![]() |
| Image generated via ChatGPT prompt. |
Eggshells
In defense of free thought, free speech, free movement, and free minds — since 2012.
Monday, July 20, 2026
Nerding Over Girl Names, No. 100: Scholastica
Saturday, July 18, 2026
Name-Nerding, Fifteen Years Later
![]() |
| Image generated via ChatGPT prompt. |
Fifteen years ago, I was fussing over the perfect name for our daughter. I talked about the process at the time in a Facebook post, and I recently got an itch to see if my naming preferences had changed since then.
I'm a failed fiction writer, you see, and over the years I've accumulated a number of characters who've taken up permanent residence in my head. One exists as an online persona, another is just hanging around waiting for her story to be told, two others enjoy engaging in online roleplay, and yet another is something like a tulpa but resists specific labeling -- and gets angry if I call her fictional. The thing they have in common is that they're all female. And they all have names I'm rather fond of. Some of those names were rolling around in my head when I was coming up with girl names fifteen years ago, and some weren't.
I work with words, and names are words, and they all have meanings and origins. A name is the first gift you give a child, aside from the gift of life itself, and I believe that a child deserves a name that he or she can wear proudly throughout life. Thus, I put a lot of thought into our kiddo's name. She ended up being Miranda Penelope. Nice cadence. Long names to counterbalance our one-syllable family name. Both with literary origins -- Miranda from Shakespeare; Penelope from Homer. Miranda has a nice meaning, derived by the Bard from the Latin mirandus, meaning "worthy of admiration." Penelope at least doesn't have a bad meaning -- it probably refers either to Penelope's weaving or to some kind of seabird. I was able to live with that.
Still, it was a bit of a compromise name. My wife and I both agreed on Penelope as a middle, but Miranda wasn't my top choice for a first name. I preferred Gretchen, Beatrix, and Saoirse. My wife hated Gretchen, so that was immediately out. Beatrix was a strong contender, but the potential for the nickname Trixie to surface also rankled my wife. And my wife's mom couldn't pronounce Saoirse (SEAR-shah) to save her life.
I've since cooled on Irish Gaelic names like Saoirse, Fionnuala, and Siobhan. As much as I like exotic and unusual names, I wouldn't want to saddle a kid with a name she constantly had to spell and pronounce for people.
But Gretchen and Beatrix still rank among my favorites. I still like names with quirky, vintage charm, names that convey timeless elegance, names that sound intellectual, names of Nordic, Slavic, and Germanic origin with heavy consonant clusters. Names that would feel at home on an author, a judge, a professor, a philosopher, an artist. Nothing sugary. Nothing trendy. Nothing trashy. Nothing that condemns a girl to feeling like a perpetual 3-year-old.
Here was my list from fifteen years ago, in alphabetical order.
Aimee
Alexandria
Alice
Angelica
Annika
Athena
Beatrix
Calista
Carys
Charissa
Cherie
Delaney
Eireann
Elswyth
Fae
Fionnuala
Frieda
Greta
Heidi
Heather
Helen
Irene
Iris
Kerensa
Larissa
Lotus
Lydia
Lyra
Marina
Martha
Mei
Melissa
Miranda
Natalie
Penelope
Sabine
Santi
Saoirse
Selena
Serena
Shirin
Sunniva
Susan
Tabitha
Theresa
Vanessa
Veronica
Victoria
Wendy
Zoe
Of those fifty names, seventeen made it to my revised list of 100 favorite girl names, one with a slightly altered spelling. Some of the names from this original list I'm indifferent to now. Others leave me wondering what I was thinking. I note that Gretchen didn't even make my list back then: I must have reasoned there was no point in including it, since it was a no-go for one of the two parents.
But now there are no more kids on the way, only fictional characters in my head. And they're going to want names when they show up. So I suppose I'll consider my new list as a sort of fantasy lineup of female names. I'll dedicate a post to each one, counting down from 100 to 1. Maybe somebody reading will take a liking to a name, in which case, you're welcome. But this is mainly for my own amusement, as pretty much everything on this blog is.
Stay tuned.
