A Pope Reincarnate

I should preface this article by saying that I am not a Catholic. As such, I cannot make demands of the Church with the authority of her own flock. Nevertheless, I am a staunch admirer of the Church’s magnificent contribution to the West: her rich philosophy, her awe-inspiring art and architecture, her ancient liturgy, the military victories she inspired. I consider myself an ally in her historic defence of the Western tradition against those who would see it eradicated in the name of Progress. What I write below is written as advice from a friend, which the Catholic can heed as they see fit.

“Not long ago, the world saw, with thoughtless joy which might have been very thoughtful joy, a real miracle not heretofore considered possible or conceivable in the world,–a Reforming Pope.”
– Thomas Carlyle, Latter-Day Pamphlets, 1850

The world rejoiced the day the Pope was elected.

In a time of rapid social change and doctrinal divisions, the papal election is watched by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It determines what sort of religious leadership entire regions of the world will receive in the coming years. The conservative and the liberal alike are fully aware that huge swathes of their constituency likely place more weight on the old man in St. Peter’s throne than on their own speeches and sloganeering. On the day of this election, liberals across Europe and America rejoiced. The liberal factions among the cardinals triumphed over conservative pressure. The elected cardinal was known for his unquestionable personal sanctity and humility. Moreover, he had a reputation for being sympathetic to reformers and even those who set themselves against core teachings of the Church. In those times when the Church seems increasingly out of step with social progress, such Popes can offer hope of revitalization.

The year, by the way, was 1846. The new man in the Vatican was Pius IX.

Papal States in 1796. Napoleon would conquer them, but they were restored after his defeat.

When he was elected, Pope Pius IX was not just a religious leader. He was also the political sovereign of the Papal States. While his predecessors pursued a reactionary political policy in these domains, liberals across Europe hopes that this Pope would bring reform.

This Pope had a reputation, you see. Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti, as he was born, became an Archbishop of his hometown of Spoleto just before an outbreak of revolutionary fervour across Europe beginning in 1830. Elsewhere it would culminate in France’s July Monarchy and the creation of Belgium. In Italy, however, the uprisings were successfully suppressed. As Archbishop, he obtained a declaration of amnesty for participants. This action was interpreted as a sign of liberal and nationalist* sympathies, and his future actions would prove this interpretation correct. Accordingly, the strongest opposition to his election came from the Austrian government, which was then under the influence of the defiant reactionary Klemens von Metternich.

Despite Metternich’s attempts, Cardinal Mastai-Ferretti was elected and immediately began to implement reforms in the Papal States. One of his first acts was to declare amnesty for political prisoners in his territories. Presumably the Pope hoped that this gesture would entice radical reformers to moderate their views. He was wrong. The freed prisoners immediately returned to their political destabilization of the Papal States, and the Pope would be forced to reckon with the results. He also appointed a liberal cardinal to govern the territories, reduced restrictions on the liberal and nationalist press, and even created a new civic guard.

When revolution broke out across Europe in 1848, the Pope was called on to support the war against Austria in order to unify Italy. He refused to do this and simply stated that he would not stop volunteers from joining. Ultimately, the radicals he had given amnesty, led by the very ministry which he had established to govern his territories, instigated riots across Rome and the Papal States. Pope Pius IX was forced to flee to Sicily. Ironically, his liberal reforms had not been able to save him from being given the same treatment as his reactionary opponent Metternich, who was himself forced to flee to Liechtenstein and then to England. From his exile, the Pope excommunicated all those who participated in the establishment of the new Roman Republic. It was too little, too late. When he returned, he would enter a self-imposed exile in the Vatican for the rest of his life. The Papal States disappeared from the map.

In 2013, another papal election was greeted by adulation on the part of liberals across Europe and America. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope Francis. Again, the personal sanctity and integrity of the man captured the imagination of Catholics and non-Catholics. Again, his history as an archbishop and cardinal gave signs that a reformer may now sit on St. Peter’s throne. The New York Times hoped that the first Pope from the New World would further orient the Church toward its growing Asian and African constituencies. Progressive media worked itself into a frenzy, facts be damned. His statements that the Church should improve how it counsels Catholics with homosexual desires and study the changing structures of relationships were interpreted as being on the brink of accepting gay marriage. Eventually, the Pope had to disappoint them by “spouting” Catholicism.

