|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 1, 2013 22:33:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 4, 2013 9:53:48 GMT
There is a logic behind this as Castrillion Hoyos is another Spanish-speaker and one with experience of the traditional world. However, a problem with Castrillion Hoyos which would explain how we are looking askance at Pope Francis is that neither men seem to get European (or Western, First World - take your pick) nuances. In Castrillion Hoyos' case, he walked Pope Benedict into trouble by recommending that the excommunication against the four SSPX bishops be lifted. Then all hell broke loose when the implications of lifting Richard Williamson's excommunication. The point is that Castrillion Hoyos would not have understood how big a deal the Holocaust is in Europe, North America and the Antipodes (and personally, I think there are plenty of other problems with Williamson). Had the cardinal consulted his PCED staff - the secretary, Mgr Perl, was Luxembourgeois; and the under secretary, Mgr Calkins, was from Pennsylvania - he would have been alerted to this problem. Either he did and disregarded their advice; or he didn't and adviced the Pope without it. To look at another aspect of the cardinal's work, as Prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy, he had an ugly job re: the whole child abuse thing. There was no movement on Castrillion Hoyos' watch; things only happened when Cardinal Ratzinger got it under the CDF. The Congregation of the Clergy also have the mandate for catechesis, which we certainly didn't see any major initiatives during the cardinal's tenure. I don't think it is surprising that B16 relieved him of both his responsibilities. However, the president of the PCED is Archbishop Müller, who was Bishop of Regensburg at the time Richard Williamson gave the infamous interview on Swedish television which now has him on trial in Regensburg. I would think he would have a much cooler look at the traditional situation in a way that is probably more favourable in the long term than the occasional piece of generosity and a load of indifference, which about describes the bulk of Castrillion Hoyos' stewardship of the PCED.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 5, 2013 22:19:37 GMT
This discussion on Rod Dreher's blog of a recent speech by Cardinal Lopez Maradiaga of Honduras is very interesting. The foaming-at-the-mouth response of some self-proclaimed US conservative Catholics has to be seen to be believed. www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/todays-catholic-reformation/comment-page-1/#commentsEXTRACT Erin Manning says: November 4, 2013 at 5:50 pm John B: if you read that sentence again, you see this: “The function of the hierarchy is redefined in reference to Jesus as Suffering Servant, not as “Pantocrator” (lord and emperor of this world); only from the perspective of someone crucified by the powers of this world it is possible to found, and to explain, the authority of the Church.” In other words, it is not that *Christ* is not both Victor and Victim; it is that the *hierarchy* is supposed to see their role as reflected in Christ’s role as the Servant, especially the Suffering Servant. Or, to put it another way, sometimes the hierarchy mistakenly thinks of themselves as acting “in the person of Christ the King” instead of “in the person of Christ the Servant,” and that can lead to bad things. John E_o: still praying! Rod, I agree with those who don’t see anything earth-shaking here. Remember that the Cardinal delivered these remarks at the University of Dallas’ Ministry Conference, so he was speaking to an audience of people who are already pretty serious Catholics. I think what he’s saying is essentially a reminder rather like the one in the Letter of James (chapter 2, v. 15-18) that we show our Christian faith through the world in part by our works of charity, especially to the destitute. The corporal and spiritual works of mercy are not an “either/or” but a “both/and,” and yet you will meet many first-world Christians who give little to the poor–and worse, you will meet those who justify their lack of generosity by pointing to their tax dollars and claiming that since the government “steals” from them to feed the poor, they owe the poor nothing from their surplus wealth. (It amazes me, but it is true, that people who barely make ends