Thursday, July 2, 2026
The Classics and the Thrill of Discovery
![]() |
| Image generated via ChatGPT prompt. |
In a tumultuous year in my life, I've found something to anchor me that has done the trick for many a year: music.
Friday, June 27, 2025
Straw Dogs: You're Not Special
I guess you could take that to mean that the gods are cruel. Certain interpretations of the Tao Te Ching certainly don't help: "Heaven and earth are not benevolent," reads one translation. "Heaven and earth are ruthless," reads another.
The problem here is that it's hard to narrow in on the specific meaning of ancient Chinese, especially in a poetic text like the Tao Te Ching that's ripe with mystical overtones. But my gut tells me that we're not supposed to think that the universe is hostile, any more than we're supposed to think that it's benevolent. The universe just is. Nature just is. When a tornado rips through a community and uproots trees, levels homes, and leaves death and destruction in its wake, nature isn't being mean. It's just doing what nature does. Some will be quick to attribute the storm to some kind of karmic response, others to God's wrath. But what if it's just a storm? Likewise when a child develops a terminal illness: We can twist ourselves in knots wondering why a loving God would allow an innocent person to suffer, or we might surmise that the gods — if they even exist — just don't care.
I think that's what Taoism attempts to teach us. If "shit happens" ever summed up a religious/spiritual philosophy, it's Taoism. Maybe gods exist; maybe they don't. Either way, if we take our emotions and desires out of it, we can find no tangible evidence that, if deities do exist, they don't really seem to care about us one way or another. We're straw dogs. We're born, we live, we die. That's our only discernible purpose. It's only our egos that persuade us to think that we humans hold some special, privileged place in the universe. That we're made in the image of God, and that God is love. Nice sentiment, but entirely unprovable outside of philosophical abstractions.
Nor should we have any reason to think we could ever bend the gods to our will. Prayers and offerings to the gods are ultimately for us, to bring us closer through reverent ritual actions to the ideals that the gods represent. We can imitate their characteristics as recorded in scripture and lore, but they can't be bribed to get us the job, or let us win the lottery, or heal little Jimmy. The gods aren't that weak, and we're not that powerful. They don't need us. And, again, this is assuming they even exist.
I'm not trying to make an argument for atheism, if that's what it sounds like. I happen to think there is some kind of creative force out there, and I think quantum mechanics might hint at what it looks like, if we entertain the admittedly far-out idea that consciousness is a building block of the universe — which points toward concepts of divinity that look more like Brahman, or Neoplatonism's One, or, indeed, the Tao itself, than anything that has to do with an old man on a cloud judging us by an arbitrary book of rules.
I also believe a spirit world exists, even if I can't pretend to know much about it. And I admit that the idea of karma and rebirth makes a lot of sense and explains a lot of things, at least as a belief in my mind. But that's all it is: an unsubstantiated belief.
The point I'm trying to make is a very simple one: We're not special.
Being humans, we have the capacity to fill our lives with meaning and purpose, build relationships with other people, pursue our hobbies and interests, and try to leave behind a positive influence. But we can easily confuse these things with the idea that our existence holds any inherent purpose beyond simply existing for 70 or 80 years. We're sentient beings on one tiny little planet in the vast ocean of space. That's it. Yet we devote an incredible amount of time and energy on this little speck of dust — this pale blue dot, as Carl Sagan so wonderfully put it — trying so desperately to be noticed and acclaimed, as if we're actually something more than the insignificant and transitory blobs of flesh and bone that we are. These days we go so far as to create false identities for ourselves, complete with their own accompanying garish little flags, in the hopes that by remaking ourselves in our own image, someone will notice and applaud our fragile egos for a few fleeting seconds.
But none of that changes the reality that the overwhelming majority of us will be forgotten within a few short generations, a name on a headstone that a stranger might momentarily ponder while passing by in the cemetery, maybe wondering what the person lying in the ground under his feet was like, and then never thinking about it again. Even many of the once great and powerful will eventually be reduced to a footnote, like Shelley's Ozymandias. "Look on my works and despair," indeed.
