Vatican watchers reported (AP), after Pope Francis spoke to the Roman Curia on December 22, that “they had never heard such a powerful, violent speech from a pope and suggested that it was informed by the results of a secret investigation ordered by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI in the aftermath of leaks of his 2012 papers.”
I believe the ordinary reader does not realize that Pope Benedict XVI was earnestly seeking to reform the Curia for some years. This report grows out of those efforts that he began. Many journalists, with little knowledge of either Pope Benedict or of how the Vatican really works, do not give him the credit that he is due for what he began in earnest. Some have speculated that one reason he stepped down was so that what he began to reform could be carried out by a new “reformer” pope! It seems apparent this reformation is now underway. In Pope Francis we have a pastor of courage and humility who has waded into a mess and seems determined to make a real difference. If you read my post on Monday you saw how Austen Ivereigh, the biographer of the best biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer, suggests that there are two legacies of his leadership that will alter the direction of the Catholic Church: (1) Reforming the Curia and thus radically altering the pastoral and moral direction of the Catholic Church, and; (2) An intense personal love for evangelicals that will alter how future relationships between Catholics and evangelical Protestants/charismatic’s develop globally. The first one is addressed by the 15 Ailments that Pope Francis cited in his December 22 address.
As I countdown the pope’s list of 15 Ailments of the Curia I will only take one of them today. I do so because I find that this one needs more explanation and because it deeply intrigues me. I am applying each of those 15 Ailments, with modest reflection, to the entire visible church. This includes the evangelical church which I know best, at least from my white, North American perspective.
No. 8 Suffering from “existential schizophrenia.”
The two words that he uses here need some definition if this challenge is to be rightly understood.
First, the word “existential.” Philosophers have never agreed on a single definition of this oft-used word. Most agree the father of existentialism was Kierkegaard. Some have said that existentialism is a general approach used to reject certain systematic philosophies rather than as a systematic philosophy itself. I can live with that understanding. But I do not believe this is what the pope had in mind.
I am quite sure Pope Francis had in mind the idea that existence precedes essence. By this I mean that the most important consideration for us as individuals is that we are independently acting and responsible, conscious beings (“existence”). If this is true then labels, roles, stereotypes, definitions, or other preconceived categories that attempt to fit individuals into a category miss the “essence”) of who we are before God. The actual life of the individual is what constitutes what should be called their “true essence” instead of there being a person who is arbitrarily attributed an essence that others use to define them.
Second, Pope Francis links this word “existential” with the more common used word “schizophrenia.” Schizophrenia is technically labeled a mental disorder that is generally characterized by abnormal social behavior and the failure to recognize what is truly real. A list of common symptoms includes false beliefs, confused thinking and even auditory hallucinations.
Here is the sentence the pope used when he listed this ailment: “It’s the sickness of those who live a double life, fruit of hypocrisy