|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 12, 2020 22:37:29 GMT
Have been reading THE DICTATOR POPE by Henry Sire [under the pen-name Marcantonio Colonna] and here are a few reflections: (1) Sire is certainly more sophisticated than the other anti-Francis trad accounts I've read - for example, while they compare Francis to such figures as Alexander VI [Borgia], Benedict IX, and John XII, his comparisons are with Urban VI, Paul IV, and Urban VIII - autocratic Popes who pursued their own personal agenda with disastrous results. (Urban VI triggered the Great Western Schism, Paul IV presided over significant setbacks for the Counter-Reformation, Urban VIII was the Pope who condemned Galileo.) He has a clearer sense of who's who in the Curia, what lies behind the different scandals, and how they fit together. One of his arguments BTW is that the remodelling of the Curia under Paul VI and Cardinal Villot has actually increased its problems by giving too much power to the diplomats and by replacing the ethos of a monarchy where everyone is supposed to be working towards the Pope with that of a French-style managerial bureaucracy where everyone guards his own piece of bureaucratic turf. Sire argues that Francis was elected through an alliance between the liberals of the St Gallen Mafia and of curialists who were reacting against Pope Benedict's attempts to shake them up, and accuses him of tolerating or promoting morally compromised figures when they are useful to him. I am inclined to think that Sire exaggerates the virtues of the older state of affairs and the extent to which corruption is a new phenomenon (he seems to see Archbishop Marcinkus and his immediate successors at the Vatican Bank as naifs dealing with sharks in an ill-considered attempt to make the Vatican Bank more like any other bank, rather than as crooks themselves) but his claim about managerialism is quite plausible, since one of the plagues of the post-Vatican II church, at least in the Anglophone world, has been a drift towards managerialism American-style and a tendency to emphasise bishops' managerial rather than sacral role.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 12, 2020 22:56:46 GMT
(2) The big problem with Sire's account is that it rests on unnamed oral sources (one bright claim is that the difference between Francis's popular image of benevolence and his actual behaviour in private is such that Vatican employees privately nickname him Ming the Merciless, after the tyrannical emperor in the Flash Gordon stories). These have to be taken on trust (or not) and we don't know what their particular agendas may be. Some of their claims seem dubious (for example, we are told that the acting Jesuit General at the time Francis became a bishop recommended against him on the grounds that he had shown himself to be a bully and a two-faced sneak, but we are also told that the report has been destroyed and the source is an unnamed person who saw it before it disappeared - in other words, we have only this person's evidence that it ever existed). Again, Sire claims that Francis wanted Hillary Clinton elected US President in 2016 so that he could pose as a moral leader of Latin America in the presence of a president susceptible to some degree of emotional blackmail on such issues as immigration, and that he took this to the extent of contributing to her campaign funds out of Peter's Pence. Now it does seem that in recent years Peter's Pence has been used for some very odd things - to put it mildly - but this claim is being made on the word of an anonymous source and seems to me to feed into the mindset of some American conservatives. (Although Sire is not shaped by the mindset of American conservatism in the way Neumayr is - for example, he recognises that Peronism is not just a form of socialism but a distinctive phenomenon - it can't be discounted altogether; his book is published by Regnery, which is a long-standing very conservative US publisher.) In line with his general view that Francis is motivated solely by power-seeking, Sire treats his pro-immigration views as moral grandstanding and ignores the strong possibility that they are influenced by the Bergoglio family's experience of emigration from Italy to Argentina shortly before his birth. (Sire also ignores or plays down such aspects as his genuine attachment to popular devotions - though he notes this is one of the things that made Bergoglio unpopular with some liberation theologians when he was Argentine provincial.) More thoughts later...
