SINCE I’VE NOT MADE IT A PARTICULAR SECRET in this column that I am a Catholic, I thought it would be appropriate to share some thoughts and impressions about the current head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, and the first few months of his papacy.

In observing Francis, we have heard intermittent expressions of bafflement and alarm from many on the American political right. It seems that their problem with the pope is not so much any particular thing he has said, but more (for lack of a better descriptor) the “story” he is telling.

While I think it is incorrect to say that either of Francis’ two predecessors, Blessed John Paul II or Benedict XVI, were “conservative” in the American partisan political sense of the word, they were more plausibly described as allies in the “culture war” posited by Pat Buchanan and other figures of the American right beginning in the early 1990s.

The American right habitually tells a particular story in a particular way when they argue for their agenda. Benedict could frequently be said to be telling that story, or at least not contradicting it, when he spoke on issues that intersected with the agenda of the culture warriors of the right.

Francis, though, has not only not told the particular story the particular way the right wants it told, he has actually been tossing sand into the gears (to mix metaphors) and telling a different story altogether.

Now, it is important to note that nothing Francis has said calls for retreat from church teaching on any issues — abortion, gay marriage and so on — about which the culture warriors and the Catholic Church agree. It’s just that he is not embedding his explanation of those teachings in a story that the American right wants told.

If the American right has been hearing what they fear to hear rather than what Francis is actually saying, then the American left has been hearing what they want to hear.

NARAL Pro-Choice America famously sent to Francis what will probably be remembered as the most clueless “thank you” note in history in the wake of remarks he made in an interview for the Jesuit magazine America, evidently believing that he had taken a “live and let live” attitude to the legality of abortion.

This quote gives much more context to the pope’s remarks, and makes it clear that, rather than changing the Church’s teaching, he wants to expand the discussion beyond just that one issue:

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.”

I believe that particular phrase — “The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently” — goes to the heart of the right’s discomfort with the pope.

A significant fraction (but by no means all) of the Catholic right understands the Church’s role as being primarily an exerciser of authority. In this conception, the Church defines what is to be believed, defends those definitions, and punishes those who stray.

I think it is worth asking why enemies need always and everywhere to be identified and defeated. While there are deeply depraved individuals and organizations where that particular approach might be called for — certain central European governments in the middle of the last century come to mind — most of those who disagree with or oppose the Church fall well short of that extreme. Why not approach disagreements in a way that maximizes the chance that your opponents will be persuaded of the truth of your position, resulting in reconciliation rather than the victory/defeat dichotomy?

Nothing Pope Francis has said can be understood as compromise of the Church’s principles. It must be understood as an invitation to the Church to engage the world, including (or even especially) its opponents, rather than condemning it to see the world as sinners to be loved and cared for.

To wit:

“I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent.

“The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”

Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.