By Patrick F. Cannon
There are approximately 2.4 billion Christians in the world; of those 1.4 billion are Roman Catholics, by far the world’s largest organized religion (there are 1.7 billion Sunni Muslims, but they have no central organization). But as we’ll no doubt find out in the coming weeks – as a new Pope is chosen to succeed the late Pope Francis – it’s also one of the world’s most over organized.
While Francis was widely loved by many Catholics for his tolerance (permitting the blessing of same sex marriages, for example), that very tolerance was anathema to traditional and conservative Catholics. There will be much drama behind the scenes as the liberal and conservative cardinals battle to keep or regain control of the massive bureaucracy that governs the church. When the new pope is chosen, they will pretend all is well. Among the laity, and below the surface, the battles will go on.
Francis was, it seems to me, only acting on what he perceived as the actual message in the gospels – love God and your neighbor. Sins are inevitable but can be forgiven. Judge not, lest you be judged. Read the Sermon on the Mount, and act on it. This is no place for the history of the Church, but over the centuries it has taken these simple messages and created a vast edifice of rules and regulations and the structures to enforce them. For example, a standard version of the New Testament runs to about 180 pages. It includes the gospels, epistles, acts of the apostles and revelations. One edition of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church needs 925 pages to interpret them.
Reporting to the pope are approximately 5,600 bishops, of whom 252 are currently also cardinals. Only 135 of them – those under 80 – are eligible to vote for the new pope. They will meet in the Sistine Chapel, beneath Michelangelo’s transcendent frescos. Their deliberations will be done in secret, with only the cardinals present. The current system dates to the 13th Century, and was devised by man, not God.
Nor did God, in the person of Jesus, have anything to do with most of that 934-page Catechism, much of which is ignored by many Roman Catholics. Surveys have shown, for example, that Catholic women widely ignore the Church’s ban on artificial birth control. To most, there’s no logical difference between the acceptable “rhythm” method and the pill (except the pill is more dependable). They also struggle to see in the words of Jesus any ban on priesthood for women.
The church is capable of change. It was only in 1139 that priests were required to be celibate and unmarried. The Mass, the basic ceremony of the church, has been changed in form and content and is now said in the local language. As an altar boy (no girls then), I was required to learn my lines in Latin. The priest didn’t face the congregation, who mostly had no idea what he was saying anyway.
To Pope Francis, every human being was a child of God with a divine soul. He would have agreed to the fictional detective Harry Bosch’s credo: “everybody counts or nobody counts.” His opposition to abortion was inherent in this, and I can’t see the Church changing its position on this fundamental issue. But almost everything else has changed over time and can change again. It will be interesting to see if the new pope will open the door a bit wider, or slam it shut. Finally, don’t we need someone like the pope to tell our leaders their decisions affect real people?
Copyright 2025, Patrick F. Cannon
cannonnadedotcom 
I remember when John S. told me why he left the priesthood. “Too much politics,” he said.
Politics is of course something to be expected in any organization — put three people in a room and you’ll get it — but especially in one as bureaucratically enormous and prestigious as the Catholic Church.
But politics isn’t the sole reason for the Church’s decline, though Francis’s flirtation with political issues — his conciliatory gestures toward China’s regime, environmental crusades and acceptance of illegal immigration — certainly softened the Church’s resolve and credibility.
The influence of the Church has waned dramatically during our lifetimes, especially in the West. In Europe, most churches, many magnificent cathedrals, are empty. They have become tourist attractions more than places of worship. More than a few have been converted to mosques. Parishes in the US, even after consolidation because of dwindling parishioners, have trouble recruiting priests.
The conventional wisdom tells us the decline stems from the Church’s failure to change with the times. Its rules and rituals are antiquated. Its positions on issues like abortion, birth control, gay marriage, and women and marriage in the priesthood make no sense in this day and age. It has lost relevance, and its only hope is to get with the times.
The people who say this, however, tend not to be the truly faithful but its critics.
Paradoxically, the Church’s attempts to be “relevant” — its accommodations starting with the reforms of the 1960s — have hastened the decline.
Instead of countering natural doubts about faith, the Church has agreed with them. As it gradually became more “progressive,” it embraced secular relativism, avoided judgment, and at times denied, when it became expedient, the very principles on which it was based. It sold its birthright.