There's a spoken-word poem on Chicago's third album whose second stanza goes as follows:
When all the great galactic systems
Sigh to a frozen halt in space,
Do you think there will be some remnant
Of the beauty of the human race?
Do you think there will be a vestige,
Or a sniffle, or a cosmic tear?
Do you think a greater thinking thing
Will give a damn that man was here?
That's us. The straw dogs.
But that doesn't mean you should just roll over and give up. Do you have to be made in the image of God for your existence to mean something? Do you need to believe you go to heaven when you die for your earthly existence to have any value? Can you not provide your own meaning and value, independent of what else may or may not go on in the universe?
Be the best straw dog you can be. And let that be enough.
Sunday, June 8, 2025
You Can Lead a Fact-Based Writer to Fiction, but You Can't Make Him Create
![]() |
| Photo by Andrea Piacquadio at Pexels. |
I cannot write fiction.
I wish I could, but I can’t.
I’ve come to this conclusion as my wife embarks on her
latest annual fiction-writing challenge. She loves making up stories. She’s a
self-published author of lots of engaging book series. There’s some mystery stuff,
some paranormal stuff, even some sci-fi stuff, but the one thread that runs
through all of them is romance. Now, romance isn’t exactly my genre of choice, but
she writes such rich and multilayered characters and engaging plot lines that I
find myself waiting to discover what comes next at the end of each chapter.
That’s the definition of writing a page-turner, I suppose. It’s a special gift
that she possesses, and in a lot of ways I’m envious of it.
And I’m envious of it because I wish I possessed the ability
to put together an engaging story with engaging characters. She makes it seem
effortless. And every year she urges me to take part in her writing challenges
with her.
This year, I decided I was finally going to get my book on
spirituality out of my system. It wouldn’t be a work of fiction, but I decided
maybe that was OK, because I can write good nonfiction. At least I think I can.
I have a decent vocabulary and can build a persuasive argument. Heck, I work
with words for a living. I was trained in practical writing. That’s what I’m
good at. And that’s why I started my career as a reporter for a couple of Midwestern
newspapers that you’ve probably never heard of. I was good at getting the facts
out up top and explaining things clearly. There wasn’t really room for me to
color the articles with my own artistic flourishes, which was OK because newspaper
articles weren’t the place for that and, well, I just wasn’t very good at it
anyway.
That’s not to say I haven’t tried writing fiction. I have. I’ve
put a couple of bad examples up on this blog. And that’s why I decided that if
I was going to take part in the writing challenge, the best thing for me to do
was to stick to nonfiction.
So I bounced a lot of ideas around in my head, which is
actually something I enjoy doing. I’m an innately curious person and almost always
have thoughts of some sort rattling around in my cranium. And because I prefer
to thoughtfully chew on ideas and figure out how to piece those ideas together
in a logically coherent and consistent way, fitting disparate thoughts together
like the pieces of a puzzle, I like to think that I often have a unique point
of view to share with the world. Maybe that’s just conceit talking, but I fancy
the idea that the reason I don’t fit into most people’s categories out in the
real world is that digging in and examining the things that other people take
for granted means that, almost by default, I end up never following the crowd. Anyway,
I’d feel like a phony if I did.
I say that because my problem with writing fiction isn’t
that my head is empty of any ideas. Far from it. My brain truly never stops churning
through thoughts and ideas. To the world, I’m a quiet man of few words, but in
my skull it’s Grand Central Station, 24/7.
But that doesn’t mean it’s easy to take the thoughts and
make them say what I want them to say. I fuss over getting everything right,
even with my blog posts, and sometimes it leads to paralysis. I’ll publish a post,
reread it, and think of 16 different things that I feel compelled to add. And I
hit republish over and over until I’m finally satisfied. I can’t imagine what I’d
be like writing a book. So after numerous failed false starts with this idea, I
got impatient with myself and decided to put the project aside.
It’s not that I can’t organize the thoughts I want to get
out. That part is easy for me. Again, it’s just making sure I say absolutely everything
I want to say, in exactly the way I want to say it, and getting agitated when I
think of something I missed. I don
There’s also the practical matter of the research I’d have to
put in to cite my sources. That felt daunting, to the point of being overwhelming.
