What the Pope Wanted to Say, Probably

There is a certain pastoral discretion required in an official visit to another country. However, discretion does not mean minimizing or relativizing the Gospel.

St. Ignatius of Loyola was investigated by the Spanish Inquisition and was quite docile through the ordeal. Perhaps an echo of what he experienced can be heard in one of the principles he laid out in his Spiritual Exercises about putting the best construction on the expressions of other people that touch on God and Sacred Doctrine.

 

It should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it. Further, if he cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; and if this is not enough, one should search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved. (SE 22)

Applying that principle to the news reports about the pope’s chat with some young people during his Asian trip, perhaps we can say that the Holy Father was expressing respect for all religions that lead man to transcendence.

 

He said, in my imperfect translation from the Italian, “all religions are ways to get to (arrive at) God.” This cannot in itself imply that all are equal, because that would negate what Revelation has taught us and also annihilate all intention of missionary activity. He went on to say that he would use a metaphor that diversity of religious experience and understanding is comparable to the diversity of language. Omnia metafora claudicat, as my first Latin teacher taught us—“all metaphors limp” (he said it was from Horace).

 

Jesus didn’t say, “I am a way, a truth, and a life.” He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So, what can the pope mean? Is he relativizing the value of the Gospel? Let us look at the context of his remarks. The pope was talking in a part of the world where Catholics are a distinct minority. He is advocating respect for all religions as a way of transcendence, as ways toward God. His trip was a missionary journey.

 

One wishes that the pope were more careful in his comments. Ambiguity scandalizes. As soon as the reports of the pope’s remarks in Singapore appeared on the Internet, I got two calls from younger priests expressing alarm. One’s strengths are one’s weaknesses. The pope’s spontaneous appearance of frankness is appealing in some ways, but not when it is confusing. Mary Ann Glendon pointed out in her memoir of working with three popes that Pope Francis’ ambiguity leads to confusion, and this is a case in point.

One wishes that the pope were more careful in his comments. Ambiguity scandalizes.

I would guess the pope is familiar with Chesterton. I would remind him of this quote from the great Englishman’s Orthodoxy:

 

There is a phrase of facile liberality uttered again and again in ethical societies and parliaments of religion: “the religions of the earth differ in rites and forms, but they are the same in what they teach.” It is false, it is the opposite of the fact…The truth is, of course, that they are alike in everything except in the fact that they don’t say the same thing.

Following the indication of St. Ignatius, we should examine ambiguity with the hope that it is a matter of language, not of ideas, that confuses. The context of the pope’s remarks is important. The decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church given at Vatican II admits that there are stages of missionary activity: “first the stage of beginning or planting; then that of newness or youth.” Perhaps the idea of the pope is that preaching the message of tolerance is preparing the ground for the planting, a kind of pre-first stage. Singapore is a society of many religions, and the pope was addressing that diversity in a way that indicated the charitable attitude of respect that the Church has for people with different religious backgrounds.

 

We do not expect the pope to preach like Billy Graham in his Crusades and make an altar call. There is a certain pastoral discretion required in an official visit to another country. The decree on missionary activity anticipates an approach that is tactical:

 

at times the circumstances are such that temporarily there is no possibility of proclaiming the gospel message directly and immediately. In such a situation, missionaries with patience and prudence, together with great confidence, both can and should at least bear witness to the charity and goodness of Christ, and so prepare the ways of the Lord and make Him in some way present.

However, discretion does not mean minimizing or relativizing the Gospel, which I am afraid could be a takeaway from the reports. I think that his staff should make known to the Holy Father that his words, which he no doubt expressed with benevolence, are open to terrible interpretations. They could be quoted by those who relativize the content of the Faith, as Chesterton noted when he said that liberalizing does not liberate.

 

The fundamental reason for this missionary activity is the will of God, who “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:4-6); “and there is salvation in no one else” (Acts 4:12). It is necessary, therefore that all should be converted to Him, made known through the preaching of the Church, and that through baptism they should be incorporated into Him, and into the Church, which is His body. For Christ Himself “in expressly stressing the necessity of faith and baptism has at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism as through a door.” (Ad Gentes 7)

 

The same decree allows that some are saved “who through no fault of their own are ignorant of the Gospel,” but who arrive at “that faith without which it is impossible to please Him.” The obligation of the Church to evangelize, however, is not suspended because of these exceptions.

 

The pope admitted that he was using a “metaphor,” and it sounds like it just came to him in the stream of his conversation. Preaching sometimes provokes a multitude of metaphors, but not all metaphors are equal. A wag might say that, while Horace said that all metaphors limp, some of them are actually crippled and cannot walk.

 

Shakespeare’s Dogberry said that comparisons are odorous, when he meant odious. A metaphor that will echo around the world needs to be carefully thought out and precisely expressed. Chesterton said that the reason the Church fought over definitions of dogma is that a misplaced comma could mean a man would lose his soul. Figures of speech are not dogma, but those used by those in authority can be crafted to prevent (preempt) misunderstandings.

 

I wonder what advice St. Ignatius would give about unscripted remarks when they can be a form of magisterium.