Pope Francis has opened a door – let us enter

When he first appeared on the balcony of St Peter¹s last March he looked
somewhat hesitant, almost diffident. By the time he had finished speaking,
however, it was clear that something new and exciting was happening. His
familiar style of address, his request for prayers, his stress on being
Bishop of Rome and his gentle smile all combined to suggest something of
great interest was brewing.
And so it has proved to be. We have a pope who makes the church seem
attractive, from whose core emanates the good news of mercy and love, the
Gospel of Joy, with an instinctive and intelligent reaching out to and from
the poor and marginalised. You get a sense that this is not someone who is
either afraid of the world or condemnatory only, but who rejoices in the
beauty and wonder of life, while not blind to its cruelty and injustice. He
does condemn that injustice, while calling those responsible for it to
conversion. He has the gift of speaking in graphic images which touch hearts
as well as minds, inside the church and way beyond its confines.
What is extraordinary in all this is that he has managed, seemingly
effortlessly, to combine the notion of a missionary church, with good news
for our world, with that of internal church reform ­ and show that the two
are intrinsically linked. And so, for example, in his remarks about the
culture of consumerism and its deadening effects (‘the globalization of
indifference¹), his analysis moves on to critique the structures of the
dominant neo-liberal economic model (with its deficient ‘trickle down¹
economic theory) and calls for reform – while, at the same time, instituting
reform within the Vatican¹s own financial structures, well aware that to
call for the former without the latter would be to greatly weaken the force
of his argument. And all the time one gets a sense of someone who is in
touch with the miseries of the poor (and yet well aware of how much they
have to teach the rest of us), of the need for attitudinal and cultural
conversion, but also for new structures of economic, social and political
accountability.
And, of course, this carries over to his analysis of ecclesial life. He is
clear that it has to be more collegial, less monarchical, at all levels,
including that of the papacy itself. He leads by example ­ where he lives,
the car he uses, the dress he wears, the people he greets- so that,
amazingly, in his humility he has the courage and strong sense of self to
take on a centuries old Vatican culture which takes for granted a very
different way of doing things. But he is also clear that attitudinal change
on its own is insufficient ­ and so he set up the collegial group of 8
Cardinals (the so-called C8) to help govern the church and, in particular,
to reform the Roman Curia, he has invited world-wide consultation on the
family (the focus of many disputed areas of teaching in the Church) as part
of his aim to make the Synod of Bishops a more dynamic body, he has
established a group to examine the issue of clerical child sexual abuse and,
as noted already, a new Vatican Council for the Economy with 7 lay expert
members among the group of 15, and he has made some important new
appointments.
I suggest there are several interesting developments to watch out for over
the next while. The first, drawn to our attention very cogently by Mary
McAleese in a recent Tablet article (March 8, 2014), is whether his notion
of a collegial church will include shared decision-making or just
consultation. From his Jesuit background Francis would be familiar with the
notion of widespread consultation (although, she has confessed, he did not
himself practise this well enough when Provincial), but also with the
juridical right of one person alone to make the decision. A synodical way of
proceeding (which he has affirmed) involves not just consultation but also
decision making (as, in practice, is very often the case in Jesuit life and,
perhaps much more so, in other religious congregations). Can he find the
correct structures and institutions to make this a reality, a reality which
will survive his own demise?
Secondly, since at the very least he is advocating that consultation be real
and not just token and ceremonial, and since he views the lay faithful and
in particular the poor as a locus theologicus, a source of theology and
teaching, then how will he handle situations where the ‘sense of the
faithful¹ is clearly at odds with current Catholic teaching? Already one
gets a sense that there may be some movement possible on the issue of access
to the Eucharist for people who are divorced and remarried, and that, very
sensibly, not by way of Papal authority but collegially, by way of the Synod
of Bishops, with and under the Bishop of Rome (cum et sub Petro). But what
of an issue like the ordination of women, which he has already said is not
up for discussion? I simply note here his own words to his fellow bishops
that they should listen to everyone ‘and not simply to those who would tell
him what he would like to hear¹ (Evangelii Gaudium, 31). Will he have the
confidence to trust in the process of discernment ­ not a populist listening
to the loudest voices of course- which may lead the Church into
uncomfortable places?
Thirdly, it will be interesting to see if he can follow through on his
desire that women should have a more prominent, visible role in Church life,
not least in decision making. Again the distinction he makes between
‘sacramental power¹ and other forms of power will surely be tested here. I
note Cardinal Kasper¹s regret that women are not involved in the preparation
for the upcoming Synod. I note too that no female economist figures on the
list of lay experts chosen for the new Council for the Economy.
Finally, while it is undoubtedly true that the Church can too easily be
scapegoated around the issue of sexual abuse and that much progress has been
made, it nevertheless remains true that at central level the Church was slow
to learn and must surely bear some responsibility for the terrible damage
done. Legally the Church tends to fall back on what theologian Gerard
Mannion calls a ‘negative subsidiarity¹ in this matter, arguing that the
Holy Sea has no responsibility for what goes on in local, regional areas.
But of course for centuries this same Church has failed to exercise a
‘positive subsidiarity¹ by allowing real power to local churches, so that
the central administration must bear some moral responsibility at least for
failures at local level. One thinks in Ireland of the very mixed messages
coming from the Vatican at a time when the Irish Bishops were trying to get
their Guidelines passed advising mandatory reporting to civil authorities.
And one wonders about the responsibility of the central administration even
still to more pro-actively follow up on this issue in parts of the world
where seemingly, but improbably, there is little cause for discussion or
action.
Francis ­ and maybe even Brian O¹Driscoll, in his own ‘field of play¹?!-
would be the last to want any cult of celebrity, verging on idolatry. He
surely has his own cultural blind-spots and it would be foolish of the rest
of us simply to sit back and admire, as if there was nothing for us to do.
At the core of his message, the message of Jesus Christ, is that each of us,
guided by the Holy Spirit, has a unique role to play ­ in life and, for the
baptized, in the Church. We can surely be grateful for this wonderful moment
of opportunity, and to Francis for providing it. Now let¹s use it, let¹s go
through the door that has opened, and let¹s make our own contribution which,
with the Spirit¹s help will involve dialogue, sometimes confrontation, and
always greater richness.