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2020 23:40:38 GMT
(3) The book is quite strong on the fate of the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Knights of Malta, and how Francis has clearly misused vows of obedience and the canon law principle that the Pope is the supreme legislator and judged by no-one to shield his favourites in disputes and crush their opponents. (Sire was a Knight of Malta until he was suspended for writing this book, which means he has certain insights but also that he has axes to grind). The way in which rumours were circulated about abuses within the Franciscans of the Immaculate without any concrete evidence ever being produced then and since is spelled out pretty bluntly. (That said, the contrast between the treatment of the FIs and Pope Benedict's relative leniency towards the Legionaries of Christ is a bit overdone - the Legion is a much bigger order and runs numerous schools and other institutions, so suppressing it would have caused chaos on a scale not involved with the FIs. Sire might also have noted that many people believe that, given the sheer depth of Maciel's corruption and the cult-like atmosphere he created in the LCs, the Legion SHOULD have been suppressed.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 2, 2020 20:26:52 GMT
(4)One of the stronger criticisms, because it is based on a document which Sire reproduces in full, is that certain admirers of Pope Francis have formed a group which reports on the books and lectures etc of staff members of the Roman colleges and institutes to test their fidelity to the theology of Pope Francis. Sire compares it to the Sodalitianum Pianum (a semi-secret network founded under St Pius X to dig out real or suspected Modernists, which is generally seen as having gone much too far with indiscriminate accusations and was shut down by Benedict XV) and it certainly seems to make no distinction between the Pope's official teaching and his private theological opinions. The idea that Rome could short-circuit or abolish theological debate by unilateral pronouncements of its own sweet will was one of the features of ultra-ultramontanism which St John Henry Newman found most troubling. The JP II Institute for the Family is specially mentioned, which is alarming considering how it has since been gutted. One of the weaker criticisms concerns the abrupt dismissal of the Paraguayan bishop Plano de Livieres. This is discussed twice in the book - I suspect the first discussion, in which the bishop's dismissal and the closure of his thriving seminary was attributed purely to spite by Francis, was the version in the original e-book. The second discussion, which admits the bishop made a bad mistake by appointing the sinister Fr Carlos Urritigoity (fresh from the Society of St John debacle in Scranton diocese) as his chancellor, would have been added as a response to criticism, and should serve as a reminder that Sire is not infallible. One or two other sources he cites about Francis in Argentina also strike me, from what I have seen of them elsewhere, as having dodgy political axes to grind. Apparently Francis did submit his resignation as Archbishop of Buenos Aires on turning 75 in 2012, but Pope Benedict kept him on. I wonder why was this the case, given that it has been claimed that a more conservative successor was lined up (and when the alleged successor turned 75 his resignation from his own diocese was instantly accepted).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 4, 2020 20:37:13 GMT
A survey article discussing the main English-language books on Pope Francis, written from a generally conservative/critical perspective: claremontreviewofbooks.com/is-the-pope-catholic/I am posting this linkfor information and don't necessarily endorse it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 7, 2020 22:59:17 GMT
Recently saw a column by a prominent US conservative Catholic accusing Pope Francis of blessing jihadism by wishing Muslims a happy Ramadan, on the grounds that jihadis like to commit atrocities during Ramadan. For bad measure the person adds that any Islamic prayer must necessarily be anti-Christian because it claims Mohammed was a prophet. Now this really strikes me as an outrageous slur on Pope Francis, as well as an insinuation that all Muslims are collectively responsible for terrorism. Has this person never heard of the concept of invincible ignorance, or indeed of common courtesy? BTW I have occasionally wished Muslim acquaintances a happy Ramadan myself. Nothing I say here is intended to palliate the treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic countries or to deny the existence of jihadis, just as you didn't have to be a Provo to say the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven were innocent.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 12, 2020 9:05:19 GMT
