IN THE CRITICISM of Pope Francis for having a great honor done to him, of him having a head-dress given him by a Chief Wilton Littlechild and placing it on his head, some of the inevitable controversy of him making a remarkable penitential trip to Canada to first meet and directly apologize to First Nations People for the Catholic Church's part in the often horrible residential school system set up by the Canadian Government was intensified. I think quite unfairly.
Chief Wilton Littlechild, a residential school survivor himself, gave Francis the headdress Monday, placing it on his head amid cheering by an audience in Maskwacis, Alberta, that included many school survivors.
The Vatican and the pope clearly appreciated the gesture: Francis kissed Littlechild's hands after receiving the headdress, something he has done in the past as a sign of respect for Holocaust survivors, and has done on this trip for residential school survivors.
I haven't watched much of the trip, though the ceremonies on his landing in which the governmental leaders of Canada came after him first meeting and talking with First Nations leaders and elders was just as it should have been. This is a trip for them, for Pope Francis to issue an apology and more. If it had merely been for the purpose of issuing an apology instead of actually changing things, it probably would have been a useless exercise. I think he has tried to do that and may well have done more than that, though time will tell what changes in reality in the lives of First Nations People.
But this is about the controversy over the gift and its acceptance on the terms of those who gave it.
What was Pope Francis to do? Refuse the honor? Refuse to have it placed on his head by a man who, from what I have read by people who should understand the situation better than I do, went through the traditional leadership of his Nation to bestow an honor on Pope Francis? No doubt, if he'd done either it would have a. been the cause of deep hurt to People who it clearly meant a lot to to give him the honor, b. been taken as an insult to everyone, including those who are slamming him now. I am certain that insult would be being complained of right now by many of the very same People who are upset that he accepted an honor he apparently didn't ask for. If that's right what they say they preferred would have been instantly transformed into an insult for not accepting it.
I don't know how far in advance Pope Francis knew he was going to be given the gift full of such meaning and potentially so controversial. If, as I guess, he didn't know until it was offered to him, that it was a surprise gift, the greatest hurt would have been in summarily refusing it or refusing to have it placed on him. He must have known or sensed that it was a situation that called for him to be passive and to accept the honor with humility and grace. From what I saw of the footage of the event, he handled it as well as anyone could possibly have been expected to. I think those who gave it to him have every right to feel good about what they did for the reasons THEY determined. Pope Francis is not Calvin Coolidge, he has repeatedly gone farther than any previous Pope in insisting on justice for First Nations People, Native People of the New World, Africa, etc. To blame him for what happened before is as inaccurate as it is unfair. He can apologize on behalf of the Church he leads as the Head of State or Prime Minister of Canada can on behalf of those entities, that's something far different from incurring personal culpability for what was done, much of it before he was born.
The whole thing reminds me of the Catholic reactionaries and fascists going into a swivet about the Amazonian Synod held at the Vatican and the erection of Pachamama statues, deeply meaningful symbols to that cultural tradition which were vandalized and destroyed by those who despise Francis and equal justice. I think in that Francis, probably knowingly, made himself open to those who he could count on to criticize and attack him to accommodate the People on whose behalf the synod was held. I don't know of any previous Pope who has gone so far in that direction to prove his profound respect.
Such an outsider as I am certainly has no legitimate point of view in the whole thing EXCEPT, POSSIBLY TO HONOR THE GOOD INTENTIONS OF THOSE WHO GAVE HIM THE HONOR. I do not know how such a decision as to bestow the honor and, I'd guess, symbol of moral responsibility on the part of Pope Francis, becomes the business of anyone EXCEPT THOSE WHO DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT TO BESTOW THE HONOR. If other People from other Nations were offended by it, I'd first like to know what business it is of theirs to take offense at the decision of People certainly qualified to make that decision. Their decision was due the same respect as the decision of others in other Nations to not do that. Or so it would seem to me. For outsiders to second-guess their decision seems to me to be as disrespectful as anything involved in the controversy.
