The Roman tar pit

Catholic apologists who rise to the defense of Pope Francis are confronted with a familiar dilemma: how to consistently defend an inconsistent institution. It's like the dilemma of the White House press secretary. If the president makes a stupid statement, it's the job of the press secretary to publicly defend it. But, of course, the exercise of defending a stupid statement merely repeats or even amplifies the original stupidity. You can't disown it and keep your job, but you can only defend it on pain of redoubled stupidity. 

Thus it is with Rome's apologists. How do you rescue the pope from the tar pit without becoming stuck in the tar pit yourself? 

If the papal apartments are remodeled for Benedict XVI, Catholic loyalists will defend it. If Francis shuns the gaudy accommodations, Catholic loyalists will defend it. If Benedict XVI dresses like Liberace–remember him sporting a blue chasuble?–Catholic loyalists will defend it:

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1730229_1564032,00.html

But if Francis eschews flamboyant vestments and eats his meals with lowly priests, Catholic loyalists will defend it. 

Whatever the pope is…is right. 

This despite the fact that in other situations, Catholic apologists are quick to distinguish between the fallible and infallible utterances of a pope. If you quote an indefensible statement by some past pope, Rome's apologists will lecture you on your rudimentary ignorance of Catholic dogma. Didn't you realize that only the pope's ex cathedra statements are above criticism?

So why do they rush to defend every gaffe that Francis makes? Why not admit that popes can misspeak or make false statements?

In the world of Catholic apologetics, popes are fallible in principle, but infallible in practice. 

I suppose the reason they are so defensive is that if there were a standing presumption that whatever the pope says might be dead wrong unless proven otherwise (barring ex cathedra exceptions), that would be far too unstable. Papal teaching would lack any real-world authority–except under those rare, narrow, elusive conditions when he's speaking ex cathedra. So, as a practical matter, Rome's apologists act as if the pope is infallible whenever he opens his mouth. 

Now Francis is not a thinker like Ratzinger. Francis is a personality pope. 

He appears to be a naturally spontaneous individual who's prone to making unguarded statements. In some ways he seems to be a throwback to his late predecessor, the free-wheeling John XXIII. 

As a result, his official and unofficial handlers must increasingly run interference for the boss. Ultimately, though, he's the pope and they are not. At the end of the day, only the pope can speak for the pope. Indeed, popes presume to speak for other popes–which further complicates matters. 

Isn't the raison d'être of the papacy that we need a living oracle? Sola Scriptura is unworkable, so we're told, because the Bible is a "dead" book. It says what it said. So you can't ask follow-up questions. If it's unclear, it remains unclear. By contrast, so goes the argument, a pope can answer in real time. 

So why don't Rome's self-appointed apologists allow Francis to have the last word? Permit him to speak for himself, letting the chips fall where they may? If they have to keep issuing clarifications, then that gives the lie to the rationale for the papacy in the first place.