A press release issued by the Vatican to the media on July 5 declared that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was being excommunicated for schism latae sententiae, that is, because of the very action taken by the excommunicated person. It stated that “his public statements manifesting his refusal to recognise and submit to the Supreme Pontiff, his rejection of communion with the members of the Church subject to him, and of the legitimacy and magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Council are well known.”
Viganò is a vociferous critic of Pope Francis.
Disagreement with papal enunciations is not a new phenomenon. Usually, this is expressed very discreetly by religious people as, for instance, in the case of some disagreement expressed with St Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, even if the secular media could be less discreet.
With Pope Francis it is different. Disagreement is not only vociferous; it is also continuous and offered by important members of the hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops.
One would ask: Why is this happening? There could be many reasons, some of which are of a personal nature.
When, on his election night, Pope Francis chose to stick to his black shoes, to renounce to the limousine and to continue to reside at St Martha’s rather than in the Vatican papal apartments, a number of clerics who must have understood the message that the new pope was conveying, raised their eyebrows.
However, in this article, I intend to ignore these personal reasons, not least because I cannot read people’s intentions and because I do not have the right to judge anybody. Instead, I would like to emphasise a phenomenon that causes good people to close themselves to new, more fruitful ways of looking at things.
In the early 1960s, we had Vatican II. Many were happy with the way of the council. They not only appreciated the new liturgy in the vernacular but also the council’s opening to other Christians, to non-Christians and to the world. Most of all, they appreciated the new model of Church, no longer a Noah’s Ark as the only place of salvation but as a pilgrim community of believers moving towards God.
Some were not prepared for the council’s dramatic changes. They felt disorientated. Prior to the council, there was clarity; people knew the doctrine and the morality. After the council, it seemed to them that clarity was lost. Tenets of the faith were being reinterpreted, as in the case of the Church itself. The abolition of the Tridentine mass was seen as a symbol of this betrayal. The most noted dissenter was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who, later, founded the society of St Pope Pius X.
The council coincided with the early stages of the process of secularisation. The churches began to empty. In reality, the council was propitious in preparing the Church for these changes, but some believed that the loss of faith was a consequence of the council.
Then came Pope John Paul II. He came from a Church that was not only very traditional but also the only bulwark against communism and continuously under attack. When you’re fighting, orders cannot be questioned. Pope John Paul preferred clarity.
His pronouncements were rather dogmatic, leaving little room for different thought. The synods, which Pope Paul VI had set up “in order to help me lead the Church”, often became more like briefing sessions. They were heavily populated by bishops from the Roman Curia, with certain topics not subject matter for discussion.
This was the Church that Pope Francis was elected to govern. He himself was quite conservative in his theological thinking. He had a few problems when he was provincial of the Argentine Jesuit Province. Forced to spend time away from the hub of action, he had time to reflect and, little by little, he changed, with very few noticing.
As bishop of Buenos Aires, he often visited the slums of the city and mixed with those people. This continued to help his transformation.
Pope Francis considered it to be his task to give a new life to the documents of the council and, especially, to Lumen Gentium and its new vision of the Church, with its insistence that the Church is not just the hierarchy but a community of every baptised person, all of whom recipients of the gift of Holy Spirit. The Council on Synodality, with the inclusion of non-bishops with the right to vote, is the greatest expression of this new vision. This upset many but it brings Lumen Gentium to its logical actualisation.
To some, the rediscovered clarity brought about by the government of the two previous popes was lost once again and their anxiety re-emerged.
This had started ages before. What God had required of the Israelites was for them to be faithful, like God was faithful to them. This was clear and vague at the same time: How do we be faithful? Seeking certainty, they invented a checklist.
Jesus reiterated that the only sacrosanct law was that of love. Maybe, we can never be sure whether we love or not, or to what extent we are loving but, before God, like St Paul had said, we do not need to judge ourselves, we only need to be faithful to God.