I know a lot of time and effort goes into good storytelling, and the same is
true for good nonfiction. And I found myself wanting to touch on so many points
in my book-to-be that I think I’d find myself buried under source material
trying to find references for my book’s footnotes. I don’t have the time to do
that. I have a job to do, a house to help keep up as my wife recovers from her
cancer treatments, a kid and pets that need attention, and a body that’s not
doing so hot these days. It’s just hard to focus on something that doesn’t feel
vital to the needs and demands of everyday life, I guess. It’s a luxury that I
suppose I’m not allowing myself to have right now, or at least to prioritize
enough to give it the time it needs to actually be good and not feel slapdash
and undercooked.
Plus, I think I’m at a place in my life where I no longer
feel the need to be heard. I used to take my time crafting and polishing 10,000-word
posts on this blog because, as I said, I felt I had a unique point of view and
I wanted to share it. I wanted to try to reach someone, anyone, and make
some kind of a difference in the world. Now? Well, I think I’ve just gotten
used to the fact that no one listens to me and probably never will, and there’s
little I can do or say to have an impact on the world in any event. And I’m
actually OK with that, where I think I used to be a lot more neurotic about
wanting, even needing, to bend the world to my will. But that’s what everyone
else does, and what does it really do but lead to needless conflict? There’s
very little that any of us has any real control over in this life. You can come
to terms with that, or you can burn yourself out with anxiety over things that
you can’t do anything about.
As for my spiritual point of view, I still think it would be
fun to share, and I would hope that it would cast a fresh perspective on things
for people who struggle to feel a connection to established religious
traditions. If I could reach even one person, I’d feel that I’d accomplished
something and that the time spent putting the book together would have been
worth it. So maybe someday I’ll still write that book. Maybe it will be in
retirement. Who knows.
So with that idea set aside, I turned my attention to trying, one more time, to pull together enough ideas to write a story. I didn’t force myself to come up with an idea: As serendipity would have it, I just happened to have an idea rolling around in my head. Had I forced myself to come up with an idea from scratch, nothing would have ever happened. But I did have some rough ideas to work with, and I thought about how I’d craft them into a story that somebody would want to read. And I just got nowhere. I even monkeyed around with an AI engine — not to have it write for me, but just to try to generate some basic ideas that I could then expand on. Still, nothing.
I think the root of my problem is that I just don’t know how
to characterize. Everything I write sounds like a book report or a Wikipedia
article. I’m like the Joe Friday of writing: I gather and present just the
facts. And there’s a place for that. But fiction is not necessarily that place.
What I mean is this: How do you make fictional characters
sound human? How do you make them sound not wooden and mechanical, going through the motions, like a puppet that
you’re moving from Point A to Point B with your words? And then, how much
description do you need? And what is good description versus bad description? I
have no idea, but for other writers it seems effortless to figure this out. People
laugh at writers who turn out bad prose. But how do I know if mine is good or
bad? What standard do you use? How do you find an engaging way to say your
character walked to the kitchen for a light breakfast before walking out in the
courtyard to plant flowers? I’m supposed to tell you how the sun illuminated the
beautiful colors in the garden, and how the warm air felt good against our
protagonist’s skin, and how the smells of spring intoxicated her, and what all this
meant for her in that moment. But I can’t do that without just saying the literal
thing that she walked to the kitchen, had breakfast, went outside, and
planted flowers. A, B, C, D. Just the facts. I don’t know how to take those
things and transform them into engaging prose that sings, that sticks with you
because of how vivid and memorable the descriptions were. That’s my problem.
There seems to be an unwritten (heh) understanding among
writers of what actually constitutes good writing. But it’s a very
subjective thing, which stands to reason since art is inherently subjective. And
it’s something that I guess you either get or you don’t. In that sense, maybe
it’s more that good story writing is ultimately an intuitive thing. You
can put paints and a blank canvas in front of a thousand people, but only one
or two, if you’re lucky, are going to create anything that exceeds a Kindergarten level of aptitude. You either see the beauty
in your head and can use your hands as a conduit to put those ideas out into
the world for others to see, or you don’t. Creativity is just something you can’t
force, and I’m not even sure you can successfully teach it to any great degree.
