|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 22, 2013 18:00:08 GMT
Here's an interesting piece about the ways in which the media are busily propagating an image of Francis as the long-awaited "liberal Pope" who is going to fulfil the modernists' wildest dreams. The point made in the extract is particularly striking, as sections of the Irish media have been busily proclaiming, as part of their general cheerleading for the PLP Bill, that Francis attaches much less importance to abortion and family issues than Benedict so no attention need be paid to Church teaching on such matters. www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/07/five-myths-about-pope-francisEXTRACT 2. “Francis is Not a Cultural Warrior.” Following the first error flows a second: unlike the supposedly hard-edged Benedict, we have been told, Francis has a much softer touch. He avoids confrontation and strident denunciations, and wants no part of any culture war; nowhere is that clearer than in his treatment of the hot-button social issues. Religious reporter Allesandro Speciale recently wrote that Francis “has been less eager to engage in the culture wars over abortion or gay marriage cherished by his predecessors.” Sandro Magister added: “It cannot be an accident that after 120 days of pontificate Pope Francis has not yet spoken the words abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage.” It’s hard to imagine more misleading statements than these. In addition to being an outspoken defender of the unborn and traditional marriage as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis, since becoming Pope, has not yielded one inch on Christian moral truth. Less than two weeks into his papacy, Francis explicitly promised to continue Benedict’s fight against the“dictatorship of relativism.” In May, Pope Francis not only exhorted tens of thousands at a rally to protect human life “from the moment of conception,” but personally joined Rome’s March for life himself. More recently, he sent a special pro-life message to Ireland, during the midst of pending legislation on abortion, exhorting the country to defend “even the weakest and most vulnerable, the sick, the old, the unborn…” Everyone, proclaimed Francis, “must care for life, cherish life . . . from the beginning to the end.” Is that language not clear enough? As for gay marriage, after France legalized it, against the vigorous protests of the Church, the new pope rebuked legislators for following “fashions and ideas of the moment,” and subsequently taught in Lumen Fidei: “The first setting in which faith enlightens the human city is the family. I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage”—prompting the Advocate to complain, “Pope Francis, Benedict Jointly Condemn Same-Sex Marriage.” END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 27, 2013 23:35:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Sept 5, 2013 20:51:15 GMT
It seems like a bad look-out for the Anglican Ordinariate. Apparently some years ago our new Pope told his Anglican counterpart that he disapproved of the establishment of the Anglican Ordinariate because it would complicate relations with the Anglicans and that "we need you as Anglicans". I should explain that "you" in this context probably refers to the Anglicans of the Province of the Southern Cone, who are much closer to historic orthodox Christianity than the American Episcopalians or most of the Church of England - the Southern Cone is one of the provinces which has "adopted" conservative US Anglican congregations which have been forced out of the US Episcopal Church. I doubt very much if the Pope would or could actually close down the Ordinariate, but I suspect that this will serve as a green light to the UK bishops (and some elsewhere) who are doing their best to suffocate it quietly. Whatever little concessions they made to the Ordinariate were made under pressure from Rome, and now that pressure is no longer going to be there. Wait and pray www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21815148I am very reluctant to say much regarding Pope Francis. But I will venture one remark as to Archbishop Begoglio. When I first heard this months ago, it was perhaps the thing that troubled me most deeply. It was not so much Hibernicus's concern for the Ordinariates - although I share that! - as much as the implicit ecclesiology. Whatever one makes of the Anglican Sacraments, following the decision of the Church that - apart from baptism - they are null and void, one thing is undeniable. Anglican Christianity, means, in practice a far, far reduced role for the Sacraments. The practical loss of even seventh of the Sacramental Mystery - confession, say, is enormous. Enormous. I write as a former Anglican. Speaking very personally, the fullness of the Seven Sacraments is everything to me as a convert. The power of confession alone more than justifies the Ordinariates. But Archbishop Bergoglio, if I remember correctly, reportedly said more than what Hibernicus has said. "Unnecessary" I seem to remember. Christianity is very gravely threatened in this world. I question whether non-Sacramental Christianity has any long term future in the West at all. Catholics are fortified by this Sevenfold Sacramental