Post a Comment On: Bruce Charlton's Notions

From a Christian perspective; Pope Francis is either an irrelevance, or the single most dangerous and damaging person in the world. Which, depends on one's assumptions about what is the best future for the Roman Catholic Church.
 Francis leads the largest Christian denomination, and the only one with a centralised world-leader (the second and third largest - Orthodox and Anglican, have national level leadership). And he is leading them into greater confromity with the Globalist secular (and leftist) agenda. Insofar as Roman Catholics are led by Francis; that is their primary, overall direction - towards world government along the lines of The Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030.Towards a world in which CO2 Climate Change dominates the economy; a world of mass and unrestricted first-world immigration, third-world migrations sustained by core antiracism; of (gradually, with increasinly fast) embracing of the sexual revolution as a positive moral gain; and (as of 2020) the birdemic regarded as a great plague compelling the above restructuring.  In total, Francis's strategy could be seen as based on the assumption that the mass majority of self-identified Roman Catholics (both ordained and lay) are correct in their de facto embrace of the above process of secularisation and liberalisation; and therefore the best way forward is for the Pope and Magisterium, the bishops and priests, to conform to that mass-majority.   In another phrasing; for Francis the short-term tactical expediency of confroming to the Global socio-political trends is also the best long-term strategy for the RCC survival and thriving. Presumably; Francis sees the best future as one in which the RCC has 'a seat at the table' of the other great movers-and-shakers of the world. And indeed that has been happening. Francis personally is certainly given much greater approval, publicity and backing from the mass media and major political actors. Presumably the strategy is that this would extend through the hierarchy of Cardinals, Bishops and Priests to the laity - who could then lend a Catholic influence to the mainstream. 

But the view of the other, still living - Emeritus - Pope Benedict XVI - is the opposite. Benedicts view is that the future of the Roman Catholic Church lies in reforming itself around the most devout of its members - what he called a Creative Minority. In other words, Benedict was a kind of elitist - on religious grounds. He apparenty felt that the mass of Roman Catholics were leading the church astray, and into assimilation with secularising socio-political trends.  For Benedict; the way ahead was a tough path; where things got worse before they got better; a path that could only be tackled with considerable faith. Because Benedict envisaged, and argued in favour of, a reduction in size of the RCC, a shedding of lax and secular ('corrupted') members - who would, presumably, leave voluntarily when the reformed church demanded from them more, and different, than was compatible with social expedience. (And if they were priests who would not join the Creative Minority agenda, they would ultimately need to be expelled from Holy Orders, even against their will; if laity, they would be excommunicated.)
 So, en route to a future of RCC survival and thriving; for Benedict there must and would be a period of shrinking, contraction - and concentration of members into a coherent and purposive Creative Minority. This much smaller, but more devout and correct, RCC would then be a seed for a renewal of growth in the future'; and this future would be one of renewed differentness-from, distinction-from, the secular world. I think Benedict saw the best future as a smaller but more-coherent and more-different church; acting as a countervailing power; mostly pushing against the mainstream of dominant socio-political power (such as the bureaucracy, multinational corporations and the mass media). Against, that is, the prevalent focus of The World which makes sexuality, healthism, envirnmentalism, race &c - into the prime value-issues of the world. By contrast, Benedict was in favour of maintaining the ancient idea of the Church as a (Holy) City of God; as much as possible distinct from the City of Man - or, indeed, a future unified Megalopolis of Man.   

Thus (by my understanding) the two living Popes have almost exactly opposite strategies from each other. And if, as I do, you approve Benedict's strategy; then you cannot (consistently) approve Francis's strategy; and would regard Francis's path as leading - not to church renewal but to church assimilation-into the Global Bureaucracy. ...Not for the church to be a distinct voice from the tech and finance multi-billionnaires and global media, but to speak with exactly the same voice - at least when it comes to speaking about the core (i.e. socio-political, secular) issues of our time - and making them the tactical priority.