I’m like this with music as well. I understand music theory.
I know what time and key signatures are. I know what notes go where on the staff. I
know how to place my hands to make chords on guitars and keyboards. I even understand
the logic of the circle of fifths. But I can’t actually do anything creative
with that knowledge. For me it’s just all head knowledge. I can’t translate it
into something expressive and beautiful. And I think that to expect that anyone
can do it with just a little bit of practice and determination is to ask for
something that ends up making a lot of people feel like a failure, as if they’re
just not smart enough to figure it out.
Likewise, I know the ins and outs of English grammar and mechanics.
I was that weird kid who enjoyed diagramming sentences and figuring out the relationships
between words in a sentence. I make my living as a copy editor because I
understand how language works. But in the same way that I can’t sit down at a piano
and write an original song full of depth and beauty, I can’t sit down at my laptop
and craft you a story. For whatever reason, I just can’t.
But it’s OK. There’s no point getting mad or frustrated
about it. If the artistic skill isn’t there, it simply isn’t there. That’s just
the way it is.
And so I’ll leave it to my wife to write the fun books with
the interesting characters. Head over to dreamwriter.earth if you want a sample
of her good works. For me, for better or worse, I’m afraid you’re stuck reading
dreary blog posts.
Thursday, May 8, 2025
Habemus Papam!
Well.
The first American pope.
The first Augustinian pope.
The first pope whose native language is English since Adrian IV almost 700 years ago.
Who saw any of this coming?
One thing’s for sure: The election of Robert Prevost illustrates exactly why media predictions aren’t worth a hill of beans. Very few were talking about him as a papabile. All eyes were on the leading “conservative” and “progressive” candidates, as if Catholic doctrine should fit neatly into the modern left-right paradigm. It seems no one in the secular media bothered to wonder who the most Catholic candidate might be – the one most likely to uphold orthodox Catholic teaching. Cardinal Prevost may or may not be that person – time will tell – but to be elected on only the fourth ballot, in a conclave that everyone thought would go on for days or weeks, suggests that his fellow cardinals saw something in him that allowed them to trust that the church would be in good hands with him as its shepherd, for potentially as much as the next two decades. Prevost is just 69 years old, whereas Pope Francis was 76 and Pope Benedict XVI 78 when they were elected.
Anyway, the saying holds true: Whoever enters the conclave as the pope exits the conclave as a cardinal.
We don’t know why Prevost was the cardinals’ choice, and we may never know. My conspiratorial mind wants me to think that this was a direct rebuff of Trumpism: Where will American Catholics’ allegiances lie when Catholic doctrine conflicts with their president’s polemics? But that’s speculation on my part and nothing more.
Second: You can tell a lot about a pope from the name he chooses. Prevost’s choice of Leo XIV is very likely a nod to Pope Leo XIII, who was the architect of Rerum Novarum, one of the founding documents of Catholic social teaching. Central to Catholic social teaching is the inherent dignity of the human being, coupled with calls to build solidarity and systems of subsidiarity that attempt to solve problems and raise people up at the most local level possible – with their families, friends, and communities. In a sense, Catholic social teaching is a reminder that “pro-life” means all life – all those on the margins. Widows, orphans, refugees, the poor, the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the forgotten. Too often has the church, especially the American church, made itself appear to have only one specific meaning for “pro-life.” My sense is that Leo XIV will challenge that perception and encourage faithful Catholics to expand their meaning of the term and extend their compassion to all those in need.
In the same spirit, it should be noted that Rerum Novarum is also highly critical of both socialism and unrestrained capitalism, both of which lead to centralized ownership in the hands of a privileged few. Again, this is something not likely to sit well with some Catholics who have put worldly things before spiritual things and who have made an idol of their politics. People are going to be challenged, and hopefully those challenges will open hearts and bear good fruit.
In short, I’m hopeful that Leo XIV will be a champion of both human rights and human dignity.
