With hundreds of bishops coming to the Vatican in October 2001 for a Synod, I decided to spend that month in Rome conducting interviews for what would eventually become the sequel to Witness to Hope and the second volume of my John Paul II biography, The End and the Beginning. During my conversations, I found a striking similarity among bishops from Latin America, each of whom I asked to name the greatest challenge his local Church faced in implementing Catholic social doctrine in the 21st century. Without exception as to country, and no matter where the bishop in question fell on the spectrum of Catholic opinion, each of them gave the same, one-word answer: “Corruption.”
That got my attention, because fostering cultures of honesty and trust would seem to be right in the Catholic Church’s wheelhouse, and the Church had been present in Latin America for some 500 years at that point. Yet one by one, the bishops told me that personal corruption, leading to systemic and culturally reinforced economic and political corruption, was the greatest challenge they faced in the new century. It was an answer that helped explain some otherwise puzzling phenomena: like Argentina’s collapse from being one of the world’s 10 wealthiest countries in 1900 to being a perennial political and economic basket case; like Brazil’s inability to realize its potential as a great economic power. There was serious Catholic failure here, and the bishops with whom I spoke were honest enough to admit it.
I remembered those conversations when reading a recent essay in America magazine by San Diego’s Bishop Robert McElroy, “Pope Francis brings a new lens to poverty, peace, and the planet.” In that essay, the bishop had this to say about comparative pontificates:
“This new lens reflects in a fundamental way the experience of the Church in Latin America. Critics of Pope Francis point to this as a limitation, a bias that prevents the pope from seeing the central issues of economic justice, war and peace and the environment in the context of the universal Church. But St. John Paul II certainly enriched key aspects of Catholic social teaching from a perspective profoundly rooted in the experience of the Eastern European Church under communism. Contemporary critics of Pope Francis voiced no objections to that regional and historical perspective.”
I’ve no idea who these “critics” are, but perhaps a few refreshers on John Paul II’s social doctrine would help further the discussion.
First, Karol Wojtyla was steeped in the classic social doctrine tradition of Leo XIII and Pius XI, which he taught at the Silesian seminary in Cracow in the 1950s and which provided the intellectual scaffolding for his own social magisterium when he became pope.
Second, it’s true that John Paul II’s most important contribution to the 21st -century discussion of the free and virtuous society — his insistence on a vibrant public moral culture as the key to living freedom nobly and well, in both political and economic life — reflected the experience of a Poland that remained alive through its culture when its independent statehood was eliminated between 1795 and 1918. But it’s also true that this “culture-first” theme was thoroughly baked into the classic social doctrine, beginning with Leo XIII.
Third, John Paul II’s recognition of the dynamics of post-Cold War economies was not drawn from his Polish experience — the man never had a checkbook and lived largely “outside” the economy — but from intense conversations with western scholars who knew how post-industrial economies work (and don’t), and from whom he was both smart enough and humble enough to learn.
And finally, John Paul II’s social doctrine took failure seriously and tried to learn from it: specifically, the failure of the Weimar Republic in interwar Germany, where an ably-designed political and economic system eventually produced a totalitarian regime, because its moral and cultural foundations were too shaky to support the institutions of freedom when the crunch of the Great Depression came.
So it seems to me that, with John Paul II, a distinctive personal experience refined and extended the classic social doctrine tradition. John Paul was not imposing an idiosyncratic view on the world Church — which is in fact something no pope should do, because the Bishop of Rome is the custodian of a universal tradition, not an intellectual free agent.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
No surprise in McElroy’s position here. Both he, Chocago’s Cupich, and Newark’s Tobin are all mealy-mouthpieces for a feel-good, condescending liberal Church. The shepherds of the Latin American Church historically were pawns of the rich and powerful until the revolutions of the 20th century. And too many have been sex abusers or enablers for the ot to be taken seriously.
As a Brazilian, I point out: your observation is correct. The hierarchy here has always been in accord with elites. And when they ceased to be, it was to adopt Liberation Theology, that big failure of the 60´s and 70´s, when the Church decided to preferentially choose the poor and the poor decided to preferentially choose the pentecostal sects.
50 years on, there is one fact clear to all, leftist and conservative: the state of the Church in Brazil is one of devastation. The Church loses 5% of its members per year, and of the remaining the majority doesn´t practice the faith, limiting themselves to one or other procession throughout the year. Really, it is pagan, very pagan. People are devoted not to Mary, Mother of Jesus, but to one specific image, that is in one specific chapel. They even differentiate between the images, as if Mary wasn´t the same. Ours, today, is not a Catholic country. Not anymore. And this is the country the Vatican claims to be the biggest Catholic country in the world.
To make things worse, the abuses are so outrageous that some practicing catholics refuse to attend services (this is my case, since an Offertory had a reggae music as background). I asked myself what would follow: an incensory with marijuana, perhaps?
WOW. Your historical analysis of the decline of the Catholic Church, especially regards the Church leaders, in South America – at least Brazil – is indeed very interesting and sad. Thank You.
You are welcome, brother Phil. By the time, we still have personal prayer. One can always pray the rosary, the hours… and in big cities, there are always some good parishes, where real catholic priests still preach Jesus the King. Opus Dei has been making a remarkable service in the capitals, even when they are not liked by the bishops. I live in a little city with 4 parishes, none of them remotely orthodox. I am building a house in another city 60 miles away from here, where there are more faithful, even a new cistercian monastery. As God said to Elijah, He always has his 7000 that didn´t bow down to baal. Let us pray for each other. God bless.
Bishops in Latin America, with its woeful lack of priests, always depended on the Catholic culture to carry on the faith. Too bad they did not find ways to help the people find the living Christ. I spent some time in Guatemala, which is also on its way to becoming a Protestant country. An observation: the emotional, hands-on vitality of Protestant worship compared to most Catholic Masses.