Meier, Michael, Der Papst der Enttäuschungen: Warum Franziskus kein Reformer ist (The Pope of Disapointments: Why Francis is no Reformer)

Verlag Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 2024

What does the progressive establishment think of Francis? You would think their evaluation should be entirely favorable. After all, under the Woke Pope (Newsweek) there’s virtual identity now between the positions of the extreme left (those previously called by some “dissidents”), and that of the ecclesiastical establishment. However, that is not necessarily the case.  The Pope of Disappointments sums up the Francis papacy from the German perspective. The author, Michael Meier, is Swiss, but the Swiss and Austrian Catholic churches function as a kind of subgroup of the German Church. For many years Meier was religion editor for the Zürich Tages-Anzeiger, a left-leaning paper. (Of course, just as in the Catholic Church, previously middle-of-the-road and even conservative German media by now have been largely absorbed into the dominant progressive culture).

It is admittedly difficult for me to acclimatize myself to the Catholic progressive world view.  First, the norms of “modern” Western society are an absolute value for the German progressives. Second, their progressive faith is encapsulated in a set of specific demands, reiterated endlessly for decades now: liberty for contraception and divorce, married clergy, women clergy, full acceptance of the LGBTQ movement within the Church, and a relaxed attitude towards abortion. These demands – or “reforms” – are presented as self-evident axioms – they require no defense or explanation. Meier describes progressives as Reformkatholiken – an ideologically loaded concept from the 19^th century, Third, the focus of these reformers is relentlessly secular and political. Reforming the role of women in Church, for example, is defined as their obtaining ever more power in the institution. Finally, the entire doctrinal structure of the Church is assumed to be just a set of administrative rules, susceptible to immediate and summary change. 1)

Now what is Meier’s verdict on Francis? As the title of the book indicates,  he has not fulfilled the expectations of the Germans. Yes, Francis has opened a limited scope for divorce and the LGBTQ presence; he has advanced ecumenical relations with the non-European religions, especially Islam. But much of the liberal agenda remains unrealized. Why is this? The author attributes it to Francis’s lack of firm ideological grounding. Meier characterizes Francis a pastor, not as a principled leader or intellectual. His alleged real focus is “evangelization.”  Francis displays “mercy,” he does not change doctrine. As Meier puts it, “the two most important characteristics of the Roman Church – celibacy and the exclusion of women from ordination  – are not negotiable.” And synodality is really a meaningless concept. 

Beyond the failure of Francis to explicitly realize the “reform” agenda, the author has other specific and pointed criticisms of his papacy. Regarding sexual abuse, the author, like the progressive German establishment,  doesn’t cut the pope and the Church any slack. He is relentlessly critical of Francis’s management of this issue. Meier is also not at all pleased with the failure of Francis to assume a belligerent status with Ukraine against Russia. He further finds it dubious that Francis associates himself with other religious leaders of a more autocratic mind, such as the patriarch of Moscow or the Islamic authorities – while not immediately granting intercommunion with the Protestant churches,  It may surprise the reader to find out that, in making some of these criticisms, Meier cites authorities who view the world from a perspective entirely different from his own – like Sandro Magister. Meier does mention (citing Mosebach and Spaemann!) the authoritarian leadership of Francis: the Pope’s actions are characterized by turns and twists, by surprising initiatives and then sudden reversals.

But what is a traditionalist to make of this?

First, I think Meier s totally mistaken regarding the personal character and the method of government of Francis. Meier seems to have fallen victim to the myths created by the Vatican media machine and its affiliated secular reporters, even though he specifically criticizes their depictions of Francis! And Meier is not alone in this vision of Francis as a simple, John XXIII-like pastor. Does not Yves Chiron in his History of the Traditionalists, also describe the pope as “above all a pastor” ? Thomas Sternberg (a former  high official of the German Catholic Church) says the same in his 2019 debate with Martin Mosebach, gushing over the pope embracing disabled people in wheelchairs.

Yet this depiction is the very opposite of the truth. A cursory review of the last eleven years reveals that Francis is a man consumed by a relentless drive for control and by a radical commitment to ideology. The fact that Francis was unable to achieve at a German institution the scholastic attainments of German intellectuals, does not at all mean that he is not an ideologue. His system of thought may be crude, but it is simple, short, and can be relentlessly repeated: we must go forward, not back, cannot be rigid, doctrine evolves, the Church must welcome everyone as he is, dialogue is essential, the unity of the Church “under Peter” must be preserved. These are ideological positions –  an endlessly repeated litany that Francis hammers home on every occasion.

