I see Francis as very much a Jesuit. He always stops on his trips to engage in conversation with the Jesuits of the location. The conversation is then published in the Jesuit magazine by his close collaborator, Antonio Spadaro S.J.
Pope Francis in conversation with Jesuits in Congo and in South Sudan
Some quotable quotes
As a professed Jesuit you vowed not to seek roles of authority in the Church. What prompted you to accept the episcopacy and then the cardinalate and then the papacy?
When I made that vow, I meant it. When they proposed me to be auxiliary bishop of San Miguel, I did not accept. Then I was asked to be bishop of an area in northern Argentina, in the province of Corrientes. The papal nuncio, to encourage me to accept, told me that there were the ruins of the Jesuit past there. I replied that I did not want to be guardian of the ruins, and I refused. I refused these two requests because of the vow I made. The third time the nuncio came, but already with the authorization signed by the superior general, Fr. Kolvenbach, who had agreed to my accepting. It was as an auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires. Therefore I accepted in a spirit of obedience.
You wanted Jesuit bishops and among us is a Jesuit called to the episcopate. What do you expect from them?
The choice of a Jesuit as bishop depends solely on the need of the Church. I believe in our vow that tends to prevent Jesuits from being bishops, but, if it serves the good of the Church, then the latter good prevails. I’ll tell you the truth: when the general or provincials know that a Jesuit is being considered for bishop they intervene and know how to “defend” the Society well. If, however, it is then decided that it is necessary, it is done. Other times – and I am thinking of a specific case – if the first of the terna is a Jesuit, but then there is a second one who can still fit, the second of the three is chosen. I believe in the vow, but the needs of the Church prevail.
My Comment: The above is so Ignatian! Ignatius loved rules and wrote rules for everything. But the first thing we learned in novitiate was that "you always presume permission". Rules are great but you never let them get in the road of the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls.
There has been talk of your possible resignation. Are you really intent on leaving the Petrine ministry? What about the General of the Society? In your opinion, should his post remain for life?
Look, it’s true that I wrote my resignation two months after I was elected and delivered this letter to Cardinal Bertone. I don’t know where this letter is. I did it in case I had some health problem that would prevent me from exercising my ministry and I am not fully conscious and able to resign. However, this does not at all mean that resigning popes should become, let’s say, a “fashion,” a normal thing. Benedict had the courage to do it because he did not feel up to continuing due to his health. I for the moment do not have that on my agenda. I believe that the pope’s ministry is ad vitam. I see no reason why it should not be so. Think that the ministry of the great patriarchs is always for life! And the historical tradition is important. If, on the other hand, we are listening to the “chatter,” well, then we should change popes every six months!
About the Society of Jesus: yes, on this I am “conservative.” It has to be for life. But, of course, the same question arises as about the pope. Father Kolvenbach and Father Nicolás, the last two generals, resigned for health reasons. It seems to me important to remember as well that one reason for the life-long generalship in the Society also arises to avoid electoral calculations, factions, chatter…
My Comment: Francis is very much a Jesuit. All about thinking with the Church, keeping the traditions that work, so very traditional, conservative. But he is also very liberal, not to go with the "chatter" but to be very innovative, very creative for the glory of God and salvation of souls.
What is it about Congolese inculturation and especially the Congolese rite that fills you with joy?
I like the Congolese rite because it is a work of art, a liturgical and poetic masterpiece. It was done with ecclesial sense and with aesthetic sense. It is not an adaptation, but a poetic, creative reality, to be meaningful and suiting the Congolese reality. So yes, I like it and it gives me joy.
about the image of the Church as a hospital. How can you explain it to us?
The Church as a field hospital. For me, the Church has the vocation of the hospital, of service for healing, care and life. One of the ugliest things in the Church is authoritarianism, which then becomes a mirror of society wounded by worldliness and corruption. And the vocation of the Church is to the wounded people. Today this image is even more valid, considering the war scenario we are experiencing. The Church must be a hospital that goes to where people are wounded. The Church is not a multinational spirituality corporation. Look at the saints! Heal, take care of the wounds the world experiences! Serve the people! The word “serve” is very Ignatian. “In everything love and serve” is the Ignatian motto. I want a Church of service.
Besides being very Ignatian, all these comments are those of a great politician. With his defense of the papacy as a life- long vocation he has taken the rug out from under all those who have launched the campaign that now is the time for him to resign.
ReplyDeleteHe is clearly planning to be around at least until 2025. Those who long for the end of his papacy must surely be dismayed that he might be around for another decade!
What about being a Jesuit works against being a bishop?
ReplyDeleteJesuits in the Anglican tradition I come from have a reputation for being rather devious debaters and Roman partisans, and that's all I know about them.
At the time of the founding of the Jesuits (1540) pursuit of ecclesiastical benefices for the sake of the money was very common. Benefices were offices which had material goods and a stream of income attached. The person who held the office (bishop, rector, dean, etc.) was required to perform certain spiritual duties). A very common practice was for the office holder to pay someone else to do the duties and live off the rest of the money. People could hold title to more than one benefice and could live wherever they wanted.
DeleteThe Society of Jesus began as a priestly association not a religious order. Ignatius and his companions vowed themselves to poverty and chastity, both of which were often not observed by diocesan priests. They also vowed to go as missionaries to the Holy Land or failing that accept any pastoral duty given them by the pope. They were not able to go to the Holy Land. As the Pope began to take them up on their offer, they realized that they might never see each other again. So, they decided to add the third vow of obedience, drew up a constitution as a religious order, and elected Ignatius as their first Father General. The vow to accept any task given them by the Pope became the famous fourth vow of fully professed Jesuits.
