A more godless Pontiff or a more guilty one?

Thumbs up for Atheism????

In March of this year, Pope Francis looked at a bunch of apostate media hacks and said he would bless them even though “many of you do not belong to the Catholic Church, and others are not believers".

Later that week, while delivering a homily, the former Jesuit, Pope Francis said:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!  'Father, the atheists?'  Even the atheists.  Everyone! ... We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all … We need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: We will meet one another there.”

After that surprising olive branch, the Vatican officials ran around retracting it but the tolerance cat was out of the bag.  Atheists can be redeemed.  Not that many of us care. 

This approach seems to be informed by the concept of “the Anonymous Christian” promoted by another Jesuit, Karl Rahner.  This notion is that people who have never heard of the Christian Gospels might be saved if "in [their] basic orientation and fundamental decision," Rahner wrote, "accepted the grace of God, through Christ, although [they] may never have heard of the Christian revelation." Now we atheists actually have heard of, and maybe even read, the Gospels but have failed to be persuaded. So the atheistic olive branch offered by Pope Francis is a dramatic escalation of the Anonymous  Christian doctrine. 

The Rahner doctrine and the Francis overture taken together are extraordinary.  They are examples of the Jesuits in the Catholic Church dealing with the plausibility problems of faith in a modern world.  The Jesuits were supposed to be the hard line soldiers of Christ and look at them now! The plausibility crisis has been present in an increasing for centuries with the boom in science post The Enlightenment but now seems to be cutting a swathe in the European faith communities.  What do the churches’ leaderships do in Europe when the flocks have lost their creeds?  One could become more truculent and fundamentalist.  Or one could become more inclusive and modern.  Pope Francis seems to have embraced the latter.  

This is a marvellous development.  There is no knocking tolerance.  Since March, however, such overtures seem to have evaporated but the record cannot be denied.

Two issues therefore are opened by this event: why did he do this? And will he do it for other appalling beliefs of Catholicism?  Next time, I look at Pope Francis and the gay and lesbian issue but I want to spend some words speculating on why Francis may be concerned with redemption and therefore reach out to those(like atheists and gays) whom other Popes thought were beyond redemption.

Pope Francis, with his emphasis on redemption of even apostates, is a person who reminds me of John Newton.  “John who?”, I hear you cry.  John Newton was a slave trader who was redeemed by faith and became a leader of the anti Slavery movement.  He celebrated the role of redemption in his life by penning the most popular hymn of all time on the subject – Amazing Grace.  Francis too embraces redemption and, like Newton, needs to redeem himself.

Francis, as the Cardinal Jorge Borgoglio, was in Argentina during the so called “Dirty War” where up to 30,000 dissidents were killed and/or tortured.  It is difficult in these scary situations to emerge both with clean hands and alive.  Cardinal Borgoglio was the subject of allegations as leader of the Jesuits.  There were clearly disagreements within the Jesuit community about how to deal with this brutal regime.  At the end of it all, Borgoglio was accused of collaboration and even betrayal but the betrayal allegations appear to be without substance.  However, I ask myself that in the aftermath, whether Borgoglio felt some remorse for his lack of opposition.  He was supine – not a rogue but also not a hero.  Thus, repentance would, I imagine, like John Newton, figure in his internal narrative about his behavior in the Dirty War and his faith.

I speculate that this insight into his own fragility and humanity must inform this Papacy.  Thus redemption of atheists is comprehensible to him.  John Newton was an unbeliever who was redeemed.  Francis has never lost his belief in God but he may have in the post Dirty War time lost some belief in himself.  Hence he embraces ostentatious modesty.  Thus he can deal with atheists and contemplate that we could be bound for glory. 

This is all, of course, speculative.  But the perestroika displayed by Francis is extraordinary.  We must now observe the Papacy of Francis through this lens.  He is open in ways that no Pope has been open since John XXIII.  Paul V, JP II and Benedict XVI were reactionary duds and the Church has plummeted in Europe and elsewhere as a result. Francis may not be such a dud. 

What is your view?

Is the overture from Francis to the world of unbelief an unprecedented opportunity to converse with the godless or a momentary slip?

Is the emphasis on redemption guided by the Dirty War guilt or just another Catholic with redemption as a principal marketing tool?  It is pretty good that a few Hail Mary’s can get you out of trouble.  Just ask the priestly paedophiles.

Is a more rational Catholicism bad for atheism as we have lost our favourite whipping boy or is it good for those of us who want to work with reasonable people of faith?

Over to you….