The author is unfair to treat Francis just as a failed implementer of the progressive vision. He has, after all, given them hitherto unimaginable forms of recognition of divorce and same-sex unions as well as a vastly expanded scope of ecumenism. Yes, Francis has not officially authorized intercommunion with Protestants, but recently he has given unprecedented, influential access within the Church to the Anglicans.  At this very moment he’s obviously working on introducing married clergy and female clergy. 

Meier is distressed by a whole series of Vatican reproofs and criticisms of the German synodal path meted out during the Francis pontificate – but haven’t developments like Fiducia Supplicans shown that these admonitions were merely tactical?  I think our author is projecting onto the entire Church a state of quasi-totalitarian control and alignment with the secular power that outside of Germany does not (yet) exist. Only in Germany and adjacent areas could the controlling powers of the Church simply decree the “reforms” that the author wants. 

Elsewhere in the Church,  Francis must contend with the fact that many Catholics believe that certain positions that have been accepted previously are articles of faith. It takes a while to bring these Catholics around to discarding that which they had only a few years ago held to be certain and holy. This explains the torturous preparation of Francis before he makes each of his moves: the synod on the family, the Amazonian synod,  the Churchwide synodal path, the questionnaires regarding the status of traditionalism in the Church. These things may seem to an objective observer transparently dishonest, which is true, but Francis judges them necessary first steps in implementing progressive reform.  Admittedly there have been reverses,  some things have been blocked or stalled, such as – so far – the introduction of married clergy and a female clergy of sorts. 

The author makes much of the confusion under the pope, and the endless discussions he has initiated, which do not immediately lead to a conclusion. But Meier does not understand that this is a technique of introducing change. By opening up to discussion so many things that recently were considered fixed and immutable, Francis softens up the Church establishment for the acceptance of change. The creation by Francis of a state of confusion does not show lack of sympathy with progressive innovations. It is a way to achieve them without triggering massive schism.

Throughout this book we read an endless series of official statements, and  commentary of German theologians on them. Outside of those holding office in the German Catholic administrative or educational establishment, the Catholic laity do not figure in this book at all. There is no mention of the deterioration in the practice of the faith among them in the last 10 years. Meier talks of the exclusion of the laity from the governance of the Church but it’s obvious what he means by “laity” are the lay bureaucrats and associates of the Church. 

I found particularly offensive  a remark, not of the author, but of Massimo Faggioli, who writes:

“It’s clear that Francis is the first truly global pope, a non-Western pope, who has freed Catholicism from the idea of a moralistic, bourgeois middle- class Catholicism, which still defined what Catholicism is.” 2)

The message from the Catholic progressives is that if you do all the Church instructs you to do,  if you sacrifice to carry on a Catholic family life in this challenging world as best you can,  you will be denounced by your priests as a conformist, a Pharisee, and a hypocrite. The contempt of the Conciliar Church establishment for the ordinary laity has rarely been so blatantly displayed. 

For Meier, liturgical questions are not even worth discussing.  He grotesquely (and incorrectly) summarizes Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum as merely reintroducing anti-Semitic language in the Church. Benedict himself is caricatured as a lover of golden vestments,  a remote  authoritarian figure, and indifferent or hostile to ecumenism. 

There are many other things Meier treats only superficially or not at all. He talks of the failure of the Amazonian synod to achieve its policy objectives but does not mention the role of Cardinal Sarah and Pope Benedict.  Regarding Ukraine, does Meier really expect the pope to bless uncritically the positions of Zelensky?  For Meier to talk (citing Hubert Wolf) of pacifism not being part of the Church tradition seems audacious, to say the least, after decades of pacifist propaganda from Meier’s end of the ecclesiastical spectrum. Meier mentions Cardinal Tagle as a papal contender and a “personal favorite” of Francis  – although this gentleman had already been sidelined for unexplained reasons. 

The Pope of Disappointments witnesses to the dissatisfaction of the progressive establishment in the German-speaking world with the incomplete reform of the Church under Francis. The author predicts that things are unlikely to change, because those cardinals and bishops from the periphery that Francis has advanced are, in fact, not at all aligned with the progressive churches on many, perhaps even most issues. Indeed, the author concludes by writing that the Catholic Church may be irreformable (by that he means incapable of completely imposing progressive “reforms”). What Meier considers the deadweight of tradition will block the liberal dream from ever coming to fruition. His conclusions are quite a contrast to the relentless publicity in favor of Francis and of the church establishment that one reads every day in the Vatican and English-language Catholic media and the complicit secular media as well.