The only thing about wishing someone a happy Ramadan who was Moslem, is if some non-Christian wished me a happy Lent on Shrove Tuesday, I'd wonder if they knew what the season was about.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 12, 2020 18:22:04 GMT
To be honest, the last time I wished someone a happy Eid-al-Fitr (the feast at the end of Ramadan) I found out afterwards that I had got the date wrong (it moves around from year to year because Muslims follow a lunar calendar). A worse blunder was carried out recently by several British politicians who announced they were following the Ramadan fast in solidarity with Muslims. Since the fast runs from sunrise to sunset, they got up early to have breakfast and tweeted pictures of their breakfast - complete with sausages, rashers etc. Upon enquiry it transpired that some of them didn't know that Muslims don't eat pigmeat. Solidarity has its limits.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 13, 2020 9:36:46 GMT
To be honest, the last time I wished someone a happy Eid-al-Fitr (the feast at the end of Ramadan) I found out afterwards that I had got the date wrong (it moves around from year to year because Muslims follow a lunar calendar). A worse blunder was carried out recently by several British politicians who announced they were following the Ramadan fast in solidarity with Muslims. Since the fast runs from sunrise to sunset, they got up early to have breakfast and tweeted pictures of their breakfast - complete with sausages, rashers etc. Upon enquiry it transpired that some of them didn't know that Muslims don't eat pigmeat. Solidarity has its limits. Remember the Irish Press carried a budget breakfast photograph in one of its last Ash Wednesday issue, in either 1993 or 1994, of the then Finance Minister, Bartholomew Ahern. Bertie was there with a big clump of ash on his forehead - but he was eating a full Irish breakfast with requisite sausage, rashers and black & white pudding. There were a couple of letters in over the next couple of days in all three Dublin dailies pointing the anomaly. On the topic of Bertie and ashes and the media, I remember I think it was Frank McNally in the Irish Times "An Irishman's Diary" referred to the time that Bertie paid tribute to the late Larry McMahon, who was a FG TD from 1970 to 1982 and a senator on the Labour panel from 82 to 92 on his death on another Ash Wednesday (this is protocol for deceased TDs - I wonder what was done when Ciarán Doherty died on hunger strike in 1981 while he was an elected TD for Cavan-Monaghan during Garrett FitzGerald's first term as Taoiseach?). McNally commented that the McMahon children (six of them, most with spouses at that stage - the best known is Ronan McMahon who was prominent in Rénua until recently - he's an independent South Dublin councillor right now) all had ashes and outnumbered the TDs with ashes, of whom Bertie was the most prominent. At one time, that would not have been the case.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 14, 2020 22:10:26 GMT
Bertie's ashes are part of the problem of Irish tribal or popular Catholicism becoming detached from substantive knowledge and practise of the faith and reduced to disconnected customs, like the Nestorian Christians found in China by Matteo Ricci who differed from their neighbours only in their refusal to eat horsemeat.
Meanwhile, to return to Pope Francis, RORATE CAELI yesterday produced a tweet showing a table groaning with food and labelled "Preparing the Feast for Pope Francis' Fast Day". Now, I see their point - it is a bit problematic IMHO to engage in gestures which can be taken to imply all world religions are interchangeable, though I don't think that was Pope Francis's intention - but that tweet strikes me as gratuitously offensive not only to Pope Francis, who after all is the Pope, but to people of other religions who are being invited in good faith to pray for an end to the current virus crisis. Chalk another one up to Francis Derangement Syndrome, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 13, 2020 20:43:44 GMT
Readers of this thread may be interested in this site, where a number of generally orthodox columnists defend Pope Francis against mostly traditionalist critics: wherepeteris.com/ I must say I have mixed feelings about it. It does have some very useful and well-documented exposes of nutty groups and of some examples of Francis Derangement, and I agree that Francis as Pope should be given the benefit of the doubt whenever possible and that a lot of Francis's critics seem to me to equate the Faith with the US Republican Party and that some trad views are dangerously close to schism, but: (1) The site takes the view that we are bound to obey and accept every papal statement whatever its degree of authority, and that "development of doctrine" is equivalent to "whatever the Pope says". This