The quote in the post's headline is from Ross Douthat's interview with Cardinal Raymond Burke in the New York Times. Douthat gets Burke to speak frankly on a number of topics, from Pope Francis to the dousing in the Tiber of the indigenous image during the Amazon Synod ("it's a pagan idol") to his present exile ("it's clear that pope doesn't want me in any leadership position") to what he views as the incipient apostasy on the part of the church in Germany ("the Catholic Church in Germany is on the way to becoming a national church with practices that are not in accord with the universal church") to distancing himself from Steve Bannon. A bit on his traditionalist liturgical views, although nothing on his vestments.
He comes across as human, and as reasonable in his stances, even when I don't agree with them. I'm sympathetic with someone who is trying to offer loyal resistance, and it's pretty clear that that's how Burke sees himself.
Curious that Burke doesn't quarrel with the breakdown brought on by Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict, who in responding to a variety of practices and policies (presumably sincerely) helped to bring on the current state of the church's teaching authority. The notion that a CENTRAL teaching authority can continue to reign over a universal flock without picking up more smartly on contested issues would constitute malpractice in any other institution.
ReplyDeleteI like Ross Douthat. I read his column every Sunday and find something to like. But....his judgement is clouded by the idea that the Catholic Church has all the answers...or at least most of the important ones.
And finding that Burke is sincere doesn't quite solve the issue of his honesty (or let me put this way, free of self-delusion) or intelligence.
The only criticism of previous pontificates which I see in the interview - and he doesn't name any names - is when he speaks of the mishandling of abuse accusations. Btw, he's presumably right in noting that the previous code of canon law had remedies for those incidents of abuse, but church authorities chose not to apply them. He also names that tendency as clericalism, and he's surely right about that as well. Also interesting that he insists that liturgy and "wanting to wear a cassock" (so I guess he did have one vestment comment) are not clericalism.
DeleteTo your comment about centralization, which deserves much more discussion: Douthat himself, in the companion piece to the interview, calls out "decentralization of doctrine and discipline" as the "major project of the Francis era", and the cause of what Douthat describes as a crisis within conservative Catholicism.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/opinion/sunday/conservative-catholic.html
Sorry, I see him as just a knee-jerk old school Council of Trent guy that I ignore.
ReplyDeleteAgree completely, Katherine.
DeleteSad that he is a hero to the near- schismatics who want Francis out. And it seems he loves all the attention and the over- the-top imperial "vestments ". Of course he likes cassocks- just one more way to emphasize the "superiority " of the clerical class. Clerical suits look too much like the way the "ordinary" people dress. Can't have that. Have to make it blindingly obvious that priests are to be viewed as "different " - ontologically superior- to the people of God in the pews.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWow :-)
DeleteReally, I thought there would be a little more sympathy for someone who is trying to work through a crisis in his relationship with the church.
I really don't think Burke is a Pius X Society guy. I think he's more likely to be the guy that would hold SSPX to a long checklist of items to which they must agree, as a precondition for reunification.
I also think Francis has a pastoral style that drives guys like that crazy. Francis is like, If a canon or a tradition stands in the way of pastoral care, don't let it get in the way - just proceed, and let others clean up the paperwork.
Jim, I guess I should muster up a little sympathy, after all, he's given his life to the church. But these guys just come across as the quintessential Pharisees.
DeleteGiven his life to the church? So do most practicing Catholics. He chose a very well comfortable way to do so. He has spent little to no time in actual priestly pastoral ministry. Rather, he was a "fast-tracker" who (was) moved up the comfortable clerical ranks rather quickly. "Given his life" to a life of comfort and privilege is not a compliment by any means.
DeleteWell, I had a problem with Douthat/Burke in that, first, there is Douthat and his infused knowledge of How the Church Ought to Be, and, second, Burke would not hurl anathemas at The New York Times, whatever he thinks of it -- and however he might have answered Douthat's questions had he been among friends.
ReplyDeleteLook (as Bishop Baron always says): I watched Paul VI struggle with a council and its aftermath while getting told from all sides that the Church would fall apart if he didn't do this, that or the other thing. Yes, Humanae Vitae was a disaster because [ital] it didn't answer the question [unital], and yes, someone who was more comfortable in his own skin -- like his predecessor -- might have done better. But Paul tried.