I myself had earlier described the situation of the Catholic Church after the Council  – and still, after more than ten years of Francis – as one of deadlock. In the Council the Church had institutionalized within its own bureaucratic structures a progressive movement that aims at the complete repudiation of the prior teaching of the Catholic Church on liturgy, morality, and theology. But the force of tradition, the natural reluctance of any institution to commit suicide and the residual faith of some of the hierarchy have prevented the immediate and total implementation of the progressive program. I agree with Meier that this conflict, analyzed in purely secular terms,  is most likely to continue indefinitely. 

1. A distinguishing feature of the German Church is its reliance for leadership upon professors and theologians, often associated with secular teaching institutions. Quoted throughout his book, it is they, not bishops or celebrity priests, who are the main authorities for Meier. The German church establishment further disposes of significant media assets; the author refers constantly to katholisch.de, the website of the Catholic Church in Germany (and sometimes to kath.ch, its Swiss equivalent). Much of what he writes would already be familiar to followers of these sites. 
2. Admittedly a translation of a (presumed) translation.

…with one of her best posts:

Pope Francis, the Venice Biennale and the Vaccuum of Belief

Regarding patronage of the arts by the Roman Catholic Church, in the last few years attention had centered on the pseudo-Byzantine kitsch of the notorious Fr. Marko Rupnik. He is, by the way, still very active and in good standing, thanks to Pope Francis’s support. And his artwork is now and then still displayed prominently at official functions in Rome.

The Rupnik saga tended to overshadow another aspect of recent Church patronage: the attempts, mainly by the Vatican (Cardinal Ravasi!)and certain Western European prelates, to make a home in the Church for the “official” contemporary art of the West. We have posted on this site reviews of books on this art and sometimes of actual exhibitions of it, e..g.,

Siccardi, Cristina, The Art of God: Sacred Thoughts, Profane Ideas (2017)

The Art of the Council (Exhibition in 2012)

De Kerros, Aude, Sacré Art Contemporain: Evèques, Inspecteurs et Commissaires (2012)

Indeed, we have covered the main featured artist of the 2024 Vatican Pavilion:

Another Masterpiece of Modern Art (John Paul II hit by a meteorite)(2014)

In America, this type of artwork has had a more limited exposure in the Catholic Church (as opposed to the Episcopal church, the museums or the art galleries). Examples:

“Frenzy into Folly” at St Paul’s, New York (2013)

And especially:

Heavenly Bodies Part I; Heavenly Bodies Part II (2018)

Now Pope Francis has visited the Vatican Pavilion at the Venice Biennale which is a showpiece of such art. Maureen Mullarkey’s article shows us work of the artists featured there or favaobly mentioned by the Pope in an address. I hope you won’t be shocked by these images! For me, what is shocking is not the art – after all, they only create the same stupid things again and again – but the personal endorsement given it by the Bishop of Rome.

In a final bizarre and kitschy publicity stunt, the Vatican involved inmates of a womens’ prison in the preparation of the pavilion. So in Venice the Church combines toadying to the representatives of movements patronized by the rich, government bureaucracies and upscale art galleries with outreach to “victims” who I suspect haven’t the faintest idea what this “art” is about. The 2024 Vatican Pavilion is the latest demonstration (here, in art, but also in morality anfd finance)of the ever closer integration of the Catholic Church into the governing establishment of the West.

A Defence of Monarchy: Catholics under a Protestant King

Joseph Shaw, Ed.

186 pages

Angelico Press, Brooklyn, NY, 2023

A Defence of Monarchy is one of the shorter books on Catholic political philosophy that I have recently read,  but it certainly is one of the best written, most colorful in its language and most challenging in its arguments. It was prompted by two events. First, the ceremony of the  coronation of Charles III elicited a  favorable reaction worldwide. Once again, we saw a demonstration of the power of ancient symbols to reach a modern audience. It is an understanding which the modern Roman Catholic Church has largely lost. The second inspiration for this book was the publication of articles by Theo Howard and Alan Fimister, (both “integralists” or integralist sympathizers)who denounced the alleged participation (or even collusion) by the late Queen Elizabeth II in the introduction by legislation of all kinds of societal evils, specifically abortion.

When integralists challenged liberal political doctrines of the United States,  the IHE (Institute for Human Ecology) at Catholic University  and  Russell Hittinger sprang into action, blindly defending the status quo both of the United States and of Roman Catholic political thought since Vatican II.  A Defence of Monarchy also responds, in part, to an integralist critique but does so in a much more nuanced manner.