meet and who have debts to pay are often more likely to reach out in generosity and love to the poor than those who have much.) There are plenty of American Catholics leaving their McMansions and driving new cars with all the luxury options to their comfortable suburban parishes every Sunday who never lose an opportunity to spew hatred at the Hispanic immigrants and the bishops who support their presence in this country, for instance; some of them will say that they have “earned” their possessions by hard work and sacrifice, and shouldn’t have to lose their money in taxes to support such people (but that having payed into Medicare and Social Security they are entitled to the full amount they can collect, even if it is many magnitudes greater than their lifetime contributions). But, because they are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, they think of themselves as the “good Catholics.” This sort of thing has to stop; they may be jeopardizing their own salvation as much as the Catholic who uses birth control is, but we need to see things clearly in order to understand that. And the first thing we have to understand is that we are, at best, the stewards of what we have, and that it can be taken from us at any time by the same good God who permits us to have it and use it, just as He punished the unjust servant who did nothing with his share of the talents. How many of us are sitting on buried talents, doing little or nothing to ease the suffering of those around us? Worse, how many of us *justify* our inaction? END
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 6, 2013 9:28:22 GMT
There is much I agree with the conservative Catholics on regarding doctrine, discipline, reverence, devotion, the family, society and life in general. However, if you miss the care for the poor aspect of Catholicism, you might as well throw all the other stuff out. Look at the criteria for salvation in Matthew 25 - as long as you did this to the least of these my brethern; or Paul, 1 Corinthians 13 - if I had the faith to move mountains, and had not charity, I am nothing; or John in the Apocalypse - the righteous will be saved according to their deeds. This is even without touching on the contentious Epistle of St James or even reading the Life of Christ in the Gospels with the special relevance of the poor.
Yes - I agree that Catholic social teaching should take place in a context of workable economics, but the care of the poor is a fundamental. Yes, we shouldn't loose sight of the supernatural in the care of the Poor. Consider that the homeless (and I find them just as difficult as anyone else does) are the face of Christ, yes victim, but also Pantocrator.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 6, 2013 12:01:45 GMT
Some of them will say that they have “earned” their possessions by hard work and sacrifice, and shouldn’t have to lose their money in taxes to support such people (but that having payed into Medicare and Social Security they are entitled to the full amount they can collect, even if it is many magnitudes greater than their lifetime contributions).
Ha. What a good point. The same way people think that any tax contribution, no matter how reluctant or nugatory, gives them a moral entitlement to all the state services to which they are entitled, and even those to which they are not entitled.
I see the same in my job in UCD library where (some) postgraduates and external borrowers feel entitled to a Rolls Royce service because they are paying fees. How far do they think their fees go? (I'm not talking here about people who expect a good service. I'd like to think all our customers get that. I mean people who think that the fact they pay fees means they should get whatever they want, all the time, no matter how unreasonable their demand.)
It's like the feminist definition of a just state: "Men, their rights and nothing more. Women, their rights and nothing less". Of course, we are all like that.
To me, this is one of the logical flaws of free market libertarianism-- it's impossible to determine each person's contribution or entitlement with any kind of precision. All we can know is that everybody is indebted to countless benefactors (ancestors, inventors, soldiers who gave their lives, nameless labourers) to an extent they could never possibly repay. Or, as someone once said: "Freely you have received, freely give."