When I was interviewed for admission to the Jesuits before becoming a novice, I was asked if I had any desire to become a bishop or obtain any other office in the Church. Of course, this is done with the story behind it, so the potential novice knows the correct answer. But the question is still asked!
So the idea was that they took a vow of poverty to avoid any whiff of mis-using benifices? Wasn't this a Counter-Reformation move, to prove to those flirting with Protestantism that the Church was cleaning up abuses? I think they also acted as Church partisans and were implicated in its to overthrow Elizabeth I. Of those priests executed for treason and sedition, most were Jesuits.
DeleteWhat is the significance of the Jesuit vow of poverty now? As an outsider, I'd say they have a reputation for rigorous education and very stern catechesis. And perhaps a willingness to confront those ensconced in cushier offices.
I like the idea of the Church as a hospital and the saints as its healers.
ReplyDeleteIt's fascinating that Francis tried three times to not be made a bishop, and finally the Holy See had to outwit him to make it happen. And now he is pope. If you happen to believe that God has a plan for us (a vocation, if you will), then this is a great anecdote.
ReplyDeleteOf course, being an executive in any organization comes with perks and privileges, and the church is no different. The perks can be seductive, so seductive that many men thirst for them and pursue them ambitiously. Even for those like Francis who seemingly are immune to their attractions, the perks can be a temptation. Yet the church, like any other organization, genuinely needs leaders in order to function. Much better that he be a servant leader like Francis, than the alternative.
(I am never sure what to make of Benedict in this regard. I was always a bit put off by his designer shoes, and he seemed to have a thing for vestments. But maybe he just liked clothes!)
It's fascinating that Francis tried three times to not be made a bishop, and finally the Holy See had to outwit him to make it happen.
DeleteWhen he first became pope, Francis told everyone that he had done a very poor job as provincial in Argentina. He was only thirty, inexperienced, and did not consult with anyone. He was an authoritarian and a had a reputation as a “right-winger” but was never that.
Francis had caused such controversy as Argentina that he was assigned to a remote city with little to do. Eventually he was allowed to come back to the capital.
Francis' reputation as a right-winger in the papacy of JPII likely came from having ordered the Jesuits who had joined the revolutionaries in the slums to leave under obedience and kicked them out of the society when they refused. They were then arrested and spent time in prison but did not disappear as so many did under the Junta. He also backed an Argentinian form of liberation theology that emphasized the importance of popular Marian devotion. Definitely made him unpopular among liberals, but likely endeared him to people in Rome who were searching for bishops acceptable to JPII.
The apostolic delegate basically was looking for a bishop’s job for Francis that would please Rome but also get him out of the Jesuits. Francis was right in refusing the first two jobs. I think he was on good terms with the apostolic delegate. The rejection of the second job sounds like they both might have agreed that Rome needed to come up with a better bishop’s offer. Auxiliary bishop of the capital allowed him to minister to the areas in which he grew up and served as novice master and provincial.
His rise to Archbishop and Cardinal was likely helped by his reputation as a right winger. I suspect he did little to discourage that. There were people both in Rome and Argentina who did not want him there as Archbishop and Cardinal. There were some attempts to persuade him to come to Rome to work in the Curia. He was too smart for that. He spent the minimum time possible in Rome and did not send his priests to study there. He never visited the Jesuits when in Rome. The Jesuit Father General was very surprised when Francis phoned him shortly after this election. Francis has made transforming the Society of Jesus as major project of his papacy.
Francis spent his time as Archbishop quietly serving the poor of his diocese and developing the synodal processes of the Latin American bishops. Cardinal Egan had been chosen as the realtor (floor manager) for one of the JP2 synods; 9-11 intervened and made him come back to New York. Francis took his place. It was his work on synodality and not politicking with the Curia that likely got him elected Pope.
I hadn't realized that Francis had been considered so right-wing in Argentina, or that some of the PTB wanted him out of there. Either that perception of him was wrong and he was more nuanced than they gave him credit for, or over time he changed 180 degrees.
DeleteFrancis always seems so comfortable and happy when visiting with his Jesuit brethren that it's hard to envision him as being kind of a thorn in their side at one time.
St. Oscar Romero is another bishop who changed over time.
Francis is politically clever. In the first year of his papacy, he speculated that it might be short, like three to five years. The word also was out that he planned to move swiftly since he might not have much time. I think that disarmed his opponents who assumed that he would not be able to accomplish much in a pontificate shorter than that of Benedict.
ReplyDeleteNow that Benedict is gone, that has freed him to espouse the position that the papacy should be a life- long job with resignation as the exception in case of health.
As a Jesuit who practices discernment he has likely matured in his thinking over the period.
At the beginning he emphasized the positive aspects of Benedict’s decision giving the Pope the freedom to resign. However, Benedict lasted quite a few years in rather good health which increased the potential for having “two popes.” I suspect Francis has decided that even with all of Benedict’s good will that was still a problem. I suspect that if Francis resigns because of health, it will such poor health that he will not be able to be seen as an alternative pope.
It has now become apparent that there is an attempt to create “a lame duck papacy,” a campaign to give all the reasons why Francis should also resign early even if he is in good health.
Placing term limits on popes will be difficult, as will be empowering another institution (cardinals, synod of bishops) to tell a pope when to quit. So, he likely sees the value in a life-time pope where “the buck stops with the Pope.” Maybe he thinks that it is much more likely that the Holy Spirit will influence a pope to make the right decision rather than some political body. Even Benedict admitted that the cardinal's decision about a pope cannot be taken as the work of the Holy Spirit, there are simply too many counter examples in history.