On Heresy Hunter's "Litany of Stupid Saints"

Here it is: a Litany of Stupid Saints, by Heresy Hunter. Go ahead, read it. (Do it now - at least the first paragraph. Please.) ... Now for comment.

First of all, I think the litany is pretty funny. But is it fair? That depends on what we understand the point to be.

If the point is simply to pillory the views of Jorge Bergoglio/Pope Francis, then it's not really fair (at least not all of it). Taking just the first point on 'proselytism': Pope Francis (reportedly) said, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us... This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas." Now logically, being sensitive to the whole context, 'proselytism' here should be taken to refer specifically to a way of spreading/sharing the gospel which is somehow opposed to getting to know those being evangelized; which getting to know would obviously have to include listening to them (not just preaching to them); and which listening, one would hope, should result in an improved knowledge of the world around us and an expansion of the "circle" of ideas (or of the "triangle" - or "sphere" or "polyhedron" or whatever geometrical or non-geometrical figure of speech you happen to prefer - of ideas).

Now clearly 'proselytism,' thus defined, can creditably enough be charged with making no sense. And certainly that kind of 'proselytism' is not at all the kind of proselytism that was practised by Gabriel Lalemant, Jean de Brebeuf, Isaac Jogues, and the other NA martyrs (not to mention the proselytism of Peter Faber, who is obviously dear to the pope). As a matter of strict necessity, the Jesuit missionaries had to listen to and get to know the people they were sent to, they had to expand their own knowledge, before they could even begin to make disciples and teach the Amerindians to obey the commandments given by Jesus. (This is too obvious, really!) So Hunter's criticisms on this point, taken straight up, are not fair. In fact, taken straight up, they make no sense! (Score one for Bergoglio.)

On the other hand, the "litany of stupid saints" is - I hope you didn't miss this! - satirical. As such, instead of directly attacking Francis' views - i.e., what Francis really thinks -, I think the point could be taken to be about Francis' ability to communicate - i.e., the unfortunate things Frances sometimes actually says. It's not fair to say based on what Francis says that he is fundamentally stupid or 'un-Catholic' and that he would actually accept the stupid or 'un-Catholic' implications (or likely interpretations) of some of the things he says (and which we hear so much about, thanks to our ever-vigilant and unfailingly balanced news media). It is fair to say, however, that he is, at least in some respects, a poor communicator - at least insofar as a better communicator would understand in advance the implications of whatever words he might choose and so (presumably) find and use words that didn't have such silly/false/scandalous implications (or probable interpretations).

So on the whole, I approve of this piece of satire. Read appropriately, it made some important points: Francis tends to say things which, at least as they are likely to be interpreted by the ordinary person, would be objectively foolish and false. Thus, the Pope's words have rather naturally led many people to think that these are the Pope's actual beliefs - which presumably, all things considered, they are not, even though many people (who do actually hold such objectively foolish beliefs) evidently wish they were. (This is, of course, a vague generalization, and only a vague generalization.)

But a note of caution: Others could easily read the piece differently: They could interpret it as simply being a witty demonstration of what a lousy Catholic our Pope is. I don't think that is the most charitable reading of the litany, simply because this interpretation would have Hunter attempting to make a point that is objectively foolish and untrue to the reality: the litany demonstrates no such thing.

But how to avoid such uncharitable interpretations? In general, unfortunately, it's not actually possible: People will hear what they want to hear (it's part of that 'hardness of heart' thing you find here and there in the Bible). But perhaps this might be a helpful principle: "We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us... This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas." Insofar as one natural interpretation of the litany would actually tend to undermine this authentic Jesuit principle, it would, under this interpretation, be a rather counter-productive and self-refuting piece of satire.