In his closing remarks at the 2024 TLI conference in Los Angeles, Cristofer Pereyra gave the most impassioned and memorable speech. I could see the exhaustion in Pereyra’s eyes. He has been on a ten-year drive with Bishop Olmstead to spur civic leadership in the lay ranks. The program has expanded and indeed bore fruit, but Cristofer is a visionary. His vision is far from achieved. As I drove home to Florida, I pondered that look on his face. It spoke to my instincts. “Individualism is a serious problem,” I thought. Perhaps inspiring leadership and intellectual formation is only part of the story. These guys have been running up against an invisible wall called individualism. We all have.
I’m wary of psychology, but I’m handy with it. I started with a premise: The philosophy of individualism is a subconscious phenomenon. There are humanly directed and historically driven sources of any given philosophy. In the case of individualism, it’s mainly the latter.
In the following weeks, I had outlined half a dozen major contributing factors post-World War II from the Great Suburban experiment and the sexual revolution to the iPhone. My case was strong. I replaced the words “subconscious phenomenon” with "collective emotional psychology" to more accurately describe individualism. The word subconscious is too esoteric feeling for me and often abused. In any case, I was confident that I had mapped a collective sub-cognitive force afflicting the modern psyche.
Then, I searched high and low to see what the world's prominent intellects said about it. Zilch. I was shocked! In my short analysis, I estimated it to be a civilizational force. Rather, a force antithetical to civilization. The last place I looked was Pope Francis’s Fratelli Tutti. Would you know it, The Papa strongly indicted the philosophy of individualism, mentioning it negatively nine times!
"Individualism does not make us more free, more equal, more fraternal. The mere sum of individual interests is not capable of generating a better world for the whole human family. Nor can it save us from the many ills that are now increasingly globalized. Radical individualism is a virus that is extremely difficult to eliminate, for it is clever. It makes us believe that everything consists in giving free rein to our own ambitions, as if by pursuing ever greater ambitions and creating safety nets we would somehow be serving the common good." -Fratelli Tutti paragraph 105
Pope Francis was the last place I looked because he lost credibility with me in 2020, the very year he released this encyclical. The Papa was too cozy with Anthony Fauci’s agenda for my liking. Before the world, he advocated for experimental gene therapy shots touted as vaccines. This brings me to my point! How can a Catholic discern The Papa appropriately? In all my TLI courses, in all the public discussions about The Pope from Mel Gibson to Charlie Kirk to Michael Knowles, no one ever covers this. It is a lot like discerning Anthony Fauci. Let me explain.
In the world of science, we have a singular discernment tool: The hierarchy of scientific evidence. At the top of the pyramid are systematic reviews. This is the analysis of all studies and data available on a given topic. It is so comprehensive, that in science one can claim that they are approximating “the truth” of the matter when they read a well-substantiated systematic review, aka meta-analysis. Take a look above.
When you look at the bottom of the pyramid, such as expert opinions, it is much less likely to be true, unless the said expert is accurately citing something from the top of the pyramid. When it came to Anthony Fauci and his mask mandate in 2020, I knew he was a hack in ten minutes. I got on the CDC website and found a meta-analysis citing data back into the 60s which concluded masks cannot protect against aerosolized viruses. The top of the pyramid invalidates the fallacious statements of the mad scientist at the bottom of the pyramid, however charming. This is very important. If people filter their information through this simple tool, they are less likely to get tricked!
How is this relevant to discerning The Papa? Well, there is a general hermeneutic of suspicion when it comes to Pope Francis. President Milei of Argentina stated in an interview with Tucker Carlson, “The Papa plays politics.” I agree with Milei, but it's not so surprising. Many call him the false prophet and many also call him a saint. Let me be crystal clear, he is just a man, a man who needs to be discerned like any other man in power. The tool used to discern The Pope is not all that different than the hierarchy of scientific evidence with Doctor Fauci.
The Pope is not immune from error or being a downright scoundrel. I’m not claiming either, but as discerning Christians we must look beyond geopolitics, church politics, and interpersonal exchanges. Binary, tribal thinking must make way for an honest appraisal of the man’s various positions. I propose this discernment tool. To begin, The Pope has legitimate authority to teach the world on the subjects of faith and morals. If he strays too far from his purview, his weight is diminished. He has legitimate authority to teach the world though! This is called, “Ordinary Magisterial Teaching.” This is done primarily through the use of letters to the world called encyclicals. Encyclicals are not infallible. However, they are high up the hierarchy and worthy of consideration. It would be safe, even wise, to presume that The Pope is approximating the truth in an encyclical. At the top are “Ex Cathedra” statements that rarely happen in history. Below encyclicals are homilies and other forms of public speech such as public addresses. Finally, all the scandalous things that have happened or may have happened fall to the bottom. Great for gossip columns but not fuel for serious thinking.
Check out my very SERIOUS discernment tool for discerning the pope:
Oh, but we were talking about individualism. Yes, it is a subversive force that counteracts our efforts to rebuild civilization. Understanding and counteracting individualism is a doozy. I have thoughts and a project on the back burner. For the moment I will say this: Collectivism is the opposite philosophy that needs to be embraced. But pushed too far collectivism becomes communism all over again. Not Good. Defined within the just bounds of subsidiarity, collectivism is the foundation of civilization. There is room for discussion here, especially when contextualized.
Comments