A non-Catholic, casual news consumer might be forgiven for thinking that Pope Francis is pro-same-sex unions, pro-evolution, and anti-capitalism. Since he became the 267th pope in March 2013, the media have frequently suggested that the head of the 1.2-billion strong Catholic Church is planted firmly on the left.
The latest example was Francis’ speech in late October paying tribute to predecessor Pope Benedict, where the sitting pontiff stated that evolution and creationism were compatible. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve,” the pope said.
The media quickly placed him into a political camp. The Washington Post wrote that the pope “put himself at odds with a significant portion of Americans by saying he believed in evolution, not creationism.” CBS reported that “Pope Francis has sided with science.” And NBC called the comments “a theological break from his predecessor Benedict XVI, a strong exponent of creationism.” Never mind that Francis was merely reiterating the church’s official stance stretching back to 1950 and repeated by two popes before him, that evolution and creationism can coexist. The usual media narrative still has him pegged as a liberal maverick, a stark departure in church coverage from years of child sex-abuse revelations and financial corruption, and a sea change from the narrative that surrounded Benedict during his eight years as pope.
“There was a certain bad news fatigue that had set in,” said John L. Allen Jr., a longtime Vatican journalist and associate editor at Crux. “Which meant all the new pope really had to do was give us something we could like, and I think we were prepared to go to town with that. And of course he did that in spades,” he said. “Under Benedict it was impossible for any positive narrative to surface. Under Francis it’s impossible for any negative narrative to surface.”
The media quickly latched on to that positive narrative, noting Francis’ past as a janitor and bouncer, his “Who am I to judge?” pronouncement on gay priests, his charming selfies with teenagers, his modest Ford Focus. Time named Pope Francis Person of the Year in 2013. And according to the Pew Research Center, only President Barack Obama, Nelson Mandela, and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad got more mentions in top media outlets during the pope’s first 10 months on the job.
But the narrative of the liberal pope is misleading, both because his positions are not notably liberal and because persisting with that narrative anyway says more about the journalists covering the pope than it does about Francis—journalists are attempting to shoehorn him into US-centric, politically charged categories of creationism versus evolution, pro versus anti-LGBT rights, liberal versus conservative.
“If both sides, liberals and conservatives, sat down and read everything the pope has said so far, both of them would probably realize that they shouldn’t be as happy or as afraid as they are,” said Inés San Martín, Vatican correspondent for Crux, The Boston Globe’s Catholic website, who comes from Pope Francis’ native Argentina.
Pope Francis has indeed done newsworthy things. He has reformed the corrupt Vatican bank in line with international standards of accounting, started a commission on sex abuse in the church, and is changing the church’s stance towards Catholics who divorce and then remarry someone outside the faith. Moreover, the pope is genuinely progressive—but in attitude, not in fundamental Catholic teachings. Washing and kissing the feet of a dozen inmates—two of them Muslim—and eschewing the Apostolic Palace for a two-room apartment are departures from his predecessor that emphasize the idea that the church’s role is to come to the people, not uphold the moral fortress of the church and wait for people to come to it.
None of those reforms are “liberal” in political terms, and deep-rooted questions like gay marriage are simply not up for debate in a church that is inherently conservative by secular standards. Francis has reaffirmed that only a man and a woman can marry, and has opposed gay couples adopting children.
Yet coverage in the language of US-style categories persists. In March, the pope’s comments in an interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that some civil unions could be tolerable to the church for the purposes of gaining political rights such as healthcare led to the headline “Church could support civil unions” by CNN. At a recent meeting of bishops on family issues where Pope Francis tried to change the church’s official stance (ultimately unsuccessfully) to accept the “gifts and qualities” of gay people, the BBC’s headline read “Victory for Pope Francis on gay issues.”
“In the secular press in particular, most of us are at heart political writers. Regardless of what our particular discipline may be, politics is our mother’s milk,” said Allen. “So it’s just natural for most journalists, most commentators, to bring political categories to bear.”
