Culture Friday: Is the pope still Catholic?

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: It’s Friday the 22nd of December, 2023.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

It’s Culture Friday. Joining us now is John Stonestreet, the President of the Colson Center, and host of the Breakpoint Podcast. John, good morning.

JOHN STONESTREET: Good morning.

EICHER: Well, an incredible story in The New York Times. James Martin, the liberal priest, not 24 hours after getting the green light from the Vatican, performed what may be the first ever officially sanctioned same-sex couple's blessing. Now, some other priests may have gotten there first, but I do think it's safe to say this would be the first same-sex blessing under the Pope's new rule and, qualify it still further to say, the first performed before a New York Times reporter and/or photographer, because the moment was captured with photography, and 1000+ word story. The Times reports —and I'll quote here — “in keeping with the Vatican's admonition that such a blessing should not be performed with any clothing, gestures or words that are proper to a wedding, Father Martin wore no robes and read from no text.” The story goes on, “On Tuesday morning, he was far from the halls of power. He was at home making history. Father Martin had waited years for the privilege of saying such a prayer, however simple, out in the open.” So John, Pope Francis strikes again.

STONESTREET: Yeah, absolutely. And it is now beyond dispute as if it were over the last four or five or six headlines having to do with Pope Francis that this pope has aimed to change the church and in very, very profound ways. But specifically, when it comes to this pope, I think there's a number of things to say. Number one is this Pope really operates with obscurity and vagueness and lack of clarity. It can no longer be thought of, I think, as unintentional or innocent. I think he's kind of portrayed that image that he's just the innocent loving father, and that if there's any confusion that just was because of his, you know, really good intention. It is this lack of clarity, the 5000 word edict that fundamentally isn't quote, unquote, supposed to really change anything. Well, if it doesn't change anything, you don't need this many words. This did change things. Certainly, the people on the progressive end of the church thought it changed things and thought it changed things rather dramatically, which is really saying a lot. I mean, you know, to respond to the New York Times claim that, you know, he wore no robes and he quoted no text. That's because there's no texts in the history of the Catholic Church to quote that could bless, including holy scripture, that could bless this union.

I think the second thing we're saying about this pope in this strategy is that it's very similar to strategies we've seen from the progressive end of other churches. And that is this intent that he has, and he says it all the time. He does it all the time, to divorce doctrine from pastoral practice, as if that can actually be done without gutting and neutering pastoral practice. Look, if pastoral practice is not built on sound doctrine, then it's not actually helpful pastoral practice. And so this is a false dichotomy. It's what we saw, for example, from Andy Stanley's language back earlier this year, when he had that conference in which you know, he, he separated again, here's what I believe, here's what the Church believes, doctrinally, but here's what practice looks like for loving parents or for loving preachers and you know, things like that. And it's just proof of what happens, you know, that maxim goes, if it's misty in the pulpit, it's foggy in the pew. And the fogginess, that is, I think across the board, is evidence that the mistiness is intentional, and it's leading the church in a particular way. And at the heart of it is the separation of doctrine, and pastoral practice, which is completely illegitimate.

The final thing I think, that needs to be said is, is that there's no there's an awful lot of parts of the world, where this is still very much a cultural debate; it has not been settled, that they're going to go the direction of same-sex marriage, or even in the acceptance of gay relationships, much less gay parenting, and all the other things that a blessing would entail or involve. So basically, now Pope Francis is embarking on a colonialism of the West that settled this on the rest of the world which hasn't settled this. And what an ironic thing for somebody who so often sounds like a Marxist to do. And now he's actually an instrument of oppressing ideologically based on, you know, a small part of the world and very recent part of human history that's made these new decisions when it comes to sexual morality. And his practice of not quite saying all that he means, in order to sow confusion is not worthy of a leader, much less someone that might be considered a Christian leader.

EICHER: Alright, well, John, I'd like to comment further on the story itself, the way it was written, the Times, you know, has always kept up with the times, so to speak. And same-sex marriage is, you know, it's passe at this point, but yet the framing of the story, it's, you read it, and you think, what is it, 2012? It's all written in this laudatory way, even in the description of the Roman Catholic Church, maintaining its doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman. There's no comment, no judgment there. It says the Pope's new rule does not allow priests to perform same-sex marriages. It takes pains to differentiate between the sacrament of marriage, which must take place in a church and a blessing, which is a more informal, even spontaneous gesture. And the story just goes on just like this. But you know that in any other context, the Church's position would be portrayed in the worst possible light. And as time goes on, I think it's safe to predict it will, because this is not going to be enough.

