|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 13, 2013 19:46:36 GMT
Now that the new Pope has been elected, what do ye think of him? Personally, I think he is a good choice as he is both orthodox on social issues and a strong campaigner against poverty.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 13, 2013 20:47:39 GMT
Too early to tell. He seems to be a humble man, which is good.
|
|
tobias
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by tobias on Mar 13, 2013 23:06:08 GMT
His address from St. Peters was very impressive. There's a good vibe there. Lets hope it continues.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 14, 2013 8:59:57 GMT
Over the next couple of days, I hope I can do some reading as to his background.
I am surprised by two facts. One is his age - 76. I expected that the cardinals would choose a younger man. I think this will be another short reign. Secondly, I am surprised that they chose a religious, especially a Jesuit.
The name is a real departure and everybody has connected this with St Francis of Assisi. It is surprising that a Jesuit should choose the name Francis when the Pope who supressed the Jesuits, Clement XIV, was a Jesuit. But when I recall seeing the black pope of the day, Fr Pedro Arrupe SJ kneeling and praying at the monument to the Marquis de Pombal in Lisbon who set the ball rolling on the Jesuit suppression, this isn't much of a surprise. On the other hand, few people have connected the choice of the name Francis by a Jesuit from missions territory with St Francis Xavier, the Jesuit patron of the missions.
When Cardinal Ratzinger took the name Benedict, he was making a radical step not really appreciated of option for a name of a first millenium saint and opting for a programme in liturgy, theology and spirituality which led the Church back towards its sources in the age of the Apostles and Fathers. This was very friendly towards the Orthodox. Cardinal Bergolio took the name Francis which suggests both the scholastic era (not really a break, given Benedict's love for St Bonaventure) and the counter-reformation, so we are back into second millenium Catholicism most people are familiar with (and however much trad Catholics express affection for Benedict, this is more their cup of tea).
The combination of theological orthodoxy and concern for the poor is appealing. Benedict generated a band wagon of clerics who were not hitherto interested in the older liturgy gravitating in that way. A band wagon of ambitious clerics to the soup kitchens for the poor is more difficult to imagine, but if Francis achieves that, he will achieve a lot.
What I am particularly interested in seeing is what initiative he will take regarding the evangelical cults that are active in Latin America.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 14, 2013 9:01:55 GMT
BTW, would sort of idiot in the Department of An Taoiseach wrote Enda Kenny's message of congratulation? "I congratulate Cardinal Bergolio on his election..." From a protocol point of view, he is now His Holiness, Pope Francis I, however we call him informally (good or bad).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 14, 2013 19:32:33 GMT
Alaisdir - Clement XIV was a Franciscan is I think what you meant to say. It would have been odder if he had called himself "Dominic" - the SJs and OPs have traditionally been rivals to a greater extent than the SJ and OFM. Something to bear in mind in relation to early media reports on Pope Francis (both on the Dirty War and on the TLM) is that many of them may draw on Argentine observers who have their own axes to grind. The new Pope does not appear particularly enthusiastic about the TLM, but given that many trads in Argentina are SSPX and hold hard-right views their denunciations may not be based on purely religious considerations. On the other side, the Peronist Kirchner government is ideologically descended from the left-Peronists who were the principal victims of the military dictatorship, and it likes to accuse opponents of having been implicated in the crimes of the dirty war. The accusations that Pope Francis was actually complicit in its murders (which seem very unlikely) or that he should have spoken out against it (which is a matter of judgement) should be seen in the context of his recent clashes with the Kirchner administration over same-sex marriage and abortion. Furthermore, several of the human rights' groups and victims' groups which publicise the crimes of the dictatorship are also close to the Kirchners, so the news that a human rights group has criticised/denounced the Pope should not be taken completely at face value. This is not BTW to say that the dictatorship did not commit torture and murder on a massive scale; it did, and I am sorry to say the Argentine Church authorities were severely morally compromised by complicity with it; I would not even rule out, as a possibility, that there might really be something discreditable connected with the new Pope. I am just urging extreme caution in relation to accusations of this sort against him, which are already popping up in the GUARDIAN and similar outlets.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 14, 2013 19:34:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 14, 2013 22:49:28 GMT
A couple of points from the interview may have a bearing on his attitude to the TLM He is very concerned about "clericalism" and laments that the laity themselves desire and encourage it. This probably reflects the tendency in Hispanophone cultures to have an emphasis on hierarchy and deference towards priests/bishops, which he wishes to counteract. He is also very anxious to encourage lay evangelisation, such as lay activists holding prayer services in their homes. Again, this is quite understandable given the chronic shortage of priests in Latin America and the challenge from evangelical Protestants who have been very successful in recruiting lay preachers and catechists. Bear in mind also that the Jesuits as a missionary order have ALWAYS tended towards liturgical minimalism. These points help to explain why he can be perfectly orthodox and yet unenthusiastic towards the TLM - he probably fears it encourages tendencies in Catholic culture which hinder the work of evangelisation. I suspect trads will see certain episcopal fair-weather friends back off, but they should still remain with Peter, and they should pay more attention to the old Dominican principle of making the fruits of their contemplation available to others.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 14, 2013 22:56:11 GMT
