A Few Remarks on Papalotry

Yesterday’s post critiquing a recent article by Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig (ESB) triggered a fair amount of irrational hyperbole, though thankfully less than I originally feared. Taking to Twitter, ESB mocked me for using WordPress (she uses it too) and then claimed she was under attack from “white males” (no comment). No substantive point raised in my post was addressed. Others, however, noted that The New Republic should no longer be taken as a reliable source of thoughtful commentary on much of anything and that when it comes to things Catholic, mainstream secular coverage will almost always be lacking in depth and sophistication. While all of that may be very well true, it doesn’t change the fact that a writer, even a young writer, who previously traded on her academic credentials to position herself as a legitimate authority on Catholic thought should tread lightly when dealing with complex intra-ecclesial affairs. As noted yesterday, the Pope’s critics are not all of the same mind, and their respective relationships to mainline American conservatism oftentimes differ. This is neither new news nor an obscure factoid that might understandably be overlooked. So why was it? One has to wonder.

If there is any “camp” guilty of conflating ecclesial ideology and politics—specifically liberal American politics—it is the Pope’s most vocal supporters rather than his critics. Believing that Francis will finally force the Church to meet secular (post)modernity with open arms, including its emptyheaded values, these liberal Catholics routinely lash out against those who have the temerity to defend doctrinal orthodoxy. These faithful Catholics are quickly compared to the worst examples of political conservatism in action with over-the-top accusations being commonplace. Do you support the Church’s official stand on the sanctity of life? Then you’re a woman-hating misogynist like those Republicans who want to restrict access to abortions. Do you believe sodomy is a sin, one which cries out to Heaven for vengeance? Then you are a rabid homophobe who wants to see gays and lesbians deprived of their rights, etc.

For the liberals, the “Pope is the Faith and the Faith is the Pope,” at least until the next guy puts on the red slippers. Then it will be a game of wait-and-see. Will the next pope change course? Will he crackdown on dissent? Will he honor the customs and traditions of the Roman liturgy or play fast n’ loose with the rubrics? And so on, and so forth. If the next pope fails to conform to some prefabricated, liberal ideal, he will be shunned by the liberals, and then all of their papalotry shall crumble into dust.

Sadly, that likely won’t mark the end of papalotry altogether. A new, possibly more rigorous and austere, pontiff will quickly draw his own legion of idolaters, most of whom would probably put any 19th C. ultramontanist to shame. Overtaken by their exuberance for clear and steady leadership, the next papaloters will keep alive the present myths surrounding the Pope’s authority, competence, and duties—myths which can be very destructive when placed in the service of radical renovators who want the Church to be little more than a spiritual NGO. When the time comes to choose the next pope, conservative and traditional Catholics alike must be on guard against falling into the errors of their estranged liberal brethren. Yes, the pope’s role as supreme teacher and defender of the Faith must be upheld, but only in the light of truth.

This is easier said than done. As conservative and traditional Catholics are forced to endure a period in the Church where the liberals routinely leverage papalotry against them, they will be under considerable temptation to use similar tactics when the road to restoration is opened again. But they needn’t do that. For the pope, in continuity with tradition, can combat the errors which have entered the Church with the power and authority already vested in him. There is no need to make the papacy out to be more than it is, particularly when there is a noble soul standing in the shoes of the fisherman who is willing to reach for the sword of his predecessor in order to defend Christ’s flock from the wolves.


  1. Didn’t the Trads play this game when Benedict XVI was pope? Now the shoe is on the other foot.

      1. I would say that Aethelfrith makes a very cogent point. Look at the New Liturgical Movement blog. Benedict XVI just had to don an old chasuble and it was “reform of the reform,” “brick by brick,” in action. The comments on Rorate Caeli at pope Francis’ election, nearly all cries of woe and despair, and the recent interview with Cardinal Burke in which both insinuated that complete disregard of Rome was tantamount to orthodoxy, &c.

        I have never witnessed such partisanship in the Church in my life.

        1. Most Orthodox don’t even know what Petrine primacy actually is, let alone whether they are for or against it.

          1. That may be so, or not, but either way does not diminish the fuss accorded the Bishop of Rome. And I must confess that I do not understand Petrine primacy at all; what, when, where, why and how immediate, supreme and universal jurisdiction is or is not exercised; nor the varying – and to me capricious – ways that authority is accepted and enforced.
            Nor have I known many Catholics who do either frankly. Some of the most highly educated, now in their sixties, seventies and eighties, people who enjoyed the very apex of institutional Catjolic education, take a very “outsourcing” approach in embracing Papal perogatives. He is the subject matter expert par excellence sitting atop a credible, organized administration of experts, technicians and operators. He further benefits from a degree bestowed by Christ Himself in terms of loosing and binding, such that it presents no problem of faith or logic if he contradicts a predecessor, not if his successor were to restore the status quo ante. “That’s his job, part of the loosing and binding. It’s not my job.”
            I don’t know if this is papalotry or not, or even what you mean – or is generally meant – by Petrine primacy. But I would submit that it is a fair broad brush about how a good number embrace it. When they were younger, things like Limbo, first Friday penance, fasting from midnight the day before, and a whiole lot of other things were incredibly important to them, from Pope on down. And now they are not, and that’s ok, because the guy in Rome said it was ok, and it’s his job to do that. Other stuff is important now, and still different stuff will be important in future generations.

Comments are closed.