Will he be a Francis clone, bringing more controversy and confusion to the church? It could well be that the reason he was elected so quickly was that Francis packed the College of Cardinals with his own appointees to maximize the chances that his successor would be like him, and all the Francis sympathizers simply pushed him through. But my gut tells me that’s not what happened. From what little I’ve learned about him, Prevost appears to have a reputation for being balanced, temperate, kind, and a listener to all people and perspectives. And that could well be why he was chosen to be pope.
There’s no doubt that the church needed someone balanced and willing to listen after the past dozen years of chaos, not another Francis with an agenda to ram through. We didn’t need a “conservative” pope or a “liberal” pope, and all the talk in that direction missed the point of what it is to be a good and effective leader of an institution. The only thing the secular media seemed to care about was the new pope’s position on abortion and homosexuality, not whether he’d be a good leader. After all, it should be no surprise that the pope’s position on these and other matters is going to be the unchangeable Catholic position, although the mixed signals, ambiguity, and outright confusion Francis sowed for so long perhaps makes it understandable that the press would be misled about the church and the immovability of its core articles of faith. When a legislator in Washington state proposed a bill to make priests break their seal of confession – a bill that is sadly now law, incidentally – and critics told her that to do so would violate church doctrine, her glib response was that the church should just change its doctrine. Well, it doesn’t work that way, and that’s clearly something the secular world just isn’t able to grasp. But, again, Francis unequivocally didn’t help in this regard, making church teaching appear malleable to the outside world. He did the church no favors, and the damage he did will take quite a bit of time to undo.
The thing is, being a pope isn’t about winning points or owning the opposition – and this is something that even the trads and Trumper Catholics lost sight of. It’s about being the vicar of Christ on Earth and defending the church and its teachings. Francis, by all accounts a deeply political person and a fearful dictator when the cameras were off, a petty and spiteful and thin-skinned little man who was quick to silence and excommunicate his critics while turning a blind eye to near occasions of heresy and schism, a man who handed over the faithful underground church in China to the Communist government, a man who reviled traditional Catholics, a man who foisted Fiducia Supplicans on us, a man who allowed Nancy Pelosi to receive communion at a Vatican Mass when her own archbishop refused to commune for her support of abortion, failed on almost every count in terms of being a good leader.
Just the fact that Prevost appeared in traditional papal garments when he addressed the crowd, when Francis didn’t at his election, is a likely signal that he’s not going to thumb his nose at tradition the way Francis so often did with his false humility. It may also be a positive sign that he’ll reverse the draconian restrictions Francis placed on the Traditional Latin Mass. No, I don't expect Prevost to be a hardline traditionalist, but I sense that he’ll at least listen to reason and be charitable enough to understand that some Catholics just prefer the old Mass, and that they should be allowed to celebrate it.
Now, could Prevost have come out in traditional papal garb to try to present himself as a reasonable moderate when he’s not, thus making traditionalists look extreme and unreasonable when they push back? Of course that’s a possibility. Being an American, Prevost is certainly very aware of how out of touch American leftism has become, and that if the left wants to win any more elections, it has to make itself look more centrist even if it isn’t, by adopting more mainstream talking points and downplaying its more radical stances before the public. In this sense, Prevost could well be ahead of the curve in terms of contemporary political trends, serving as a precursor for how leftists will try to regain power: “Hey, look, we’re occupying the reasonable middle here. It’s those crazy dangerous far-right extremists who’ve lost the plot.” After 12 years of Francis’ wild unpredictability, it would make sense for those who think like him to want to recast themselves so that they too don’t come off as loose cannons.
But all this is a worst-case scenario, and at least for now I remain hopeful that we aren’t being set up with a Trojan horse.
In any event, Catholic social teaching is one of the things that keeps me Catholic, and the fact that Cardinal Prevost chose a papal name with the probable intent of likening himself to the wonderful Leo XIII, the modern architect of Catholic social teaching, makes me very hopeful – more than I’ve been a long time as a Catholic.