fullness in ways that I think we are barely conscious of. When I heard that of Archbishop Bergoglio, I worried that he was barely conscious either ... I trust that profound consciouness of that Sacramental fullness was key to the very deep commitment Ratzinger had to relations with the Orthodox, but, after Dominus Jesus in 2000, his unwillingness to give the name of Church to bodies outside Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Preferring instead 'Ecclesial Communities' ... But to end on a different note, Pope Francis is certainly conscious of burning issues, that I myself am barely conscious of at all! There is very much indeed to admire in our new Holy Father. And I limit my comment to a report of Archbishop Bergoglio from the past - that as Archbishop he would seem to have had a markedly different ecclesiology to Benedict XVI.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 6, 2013 19:02:09 GMT
A nice news story about Pope Francis personally phoning up to persuade a woman in a crisis pregnancy not to have an abortion. Something to bear in mind next time our media pals are reassuring us that Francis doesn't really mind about abortion unlike that mean ol' Benedict. www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/a-pope-who-knows-how-to-pope/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 25, 2013 22:48:33 GMT
A blogpost with some interesting links to Pope Francis's statements on abortion and gay 'marriage' for the benefit of anyone who may be depressed by the media spin that because he says these two issues are not the whole of the Law and the Gospels he attaches no importance to them whatsoever: www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2013/09/gay-marriage-and-abortion-in-his-own-words/In the combox an Italian living in London offers some interesting points on the context of Pope Francis's participation in the Rome MArch for Life: EXTRACT Fabio Paolo Barbieri • 4 days ago The business of that March for Life in Rome earlier this year is particularly interesting in that it shows how the media miss even their own points and forget their own obsessions. As I think I told you at the time, that March had unfortunately allowed a few hard-right organizations to endorse it without doing enough to distance themselves from those thugs, and of course the Italian mainstream media had gone to town on that. By the time the March was staged,all right-thinking and correctly-reading people in the Italian public regarded it as little more than a jackbooted, blackshirted mob of unmentionable political pariahs. And when Pope Francis suddenly turned up in it, I thought, oh-oh, here we go - they're going to make him a Fascist too, now, like they did with Benedict. It was also the moment, I think, when it came to me that this Pope was really the same all through and all along, with no pretensions and no consideration for his image whatsoever. He attended the March, being surely aware of the bad image it had been stuck with, because he thought it right - period, end of story. He was not bothered about giving the papers a handle against him - clearly, he knows as well as you do that if they can't get something they'll make something up - but only with backing people who were doing a good and brave thing. And, as it happened, the media storm about the Fascist Pope did not materialize. Perhaps foreign journalists had missed the Italian media storm about the Rome March for Life, but more likely the narrative of Pope Francis being the great liberal reformer who'll let in abortion and gay marriage simply had too strong a hold on them. END
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 25, 2013 23:03:24 GMT
Rod Dreher (ex-Catholic) offers some more evidence that Pope Francis' interview is being spun by the liberals, and that this spin will do harm even though it can be seen to distort the Pope's meaning: www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/this-just-in-pope-remains-theocon-fascist-catholic/EXTRACT This Just In: Pope Remains Theocon Fascist Catholic By ROD DREHER • September 24, 2013, 11:47 AM Via David Mills comes news that the Great Liberal Hope Of Rome has excommunicated an Australian priest for being persistently outspoken advocating gay rights and women priests. Excerpt: The excommunication document – written in Latin and giving no reason – was dated May 31, meaning it comes under the authority of Pope Francis who made headlines on Thursday calling for a less rule-obsessed church. Father Reynolds, who resigned as a parish priest in 2011 and last year founded Inclusive Catholics, said he had expected to be laicised (defrocked), but not excommunicated. But it would make no difference to his ministry. ”In times past excommunication was a huge thing, but today the hierarchy have lost such trust and respect,” he said. ”I’ve come to this position because I’ve followed my conscience on women’s ordination and gay marriage.” Not exactly true — Reynolds was given the boot because he continued to celebrate mass after his faculties to do so were withdrawn. Even so, Damon Linker tried to warn you progressive types the other day after the interview set off such gushing on the left. Excerpt: Still, words remain mere words when they are unaccompanied by action—and