Is Pope Francis the Leader of the World?
by Bob Schwartz
The Dalai Lama is the most famous Buddhist in the world. His message is powerful, positive and universal. Even with the huge platform he has, his brand of Tibetan Buddhism is a bit exotic for many people, so still somewhat limited. He is also one of the coolest people on the planet. So as much as a basic Buddhist message would be great for the world at large to take to heart, it isn’t about to happen.
Pope Francis is also an outsized moral leader. He is the head of a church with more than a billion followers. And while there are hundreds of millions of Protestant Christians who question whether that church and its Pope can claim Christian legitimacy—and who find the Catholic Church plenty exotic too—you can’t deny the size and scope of the Pope’s Christian community. And if the Dalai Lama is cool, so is Pope Francis; he was once a bar bouncer, which is something the Dalai Lama can never claim.
The biggest argument for the supreme leadership role of Pope Francis is that he is exactly the right person for the right time, acting and speaking on a very big stage. Two of the major characteristics of the moment are that materialism seems to be failing or failing us and that our changing social universe requires some tricky balance between the old and the new, the absolute and the relative.
Pope Francis gets this and sells this from the very foundations of his faith. He has just had to deny that his is a not a Marxist, but proceeded in the same breath to appreciate the work of those who sincerely act in the name of Marxist ideals. It is not just that he seems to have a vision that synthesizes the original Christian communities with the complicated world two millennia later. He sees in the very institution he is charged with running the embodiment of the problems. If the institutional church, the church membership and the world have lost their way, it is not his job to order them around. Instead he just points to a playbook that is to be taken seriously, not selectively and strategically, and advises to live by and as its example. It’s a choice, one he has made, one he hopes others, from the church hierarchy on out, will make.
Whether the Catholic Church straightens out its affairs, whether disaffected Catholics return, whether new Catholics arrive, whether we are Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or Buddhist is beside the point and beside the Pope’s point. It is about being better and getting better. Pope Francis is not the first to say that, not even the first Pope to say it. But his walking the walk in the world of 2013 is different. These are the times that try people’s souls. We seem to have a world leader willing to make that reality both an ancient and modern quest, a quest that may, in the real and not theological sense, save us all.
Bob Schwartz 
The Catholic Church had to be smart with their latest appointment. The disastrous appointment of Ratzinger could hardly have gone worse and in my opinion he probably didn’t go voluntarily. And lets face it, it would be hard to get worse than a medieval, hatefully and openly homophobic, immoral, enemy of humanity, who sheltered, protected and rewarded child rapists.
This Pope may well be a nicer shade of grey, a friendly face, a bit of tinsel on a bare tree. But all these cover up an institution that still adheres to an ancient philosophy that abhors progress, fears science and independent thought and is killing people and retarding society, through an opposition to condoms, stem cell research and abortion. While also claiming huge wealth, position and influence despite having absolutely no solid basis to its claims whatsoever.
A new leader comes along and we are supposed to act like the past hasn’t happened, or that the infallible haven’t made mistakes, or that this man, because he is a man and nothing more, is not still the leader of a cult of sexually repressed, deluded profiteers, founded on an act of ritual blood sacrifice to cleanse imaginary sin. In my opinion, all who smile back at this seeming friendly new face of Catholicism, have short memories and are not watching as one hand waves and distracts you, and the other hand is sweeping the dirt under the rug.
If you need reminding that the religious can lie, cheat, steal and abuse, after the sex abuse scandal and their response, then best remind yourself that these people live from charitable donations and possess a huge sum of wealth, residing in palaces, adorned with expensive materials and art. Yet they purport to be based on the teachings of a simple champion of the poor. As actions of a state leader and a party, that sounds like an expenses scandal to me. A title and a religious robe are not a blockade against corruption, immorality, abuse and villainy and we would do well to see them as they are.
I can’t deny he has fans and a following, but this should be among similarly deluded Catholics. Not among secular people who refute the idea behind his Church or position. He has been given no tough questions to answer and treated with the respect deserving of someone who does not lead a group that makes its charity conditional upon proselytising, or fails to investigate or hand child rapists over to face justice. He is not a legitimate world leader in my eyes and I deny all his claims and his position, as I would say do many others.
They have no legitimacy on the world stage. The Pope is an illegitimately elected leader, by the standards of democratic rule, of a group that still cause suffering, ignorance, disease and fear throughout the world. Any other group responsible for such horrors would not be excused because their leader is a bit charismatic. They desire power and influence in the here and now, a curious position for representatives of a ‘kingdom not of this world’. They are a corrupt state and the Pope is an unelected politician. Nothing more. I only wish more people would marginalise their influence instead of being impressed by a new leader, tradition and ritual.