The first part of this book addresses directly the allegations regarding the “complicity” of Queen Elizabeth II in the promulgation of anti-Christian legislation. The authors point out that the British monarch since 1688 has had no power to reject legislation that has been passed by parliament. Therefore, the notion that Queen Elizabeth II participated in evil when, for example, the UK implemented legislation authorizing abortion,  is inaccurate.

The second part of the book deals with the coronation ceremony of King Charles. It offers a close analysis of aspects of the ritual and its texts. From it we obtain a better understanding of the Christian foundation of this ceremonial and indeed of the British monarchy. These texts have not been immune from corruption  – Peter Day-Milne analyzes examples of textual tinkering since prior coronations that has robbed some texts of much of their significance.  Nevertheless, he emphasizes “the richness of the traditional coronation prayers, all of which come directly from, or have been built upon,  the medieval Catholic liturgical tradition.” He observes that the very qualities that make these prayers so moving and memorable are also characteristic of the prayers found in the ongoing Catholic liturgical tradition, especially in its more authentic, extraordinary form. He compares, for example,  one of the coronation prayers with the prayers during the vesting of a priest in the Old Rite, showing a common derivation. Those who appreciated the coronation will find here a guide to a deeper understanding of what they saw and heard. 

The third part of the book is a broader and more philosophical analysis of the institution of monarchy and its role today. The authors militantly summon Catholics to support and cherish the current English monarchy, imperfect as it may be. The British monarchy is, first of all, in accord with the national tradition.  The cultural situation in the UK today is hardly  perfect, but it would be much worse under a republic. The authors contrast the situation in the UK with the secular Irish Republic which has moved aggressively towards the radical elimination of Christianity. James Bogle even argues – more audaciously but probably correctly – that Hitler could never have seized power if the German monarchy had remained. Charles Coulombe, Sebastian Morello, and James Bogle recall for us (deliberately) forgotten facts regarding the Jacobite tradition, royal legitimacy, and the history of the Loyalists during the American revolution. 

More profoundly, the British monarchy does preserve, if only in an attenuated form,  the connection of the state with the divine. Sebastian Morello writes of the “dignified” as opposed to the “efficient “ role of government – preeminently that of a monarch. The function of the monarch goes far beyond the mere ordering of the physical affairs of a commonwealth. The English monarchy is, in form, the last Christian sacral monarchy. In a tradition going back to the Roman empire  – and later the Holy Roman Empire – the monarch is God’s representative on earth, a mediator between God and Man.  Joseph Shaw writes:

The authority over temporal things exercised by temporal rulers also derives from God and is exercised under divine authority.  The notion of the king as a viceregent, a deputy, of God elevates the dignity of earthly power and also subordinates it firmly to the Law of God: though not to the holders of spiritual authority.(p. 161)

Thus, to a certain extent, the authors of A Defence of Monarchy do exhibit kinship with the ideas of the integralists and their rejection of the liberal model for society.  Of course, they do not share their model of direct papal control over secular states (which the integralists seem to assume to be republics). James Bogle pointedly criticizes similar clerical deviations which had made their way into the liturgy in the 20^th century:

The prayers for the emperor were no longer said after 1918, with the fall of the Austro- Hungarian empire, but remained part of the Roman rite until 1956 at which time a new prayer for rulers in general  – pro omnibus res publicas moderantibus , “for those in public office” – was substituted. This prayer was changed again following the Second Vatican Council and placed right at the end of the intercessions, behind the prayers for unbelievers and atheists, signifying the complete lack of importance that a clericalist and Modernist like Archbishop Bugnini now attributed to the laity and to the lay temporal power… . (p. 130, ftn 20)

Did not the late Thomas Molnar often write of the need to preserve the link between politics and the sacred (he cited the continuing role in the Hungarian political tradition of the crown of St. Stephen). Did not the Catholic writer Cristina Campo (writing of the last Russian tsar (Saint) Nicholas II) have thoughts parallel to those of the authors of this book concerning the spiritual (“dignified” in secular terms)vocation of the monarch:

In a famous photograph of the last emperor of Russia dressed in the clothes of his saintly ancestor, Alexey the Quietest, the haughty symmetry of the wide purple sleeves is mysteriously replicated on his chest by the golden wings of the two-headed eagle and crowned by the perfect, monastic, warlike circle of the collar. All of this, unexpectedly enlivened by the jaunty tilt of a fine black-martin cap, tells us more than any history book about the mystic audacity of that ill-starred sovereign, the last purely Muscovite tsar, who attempted with no intellectual weaponry or political genius or help from a single human being to lead the Enlightenment autocracy of the Petersburg Romanovs back to the traditional Russian religious destiny.  … Empires crumble when the education of princes yields to bourgeois lethargy with its scrupulous, superstitious ignorance of the spiritual roots of all power. 1)