this is something progressive Catholics need to keep in mind as they respond to the new pope. Francis hasn’t changed a single doctrine or dogma of the church, and he’s exceedingly unlikely to. By all means, reform-minded Catholics should rejoice when the pope changes the rhetorical emphasis of the Vatican. But a “revelation“? Get a grip. My friend Andrew Sullivan gets wound up over the terrible, dreadful, no-good Pope Benedict, but to my knowledge, Benedict never did anything like this. It’s funny how all of us project our own fears, hopes, and desires onto leaders, especially religious and political ones. For many liberals, Benedict couldn’t do anything right. For many conservative, John Paul could do no wrong; even when his failures of church governance were undeniable, these diehards spoke as if he was doing the right thing, only we mortals were too sinful to see it. This Mottramism, and Reverse Mottramism (that is, The Pope Can Do No Right), is always a temptation for all of us. Me too. Catholic theologian Michael Peppard writes about what it means to say Pope Francis is a “liberal”: Ever since the election of Pope Francis, Catholics had been wondering whether his dramatic changes in style—from turning down the papal apartment to phoning unsuspecting Italians—augured any changes in substance. Would this reform-minded pontiff fulfill liberal Catholic dreams for the church? With the wide-ranging interview published on Thursday, we have outlines of an answer. While Pope Francis does not share all the convictions of liberal Catholics, he is temperamentally as liberal as any pope could reasonably be. One more thing on the way Francis’s interview is reverberating through American Catholicism. A friend reports talking with his priest this past weekend about it. His priest is publicly enthusiastic about the Interview, privately not so much. My friend reports his priest fears that the Pope implicitly accuses priests who are serious about moral issues of being petty. Writes my friend: At the moment, he is feeling a certain feeling that is analogous to what he felt at the height of the abuse crisis, when just being a public priest casts you as one of the bad guys in public perception; it’s similar after this interview, in that being morally serious is now likely to get you publicly cast as a problem. My friend said he put the question I asked here the other day to pastors — “Is Francis’s interview making your job easier or harder?” — and said the priest instantly said, “Harder.” Why? Because he fears that a number of people will reject any attempt to talk about the Church’s teachings on abortion and sexuality as moralizing of the sort the Pope rejects. My friend says that Father X. is “far, far from moralistic. He is not at all a doctrinaire or ideological conservative. … This is a guy who in his ministerial practice is doing exactly what Francis would want. But he’s not finding the interview helpful.” For what it’s worth… END A related post from the Catholic blogger Erin Manning: redcardigan.blogspot.ie/2013/09/on-priests-and-interview.htmlEXTRACT I can understand why Rod's friend's priest might fear this sort of thing. In the fairly recent past, orthodox and faithful priests had their legs cut out from under them all the time by their bishops, sometimes for prudent reasons, but often times for no reason whatsoever. Faithful Catholic priests in America are a little shell-shocked these days; it seems like some bishops fall all over themselves to cover for these sorts of evildoers while disciplining a faithful priest for so much as mentioning controversial issues in a homily or other public speech. There is a morale problem among parish priests, especially here in America, and a lot of it has come from having careerist bishops who were more concerned about potential litigation than about doing the right thing. On the other hand, I don't agree with all of the various priests or their friends who have written and commented saying, essentially, "Oh, I (or Father) would never be mean to any sinner regardless of how stern he is about those things in his homilies!"--implying that the pope is creating a false image of orthodoxy which is really quite gentle and cuddly when you get to know it. There are some wonderfully kind and nice orthodox priests out there, but there are some stinkers, too (which is pretty much true for every class of humanity). I remember one priest (note: not Fr. Z, in case anyone has false suspicions here) years ago writing on a blog that he regularly chastised sinners who wouldn't use the real, foul, ugly names for their sins in the confessional: none of this "I slept with..." or "...self-abuse..." nonsense; he made them proclaim the actual words of the sins aloud or else (at least, this was the strong implication) he would not absolve them. Now, maybe in his mind or in the minds of some priests that's exactly the sort of pastoral meeting of the sinner where he/she is that Pope Francis is calling for, but I sort of doubt it. If you get a sad, sobbing young adult in the confessional willing to admit that his or her sexual habits haven't exactly been in line with Jesus' way of thinking about all of that sort of thing, isn't that a good place to start? What's the point of berating and