The dishonor to the People who gave the gift bothers me as much as the criticism of Pope Francis.
A spokeswoman for Littlechild didn't immediately respond Tuesday to a message seeking comment.
But Keeshon Littlechild used a Facebook post to defend his grandfather for giving Francis one of his own many headdresses.
"Bugs me to see people bashing my grandfather and I understand how much respect is needed to be gifted one but at the end of the day that was him showing the pope respect for coming all the way to maskwacis to apologize," he wrote.
Among those coming to Littlechild's defense was Phil Fontaine, a former Assembly of First Nations chief and a residential school survivor.
"Chief Littlechild followed his protocols," Fontaine said. "There is a protocol for that kind of gift. He went to the elders, he went to the leadership and requested permission to present that gift. It is entirely consistent with the way they follow their customs and protocol here."
I really would like an explanation of those critics of those who bestowed the honor or Pope Francis for accepting an honor given him by others to explain how they would have avoided anyone doing something that caused anyone to be offended, or to express offense, if he a. accepted the honor or, b. turned it down.
You have to ask any of the critics of this who may have demanded such a trip be made, just what good would you want to come out of such a trip, and what could be done and would have been enough to satisfy them.
The problems with this repeatedly requested and even demanded penetiential visit to Canada were certainly obvious in that large numbers of People would never be satisfied no matter what Pope Francis did. He could have taken the coward's way out, typical of lesser world leaders and clerics, and refused to do anything, letting the issue of the profound apology he has given lapse and be an ever cooling issue of the future. I am certain that he knew a trip of this kind would be the focus of criticism, whenever there are people looking for political advantage in something like this, there is no way to avoid that because, as this shows, such opportunities will always be advantageously used. And even among People of good will, there will always be those for whom even the most sincere and actually productive acts and statements will never satisfy them.
The People who decided to give the honor and gift to Pope Francis deserved to have their decision respected, above all, something that Pope Francis did. I think that his part in it was gracious, even humble as receiving a gift should be, especially in such a context. And as he must have been aware that it, like everything he does, will be made hay of one way or another. Accepting an honor from People who desire to give you one is an act of respect, in a way, a gift back to those who give it SHOWING YOU HONOR AND RESPECT THEM. Third parties may have their opinions on that giving and reception but they are third-parties to it. Their non-participation is their decision, their disapproval of it is their decision too.
When his election as Pope was announced the lefty blogs c. 2013, exploded with rumors from what I assumed were Marxists that as Archbishop he had been in some ways complicit with the military junta that the United States backed, one which murdered many thousands of People. As I was already pretty tired of Marxists by that time, I thought they were a bunch of jerks. I also thought that after the two dreadful papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, from the second his name was announced, to his appearnace in a plain white robe instead of the scarlet velvet and ermine that had been prepared for him, to his asking People in his dioces to pray for him and kiss their children for him, it was like morning was coming back.
Also, as soon as his chosen name was announced, many of the same people refused to believe he was taking the name of Francis of Assisi, saying he must mean a less saintly and popular saint. Francis Xavier, Francis de Sales. I had to break it to them that when a Catholic says St. Francis without any other name, they could only ever mean St. Francis.
One of the more surprising and apt descriptions I've ever heard of Pope Francis, the most pastorally able, or,, rather caring Pope since the atypically pastoral Good Pope John XXIII was when David Bentley Hart, an Orthodox believer, described him as "a tough guy" saying that as an Argentinian going through the late 20th century, he would have had to be. Of course, that's right. I think the mixture of graciousness and toughness, seeing where the hits are going to come and knowing those always will, his decision to honor those who honored him and take the hits was the right one.
He handled it like a great statesman pastor would have, I think the feelings of those who gave him the honor take precedence over those not involved, certainly over however I would feel about it. I hope they are not too hurt by the critics whose involvement is tangential, at best.
No comments:
Post a Comment