John Paul decided the cats needed to be herded, and went about recreating the Church of Trent with a Vat II veneer. He achieved such anomalies as: he could overthrow the Polish government, but priests should stay out of politics in, inter alia, Nicaragua and the U.S Congress. He lost me totally with his "Long Way to Tipperary" response to a priest who had just laid his heart bare during a JP visit to the United States. And the idea of John Paul "the Great" is so risible because the other "greats" saved Rome, but John Paul lost Europe. (News flash for Douthat and Burke: It was gone before Francis got there.)
At least Benedict could write. His encyclicals stand up. I never was able to finish any of "the Great's."
A lot of us sweated and writhed with Paul. And then watched, scarcely able to believe, for more than a quarter of a century while John Paul did star turns all around the world (where are the inspired youth of yesteryear?) and exercised management-by-charisma -- which only works when there is a strong #2 with real power. We never got the half of what we expected from the Council. But we did not go into schism in our disappointment.
At the moment there are two or three schisms going around, but they were there when Pope Francis arrived to implement Vat II. So it ill behooves anyone who had influence in the 30 years before Francis to gripe about what Francis is doing.
Tom, which priest was that during St. JPII's visit? I was chasing after preschoolers at that point and not paying a lot of attention to church politics.
DeleteKatherine, The priest was Fr. Frank McNulty of Newark, NJ. He had been mysteriously chosen to speak for all the priests of the United States to John Paul on the pope's 1987 visit.
DeleteThe deal for that trip was "structured dialogue." The designated spokesperson for whatever group would read a speech that the pope had already seen, and then the pope would read his prepared "answer." There was already a drop in seminarians, and older priests were hanging on beyond their useful physical and mental time, McNulty said. It was past time to take a look at celibacy. Women were stepping up in society, and they should get a chance to step up in the church. Does any of that sound familiar?I was watching with a bunch of secular journalists, and they were absolutely silent watching McNulty pour out his heart (and risk what was left of his own career.)
And when McNulty finished JPII said, "It's a long way to Tipperary, and read his prepared remarks on fraternal support among the reverend clergy. I still can't look at pictures of that pope again without thinking of that brush-off.
Thanks Tom.
DeleteYes and how completely different from Francis who is ever willing to set aside his prepared remarks to speak off the cuff to those who want to talk.
DeleteIt isn't about teaching authority. Burke wants a Pope who stays on script, a script written by folks in the Curia such as he used to be.
Francis wants a humble papacy that lives in the hotel like other visitors to Rome, enters the same food line, and talks unscripted with a wide variety of people (not just a few invited people as did JP2).
I see that the USCCB has issued this letter, as of today: The Threat of Abortion Remains Our Preeminent Priority.
ReplyDeleteThe depressing part is that the letter re-introduces a 40 page voting guide originally drafted in 2007 and revised in 2011.
The (maybe) a little bit hopeful part is the last paragraph:
"Where we live, work, and worship, we strive to understand before seeking to be understood, to treat with respect those with whom we disagree, to dismantle stereotypes, and to build productive conversation in place of vitriol.”
What do I want? Not another voting guide. Please. I would like, as a citizen and voter, to be treated as an adult capable of making my own voting decisions.
In regard to that, this is from a Michael Sean Winters piece Jim McCabe sent from his parallel universe:
Delete"Before the debate, the bishops received copies of amendments the working group had accepted. Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich proposed an amendment to the text, urging the bishops to include Paragraph 101 of Gaudete et Exsultate in its entirety, replacing a paraphrase the drafting committee has supplied. He noted as the reason for the amendment, "The pope is expressing concern about those who bring an ideological mindset to issues. ... The draft wording citing this paragraph omits 'equally sacred' from the start of that list of important concerns, defacing the point the pope was making, which is obviously that the defense of the unborn is not 'the only thing that counts.' " Cupich offered another amendment in which he said the proposed language "pivots to giving singular attention to abortion and does so in language that is tendentious and remarkably different from the treatment of other issues in the lines that follow as other issues are raised."
"Later, the feisty cardinal noted, "Political solutions aren't geysers. They come about or fail because politicians push for them or block them. We are not dealing simply with an 'absence of comprehensive immigration reform,' but rather a presence of demonizing rhetoric and abusive, violent policy directed at a group of human beings who are denounced as dangerous or worse by top elected officials. I am not suggesting that this document name names, but might American Catholics expect a bit more candor on this subject?"