shaming and excoriating them at that point? I know that there are some orthodox Catholic priests out there who do an amazing, wonderful, exemplary job of being both morally serious and full of warm and loving kindness for each member of their flocks. But we shouldn't pretend that achieving this balance is an easy thing, or fail to acknowledge that some of our very best priests (from the perspective of orthodoxy) might occasionally be abrupt or cold toward seekers and the just-barely penitent (even if they know this is a failing and strive very seriously to correct it). A final word to disheartened orthodox priests: if you have read and pondered Pope Francis' words and discerned that you are already doing everything the Holy Father wants, and more, then you shouldn't worry about this, because you're not part of any problem, but a big part of the solution. END
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 27, 2013 20:38:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 27, 2013 21:22:29 GMT
Two points that come to mind about Pope Francis: (1) Some trads have been complaining that he is "dismantling the monarchical aspect of the papacy" but in fact there is something quite monarchical about him in the sense that he seems very willing to intervene directly in the processes of governance and to make use of the Roman-law principle of the Pope as supreme legislator. Much of his present-day appeal is to a naive-monarchist sense of the just ruler who reaches out directly to his subjects over the heads of his myopic or self-seeking subordinates. This can backfire very rapidly, as it did with Pius IX. (This BTW is one reason why John XXIII had a personal devotion to Pius - as a warning that it's dangerous to take popularity for granted.) Cutting the knots is a necessary skill for a ruler, but it can become autocratic and arbitrary. We'll see how Pope Francis develops. (2) John Allen has often commented that a church led/dominated by the Third World will surprise and disappoint First World conservatives and liberals alike. Those who wish for a radical uprising of the Third World poor against the global power system, and those who dream of impeccably orthodox Africans and Latin Americans overwhelming the degenerate liberals of the North and West are both going to be disappointed. He wrote an interesting book speculating on Pope John Paul II's likely successors in which he identified a group of Third World cardinals who were both doctrinally orthodox and socially radical and thought the Western World quite frankly had its priorities wrong. He regarded Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa in Honduras as their leading papabile - by all accounts he is very close to Pope Francis. I think we are in for an experience very like that of the early nineteenth-century old English catholics faced with floods of Irish immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by chercheur on Oct 1, 2013 1:18:45 GMT
I write as a dare I say it generally very well read and educated man who is nowhere near as informed on Church politics and internal debate as some other contributors on here and my feeling - feeling rather than thought - is as follows
I feel it is no disrespect to the current pope to say I pine for Pope Benedict. His steadfastness and loyalty to the truth despite the spleen and spite thrown at him. His implicit realisation that having been involved in the vandalisms of Vatican 2 he owed it to the Church to attempt to row back on the more damaging aspects of it. his maturity and authority.
God bless Pope Francis and may he also smile with favour on his much despised and reviled servant and former vicar, pope Benedict whose theology in his books on Our Lord has informed me more than any books I have read and who has my filial respect and prayers.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 1, 2013 13:42:05 GMT
I pine for Pope Benedict too. He was Pope when I started practicing my faith and I think he will always be "my" Pope. I have also been greatly enriched and inspired by his enyclicals and writings. The sense of personal affection I feel for Pope Benedict is incomparably more than anything I feel, or can imagine feeling, for Pope Francis. Even at the level of style, sensibility and personality I loved and love him. I don't understand how anyone can feel any animosity towards this gentle, scholarly, generous, open-minded, idealistic man, or how anyone who has actually READ what he wrote can stereotype him as a narrow-minded hardliner.
But I suppose he had to go some time.
None of this is meant to detract from Pope Francis, who I know is a holy and humble man, and I'm sure will also be a wonderful Pope.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 4, 2013 6:49:05 GMT
I have been very tongue tied indeed about Pope Francis. But an inner revolution may be happening in my thinking. Rorate Caeli has this: In his long presentation of the Bergoglio pontificate so far, Sandro Magister dedicates his space mostly to Francis' words (for good reason). Amidst all words of the analysis, this explosive revelation, very relevant for all Catholics, runs the risk of being left unremarked. We will not let it go unnoticed:
But to distance the last two popes are also arriving the facts.