I applaud the authors’ willingness to respond to attacks on both the monarchy and specifically on Queen Elizabeth II. My attitude towards the British monarchy, however, is more ambivalent. I understand the authors’ reverence for this British institution. I too appreciate the royal family, not so much for any Christian devotion they may have exhibited, but for Queen Elizabeth’s many years of devoted service and  for the creative (and traditional) ideas in art and architecture championed by King Charles. The British monarchy, however, has invested too heavily over the years in very modern public relations stunts,  starting with the creation of the new houses of “Windsor” and “Mountbatten” during World War I. Some of these gambits, such as Princess Di and Meghan Markle,  have backfired disastrously.  And despite the example of the monarchy,  the society of the UK today is every bit as woke and corrupt as the other states of the West – perhaps even more so.  Emmanuel Todd has recently argued that the United Kingdom is an extreme example in Western Europe of the “nation zero,”  exhibiting  economic, social, and political collapse – all of which derive from religious disintegration.2)

Yet A Defence of Monarchy does demonstrate that the monarchy – primarily but not exclusively the British monarchy – remains an essential symbol, nationally and even spiritually. The monarchy retains this status,  independent of its actual power and influence. The monarchist reader will find here a treasure chest of resources. And those interested in the more general issues of the relation of Church and State, of the common good and the secular order,  will discover a handbook full of perceptive insights.

1. Campo, Cristina, “With Light Hands,” in The Unforgiveable at 88 (Alex Andriesse, Trans.)(New York Review Books, New York,  2024)
2. Todd, Emmanuel, La Défaite de L’Occident, 194-229 (Éditions Gallimard, 2024)

Today I heard the sad news that Fr. John Hunwicke had died on Tuesday, April 30th. He was a member of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.

So many of us became acquainted with him on his blog Mutual Enrichment. An untiring champion of orthodoxy, Latinity and traditional culture, Fr Hunwicke offered a running commentary – now humorous, now acerbic and always erudite – on the (often disastrous) developments in Church and State. I would like to offer some personal reminiscences of Fr. Hunwicke.

In 2016 the Society of St. Hugh of Cluny had the pleasure of welcoming Fr. Hunwicke to the New York area. He spoke and celebrated mass at St. Mary’s, Norwalk; subsequently he spoke in the so-called “catacombs” of Old St. Patrick’s Cathedral. I’m sure many fondly recall this visit!

In between his official program. I had the honor of showing Fr. Hunwicke around New York. We visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Frick Collection, where he observed that Mr. Frick had had a simple plan for his collection, instructing his agents “just to buy the best, no matter what it is.” Fr. Hunwicke was very interested in Art Deco – what better place in the world to see it than New York City? Walking around Rockefeller Center (and later St Patrick’s Cathedral) he pointed out errors – sometimes egregious – in a coat of arms here, in a stained glass window there. A tour about town with Fr. Hunwicke was an amazing educational experience – for me!

Fr. Hunwicke later summarized his experiences in and around New York in his inimitable style:

I took the opportunity to avail myself of the very great privilege of celebrating and preaching in the fine church at Norwalk in Connecticut over which a fellow Oxonian, Dr Richard Cipolla of Cardinal College, a hospitable host, presides to such splendid effect. It is most impressive; the liturgy runs like the smoothest clockwork and the Music is in the charge of the mighty, impeccable, and infallible David Hughes. I had the unusual experience of being congratulated by no fewer than two of my hearers on preaching a sermon full of Ciceronian praeteritio. You don’t often get that class of comment on this side of the water.

For his full comments see Greetings from Father Hunwicke on this blog.

We stayed in touch. In 2019 the Society sponsored a Mass in thanksgiving for the canonization of Cardinal Newman at St. Catherine of Siena Church in New York. That Mass featured a new setting by Mr. David Hughes of a hymn written by Father Hunwicke, which begins:

Salve Fundator, Pater et Magister!

To set this hymn to music, Mr. Hughes had to enter into minor negotiations (supported by Fr. Hunwicke) with the Birmingham Oratory, which holds a copyright on it!

Fr. Hunwicke was a unique defender of the faith in our time. May he rest in peace!