I’ve felt like I’ve been in a dream ever since Protodeacon Mamberti came out to announce the identity of the new pope. When I heard “Prevost,” I turned to my daughter and asked, “Did he say Prevost? He’s an American! There's no way!” And yet there it was: An American cardinal as our new pope. The thing no one thought would ever happen. It was always said that there would never be an American pope: Since the United States held so much political power in the world, it was always thought unwise to give it so much significant spritual power over the world as well. Thus, there would’t be an American pope until the U.S. found itself in decline as a world power. Perhaps Prevost’s election is a sign that we’ve arrived at that time, for good or bad.
One thing’s for sure: Prevost was probably the only American bishop who could have ever had a realistic shot at becoming pope, given his high-level Vatican position as head of the Dicastery for Bishops since 2023. Cupich and Burke are both far too sectarian and polarizing – which, incidentally, is why cardinals like Zuppi, Tagle, and Sarah never had a realistic chance either. Among the American cardinals, Dolan, McElroy, O’Malley, Tobin, and Wuerl may have had a shot. But of the U.S. contingent, I’m encouraged that we got the one best suited for the job.
The image I can’t get out of my mind from today was how humbled Cardinal Prevost seemed when he came out to address the Catholic faithful. He looked almost overwhelmed, perhaps on the verge of tears. It must indeed be overwhelming to one day be living your life as a cardinal most people don’t know about, and then to suddenly get thrust into the role of spiritual leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics, all of whom will have their eyes on you, looking up to you for guidance and inspiration, for the rest of your life. His expression and reaction, to me, spoke volumes about where his heart is. He looks like a kind and gracious man, and I sincerely hope that he is.
I’m cautiously optimistic that we’ll see good things come out of this papacy. It certainly can’t be any worse than what we’ve endured over the past dozen years.
Monday, April 21, 2025
A Papacy Reaches Its End
I've made no secret of my dislike of Pope Francis. His papacy had the potential to be a great one, but that potential was quickly squandered by consistently poor leadership choices.
I'm a cradle Catholic. I was away from the church for many years, and Francis was pope when I came back and settled in for good. I was initially a fan of his pastoral approach to the papacy, focusing less on doctrine and more on mercy, meeting imperfect people, often on the fringes, where they were. Unfortunately, over the years this approach resulted in a papacy that said and did things that often seemed at odds with essential Catholic teaching, causing no small amount of consternation and confusion for the faithful. When Francis would say something off the cuff that sounded out of bounds from a Catholic point of view, others in the Vatican would have to scramble to explain what the pope really meant to say. Lack of clarity is not a good quality for a leader of any organization, and in this area the Francis papacy regularly fell short.
Then came his repeated attacks on the traditional Latin Mass. He placed significant restrictions on saying the old Mass, claiming that the "rigidity" of its attendees needed to be reined in. For a pope who spoke so much of mercy and reconcilation, he consistently offered a distressingly heavy hand toward the 1% (at most) of Catholics who prefer the old Mass to the new one. There were persistent rumors over the years that Francis had a dictatorial disposition behind the scenes that gave the lie to his friendly public-facing persona, and the old Mass was the one topic that perhaps caused the mask to slip and gave us a peek into what he was really like. Francis was of the generation that came charging out of Vatican II ready to rip out the communion rails and modernize the church, so his disdain for the old ways is somewhat to be expected -- but it certainly didn't endear him to a lot of Catholics.
Glowing tributes are predictably pouring in. The world liked Francis because he projected an aura of openness and kindness and inclusiveness that came at the expense of adherence to church teaching. Our culture is hostile to Catholic values, so if the culture loved him, it was because the culture perceived him as abandoning the "old" ways and getting with the times. Francis notably did nothing during his papacy to clear up any disconnect between church teaching and public perception to the contrary, and in fact he usually added to the confusion. More often than not, he seemed to hate his own church.
Francis stacked the College of Cardinals over the years with men who presumably embrace views similar to his own, so I'd say there's unfortunately a least a decent chance we'll get someone doctrinally similar to him as the 267th pope. We can only hope for something better.
In any event, while I hope that he rests in peace, I will certainly not miss him.





.png)