perspectives, and has been, mostly without the charity, civility, and concern for the common good participants talk about. I’m no more knowledgeable or highminded than the next guy, but the basic issues are important so here are some comments for the pot:
- As RR notes, His Holiness uses “exaggerated and divisive rhetoric” in “pungent, often hyperbolic statements.” The rhetoric and statements, not to mention those of MM’s critics, are often less reasoned and more caustic than MM’s piece. How should a writer whose talent is for striking insightful statement and quick journeys to the bottom line rather than cautious beard-tugging and brow-furrowing respond to such a situation?
- MM presents persuasive evidence that on the environment HH has been acting more like a bandwagon-climber than a biblically-based spiritual leader. Even so, I’d agree with RR that he’s not really an ideologue: his way of looking at things seems much too personal and influenced by particular experiences and conflicts. He’s intelligent but not an abstract or systematic thinker. So he’ll pick up ideological themes and tags that sound good to him, and do with them what he wants. Whether that’s better or worse than being an ideologue is up to you.
- I doubt I’ll read his forthcoming encyclical unless a special reason comes up. He’s the Pope, with all the authority of his office, but the Church has had lots of saints, popes, and doctors. I don’t think I’m obliged to attend to his particular views for my general guidance, any more that I’m obliged to do so with my parish priest when I’ve concluded after a couple years he’s an odd guy with idiosyncratic views and a quirky way of expressing them.
- Is HH an egoist or megalomaniac? RR considers such assertions out of line for someone who’s not an intimate. I can understand saying that, although if it applies to the pope it should also apply to other public figures. Still, indications such as his tendency to speak abusively of people and his agents’ handling of the recent synod, which he combined with homilies on the “God of surprises” and such, suggest problems with the man’s understanding of his place in the scheme of things.
- More generally, there’s the problem of what to say about a problematic pope. MM wants to speak boldly as things seem to her. Others are more cautious on a variety of dimensions and for a variety of reasons. And then of course there are the substantive issues, on which opinions differ sharply. It takes all kinds to make a world, not to mention a worthwhile discussion: not everybody could be a good pope, university president, or editor-in-chief, and not everybody could be a blogger who adds a different and essential dimension to the publication she’s associated with. From each according to his gifts, to each according to charity, desert, and (no doubt) one’s current mood.