The American bishops like Douthat and Burke simply want Francis to go away. Unfortunately for everyone climate change is not likely to go away. Unlike with Pius XII and the holocaust, no one will ever be able to say that this Papacy did not speak up about climate change.
DeleteMoreover since the Synod of the Amazon history will likely say that the Papacy actually did something. It is very likely that REPAM the grassroots organization that prepared for the Synod will be given ecclesial status as a transnational organization.
REPAM did receive money from foundation sources, which means that a conduit will be created that will enable philanthropic money to go to the Amazon without going through government corruption to support bishops who have international support.
Climate change rather than abortion is set to become the defining issue of the future. Francis is preparing the global church for that. How long will it take be American bishops to be converted?
Jim,
ReplyDeleteThis is Douthat's PR trying to make Burke into an a devout priest who has a crisis of conscience in serving his church, It is making him like the former Apostolic Delegate, another careerist who asked Francis to resign. Maybe that will be Burke's next move?
The reality is that Burke is a careerist who climbed his way to the top. Francis saw a guy who was sure to oppose annulment reform since he was head of the annulment division of the church. Any CEO would get rid of a guy like that as quietly as possible, so Francis offered Burke the fundraising role in the Knights of Malta. Francis was perfectly ready to let him parade around in ancient robes and say the old Mass as long as he raised money.
But Burke, the curial cardinal, simply saw a new fiefdom and began to reshape the Knights of Malta to his image. Francis had to step in and put the organization back into being on its way to being a modern fund raising organization rather than simply a refuge for the aristocracy.
Douthat allowed Burke to distance himself from Bannon but said Burke was not clear about distancing himself from EWTN and the whole complex of right wing rich people who are very much against Francis. There is no way Burke would do that. Bannon got thrown under the bus because he wanted to talk about gays in the Vatican.
Over the centuries since we separated from the East the Papacy has slowly grown in power. Modern media has made it very powerful.
ReplyDeleteThe fathers of Vatican II wanted reform of the Curia, and a continuing role for bishops in the governance of the church (collegiality) to begin to reverse this power concentration. Paul VI said he would reform the Curia and gave them a weak advisory Synod. He was, of course a member of the Curia before getting Milan.
JP2 was unable to reform the Curia. He preferred globe trotting to boring meetings with them. In his last years they became increasingly autonomous. Some thought Ratzinger, an insider, would be able to reform them. As B16 he supposedly told someone "my authority ceases at the door to the apostolic office." Francis, the outsider who was chosen to reform the Curia, wisely did not let himself become a prisoner in the apostolic palace.
Douthat, Burke and other conservatives want a strong papacy that agrees with them. It is hard to feel sorry for them when they get a Pope that disagrees with how they want the church to be run.
Teaching authority is a red herring. The Orthodox have managed to be very conservative without a strong papacy. They have their political struggles among themselves. Constantinople recently said the Ukraine could be autonomous in relation to Moscow. Moscow ceased praying for Constantinople in the liturgy. A few days ago Alexandria lined up with Constantinople so Moscow no longer prays for them. Lots of church politics there too but nothing about teaching authority. Constantinople was Green long before Rome but has not gotten into trouble for it. Francis is getting into trouble for the environment.
Jack, thanks. My reading of both Douthat and Burke is different. I see Burke as a canonist who takes the provisions of the law seriously and really tries to live them out in his ministry. I think Francis comes at ministry from a diametrically opposite angle: he starts with people and their problems, vulnerabilities and fears, and tries to help them. He is not one to look to canon law for guidance in that; he is more likely to trust his heart and his spiritual instincts.
ReplyDeleteAs for Douthat - I think he is an independent thinker and a journalist. I don't think he is particularly in the Burke camp. He describes Burke as "obdurate and guileless" - I don't think those are supposed to be positive adjectives. Douthat has some strong critiques of Francis (and Francis shouldn't be exempt from criticism), and he seems willing to assess the criticisms from people like Burke.
Francis is a Jesuit. One of the things he likely was taught in Novitiate was what I was taught (my novitiate began shortly after his ended). "Always presume permission."
DeleteIgnatius loved rules. He was always giving rules. Every time he sent Jesuits on a mission he gave them rules. But they were what we today would call goals and objectives.
