Joseph Addison columnist centries ago, readable. The pope: He's dead, to begin with. Now what? Did he leave a mess?
Let us now praise a columnist. Name of Joseph Addison. Ring a bell? No? Well pick up a copy of a book of his essays. I did and found this funny column, a.k.a. essay, about “A Visit from the Upholster,” on page 121 of this quite weathered book published in 1890, Essays of Joseph Addison, “chosen and edited by John Richard Green, M.A., LL. D., Honorary Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford.”
And I defy any of you to come up with a more outstanding source. Oh, published by MACMILLAN AND CO., London and New York.
And found on this writer’s book shelf, with $3.00 written on corner of the inside in corner. My guess is it was salvaged out of the many volumes of the in-law family hand-me-downs.
Why write about it? Because the tone, word usage, even sensibility, but mainly the first two, are stunningly readable 200-plus years later.
No curiosities of expression to find awkward and off-putting. Nothing but a column-length tale that hints at a suggestion of something we recognize and like very much.
Addison produced one of the great tragedies of the 18th century in Cato, but his principal achievement was to bring to perfection the periodical essay in his journal, The Spectator.
Indeed,
Dr. Samuel Johnson’s praise of The Spectator as a model of prose style established Addison as one of the most admired and influential masters of prose in the language.
So. Got that off my chest.
================
Now for the news of the day, the late Pope Francis heading the list.
The gents at The Pillar, cool cats, go all-Dickens with their lead:
Pope Francis is dead, to begin with.
And no, they did not follow with:
There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner.
No indeed, instead they look to what’s next:
As the cardinals gather for conclave, they face . . . the reality of a Church sharply divided after . . . a 12-year period of tumult and deep disagreement, amplified by Francis’ complex personality and his often-dizzying desire to “shake things up,” without always a clear sense of what exactly he was shaking them for.
Nicely said.
More:
While Francis spoke often about the peripheries beyond the Church, he left open real questions about the power of marginalization and group think within ecclesial life — unpacking his papacy likely means acknowledging wounds he left behind.
He took us for quite a ride.
For instance, what on Facebook I called “a blow-by- blow-indictment by a working newsman,” Edward Pentin, here offering this, of which parts:
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis’ death this morning marks the end of a modernizing and seemingly benign pontificate for most of the world, but for those who have followed it with any closeness, a time of turmoil, disruption and deep division.
Elected on a mandate of reform, Francis set out to make the Church less self-referential and more mission oriented, closer to the faithful and the peripheries, and more relevant to the times.
In many ways he achieved this: those who would never give the Catholic Church a second glance, perceiving that she would not accept them, felt accepted and welcomed.
Specifically:
He aimed to create a more listening Church, an “inverted pyramid” that takes the People of God as its starting point — in sum, a grand vision of decentralization ostensibly geared towards creating a more democratic, localized Church “permanently in a state of mission” and seemingly capable of dealing with the complexities of the faith and human relationships in the world today.
How did that work?
But critics warned that such an approach was more akin to a Protestant model that departed from the Church’s apostolic tradition, threatening to undermine Rome’s authority, and the hierarchy in general.
Cardinals expressed alarm, notably after a synod on the family in 2014 was rigged to produce a radical and modernist ideological outcome.
The self-identified mess-maker:
More significantly, in his eagerness to embrace the progressive tenet of inclusivity and his own, broad concept of mercy, Francis often set aside canonical limits to papal power, especially when it came to defending some of his friends accused of clerical sex abuse.
He ruled autocratically, not unusual for a pope who has all legislative, executive and judicial powers, but Francis issued more papal decrees, not dissimilar to executive orders, than any pope in modern history.
He tore into good people.
Under his watch, bishops, priests, religious and laity who had been bearing good fruit in terms of reverence, spiritual life, fidelity to Catholic doctrine, and booming vocations were cancelled or ostracized.
A devastating accusation.
“The more spiritual and supernaturally orientated they were, the more persecution they seem to suffer,” a Portuguese priest told Newsmax on condition of anonymity due to fear of reprisals.
“Meanwhile, in other quarters, those who committed abuses against doctrine, moral teaching and the liturgy seemed to go unpunished and were allowed to thrive.”
He apparently could tolerate some things, not others. What was he thinking? Was he a reformer, as some said?
Rather, a revolutionary. Making a mess, as he recommended. Irresponsible?