The media’s tendency to make all religious statements political comes from the heart of American political culture. The US media interprets the pope according to an “American protestant narrative,” where religion is read in terms of what it means for politics, said Justin Tse, a University of Washington scholar on religion and public life. “The question people are asking is, ‘Is the Catholic Church promoting or inhibiting democracy?’” said Tse. “It’s a good question, but when that’s the only question on the table, then you start to twist narratives to fit the agenda.”
That agenda misreads the pope’s real significance. The most radical thing Pope Francis does is show compassion towards people despite disagreeing with their principles, which is a sentiment increasingly absent from political discourse. His words are significant because he cares little for partisan posturing, not because they are evidence for his supposed liberal standpoint. If that’s the case, every time the media pigeonholes him into a political camp, they are not just skewing his views—they are missing the point.
why does the Pope have to ask anyone's opinion? Doesn't he call the shots?
#1 Posted by sheldon muse, CJR on Thu 13 Nov 2014 at 05:31 PM
I think this is one of the best journalistic analysis I have seen yet on Pope Francis and the confusion created by the recent synod. I don't think some of his stances and actions are easy to understand if you live in the middle of the culture war in America, nor do I think confusion is a good thing for a Church that is facing more than one crisis at present. May God guide Pope Francis and the rest of the bishops.
#2 Posted by Carl, CJR on Thu 13 Nov 2014 at 05:48 PM
The Papacy Refuses To Teach the Truth of Genesis
Back in 2011, I wrote to the then Pope, and the Vatican, concerning the Truth of Genesis. Look for the article "The Truth of Genesis: A Challenge to the Pope!". One place where you can find it is:
http://thyblackman.com/2011/05/02/the-truth-of-genesis-a-challenge-to-the-pope/.
The Pope and the "Holy" See refused to respond, and correct their false statements. Now I know why.
The Jesuit Order of the Catholic church takes an oath to destroy Protestantism. Part of the Jesuit oath is the following: “That I will go to any part of the world, whatsoever, without murmuring, and I will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me”.
Also, “I do further promise and declare, that I will, when the opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals (free thinkers), as I am directed to do to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth, and that I will spare neither sex, age nor condition, and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants’ heads against the wall, in order to annihilate their execrable race”. Does this sound like followers of the Lord Jesus Christ?
I would think that most Roman Catholics would be shocked if they knew what Catholicism really teaches. Much of their outward, and all of their inner doctrine, contradict the Bible.
For example, on page 129, the book Catechism of the Catholic Church, it teaches: “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods”. Notice that they did not capitalize the pronouns which are referring to Jesus. That book was published by Image Books, 1995. Why would anyone want to remain in the Catholic religion, after reading such heresy?
Instead of blindly following a religion, dig into the history of the belief system, so that you won’t be caught in disappointment come Judgment Day, let alone the Rapture.
The Catholic Civilization is a periodical published by the Jesuits in Rome, since 1850. Before WWII, it was written “For today Rome considers the Fascist regime (to be) the nearest to its dogmas and interest. We have not merely the Reverend [Jesuit] Father Coughlin praising Mussolini’s Italy as ‘a Christian democracy’, but Catholic Civilization, house organ of the Jesuits, says quite frankly…’Fascism is the regime that corresponds most closely to the concepts of the Church of Rome.”, Days of Our Years, (New York: Hillman-Curl, 1939), p. 465. So if the Catholic (Jesuit) Church ever rules the world, they will take away your liberties and freedoms, kill Protestants and non-Catholics, and make you subject to the will of the (black) Pope.
Wake up Catholic laity! Catholicism always was a religion of the occult. That is why Constantine, a worshiper of Mithra, wouldn’t allow Christians and Jews to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
Anything that the Pope and Catholicism says about Genesis, and the Bible, should be considered false, because they believe in God and the Bible, as much as President Obama believes in Christianity and traditional marriage.
Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com
#3 Posted by Herman Cummings, CJR on Thu 13 Nov 2014 at 10:17 PM
Sheldon,
The Pope doesn't have to ask for opinions but he does. That's part of his humility. He wants to hear other opinions. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Using his authority to "lord it over" everyone else isn't his style.
#4 Posted by Dan, CJR on Thu 13 Nov 2014 at 10:30 PM