The ban imposed by pope Bergoglio on the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate against celebrating the Mass in the ancient rite has been an effective restriction of that freedom of celebrating in this rite which Benedict XVI had guaranteed for all.
It emerges from conversations with his visitors that Ratzinger himself has seen in this restriction a "vulnus" on his 2007 motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum." More of this is here: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/10/explosive-revelation-benedict-xvi.htmlIf this is true, it occurs to me that it may not be unrelated to what Hibernicus and I have commented on earlier: It seems like a bad look-out for the Anglican Ordinariate. Apparently some years ago our new Pope told his Anglican counterpart that he disapproved of the establishment of the Anglican Ordinariate because it would complicate relations with the Anglicans and that "we need you as Anglicans". ... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21815148I am very reluctant to say much regarding Pope Francis. But I will venture one remark as to Archbishop Begoglio. When I first heard this months ago, it was perhaps the thing that troubled me most deeply. It was not so much Hibernicus's concern for the Ordinariates - although I share that! - as much as the implicit ecclesiology. Whatever one makes of the Anglican Sacraments, following the decision of the Church that - apart from baptism - they are null and void, one thing is undeniable. Anglican Christianity, means, in practice a far, far reduced role for the Sacraments. The practical loss of even seventh of the Sacramental Mystery - confession, say, is enormous. ... The power of confession alone more than justifies the Ordinariates. ... Christianity is very gravely threatened in this world. I question whether non-Sacramental Christianity has any long term future in the West at all. Catholics are fortified by this Sevenfold Sacramental fullness in ways that I think we are barely conscious of. When I heard that of Archbishop Bergoglio, I worried that he was barely conscious either ... Because if Archbishop Bergoglio really did say "we need you as Anglicans" and if he still believes such things, it shows he has paid very little heed to the the thrust of the later Bl. JPII Papacy, at least as well as that of BXVI. Because that thrust has become notably less ecumenical in terms of Christianity beyond the Orthodox. E.g. in the year 2000, Ratzinger blew up ecumenical bridges - very deliberately and with great pain I should think - in Dominus Jesus by declaring that while the Orthodox could be considered true "Churches", the Protestant denominations should be properly referred to as "Ecclesial Communities" - not as Churches. Bl. JPII called this document Dominus Jesus "dear to my heart". All this, I think, ties in with the recognition of the Sacraments. But I increasingly wonder if Bergoglio was paying very little to heed to how and why Bl. JP II and Ratzinger began blowing up the ecumenical bridges that Paul VI had tried to foster ... Or why BXVI created the Anglican Ordinariates. And now why BXVI issued Summorum Pontificum. I am going to go away and blog on this today, I think, where I may be expand. I think my days of being tongue-tied may be finished. At the same time, I don't want to participate in that horrible phenomenon called "faithful dissent". So I may still be tongue-tied.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 15, 2013 10:54:44 GMT
Still relatively tongue-tied. But troubled to say the least. I fear 35 years work, since 1978, is being unconsciously jeopardised. This last sentence is me being restrained. This big image less restrained ... I am not confused as to what I think is going on. I am very confused as to how I should speak or act in terms of it. Perhaps I shall regret this post ... we shall see.
|
|
|
Post by chercheur on Oct 20, 2013 21:10:03 GMT
Roger you will find that that comment from the NARAL coven is pure mischief making and is not to be worried about. Much of my recent reflections on scripture have been on the passages dealing with wilful knowing failure to accept the Lord's truth. There are those just as there always have been who simply harden hearts and chose to reject the light. The pope cannot and indeed in enjoined by the lord not to spend too much time on them.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 21, 2013 11:13:21 GMT
The NARAL message is deliberate mischief making and was made before Pope Francis's statement to the gynaecologists in ROme. There was actually a decent piece on Pope Francis's PR problem in the CATHOLIC VOICE recently. He has the habit of making broad-ranging statements of principle which can be "spun" their way by the liberals, and then making more specific statements which reaffirm orthodoxy on the points in question. The media play up the first statement and play down the second (which clarifies the real orthodox meaning of the first statement) so as to confuse people.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 25, 2013 10:10:08 GMT
Appreciative of the last points, still trying to keep my tongue, until I've thought things through more clearly.
|
|