This article (from a US liberal magazine) seems to give a reasonably fair summary of the claims andd counterclaims about Pope Francis's role in relation to the Dirty War. He is not accused of any direct wrongdoing (BTW I know of at least one 1970s Argentine bishop who openly provided theological justification for torturing prisoners, if you want to know how bad the worst cases got) - the question is whether he could have done more in some cases involving radical priests who were imprisoned and tortured. HE claims he secured their release; they claim if he had given them more public backing the authorities would not have arrested them in the first place. HIs position seems reasonable; note he has been defended by some human rights activists: EXTRACT ... Some prominent human rights activists have come to Bergoglio's defense. Argentine Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel, who was jailed and tortured by the dictatorship, told the BBC's Spanish-language service that Bergoglio "was not an accomplice of the dictatorship. … There were bishops who were accomplices of the Argentine dictatorship, but not Bergoglio." "It was a difficult time for the Church," recalls Robert Cox, the editor of the Buenos Aires Herald. Cox was forced to go into exile in 1979 after he received threats for publishing news stories on the disappeared. "The Church was worried that if they split, the country would split, and there would be a civil war. This was always their excuse for not taking a firmer stance." He speculates that Bergoglio did "as much as he could, behind the scenes," but has not done enough to publicly explain the incident, or the role of the Catholic Church and the dictatorship more broadly... END OF EXTRACT www.newrepublic.com/article/112656/pope-francis-and-argentinas-dirty-war-what-he-knew
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 14, 2013 23:14:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 15, 2013 10:33:38 GMT
Yes, Hibernicus - I did mean that Clement was Franciscan.
I won't pronounce on Francis' position on the EF yet as I am happy to wait to see evidence first. I don't think he would react well to traditionalists who want to shoot first and ask questions later, but I think he will respond well to reasonable trads (not necessarily those who are reasonable from their own point of view). But I will make one statement - I believe the Society of St Pius X have missed their best opportunity in Benedict. For all my criticism of the SSPX, I am sad that this is the case. I fear that we are looking at them becoming one of the many other denominations out there and heaven only knows where that will lead. No one ever went gratuitously into an SSPX Church - most adherents were driven to their wits' end by what was presented as Catholicism in their parishes and dioceses. Those of us who found reasonable Novus Ordo Masses or the Indult were fortunate. I am not going to say "There but for the Grace of God go I", but I am afraid this might be the case.
A point I believe should be raised that many clergy don't appreciate is that it is true that there is a great effort involved in kindling some fire in lukewarm souls which they spend most of their time at. But there are also many over zealous souls, among groups like the trads who equally need to be cooled down. This is also work, but even priests who have trads in their care don't seem to realise this is necessary, even very necessary at times.
It is in this context that I hope that Francis continues some of Benedict's particular reforms. He does seem to have much of the character of John Paul II, which is good. He doesn't have to enthuse over that which was particularly Benedictine, only to allow it continue.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 15, 2013 13:17:49 GMT
It occured to me to ask if the fact that Benedict is still alive and will be living in the Vatican will have any bearing on papal policy?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 15, 2013 21:51:40 GMT
The GUARDIAN gets egg on its face. Note the correction is at the end of the text: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/04/argenitina-videla-bergoglio-repentance?rss=1EXTRACT • This article was amended on 14 March 2013. The original article, published in 2011, wrongly suggested that Argentinian journalist Horacio Verbitsky claimed that Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio connived with the Argentinian navy to hide political prisoners on an island called El Silencio during an inspection by human rights monitors. Although Verbitsky makes other allegations about Bergoglio's complicity in human rights abuses, he does not make this claim. The original article also wrongly described El Silencio as Bergoglio's "holiday home". This has been corrected. END
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 15, 2013 22:20:04 GMT
Ukrainian Major Archbishop Sviatoslav confirms that Pope Francis has had strong contacts with them in the past and has concelebrated their Divine Liturgy, so his position as Ordinary for the Eastern Rite in Argentina was not merely nominal: risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/catholics/ugcc/51592
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 17, 2013 14:55:04 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-21815148
|
|