is exactly what Newman said doctrinal development was not - the view that the Pope can make new doctrine by arbitrary fiat and that "I am tradition". (2) It also takes the view that we are bound not only to obey every papal statement but to like him personally and accept him as our spiritual guide. This just clashes with too much Papal history (let's take St JPII's declaration that Fr Maciel was "an efficacious spiritual guide for the young"). (3) This seems to be extended to prudential matters (e.g. that Catholics should have opposed both Iraq wars because JPII opposed them, that it is wrong to criticise Pope Francis's recent deal with China). One writer on the site even cites Joseph de Maistre's maximalist view of papal infallibility favourably (it far exceeds the 1870 definition, and some of de Maistre's theological views were actually condemned by Vatican I). Overall, I'd say this site can be useful but it should be handled with care.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 14, 2020 20:12:37 GMT
Readers of this thread may be interested in this site, where a number of generally orthodox columnists defend Pope Francis against mostly traditionalist critics: wherepeteris.com/ I must say I have mixed feelings about it. It does have some very useful and well-documented exposes of nutty groups and of some examples of Francis Derangement, and I agree that Francis as Pope should be given the benefit of the doubt whenever possible and that a lot of Francis's critics seem to me to equate the Faith with the US Republican Party and that some trad views are dangerously close to schism, but: (1) The site takes the view that we are bound to obey and accept every papal statement whatever its degree of authority, and that "development of doctrine" is equivalent to "whatever the Pope says". This is exactly what Newman said doctrinal development was not - the view that the Pope can make new doctrine by arbitrary fiat and that "I am tradition". (2) It also takes the view that we are bound not only to obey every papal statement but to like him personally and accept him as our spiritual guide. This just clashes with too much Papal history (let's take St JPII's declaration that Fr Maciel was "an efficacious spiritual guide for the young"). (3) This seems to be extended to prudential matters (e.g. that Catholics should have opposed both Iraq wars because JPII opposed them, that it is wrong to criticise Pope Francis's recent deal with China). One writer on the site even cites Joseph de Maistre's maximalist view of papal infallibility favourably (it far exceeds the 1870 definition, and some of de Maistre's theological views were actually condemned by Vatican I). Overall, I'd say this site can be useful but it should be handled with care. Aside from the polemic and the sarcasm sometimes used, I think it's a good site, and a necessary counter to a lot of the Francis-bashing out there. I think it's reasonable to approach everything the Pope says as a genuine expression of Church doctrine, and to assume the Holy Spirit speaks through him. I have come to this view after much agonising. I really fear many conservative Catholics are now actually hostile to whatever the Pope says or does simply because it is Francis. For instance, I thought the gift of St. Peter's relics to the Orthodox Church was a beautiful and daring symbol of ecumenism, but it was denounced from all the usual sources, with depressing predictability.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 14, 2020 20:20:38 GMT
Agreed - that's what I call Francis Derangement Syndrome; opposing whatever Francis does because he does it. What worries me about Where Peter Is, on the other hand,is that they are inclined to assume that any critic of Francis is not only wrong, but in bad faith. (For example, they assume that when Peter Lawler refers people to his critical book on Pope Francis he is simply trying to sell books, rather than saying that the book allows him to develop his argument at greater length than possible on a blog.) I think Archbishop Vigano has fallen off the deep end now, but that doesn't mean his original criticisms of specific (in)actions by Pope Francis were unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 4, 2020 20:16:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 25, 2020 21:12:38 GMT
The downfall of Cardinal Becciu remains to be fully explicated, but it is an odd example of Pope Francis behaving like an early modern king - administering through favourites who derive their power from him but whom he can break as fast as he made them. (Deprivation of cardinatial rights goes beyond what's normal, especially since Archbishop Becciu was only made a cardinal in 2018 - by Pope Francis, although his rise began under Pope Benedict.) Perhaps there has always been an element of this in papal governance, but it's depressing nonetheless.
|
|