Spiritual direction: Understanding the Popes

People are strange. There are some things in life that are not as difficult to understand as they seem, but people have to glue their own stuff all over what they are trying to understand, and thus miss the simplicity of comprehension. This is the case with understanding the role of the Pope from the first Pope, St. Peter the Apostle, to now with the Holy Father Benedict XVI, and into the future no doubt (though I hope understanding will increase).

Here is my first quick point. Popes "can't win" when attacked by secularists. This is because they are in a no win situation. Consider this. When Popes had secular authority (ran cities, country states, had armies, made political decisions) they were criticized as being too involved in secular life. Now that the Popes have confined themselves to being the Vicar of Christ and shunned secular authority, they are criticized for not taking more political stands.

I have a lot more to say but I want that to sink in with you. There is no "right amount" of politicizing of the Vicar of Christ. Critics are trembling with "outrage" when Popes interfered with secular matters, or when they didn't. For example, Pope Pius XII has been unfairly criticized for not taking Hitler AND Mussolini on in hand to hand combat by the very same people who are remarkably silent when Jewish refugee ships were turned away by secular governments AND those same governments did not bomb the railroad lines that led to the concentration camps themselves, which would have flummoxed the Nazis and saved thousands, maybe millions, of lives. Yet the Pope is bashed in hindsight for continuing to focus on his role as the Vicar of Christ and no more. I want to slap in the face people who today quote excesses of some of the Popes in secular and political matters yet get all "morally outraged" when the Pope does not speak out on every personal favorite political agenda held by those same critics.

So I want the faithful who read this blog to remember and ponder how times were different over the past several thousand years, where Popes did have secular influence, either directly or through Kings or Queens, and how better off we are now that they only focus on being the Vicar of Christ. When you have to be an apologist remember that the critics have gotten what they wanted: the Pope does not interfere in governments and their affairs. So raking over the same **** of the past is pointless and that's just self congratulatory spewing by critics. They have to harp on the excesses of the past (deliberately misunderstanding the city state composition of government and society during those times of which the Pope had to be part) because the recent Popes of the past several centuries have flatly refused to be drawn into anything other than what they are supposed to do, which is the Vicar of Christ and his pastoral work. No wonder they have to harp on about the past: they are ignorant of the facts and they are frustrated that the Popes cannot be manipulated in the core faith. Trust me, they thought they had a liberal gold mine in the loved Pope John Paul II because he was thought of as "modern." Secularists were shocked to the core when JPII refused to apostate on favorite issues such as sex, sex, sex. They thought they had a "hip" Pope who was skiing, had acting background, a social life before being ordained and who was not camera shy and thus possibly open to manipulation, they figured. Well, oops, not so much. JPII never forgot he is the Vicar of Christ. We may have gotten some nutty liturgical excesses with him but secularists had to gnash their teeth as he kept his faith and those who heeded him pure. Ha ha ha. Nothing like thinking you have a "changeable Gemini" to manipulate and finding out that he was the Rock.

I'll write more on this subject because no one understands the heart and soul of the Popes more than I. No brag just fact. It's important to understand them and to have faith in them.