We can have a rough idea of fairness, but a science of economic justice is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Nov 6, 2013 12:07:53 GMT
To me, this is one of the logical flaws of free market libertarianism-- it's impossible to determine each person's contribution or entitlement with any kind of precision. All we can know is that everybody is indebted to countless benefactors (ancestors, inventors, soldiers who gave their lives, nameless labourers) to an extent they could never possibly repay. Or, as someone once said: "Freely you have received, freely give." We can have a rough idea of fairness, but a science of economic justice is impossible. Correct. None of us is so self-sufficient these days that there is nobody to whom we don't owe something.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 6, 2013 22:01:43 GMT
This of course is one reason why the concept of family is so important in Catholic social teaching, and why it is so much disliked by various types of liberal and libertarian (and for different but related reasons, by socialists). It epitomises relationships and obligations not based on the concept of a free agent choosing in vacuo.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 7, 2013 11:06:09 GMT
This of course is one reason why the concept of family is so important in Catholic social teaching, and why it is so much disliked by various types of liberal and libertarian (and for different but related reasons, by socialists). It epitomises relationships and obligations not based on the concept of a free agent choosing in vacuo. What these groups have failed to prove is whether any society can exist without the family.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 8, 2013 23:26:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 18, 2013 21:15:45 GMT
This says an awful lot about Pope Francis - he rang up an Italian trad writer who has been very critical of him and is very ill. When the writer pointed out that he had criticised him and that he stood over the criticisms, the Pope replied that he understood those criticisms had been made with love and that it was important for him to receive them. That's very impressive - taking criticism is just about the hardest thing there is, especially for those on top of the pile (and remember Francis was archbishop of Buenos Aires for years, which is pretty high up, and arrogance and remoteness are occupational illnesses to which bishops are very prone, as many trads can bear witness). Francis is certainly walking the walk as well as talking the talk. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/11/pope-personally-calls-traditional.htmlwww.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pope-francis-beats-all/#post-comments
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 18, 2013 21:27:17 GMT
And here we see Pope Francis holding forth on how foolish it is to declare yourself progressive for the sake of being progressive without caring whether the specific measures proposed are good or bad. He compares a certain type of modern-day "progressive" Catholic to the Hellenisers in the Book of MAccabees who progressively compromised their religion for the sake of good relations with Antiochus Epiphanes (king of the Seleucid Empire, founded by one of the generals of Alexander the Great) and ended up worshipping Antiochus as a god when he told them to do so. Francis instances how today we have laws which not only permit human sacrifice but protect it. What could he have had in mind? Perhaps the same thing he had when he participated in the March for Life in Rome. Let's see how the media spin this one: wdtprs.com/blog/2013/11/pope-francis-on-progressives/#commentsEXTRACT ChrisRawlings says: 18 November 2013 at 10:25 am You didn’t provide the text, but in the same homily he notes that today “many, many” people participate in human sacrifices–and that we have laws that protect it. I’m no expert on interpreting the Pope, but it sounds like he just called abortion “human sacrifice.” Wow. END Now if only our own wannabe Aztecs in the Dail would listen - as well as certain posters on the ACP site... [note, I am not saying all members of or posters on the ACP site; I'm referring to specific people who posted columns or comments there defending legalised abortion or saying that "individual choice" is sacred and not even God is entitled to question it. The ACP thread on this forum will soon show you who these people were.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 18, 2013 22:29:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 23, 2013 19:22:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 13, 2013 23:18:31 GMT
John Allen Jr outlines how Marian devotion is far more important to Pope Francis than the mainstream media have picked up, and also suggests that some of the developments for which Francis is being praised are actually the working-out of reforms begun under Benedict XVI; he notes that calling in external auditors to the Vatican as Benedict did was a major change and was resisted by some curialists as compromising papal sovereignty: ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/francis-and-mary-benedict-reformer-indias-christians-and-ukraine
|
|
|
Post by chercheur on Dec 14, 2013 10:15:04 GMT
John Allen Jr outlines how Marian devotion is far more important to Pope Francis than the mainstream media have picked up, and also suggests that some of the developments for which Francis is being praised are actually the working-out of reforms begun under Benedict XVI; he notes that calling in external auditors to the Vatican as Benedict did was a major change and was resisted by some curialists as compromising papal sovereignty: ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/francis-and-mary-benedict-reformer-indias-christians-and-ukraineTouching that point about Benedict being written out I noted Archbishop Ganswein's recent comments to the effect that he is frustrated at he constant referencing of Pope Francis' humility because he ( Ganswein ) sees in it not so much praise for Francis as underhand attacks at Benedict the so called "Prada Pope". The archbishop points out that Benedict never demanded the Apostolic Palace and simply took on the role of Pope in the Church on his election.
|
|