At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a rudder,” said a prominent Catholic conservative last week.
No big deal, you might think. Opponents of Pope Francis have been casting doubt on his leadership abilities for months and especially since October’s Vatican Synod on the Family, at which liberal cardinals preemptively announced a softening of the Church’s line on homosexuality and second marriages, only to have their proposals torn up by their colleagues.
But it is a big deal. The “rudderless” comment came not from a mischievous traditionalist blogger but from Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Apostolic Signatura that is, president of the Vatican’s supreme court.
As it happens, Pope Francis intends to sack Burke, whose habit of dressing up like a Christmas tree at Latin Masses infuriates him. But he hasn’t got round to it yet.
And thus we have the most senior American cardinal in Rome publicly questioning the stewardship of the Holy Father possibly with the tacit approval of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
Nothing like this has happened since the backstabbing behind the scenes at the Second Vatican Council 50 years ago. It raises the question: Is the Catholic Church in the early stages of a civil war between liberals and conservatives, fought not over liturgical niceties (the source of relatively harmless squabbles under John Paul II and Benedict XVI) but fundamental issues of sexual morality?
The October synod was a disaster for Pope Francis. Before it started, he had successfully tweaked the Catholic mood music relating to divorcees and gay people.
The line “Who am I to judge?”, delivered with an affable shrug on the papal plane, generated friendly headlines without committing the Church to doctrinal change. Conservatives were alarmed but had to acknowledge Francis’ cunning. “Remember that he’s a Jesuit,” they said.
Then Francis did something not very cunning. Opening the synod, which would normally be a fairly routine affair, he encouraged cardinals and bishops to “speak boldly”. Which they did, but not in the way he intended.
The Pope’s first mistake was to invite Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s 81-year-old retired head of ecumenism, to set the agenda for the synod by addressing the world’s cardinals back in February. Kasper told them that the Church should consider giving Holy Communion to remarried Catholics.
Even if Francis supports this notion and nobody knows his choice of Kasper was a blunder because the cardinal, in addition to being a genial and distinguished scholar, is leader of a German-led faction that represents, in Catholic terms, the far Left of the theological spectrum.
In 1993, Kasper, then Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, co-signed a letter by German bishops demanding that Catholics living “in a canonically invalid union” should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to receive the Eucharist.
The German Church is a law unto itself: although its services are empty, it is rich, thanks to the country’s Church tax, and arrogant. To cut a long story short, this faction which had ruthlessly undermined Benedict XVI’s authority when he was Pope tried to hijack the synod.
They messed it up. The synod’s “special secretary”, the Italian archbishop Bruno Forte, wrote a mid-synod report suggesting that the participants wanted to recognise the virtuous aspects of gay unions.
In doing so, Forte an even more radical figure overplayed his hand. Most synod fathers wanted no such thing. Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal George Pell, head of the Vatican’s finances, were horrified.
They ensured that the final report kicked Communion for divorcees into the long grass and did not even mention homosexual relationships. “Synod rebuffs Francis on gays,” reported the media the last thing the Pope wanted to read.
To make matters worse, Kasper gave an interview in which he said that anti-gay African Catholics “should not tell us too much what we have to do”.
At which point Cardinal Burke called him a racist. Kasper reacted furiously and is telling anyone who will listen that the Church will soon drastically change its rules on access to Communion. This is wishful thinking.
And now another voice is being heard. The last Pope is neither dead nor senile nor as silent as we thought he was going to be. In the last month Benedict XVI has written to the ex-Anglicans of the Ordinariate expressing delight that they now worship in the former Bavarian chapel in Warwick Street, London; to Rome’s Pontifical Urban University about the dangers of relativism; and, most significantly, to supporters of the old liturgy.
“I am very glad that the usus antiquior (the traditional Latin Mass) now lives in full peace within the Church, also among the young, supported and celebrated by great cardinals,” he said.
In fact, very few cardinals celebrate in the old rite. But one who does is Raymond Burke. “Benedict is well aware of that,” says a Ratzinger loyalist. “He’s not under the illusion that he’s still Pope, but he was appalled by the sight of Kasper trashing his legacy and he is making his displeasure clear.”
Where does this leave Francis? Looking a bit like “the Hamlet Pope”, Paul VI, whom he has beatified. He supports some sort of reform, but uncertainty is breaking the Church into factions reminiscent of the Anglican Communion.
Old enemies of Benedict XVI reckon they can persuade Francis to stack the college of cardinals in their favour. Meanwhile, Burke has emerged as leader of the hardline traditionalists.
“He did not want this role but perhaps he sees himself as a St. John Fisher figure,” says one Vatican source, a comparison that casts the successor of Peter in the role of Henry VIII.
What should worry Francis is that moderate conservative Catholics are losing confidence in him.
The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who is no one’s idea of an extremist, believes that “this Pope may be preserved from error only if the Church itself resists him”.
Cristina Odone, former editor of the Catholic Herald, says that “Francis achieved miracles with his compassionate, off-the-cuff comments that detoxified the Catholic brand. He personifies optimism but when he tries to turn this into policy he isn’t in command of the procedures or the details. The result is confusion.”
All of which suggests a far closer analogy than with Henry VIII. There is another world leader, elected amid huge excitement, who has surprised and disappointed the faithful by appearing disengaged and even helpless in moments of crisis. This is an awful thing to say, but we could be watching Jorge Bergoglio turn into Barack Obama.
By arrangement with the Spectator