A case in point is the Latin mass. The joke used to be, “Well, if Latin was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.” Latin, of course, is not the language of the Gospels but it was the language of Rome where the Church first grew and flourished beginning in the 4th century, and it became the universal language of the Church, even after Latin fell into disuse.
The progressive reformers surely believed that adopting the vernacular would make the mass more democratic, more relevant to parishioners. Instead, it made the mass more ordinary, more prosaic, and the mystery of faith more banal. What the heck is “lamb of God,” anyway? Agnus Dei may have been cryptic but it evoked something beyond the mundane.
The ending of the Latin mass may seem like an insignificant, practical change, but it coincided with the emptying out of the various religious orders (too many to enumerate here) that supported the Church’s extensive organization. When I lived in Rome during the early 1960s, you’d see members of these orders everywhere proudly displaying their distinctive habits: friars in brown robes and sandals, nuns with various, elaborate headdresses, etc. Now you rarely if ever see them (in fact, with the tourist influx you’re lucky if you see any Italians!), but if you do it’s likely a nun trying to avoid attention in a drab gray outfit resembling the proletarian Chinese tunics worn under Mao.
The Church doesn’t need a pope who promises relevance and relativism. It needs someone who personifies firm moral clarity. Let’s hope (and pray) the ouija board that is the conclave produces such a man.
e.e. cummings captured the situation in which Catholicism finds itself in “Jehovah buried, Satan dead,” here in part:
loudly for Truth have liars pled,click;
where Boobs are holy,poets mad,
illustrious punks of Progress shriek;
when Souls are outlawed,Hearts are sick,
Hearts being sick,Minds nothing can:
if Hate’s a game and Love’s a fuck
who dares to call himself a man?
King Christ,this world is all aleak;
and lifepreservers there are none:
and waves which only He may walk
Who dares to call Himself a man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting argument, but I suspect had it held the line, the decline would have been at least as deep and maybe deeper. At least the survivors would have been able to speak Latin to each other. I’m no longer a participant, just an interested observer.
LikeLike
Perhaps, if it were a Lions club! Both, after all, are membership organizations. But you need a deeper, almost ineffable reason to join a church, besides its politics and positions on social issues. It’s not a marketing question, and it’s not about conversing in Latin.
I’m like you, not a participant, just an interested observer. Unlike Jill who is devout, I just don’t find that moral guidance in the church’s practices, though fundamentally, having read the church fathers, I know it’s there somewhere.
The United Methodist church and other mainline Protestant denominations have experienced an even more dramatic decline in the US than Catholicism, as a direct result of their adoption of Marxist principles, identity politics and other radical ideologies.
Francis dabbled with them but mercifully didn’t embrace them to the extent his Protestant brethren did. Those mainline denominations have lost parishioners in droves. In contrast, membership in the smaller, more conservative, less liberal Protestant church groups (Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, Assembly of God, African Methodist Episcopal) has surged.
Social issues change but people don’t. The human condition despite technology, affluence and better health care is what it always has been. The Vatican as it gathers needs to understand this.
LikeLike
I was talking to a Unitarian just the other day. They have all sorts of people in their congregation, even atheists. The idea is just to do good for your neighbor. He said he was trying to explain this to a Polish women, who replied: “No God, no church.” And as for growth, they still seem to be building “mega-churches” in the suburbs.
LikeLike
The Polish woman has a point.
Unitarian Universalism (there are several “Unitarian” groups) are known for crafting a pluralistic message inspired by an eclectic mix of moral teachings from various sources. It’s every faith and none of them at the same time, just a search for meaning without a creed, a “we are all one” philosophy, a sort of basic common denominator of religions without the divine. They have about 130,000 members in 1000 churches in the US, the lowest number reported since 1961.
The mega churches always seemed more like rallies on hope and positivity to me. The one in Texas led by Joel Osteen gets about 50,000 attendees every week! The White Sox should take heed!
Have you head about the Savannah Bananas? Bill Veeck (and P.T Barnum) would be proud.
https://x.com/JoePompliano/status/1917586209775222983
LikeLike
Let’s all go bananas! Looks like fun.
LikeLike
Religion and politics are two subjects I was told to never discuss. One, you will not change anyone’s mind. Two, I am not smart enough on either convince anyone of anything.
I did like the Harry Bosh quote. Favorite character, Michael Connelly favorite author.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of my favorites too.
LikeLike