On September 24, 2015, Pope
Francis was speaking to a group assembled in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New
York City and he said something that caused quite a stir within the ranks of
Christendom. In this speech, the pope
mentioned “the failure of the cross.”
His statement troubled many people who wondered what to make of the
pope’s remarks. Many, especially
Protestants, were deeply offended by those words. But in what context did he use that
phrase? Does the pope really see the
work of Christ on the cross as a failed event?
According to official Catholic teaching, it is
through the cross of Jesus Christ that we have redemption (CCC #517),
justification (CCC #617) and salvation (CCC #1741). To their credit, this is indeed
biblical. Again, this is official
teaching, so they are at least giving lip service to the true effects of the
cross. But getting back to the speech, here
is the context of what the pope actually said:
“To see and evaluate things
from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and
years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility. The cross shows us a different way of
measuring success. Ours is to plant the
seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.
And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit,
we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus… and his life, humanly
speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.”
In the context of his homily,
the pope may well have been alluding to 1 Corinthians 1:18, that “the
preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,”
thus, seeming like a failure to unbelievers.
To be fair, the pope did qualify the phrase in question by saying,
“humanly speaking.”
But the magnitude and
importance of this one-of-a-kind event called Calvary cannot be
overstated. So, he should have been more
cautious, especially knowing that this speech was being recorded for the whole
world (not just the clergy) to see and hear.
The very fact that it was controversial (even for some Catholics) demonstrates that his remarks
were not entirely clear. So, any
reference to the cross as a “failure” had better be clearly explained.
Ok, so he certainly could have
worded it more carefully. The “failure
of the cross” seemed to be a less-than-ideal choice of words (even with the
qualifier), seeing how it quickly caused a commotion among Christians. He could have used better qualifiers, e.g.,
“some people may think that it was a failure,” or “it only appeared to be a
failure,” etc. Anyone with his level of
influence and authority should be very careful about the things he says in
public, especially when it comes to the precious blood of the Savior (1
Peter 1:18-19). Ok, so it won’t
happen again. Lesson learned, right?
Well, apparently not.
If he would have stopped
there, then we would have left this alone and this article would never have
been written… but he said it again.
A short time later, on
November, 27, 2015, he made a similar comment.
In Nairobi, Kenya, Pope Francis said to a group of youth:
“When you don’t understand
something, when desperation hits you then look at the cross. That is the great
failure of God, that is the destruction of God, and it’s a challenge to our
faith. And this is hope, because history did not end in that failure. Rather
it’s in the resurrection of Christ that renewed all of us.”
Apparently, the pope was not
fazed by the outrage that his words had caused earlier in September. But he went much farther this time and again
called Jesus’ suffering on the cross “the great failure of God,” and he also
refers to “the destruction of God” and “the history of God’s failure.” These sound more like statements from an atheist than a Christian! See his quote here:
Leaders must be careful of
their words – you’d think that he would have learned the first time. But this time he
repeated it without saying “humanly speaking,” or using any type of qualifier or clarification. And worse yet, he was speaking to the youth of that country, not scholars or
theologians! These impressionable minds
can easily take this to mean that God was an actual failure in sending His Son to the cross, and that God was
somehow “destroyed”!
Note that never in the speech
he gave in September, nor in the one he gave in November, does the pope balance
his reference to the cross as a failure
with calling the cross an actual victory. Strange, but only the term “failure” is
mentioned in both speeches. Was this
intentional? So, many youngsters will be
left with a false impression of the
greatest act of love (and victory!) in the history of mankind (Colossians
2:14-15).
What makes all this even more
of a problem is the fact that the Catholic Church, in some of its teachings,
promotes the idea that Jesus’ suffering on the cross just didn’t seem to be
fully sufficient to save mankind.
Therefore, making it at least a partial failure. We’re speaking of doctrines like salvation by
“faith-plus-works,” Purgatory, penance, indulgences and sacraments. All these entail adding some sort of work or
suffering alongside Jesus’ absolutely sufficient and perfect work on the cross
(John
19:30; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Hebrews 9:12, 14, 26; 10:14).
Most Catholics would defend
the pope and say that the Church would never say that the cross was a failure.
So, if Catholics really are against the idea of the cross failing, and if the
cross really means that much to them, then why do they embrace these particular
teachings that deny the sufficiency of the cross to pay for the sins of mankind?
The only failure here is on
the part of the pope, not the
cross. He failed to take advantage of
opportunities to exalt the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, but instead, perverted
the very meaning of Calvary.
