I'm right around your age and since I went to public school we didn't discuss it in school but we had a whole couple religion classes on what the significance was of Benedict stepping down and how this might create a "clash of ideas" within the church with 2 popes alive at the same time. Honestly we were kind of right back then about that. There's definitely a clash.
The one big sticking point I have about Francis is in his desire to keep his sweet old man persona he was often called lukewarm, progressive, etc. I think he should have been more straight forward on his views then he let on. A lot of that was due to media framing and taking a lot of his words out of context and then a lot of people out in my area jumped on the headlines even though they know the media lies about a lot of stuff to push a narrative. Don't get me wrong the man had a socialist viewpoint on distribution of wealth which was bad, and lately his views on essentially thinking ALL illegal immigrants are actual needy migrants that need sheltering was shotty at best and neglected the fact that the Bible gives the US government explicit authority to control its borders.
However the things he caught the flack for the most was on marriage, LGBT issues, and other social issues. When you look at what he actually said, he didn't change any of what the Church teaches on those things already, no matter how much the media tried to frame it as such. I mean he flat out told a journalist "NO!" when asked if women will ever be ordained. He said God and therefore as an extension he can not bless sin when discussing LGBT marriages, etc.
I think a lot of people who claimed he was leading people astray from Church teaching didn't actually dig into what he was saying. His "who am I to judge" line was taken way over the top because he's right. He's just a man, he can't judge where a person's actions will send them. All he can say it's a sin which he did and move on. There's nothing he can really do at that point. You can educate but after you've educated, if they continue to do it, it's on them at this point. So yeah I disagreed a lot with Pope Francis on his worldview but he definitely got a lot more crap then he deserved. I'm interested to see where the conclave goes.
I think what many of us RCs (myself included) tend to forget is when we look at the Popes today and in retrospect is, post-Vatican II, there isn’t much frame of reference for how to compare/contrast how we see them individually. (Work with me here.)
Paul VI — there’s kind of an argument he was progressive? I would venture to guess the vast majority of RC’s under 50 don’t recollect much of him.
JP1 — what’s understood doesn’t need to be explained.
JP2 — conservative, yes, but admirable in his defense of Vatican II. Even for progressives like me, he was very admirable in the general interfaith mission he promoted.
I think what unraveled the ball of yarn leading to heightened polarization in the American faithful is the intersection of four things: the final year or so of JP2’s papacy, the rising tide of contemporary social issues as characterized from a progressive view point (LGBT, role of women in the church etc), the sudden increase of the American church as a political actor, and the general… lack of resolution seemed to be proffered by Benedict XVI, if not just a general lack of using platform?
Blessed JP2 was known to have lost some of his faculties in his final years. Sad, but true. Those final years saw the Global War on Terror, the precipice of gay marriage (Massachusetts was the first to legalize it in 2004), and of course all that was unearthed by the Boston Globe in 2002. Individually, those are all tough waters for the Church to navigate without pissing their own people off. Put together, it wasn’t ideal to say the least. The former two create divergence across the board to a general degree, the latter just causes people to lose faith in the institution.
There isn’t wisdom in a layperson like me to armchair QB what higher men of God and their credentials
ought to have done in terms of “meeting the world” as is, no. But you look at Benedict XVI and he… just isn’t known for much speaking/action to JP2 (big shoes to fill) nor Francis. Sound, accomplished theologian? Yes. Active voice and the maker of best decisions throughout the main chunk of his papacy? Perhaps not. In respect to him, stepping down was probably a recognition on his part that the Church couldn’t afford to have him serve deep into his 80’s or even 90’s simply because of the risk he’d be incapacitated and unable to lead. That, or the state of the Church did require continuous leadership at a level far beyond what could reasonably be expected of someone at (let’s be frank) significantly old age. Or both?
So it’s two consecutive papacies of a general dogma, both in the Church teaching and (of course) consequent analog to the American political system, spanning 45 years. That and Vatican II define basically the majority of still-living Catholic memory in the States. Benedict XVI not being much of a ‘boat-rocker’ (so to speak) I think went largely unnoticed in his Papacy. That carrying being taken for granted, at least by those who later think Francis was a bad pope (among other possible derogations)? I think that’s fair to say.
— — —
When Francis became Pope, it was… interesting? Catholic schools, ironically enough, are not required to wholesale acknowledge the doctrine of
papal infallibility to the extents one would presume as it relates to Catechizing. There is, to a degree, freedom (as long as it unequivocally follows Church teaching.)
So it was, an experience to say the least, to have a senior year of Theology not discussing the merits and incorporation of the new Pope… but, instead… Benedict XVI’s “dictatorship of relativism” being the sticking point day-in, day-out. Like, we burned probably two months of that course constantly getting brick-walled on every dissenting/slight disagree/“yes, but?” we had to offer. What’s the point of the tuition, for that matter our time that can be spent learning something else, if it’s just constant pointing to that? Hell, my brother and I got C-‘s on our Capstones (argue one side or the other on a social issue, what does the church have to say about it? Use props, too) because we picked “
for the legalization of marijuana” (Colorado had just greenlit it by then), followed the rubric, defended our position and did bring in props — a pewter dish (tray), rolled up single-ply toilet paper stuffed with oregano, oregano in a clump inside the tray, and rockwool grow cubes. Also got detention for that, too.
But getting back to the point of Francis/first year and beyond… I think it just is hard for the next Pope to strike the balance of a) upholding Church teaching without compromise, and b) getting more voice and connection drawn to the western Catholics who will be their age-majority 20-25 years from now (e.g. our generation.) We both know that Mercer County is Major League Catholicism, we know that trying to ‘mend’ the various community cohorts of RCs across different strata (age, political, social, geographic — e.g. urban/suburban versus exurban versus rural) is a fool’s errand in and of itself. Not to mention… not exactly a high priority for the next Pontiff (to a degree this also depends on units like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.)
If it can reconcile some differences, even if it means how two different people can see a Pope or see the flaw in how others’ characterize a Pope to the extents many bash Francis… it’s a step in the right direction. Not perfect, but better.
