“I would like to have a papal bull every morning with my Times at breakfast,” declared the 19th-century ultramontanist William George Ward. Are we currently suffering a case of liberal neo-ultramontanism? Or quasi-neo-ultramontanism? Or semi-neo-ultramontanism? Or some such?
Many others have raised that question, but most of them don’t like what Pope Francis has been doing. I do. That includes the restoration of collegiality in the two synods on the family, regardless of the tremors caused by truly open discussion. That obviously includes Francis’s efforts to reform Vatican offices. That includes the remarkable series of talks he has given this fall on topics ranging from change in the church to “synodality.”
At the same time, I have to admit that liberal reception of Laudato Si’ has not been free of what used to be called “creeping infallibilism.” And not every statement of Francis is beyond reasonable criticism. And, in all honesty, although the homilies in my liberal parish are quite fine, I’m wearied by hearing Francis referred to in the pulpit more often than Jesus.
What makes me raise this question now, however, is more subtle, the coverage of the meeting this last week of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. My impression is that the overriding framework for covering the meeting was this: Are the bishops aligning their agenda and priorities with that of Francis?
That’s a perfectly legitimate framework. (Of course, there are other possible ones, like whether the bishops are aligning their agenda and priorities with the needs of American Catholics or the challenges of American culture.) The chosen framework has more than a whiff, however, of an ultramontanist assumption, that the bishops should be aligned with the pope and there’s something wrong with them if they are not.
Personally, I believe that there’s a lot wrong with the bishops’ conference, and a lot of it would be repaired if the bishops were closer to Francis’s outlook. But not if it means turning on a dime. Not if it means just following the leader, as has happened too often in the past.
The liberal neo-ultramontanist impulse is understandable.
Last spring, I was speaking with the president of a medium-sized Catholic university. He had been bashed often enough by conservative Catholics wielding the club of papal loyalty. I told him that I hated to see liberal Catholics now do the same to their conservative critics. He grinned at me and said, “I’ll enjoy every minute of it!”
The strange thing is that the least neo-ultramontanist of Catholics is Francis himself. He constantly minimizes his authority and encourages differing opinions. We should follow his example. Or would that make us all neo-ultramontanists?