Both Ignatius and Francis firmly see everything in light of the greater honor and glory of God and the salvation of souls. Their ultimate values require a far higher standard of behavior than observance of rules.
Re: Burke et al: https://religionnews.com/2019/11/12/the-rise-of-fundamentalist-catholicism/
ReplyDeleteAnd my name is McCrea, not McCabe.
DeleteSorry about that, Jim. The late Jim McCabe was a good friend of ours. The live Jim McCrea I know only on line.
DeleteIt seems to me that Cardinal Burke believes he has been a good and faithful Christian, and that he so because he has spent considerable time practicing and studying the discipline--he uses the word "discipline" a lot, never "love"--that formed him.
ReplyDeleteHe sees this discipline as appropriate for Bishop McCarrick's sins: "... they’d dress him in the full vestments and then take them off one by one, with these very severe declarations, and then at the end, scrape the hands that had been anointed at ordination with a knife to signify that this person had completely betrayed the office."
Would this kind of performance, done in public--because what would be the point otherwise--help heal the Church? Would it be emblematic of Christ's love and mercy? I don't know. But it's interesting and noteworthy that Burke entertains it.
I am interested in these pockets of young people and families yearning for a return to discipline that Burke mentions. I am sure there are such people, and probably more young people should be hungry for traditional teaching.
But what I see are young people turning away from Church teaching because they it adds burdens to those of the secular world in which they must live and work. Their imaginations have not been stimulated by any grand vision of what a Catholic world would look like.
I think we focus so much on rules, prayers, liturgical rubrics, sacramental preparation--all details that obscure for our kids that all these things are trying to help us build lives that will help the world live in love, mercy, truth, justice, and harmony.
Francis has better articulated that vision than Burke, for all his correctness.
"He sees this discipline as appropriate for Bishop McCarrick's sins: "... they’d dress him in the full vestments and then take them off one by one, with these very severe declarations, and then at the end, scrape the hands that had been anointed at ordination with a knife to signify that this person had completely betrayed the office."
DeleteReminds me of nothing so much as Kipling's "Danny Deever":
"...The regiment's in 'ollow square – they're hangin' him to-day;
They've taken of his buttons off an' cut his stripes away,
An' they're hangin' Danny Deever in the mornin'.
Seems pretty extreme, and no, it wouldn't be emblematic of Christ's love and mercy.
I think you are right about this bit: "But what I see are young people turning away from Church teaching because they it adds burdens to those of the secular world in which they must live and work." I think they see the constant harping on certain teachings of the Church as adding to the burdens of people who are already marginalized.
That was an interesting anecdote from Douthat's interview. I had never heard of that before. I agree it's like the ceremonial stripping of a military officer. I am not sure whether or not Burke thinks that particular ceremony of punishment is what needs to happen today; I think he was seeking to illustrate that the 1917 code of canon law had provisions to handle instances of prelate misbehavior - but the church leadership chose not to exercise those previsions. Burke sees that as a bad thing. Who can disagree?
DeleteI am sure we would like to see that ceremony used today on the likes of McCarrick.
I think Burke's view - and I expect we'd all agree - that when it comes to bishops who abused or who enabled abuse, mercy is misplaced. It's false mercy. What Burke described is justice, not mercy. It's old-fashioned justice, and not what I'd like to see today. Really, once McCarrick's situation came to public light, such that the church leadership felt it had to act, I thought it acted appropriately. (Why leadership didn't feel it had to act before then, is a separate topic.)
It's interesting that our pastor has also mentioned that 1917 code of canon law, and said that if it had been followed, a lot of problems would have been avoided. (He had formally studied canon law for several years). Agree that it's false mercy if you give an offender more chances to offend.
DeleteI wrote, regarding that stripping-of-the-cardinal ceremony from the old code of canon law:
Delete"I am sure we would like to see that ceremony used today on the likes of McCarrick."
I meant to say, "I am sure many people would like to see that ceremony used today on the likes of McCarrick". (For that matter, I suspect there are people who would like to see him tied to a stake and horsewhipped.) As I mentioned later in that comment, I would not revel in something like that. I think what has happened to McCarrick is enough for purposes of church law. If he violated secular laws as well, then I certainly wouldn't object to his being prosecuted in secular court in addition to these church penalties.
