Papal Authority and Ethos

Ethos is a term that Aristotle used to describe one of the modes of proof, or support for an argument. Ethos is most commonly and simply summarized as authority and credibility, or how well supported the argument is by the speaker, sources, situation, or position. In terms of ethos, the Pope has one of the most powerful appeals to ethos in the world. With over 1 billion Catholics in the world and support for his position coming directly from God, the Pope is an example of a single, infallible speaker with immense authority and control. Indeed, the Pope is considered a direct disciple of Saint Peter, meant to carry out God's will and speak for God on Earth. I expect most of this information is well-known and thus unnecessary, but I repeat it to emphasize the gravity of the next part of the post.

Following the traditional and literal approaches of Pope John Paul II and particularly Pope Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio began his papacy as Pope Francis I on March 13, 2013. Even only a few months into his papacy, he has already caused much stir over his non-traditional approaches to papal speech and behavior. He has forgone the papal "throne" and opted for a less adorned seat in addition to wearing only white.

Source: Pope Benedict XVI (left) and Pope Francis I (right)

He has also washed the feet of a Serbian Muslim woman and of prisoners instead of traditionally having his own feet washed after his appointment.

Source: Feet-washing by Pope Francis I

More recently, he was under media attention after carrying his own luggage on his trip to Brazil for World Youth Day.

Source: "Only Pope Francis would carry his own bags aboard the plane for Rio!"

But perhaps most important are the words that he has said about traditional Church positions that have prompted prominent members of the Church and the Vatican itself to issue correctives. I cannot emphasize the irony and importance of this statement enough: prominent Church leaders and the Vatican have corrected the appointed voice of God on Earth, the infallible and unerring. Pope Francis I said on his return from Brazil that he and others should not judge the calling of gays to the priesthood. For a Church who argues for the immorality of gay marriage, this is really only a small step for acceptance, but is revolutionary nonetheless. This statement, however, was rejected by prominent New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan in a statement confirming the Church's official position that still considers sexual relations outside of male/female marriage immoral.

Additionally, Pope Francis I made a statement regarding the morality of atheists. Even those without a belief in God, let alone a Catholic follower could still do good and "we'll find a meeting point." People have interpreted this to mean that good people, no matter their religious affiliation, could be allowed into heaven. After this statement, the Vatican issued a statement that anyone who rejects the Catholic Church "cannot be saved."

What does it mean for the ethos of the Pope to be challenged? Is the Church so tied to tradition and antiquity that it must reverse even the slightest hint of progressive, liberal, and welcoming rhetoric? What role does Pope Francis I play if his position as voice of God is subject to human correction? Can he be trusted and considered an authority by followers?

I do not believe that these small statements truly mean that Pope Francis I is a liberal or that the Church is anywhere close to changing its positions (considering the correctives). To say that finding a place for women in the Church is revolutionary is really to forget the fact that it is 2013. The implications of these statements should not be completely ignored, however. What these statements represent is a small, but meaningful step towards increased inclusion in the Catholic Church. These symbolic gestures, though rejected by others, might promote the increased openness of Catholics or at least temper Catholic backlash to liberal social issues. At least this is a positive step away from some of the past teachings that were highly restrictive and more concerned with pomp and circumstance than change.

Source

Easter 2012 and the Importance of the Pope

With Easter celebrations occurring today, I cannot help but think about the importance of Catholicism, the Pope, and religion in general on our world. Although I have posted previously that atheists should stand up for their beliefs, I believe still in religious expression and freedom, as long as the actions and behaviors that stem from these beliefs do not harm or infringe upon the rights of others. To these more extreme interpretations of religion, I am exploring the rhetoric of Rick Santorum and of the Westboro Baptist Church, so be sure to check my blog for updates on those topics soon.

First, I would like to discuss the importance of religion in modern society, from political to health to social issues, before discussing the specific importance of Pope Benedict XVI and his recent trips to Latin and South America.

In light of religion, Catholicism as an exemplar, and its influence on global policies, religious rhetoric and the ways that people incorporate religion into their lives is of the utmost importance. Considering that more than 80% of the world considers itself religious, with nearly 1 billion people believing specifically in Catholicism, the words and messages of the Pope, a social and cultural icon, have great influence in the modern day proceedings around the world. Religious leaders still have positions of prominence in many countries, from America's religious right to the Iranian Ayatollah, and their opinions can influence constituents and thus policy-makers in making decisions for entire countries and regions.

For example, the Catholic Church has repeatedly advocated against contraception use in Africa, despite the threat of HIV/AIDS transmission in the population. African religious leaders and missionaries tending to the sick there also preach abstinence and avoiding contraception, making it difficult for those advocating for condom use and safer sex to reduce HIV transmission to gain a foothold in many African populations. Religious influences may subvert scientific treatments for the disease and restrict those who have access to contraceptive measures that may restrict the transmission of the virus.

As Hilary Clinton stated in her UN speech this year, there is a new human rights issue plaguing the nation. The human rights of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender individuals have been denied in many countries, including America, for reasons that have roots in tradition, morality, and faith. The Catholic Church has been against recognizing homosexual unions, allowing adoption for same-sex couples, and offering gender neutral or more inclusive options for identification. Followers of Catholicism define marriage as being between a man and a woman. These teachings are not limited to Catholicism as many religious groups oppose contraception and rights for the LGBTQ community. However, in both the US and internationally, Catholicism can be considered an exemplar of religious influence in politics, social order, and community building.

Because the Pope heavily influences the Catholic community through encyclicals, proclamations, and visiting speeches, his words, ideas, and priorities can change the tides for political, social, and cultural policies and traditions. His influence may be epitomized by a recent Miami Herald article which states "Pope's visit to Cuba leaves little reason for hope". This may be a comparison to claims that Pope John Paul II helped spur the fall of communism as Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Cuba was one of mixed reviews. While a New York Times article referenced the Pope's urging of political reform, this request fell on deaf ears as politicians stated that political reforms would not be following the economic ones. Can we really describe this visit as a failure, though? It was the first visit to Cuba since John Paul II's visit in 1998 and symbolically shows that the Pope and Catholicism has not forgotten Cuba. Above all, I think that Benedict's visit reinforces the idea that he and perhaps many Catholics feel that the Pope does have the power to influence governments. If not, I feel there would not have been such negative reviews of the visit, as if him arriving and speaking there would change the entire political climate of the country.

In the case of the Pope, it is hard to delineate where one's expectations are too high or too low. His influence in global power is unmistakable and perhaps unmatched, but there are limits to the effectiveness of single visits and requests. In respect to the Easter holiday today, I admire the faith placed in the Pope to exact political change in Cuba but also critique how quickly this faith can turn to disappointment. The Pope is one man, and surely the world would not want one man, no matter their background or faith, to have such power and control over governments, nations, and people. But, it appears that the Pope does, because people and the media give him this power. Considering Pope Benedict XVI's tendency to be more conservative and to follow the letter of the Bible, there may be more changes in the Catholic community to come.