Despite this, it is undeniable that progressives have interpreted this Pope as being a harbinger for change. Pope Francis may believe that his outreach could lead to a more modern, more tolerant Church which can better cope with the social changes the world is undergoing. But does compromise actually make this possible? These are the same people who think that Church doctrine should reflect the democratic will of the faithful rather than the eternal will of Divinity. There is no way of escaping this core assumption of people who say that the Church must “reverse its position” on moral law to better reflect the practices of its devotees rather than providing better guidance. When English Protestants, French radicals, and American liberals are happier with the Pope than the traditionalists in his own flock, perhaps the Church should ask itself what road it intends to walk. These groups cheered for Pope Pius IX and cheer now for Pope Francis only to the extent that the Church takes another step toward the religion of Social Progress. The day it fully embraces that religion, the Church will cease to be Catholic at all.

This was exactly what Pius IX ultimately realized. Following his return to Rome, he abandoned his liberal policies and began to defend the Church in the political, social, and religious spheres. One of his most famous steps in this direction was the publication of the Syllabus of Errors, which outlines a series of doctrines which the Pope deemed incompatible with the Catholic faith. The Syllabus ranges from perceived falsehoods in Enlightenment rationalism to political wrongs against the Church’s temporal powers, and concludes with a list of errors in liberal philosophy. Its 80th and final error reads as follows:

“[They are in error who say that] the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”

This passage refers to an allocution which the Pope gave on a previous occasion:

“To those who, for the good of Religion, invite us to extend our hand to contemporary civilization, we ask whether the Vicar of Christ, divinely established by Christ to preserve the purity of His heavenly doctrine and to nourish and confirm His lambs and sheep in this same doctrine, could join forces with contemporary civilization without a very grave danger of conscience and causing the greatest of scandals. For it was this civilization that produced evils so numerous that we could never deplore them sufficiently, as well as so many poisonous opinions, errors and principles which are extremely opposed to the Catholic Religion and her doctrine.”

It makes clear that the Pope did not oppose progress and modernity as such, although many readers certainly interpreted the statement that way. This misconception is where the original, derogatory sense of the word “reactionary” comes from: the individual who opposes progress for opposition’s sake. This was never the position of Pope Pius IX or the Catholic Church. Rather, he opposed those changes which presented themselves as progress but which the Church believed to be based on false principles and deception. Scientific progress was never the issue; atheistic materialism was. The greatest proof of this is the Church’s own massive contribution to scientific development, spurred by scientists from Mendel, the father of modern genetics, to Lemaitre, who first proposed the expanding universe concept which would become central to Big Bang theory. But progress based on falsehood is no progress at all.

This is the distinction which the Church must understand if it is to survive. Attempts to pander to progressive ideology will only end with its demise. Nothing should make this clearer than the fate of the Anglican Church and other denominations which have substituted “relevancy” for principle. While some note that immigration is helping to bolster the Catholic Church’s own numbers, we would surely expect that the churches most enthusiastically employing the strategy of Progressive Christianity would also see the highest rates of conversion, especially if people want to leave more conservative traditions. That honour goes instead to Catholics, Pentecostal denominations, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. These churches are known for their massive outreach and strict religious mores, but not for their liberalism.

Ultimately it’s a simple rule: if you must choose between compromising with those in your in-group or with those who are utterly opposed to you, choose the in-group. Pope Francis may have legitimate disagreements with the traditionalists in his flock, but they’ll be the ones in the pews on Sunday and will carry the faith forward. Even if the progressive journalist does make his way to the parish each Sunday, his policies will make certain that his grandchildren won’t. In even the best case progressive scenario, the Church will win the world and lose its soul. I don’t know how many leaves His Holiness takes from the books of his predecessors, but it would certainly be worth it for him to take one from Pope Pius IX.

*Nationalism in Italy was at this time a liberal, revolutionary force. Italy was divided into kingdoms ruled by aristocratic families like the Bourbons, as well as the Papal States. Nationalists sought to overthrow these dynasties and unite Italy into a constitutional monarchy or republic. See map above.

Sources:
Ohio University
New Advent: Pius IX and the Syllabus

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!