Katherine re: the 1917 code: I read somewhere once, not sure where to find it now, that when it comes to abuse, the 1917 code was tougher on clergy than the 1983 code. IIRC, the reason given was that clergy could be subject to false allegations; I don't think this meant false allegations from victims as much as false allegations from governments that are hostile to the Catholic Church. (Remember, in 1983, we were the JPII church.) But this difference has been held up as one of the reasons that the church has been so slow to remove priests from ministry and expel them from the priesthood. I have no opinion on whether that point is genuine or an excuse.
DeleteJim, I don't know either if that point is genuine. Certainly it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a hostile government could make false accusations.
Delete"I am interested in these pockets of young people and families yearning for a return to discipline that Burke mentions. I am sure there are such people, and probably more young people should be hungry for traditional teaching.
Delete"But what I see are young people turning away from Church teaching because they it adds burdens to those of the secular world in which they must live and work. Their imaginations have not been stimulated by any grand vision of what a Catholic world would look like."
Yes. I assume those pockets of young people that Burke referred to are the young conservatives, such as those who attend conservative Catholic colleges in the US. They're not a very large group. They're important to the church for a number of reasons: they're faithful and pious, they are committed to the church and its teaching, they tend to be intellectual, etc. There is a campus ministry group called Focus to which some of them around here are members or alumni: young adults, already with degrees, who live on peanuts on college campuses for a few years, looking to evangelize college students.
As I say, they're pretty few in number. If that is who Burke hangs out with when he hangs out with young people, he's staying within a pretty small slice of the young people.
What the church is missing are the un-conservative young people. The regular Catholics. The so-called "average Catholics" who aren't particularly interested in the ideological warfare; they just want to go to mass and teach their kids to be Catholic. There aren't many of them in our pews these days.
Jim, what you said about the regular young Catholics not interested in ideological warfare who are missing from our pews, apparently also applies to Evangelicals, according to this article by Evangelical Protestant writer Michael Gerson.( I think Jim McCrea linked this article a week or so back.)
DeleteI think a big mistake we and the Evangelicals have both made (in the USA) is that of letting ourselves become the Republican party at prayer.
Actually the Michael Gerson column more relevant to the losing of young people is this one, in which he calls the greatest problem Evangelicals face "...the massive sell-off of evangelicalism among the young. About 26 percent of Americans 65 and older identify as white evangelical Protestants. Among those ages 18 to 29, the figure is 8 percent."
DeleteTheir imaginations have not been stimulated by any grand vision of what a Catholic world would look like.
ReplyDeleteGreenleaf in Servant Leadership said that the problem with Catholicism is that we are far better at articulating what we are against than what we are for.
Jack, it seems to me that Francis is trying to change Catholicism's vision from emphasizing sin, condemnation and punishment to a focus on God's love and mercy, and instilling hope instead of fear.
ReplyDeleteFrancis doesn't seem to share conservative Catholicism 's country club mentality- excluding as many as possible - only we in the club who follow all the rules will be "saved" attitude. He seems in favor of including as many as possible without the judgmentalism. Or even requiring a proper membership card. Guessing he believes there is room in the eternal place of love even for those who tried to be "good" people but aren't baptized Christians.
"...room in the eternal place of love even for those who tried to be "good" people but aren't baptized Christians."
DeleteThe Vatican II document Nostra Aetate deals with that very thing. I understand it was a bit controversial at the time, but was promulgated nonetheless.
Jack and Anne, these are very interesting insights. It makes me reflect and realized how much I've "imbibed" Francis. If all we're preaching is sin and condemnation, we're really missing the boat. There is Good News that needs to be proclaimed.
ReplyDeleteHaving said all that: Francis can be a sharp critic of much that goes on in the world. He is not always positive if being positive means sunshine and rainbows all the time.
Not to interrupt your comment to Jack and Anne, but I think criticism is fine in the context that "this is not in line with our vision of the world as Catholics because ..."
DeleteBut constant carping against "modernity" and failure to follow discipline reduces faith to a checklist.
I don't see much in the way of love and hope in Burke's interview, but, of course, Douthat wasn't asking those kinds of questions.
Thank God the cardinals did not elect Pope Barney when they chose Francis.
