One of the catchphrases A common refrain we hear from people recovering from addiction is the danger of “people-pleasing.” This is an old concept in spiritual theology that was once called “respect for man.” St. Alphonsus Liguori's Stations of the Cross mentions this in one of his meditations, and I try to expound on it during Lent as we pray the Stations of the Cross. Treated as a negative value, “respect for man” is seeking man's approval instead of God's. This could be because we fear conflict or intimidation, or because we “don't fit in” by holding opposing views.
Trying to please people gets you into trouble because you care more about the opinion of others than the judgment of God. This is the situation St. Peter described in the Book of Acts long ago when the social authorities forbade him from preaching Christ. His answer was clear: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Ultimately, this led to his martyrdom.
Always exploring High esteem makes us all cowards and hypocrites. And behind the allure of dating a celebrity, some people ignore the demands of conscience. Celebrities are the fool’s gold of our society, and fame is often strangely misconstrued as an adjunct of authority. CS Lewis talks about the desire to be in the “inner circle.” Look at the “influencers” that flood the Internet. Seriousness is sacrificed for glitter.
Orthodox. Faithful. Free.
Register to get crisis Get articles delivered to your inbox every day
But it's not just seriousness that's been sacrificed, it's credibility too. It's sad to see a Church leader behaving in a star-struck, stage-entrance manner. That's how I feel about inviting hundreds of “comedians” to the Vatican for a sort of vaudeville extravaganza, a night in the shadow of the apostles' tombs where thousands of stars will celebrate their moment in the spotlight.
I don't know how appropriate it is to invite performers from other countries, but the American comedians invited are a disgrace. Whoopi Goldberg is an abortion priest, and Stephen Colbert jokes that Alabama's abortion laws are a throwback to the days of slavery and quips that it's a good thing that pregnant women can now vote twice. Neither are comedians in the classic sense, but rather sharp political satirists. Both are vulgar and comfortable with political controversy.
Their partisan hostility towards President Trump goes beyond decency. I think of the downright nasty way Colbert described Putin's relationship with President Trump. Colbert claims to be Catholic, and almost poignantly recounts the fact that Cardinal Dolan asked him to pray when the two met at a confirmation ceremony sponsored by the TV star. Maybe the Cardinal should ask him for more than prayer, and teach him reflection of conscience.
The rest of the guest listWith a few exceptions, hackers people magazine The guest list is more about celebrity than humor, including Jimmy Fallon and Conan O'Brien, masters of vile attacks on clergy, and a lesbian comedian who uses profanity to get laughs. Why were the Kardashians left out? They're social satirists, and not even Jonathan Swift could distort American values more than they do every day.
Tolerance towards people whose values frankly contradict ours may sometimes seem evangelical, but it also seems like a failure to uphold our own principles. Couldn't the Vatican have invited only comedians who add humor to everyday life, rather than representatives of secular and anti-Christian values? What would we gain from having celebrities who are enemies of our faith strut about the Holy See? Their friendship by fame would be a special kind of photo opportunity, a comic apocalypse in which the Pope is the host of the party.
Remember the Woody Allen movies? ZeligIn The Man Who Was Born, the chameleon-like character tries so hard to blend in that he ends up everywhere. He puts himself in all sorts of situations, next to the most powerful people in the world. It was funny to see the servile little man next to Hitler and the Pope and all the other famous people, but the movie was a satire on empty celebrity. It was all superficial.
Leonard Zelig's ill-advised efforts to be omnipresent landed him a psychiatrist. With comedians from around the world flocking to the Vatican, the reformation these jokers need is unlikely to come. Has the Pope become a kind of reverse Zelig, seeking approval by courting media icons?
The comedians will get some publicity and it will no doubt give the writers plenty of material for jokes. The Church will look foolish. A celebrity who has been against the Church will shake hands with the Pope. Will the Pope be a winner? Not unless he thinks he needs more TikTok and YouTube coverage. Will the comedians make fun of pastors of Christ next? Will the show be recorded and later watched on Amazon Prime or HBO?
These court jesters They only get serious if they are seriously wrong about something. They won't be affected by the church's favor, but their influence could potentially be great. We are giving these people a boost in their careers, adding words to their resumes and pictures to their Instagram accounts.
One might argue that gentle pastoral care for these performers might plant the seeds of conversion. Probably not. I think they would feel validated rather than challenged.
The silence of the bishops about the scandal surrounding the invitation of such figures as Whoopi Goldberg and Stephen Colbert to the Pope's variety show is a very serious example of a lack of critical insight. The successors of the Apostles seem to have a weakness for celebrities, no matter how unrepresentative they may be. Bishop Barron recently gave three cheers for Bill Maher, due to consensus on the fringes. He could have at least given two cheers, which would have shown some self-respect.
Our leaders seem afraid of being seen as at odds with popular culture by taking a critical stance, which might threaten our tax-exempt status, turn off some people, or provoke a negative reaction. They never want to sit with the cool kids in the cultural cafeteria and get caught on the “wrong side of history” (fuck Hegel and all his descendants).
Reinhold Niebuhr gave a famous talk about the relationship between Christianity and popular culture. He pointed out three possible dynamics: Christ and Culture; Christ in Culture (When the culture is consistent with Christian values) Christ Beyond CultureThis last attitude toward popular culture might mean pretending that religion is the accomplishment of civilization, or it might mean recognizing and living with the continuing tension between a faith perspective and a merely secular worldview, or it might mean taking on the mission of converting culture to Christ.
I don't expect the Roman Circus to have a Niebuhr-esque impact. My fear is that “culture” will not be challenged but will be seen as fulfilling the best of religion, as opposed to the idea of prioritizing Christ over culture. The “we're all in this together, so let's laugh” approach seems like an attempt by the church to justify itself, to fit in, to please public opinion makers, and to convince them that we're not so Puritan after all.
St. Paul's “all things to all men” does not mean that he descended to the level of people's ignorance, but that he tried to elevate their ignorance. He was martyred not because he could see the good in everyone, but because he wanted everyone to be truly good. He was not a Zelig seeking the approval of the pagans. He loved people so much that he not only wanted to please them, but to save their souls. He went to the Areopagus not to listen to myths and philosophies, but to preach the Gospel. Isn't that what the Ministry of Public Information should be about?
[Photo Credit: Getty Images]