STONESTREET: Yeah, I mean, the whole thing is disingenuous. But you know, we do live in a post-truth culture. And the New York Times has already decided what's the right side of history on this particular issue, and that the ship has sailed. So they really have no choice in terms of to offer coverage. But make no mistake - and this is another thing, too, that I think Pope Francis is bringing to this, and your question actually brings this up. I don't know, I'm old enough to remember when there was a huge push among pro-LGBTQ forces to accept civil unions, and that this was necessary for fairness and for justice - this kind of parallel status, very similar, for example, to what Pope Francis has said, it's like, okay, we're not going to call it marriage, because that's a sacrament, but we're going to do all this other stuff, or allow all this other stuff. And, you know, really nebulous and unclear term, but we won't call it marriage, but we are going to bless it, because they're, you know, quote unquote, children of God, and so on all the things that were part of that language. Well, listen, immediately, almost immediately after civil unions were embraced, they were then turned upon by the very ones who advance them as evidence of discrimination. So pro-LGBTQ forces argued for civil unions, and then used civil unions as proof, as proof of discrimination that was unjust. And, you know, we saw that language completely incorporated into the whole debate leading up to the Obergefell decision. That's what will happen from Father Martin. So make no mistake, this Catholic priest that's featured in this New York Times piece will be the one, among the ones, who do this, immediately embracing same-sex blessings, and then turning on them by this time next year as proof that the church is still discriminating against relationships that it doesn't condemn. That's what will happen in this. It's a strategic move very similar to the civil unions move.

BROWN: Well, John, I've seen the trailer. I know you have too. It's the trailer promoting a new documentary from 70s sitcom actor Rob Reiner. Reiner is one of the producers of this flick called God and Country premiering in February. It features several current and former evangelicals. I certainly recognize a few familiar faces talking about what they call the dangers of Christian nationalism. I can only imagine the chatter this kind of movie might create around kitchen and dinner tables. John, how would you encourage believers to be equipped for such conversations that will undoubtedly involve as believers of stand on life, abortion, the LGBTQ agenda, so on and so forth?

STONESTREET: Well, I think first is to know Rob Reiner's, you know, history and his agenda. And he's been really clear that he thinks actually, proof of Christian nationalism is the overturning of Roe v. Wade; he thinks proof of Christian nationalism is the rejection of pro-LGBTQ legislation. So he's not, you know, talking about even necessarily Trump or you know, the storming of the Capitol or whatever happened on January the 6th, none of that's actually part of the language, although that's certainly incorporated into the film. Now, I don't think all the quote unquote, evangelical experts who were co-opted into this particular documentary would say the same thing. But that's clearly where Reiner’s coming down. So either he's using these evangelical voices in order to advance that point, or as they said, you know, he joined later on, but he must be happy with the final product because he's absolutely putting his name on it.

You know, I think probably the more important thing then is to have a real conversation about the biblical understanding of humans and nations. The Bible talks a lot about nations. We know nations were created out of the Babel narrative, right, where, you know, God divides the language in order to spread the people out over the face of the earth. But the chapter before that there's a whole description of a whole bunch of nations that descend out of the sons of Noah. Even the Babel narrative, which is often seen as an act of big judgment, because God hated tall buildings, that's actually not what you see there in the text, it's that God had told them to spread out over all the earth, that's part of the creation mandate. They didn't do it. It's almost like he divides their tongues into nations out of an act of mercy. In other words, so they can't do everything that comes into their mind, which is a real mercy after the fall, because we ought not do everything that comes into our minds.

And then, of course, the ultimate thing you have, well two ultimate things, is the Great Commission, where Jesus tells His followers to make disciples of all nations. In other words, there's national work, do evangelism - God wants nations to turn to him. And then there is, of course, at the end of time, every tongue, tribe, nation and language all dressed in right represented before the throne of God, kind of in a reversal of Babel, but it still seems that the national identity is present. So you look at all that - nations have a role to play, and it's not just a post fall, kind of God's judgment role to play.

So then we have to look and say, Well, what does it mean for me to actually be responsible? And what is my responsibility for the nations? But the problem is, according to Rob Reiner, that sort of personal stewardship, taking responsibility for things that I can change, and I can help, and I can improve and actually hoping that my nation turns to the Lord, not just individuals, you know, that I know, that's the definition of Christian nationalism, you know, hoping that a nation is more righteous, because an unrighteous nation actually is one that's headed for judgment consistently. Then to say that out loud means that you're running afoul of this kind of condemnation of Christian nationalism, because everything is Christian nationalism. But if everything's Christian nationalism, it's not helpful to know what's wrong with it.

So I think that this is, look, we haven't seen the documentary yet. Maybe it'll come out and be spectacular. The fact that Rob Reiner, as you know, is selling it makes me think that's probably not going to happen. That's really, really unlikely. And right now, all the language on this is bringing less clarity than clarity. And it's not helpful, because if I'm not supposed to do all the things that I get accused of being Christian nationalist, what am I supposed to do to live out my faith, which is public, and which is revealed in Holy Scripture, which also talks a lot about nations and stewardship? So that's the problem. We need to be clear on stewardship and clear on nations. That's what parents can help their kids do.

BROWN: Well, John Stonestreet is President of the Colson Center and host of the Breakpoint Podcast, John, thank you and Merry Christmas.

STONESTREET: Merry Christmas to you both.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.