Thanks for a long and thoughtful comment, deserving of a reply much longer than this one right now. Do not mistake me for an apologist for anything the Catholic Church has done institutionally or individually, ever and recently, or for their failure to acknowledge, apologize for or correct any of it. I would go further and say that at some point, dark deeds — sins of omissions and commission — are so baked in to some institutions and enterprises that reform is a ruse and that nothing less than eradication will serve the interests of humane and enlightened progress. But there are two obstacles, or maybe one obstacle and one opportunity. The obstacle is that the Catholic Church isn’t going away any time soon. In fact, separate from the phenomenon of Pope Francis, it has been growing in certain parts of the world and with a younger generations. So if the choice is a better or worse church — if its imminent or even mid-term disappearance is not an option — which would you choose? I am not condoning minutely incremental improvement or illusory improvement that leaves nothing changed; that is precisely the situation that led to the big split and reformation centuries ago. The opportunity, which is at the heart of the post, is that you have someone who has the attention of the world, and he got that attention not just by being the unelected head of the church, but by, as I said, “walking the walk” and embodying virtues that go to the heart not only of the church and the Christian message, but to the heart of enlightened humanity. He is challenging everyone, from the bishops on down, to either live up to the core principles or to stop talking and step away. None of that makes the church a better institution or changes either the past or any of the shortcomings you outline. But if you want a hint of what it might do, check out the “enemies” that Pope Francis has made, those who carefully (and not so carefully) question his judgment, even though he is the Pope. He is a radical in an institution in need of change and, as mentioned, an institution that is with us for quite a while longer.
There is no excuse for their actions. I am not interested in compromise, nor justifying an institution that is responsible for protecting rapists under the guise of them needing moral guidance and prayer to cure their sick compulsions, not jail. If this was any other group, there would be no way polite and civilised compromise would be suggested. Can you imagine saying that if a similar scandal hit UKIP or the Labour Party? Of course not. But because it’s a religion, we need to be sensitive and meet in the middle.
Just like if you were a member of those parties and such a scandal hit, you’d resign and be ashamed of the leadership. This is not a problem that has been addressed by Catholicism. The cover up is wide spread and there has been no thorough investigation or reorganisation. The hierarchy is infected by deceit and illegality and people wish for consideration and understanding for them? I decline to treat them differently than anyone else who has obstructed justice or commuted such offences.
I do not wish to be part of the lobby to forgive and forget, because they have not met the necessary surrender to the rule of law, which they won’t do because they know they don’t have to. There will never be a moderate Catholic Church as they are fundamentally incompatible with a free and open society that supports the adoption of the best of science from the standpoint of moderation and balance. Rather they prefer a view of ‘abortion is wrong because god loves all life and that is final’ along with other totalitarian positions. I’d rather have abortion regulated and governed by democracy informed by science and moderation, to ensure it is a middle ground that makes the best for everyone in as many situations as possible.
We should never be satisfied with a moderate cult, as appeasing those who have real designs to control and dictate ethics and social norms, especially from a god, will always try to gain back powers that they may surrender briefly. Do not think that the Catholic Church will ever say that they are a private belief system. They are and always will be a institution that means to control public policy throughout the world. Isn’t that strange? Do you know why this is? It’s because they won’t be happy until everyone else believes it too and they have gone so far as genocide to see it done in the past.
The only way to limit their influence is to push back consistently and unwaveringly, expose their ideas and their traditions for what they are. Relics of an age of ignorance and suppression that we should resist with everything at our disposal. We must not forget those who have really suffered at the hands of this Church and have had no meaningful apologies or closure on their ordeal. We must also educate children on science and history in an objective and balanced way, not the pro British rubbish I was taught through school, and give to charities in the third world who wish to aid humans for its own sake, without the proviso of them reading bibles and learning of god.
You shake the hands of these villains if you wish, but I do not accept your premise. I do not want an extreme or moderate Catholicism. I want it removed from public life, limited and reduced and policed as any political group or pressure group is. Once it becomes a private belief with no political designs or belief that it is entitled to unquestioning and silent respect, then I will say we can talk about their moderate influences. But first it needs pushing and questioned and probed, in order to expose it for the corrupt subjugator of humans that it is. Never going to happen I hear everyone say? Where would we be now if we approached life in this way? What a defeatist and unhelpful view in light of how far humans have come. I believe it could happen because I think humans can be educated out of it and all it takes is the correct social and educational conditions, along with the breaking of taboos through unapologetic criticism to deconstruct the protection that religions enjoy, that has become so normal that people accept it as a matter of course. If we criticise it, demystify it and treat it as unsophisticated as it really is, people will no longer fear breaking the unwritten law about respecting faith.
Ask yourself why it deserves a seat at the table? Other than because it’s always had one. And other than its support. The numbers you suggested are exaggerated. There are a billion baptised Catholics, not who are staunch and devout Catholics. I was baptised Anglican, but I am certainly not among their number and consider Anglicanism to be of a similar deluded and unnecessary pressure group that deserves no seat in civilised and rational discourse. They claim among their numbers people who do not believe official Church teaching, to boost their numbers and display their power and keep critics silent, by convincing the world that a billion people believe all they say.