DeleteGoing back to the title that Jim gave to this post. Here is the whole quote"
ReplyDeleteThere’s a breakdown of the central teaching authority of the Roman pontiff. The successor of St. Peter exercises an essential office of teaching and discipline, and Pope Francis, in many respects, has refused to exercise that office. For instance, the situation in Germany: The Catholic Church in Germany is on the way to becoming a national church with practices that are not in accord with the universal church.
The first sentence is a terribly unfair characterization of this papacy. The second sentence is simply untrue. The Encyclical on the Environment has been one of the mostly widely quoted and political effective teaching documents that has come our of Rome. And the last sentences about the Germans is actually something that Rome is trying to prevent.
I do not see how any of this is honest disagreement let alone the constructive criticism that is required of Cardinals. If he thinks it is all this bad he should resign the office of Cardinal.
Jack - maybe I'm being too optimistic, but in the sentence I used for the title of this post, I thought the key word was "central", i.e. what Burke sees breaking down is the central (as opposed to decentralized) teaching authority. I think Francis might actually agree, and respond that, yes, decentralization is actually one of the primary goals of his papacy.
DeleteHow comfortable is Francis and Rome with the way the Germans are pushing the decentralization envelope? I am not sure. I am pretty sure that decentralization goes against every ultramontane fiber in a Roman bureaucrat's body. Francis has registered some objections to what Germany is pursuing, but hasn't done much to stop them - which he surely could (cf. the Americans' attempts to do clergy abuse reform last year).
Jim: Having said all that: Francis can be a sharp critic of much that goes on in the world. He is not always positive if being positive means sunshine and rainbows all the time.
ReplyDeleteI agree that he can be pretty sharp in his criticism at times.
But he seems mostly to focus his sharpest criticisms on corporate sins - those committed by "society" in general - rather than on individual sins. So he talks about it being unchristian to build walls to keep out immigrants, to refuse to take in refugees. He talks about the sin of destroying the environment, and especially about the impact on the world's poorest peoples. etc.
Most church hierarchs focus on individual sins, especially those related to sex - homosexuality/gay marriage, divorce and remarriage, abortion, contraception. The American bishops occasionally let out a few peeps to complain about Trump's immigration policy, but they are still far more outspoken about the culture war issues than they are about society's sins against "the least of these".
Francis gives the official line on all of the sins so dear to the hearts of bishops and cardinals (especially in the US), but he also seems far more ready to take a compassionate and merciful approach to those involved than are the US hierarchy, to trust more to individual conscience of those involved as they discern whether or not their choices really are "evil" and mean they should not go to communion.
He seems to reserve his tough criticims for the corporate/societal sins
Anne - great insight re:corporate sins; I had never thought about that before.
DeleteYou may know that "social justice warrior" is a dirty word in conservative discourse these days. I think your insight helps explain why Francis arouses so much animosity from political conservatives. People hear what Francis says about, say, climate change or laissez faire capitalism and immediately put it into their ideological framework, and (if they are a particular type of conservative) conclude he is the enemy.
At the risk of making myself comparable to Francis: the same thing happened when I preached about climate change.
Francis is very sharp in his criticism of personal sins, too.
DeleteA favor target is gossip and backbiting. He has compared destroying a person's reputation to murder.
Another target is rigidity and legalism.
And "spiritual worldliness." Since worldliness is the pursuit of money, status and power, spiritual worldliness occurs when we use religion to do all those things. McCarrick might be seen as a model of spiritual worldliness. He pursued money, status and power under guise of doing things for the church. Quite a few other cardinals might qualify.
Francis probably seem much of clericalism as a personal failure of the clergy although he says that laity are often complicit in clericalism.
Francis still hears confessions. (A lot of bishops stop.) I have mentioned our former parochial vicar who could find a preferential option for the poor in any Gospel of any day. He told me that he has never, never heard anyone confess to a racist act or inclination. And remember what he preaches about. I am sure that if he were pope, he'd find societal and corporate sin of more concern than whether Bobby and Ann went too far.
DeleteFrancis was the victim of some very serious gossip and backbiting in Argentina. Perhaps that's why those sins are high on his list of "worst" sins. Agree too that laity are often complicit in upholding the structures of clericalism.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's pretty clear that Francis is also right in targeting using religious status to obtain wealth and power. There are plenty of examples of that sin in the RCC. Not to mention in the mega church, "healing" ministry crowd, and, of course, among televangelists.
But none of these sins are of much concern to the hierarchy- at least in the United States