|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 14, 2013 10:49:58 GMT
I think it's probably fair to say that Pope Benedict had a keen sense of the dignity and ceremony due to the office of Pope. I understand that he re-instated the use of some Papal trappings that had been in abeyance for a little bit. But this had to do with his respect for the See of Peter, and his general traditionalism, rather than egotism.
The problem I see with Pope Francis's more casual approach, and the popularity it has won him, and the message it sends out, is that it's a passing phenomenon. The next Pope will either have to:
1) Do as Pope Francis does, and nobody will even notice 2) Somehow be even more easy-going and informal than Francis 3) Return to a more monarchical style of being Pope, to the inevitable howls of protest.
Please understand that I am not bashing Pope Francis. I think he's wonderful. But I do think his attitude towards Papal splendour is a bit short-sighted.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 18, 2013 18:46:17 GMT
Oh, I think Pope Francis's humility is genuine all right. (I recently re-read John Allen's book CONCLAVE, written before John Paul's death and hence before Bergoglio was identified as papabile - its profile of all the then Cardinals notes his modest lifestyle and his use of public transport in Buenos Aires.) Popes differ in style, and I think it's up to Pope Francis. I would agree with you, however, that there are problems with the way his behaviour is perceived, even when this is against his intentions (examples would be the NARAL Pro-choice tweet presenting him as endorsing them because he talks of mercy even though he is explicitly pro-life, the American gay paper cited in the Dreher post linked below which uses his call for love of the homosexual person to present him as endorsing the gay lifestyle which he clearly doesn't, and the attempts of the ACPI and similar groups to persuade bishops to implement their preferred changes without reference to Rome on the grounds that that's what Francis really wants.) I think Pope Francis needs to be a bit more aware of how his words and actions are being "spun" and to put a bit more effort into "counter-spin" (but then I'm only a hurler on the ditch). It is also very clear that much of the praise of Pope Francis implicitly or explicitly denigrates Benedict (again, the Dreher post linked to below gives a very clear example). One final point is that modern media are inclined to personalise everything, so that they don't distinguish between the office and the person of the officeholder and ceremonial etc is seen as an expression of the person rather than the office. This is a general trend (it goes back to the last century, when the personality of individual Popes drew more attention with the rise of mass print media, but telecommunications have enhanced it enormously). Remember how Queen Elizabeth II was subjected to denunciation for not making a public display of personal grief for the death of Diana. The idea that it is decorous for the holder of an office to subordinate personal expression to that office is not highly regarded these days. www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-vaticans-left-turn-under-francis/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2014 22:14:16 GMT
Pope Francis delivers an impassioned condemnation of abortion as one of many ways in which human life is treated as casually disposable: EXTRACT Peace is also threatened by every denial of human dignity, firstly the lack of access to adequate nutrition. We cannot be indifferent to those suffering from hunger, especially children, when we think of how much food is wasted every day in many parts of the world immersed in what I have often termed “the throwaway culture”. Unfortunately, what is thrown away is not only food and dispensable objects, but often human beings themselves, who are discarded as “unnecessary”. For example, it is frightful even to think there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day; children being used as soldiers, abused and killed in armed conflicts; and children being bought and sold in that terrible form of modern slavery which is human trafficking, which is a crime against humanity. END OF EXTRACT rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/01/francis-frightful-to-think-aborted.htmlAmerican secular media present this implicitly (they are not quite brazen enough to do it explicitly) as a trivial and cynical bone thrown to those wicked conservatives, as if Pope Francis were on a Barack Obama level of mendacity: wdtprs.com/blog/2014/01/news-flash-sun-rises-at-dawn/Irish media ignore it or bury it in an inconspicuous paragraph on an inside page.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 15, 2014 19:51:46 GMT
A New Statesmanite "generously" opines that while Pope Francis is entitled to think abortion is wrong he should keep his opinion to himself lest he influence anyone else. Thanks for nothing. This interpretation of religious liberty and freedom of speech (i.e. expressing an opinion with which others disagree, or trying to convince people that they are mistaken, is presented as an illegitimate act of aggression - unless of course the opinion is politically correct, when it becomes a heroic act of truth-telling) is becoming increasingly widespread. www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/01/15/laurie-pennys-attack-on-pope-francis-over-abortion-spectacularly-misses-his-point/
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Jan 16, 2014 13:28:37 GMT
Amen to the last. I ask myself what is really the best way to counter this. Something to this effect, I think: simple presentations, non-sensational, non-ranting, but simple, sober presentations need to be made of how much double-standards are in effect.
That is, the proclamation of a "politically correct" paradigm is valid and somehow 'not influencing' people, whereas any other paradigm is "influencing" ...
And I wonder if progress can be made, at least in some instances, by limiting the point to simply that of the double-standard - without needing to add that one is a Catholic or a traditionalist (or even a Muslim etc) - simply an unfair double- standard is at work and nothing else.
Many good things are said in this forum. I am concerned how much they tend to be restricted to forums like these ...
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 22, 2014 22:33:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 24, 2014 0:02:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 3, 2014 21:19:26 GMT
Here's a nice joke from the current issue of PRIVATE EYE, p.21 (still in the shops till next Thursday/Friday if anyone fancies checking it out): 'POPE IS CATHOLIC' SHOCK. There was widespread shock today after Pope Francis was yesterday discovered to be a Catholic. "I can't believe he said all those nasty things about abortion. This can't possibly be the same man who was named TIME PERSON OF THE YEAR for his tolerance, understanding and rejection of dogma", said one stunned commentator. "I really regret voting for him now." Several Pope fans dropped their support of him after his radical views, and protested against his pro-Catholic comments in a treetop protest. They were later torn apart by some defecating bears.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 13, 2014 23:42:40 GMT
dominusvobiscuit.blogspot.ie/2014/02/untying-knots.htmlReport by a blogger sympathetic to the ACP of a lecture on Pope Francis at Haddington Road Church by his biographer Paul Vallely, who would be described as offering a liberal interpretation. Given that MR Vallely clearly knows a good deal about Pope Francis, his view has to be taken seriously (though not uncritically). TIme will tell. BTW I was recently browsing in a copy of the Vallely biography of Pope Francis in a bookshop (I haven't bought it yet though I probably will eventually) and found that he was hostile to the LEfebvrists because they were so closely associated with the military junta (Archbishop Lefebvre publicly praised it when he visited Argentina during its rule - I knew he had praised it but didn't realise he had done so in Argentina) and that he was well aware of Bishop Williamson because of that gentleman's activities when he headed the SSPX seminary in Argentina. Looks like the Barque of Peter has definitely sailed and the SSPX are standing on the quay looking at the waves and deluding themselves into thinking they're the ones that are moving.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 13, 2014 11:16:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 13, 2014 11:32:16 GMT
The latest CHRISTIAN ORDER is devoted to denouncing Pope Francis (with some denunciations left over for Popes Benedict and John Paul). Pope Francis' pro-life statements are played down as much as possible, and those who "escape" into pro-life activism as a distraction from traditionalism are denounced. The position seems to be pure SSPX - nothing will be acceptable short of the suppression of the NO and of all post-Vatican II developments, the editor and authors claim to have privileged access to the essence of "true" Catholicism which allows them to sit in judgement over mere Popes and the like, the idea that when the Pope makes a decision there must be a presupposition in its favour is utterly stood on its head, Catholics who think deference to the Pope is commendable are dismissed as "neo-conservatives" and it is insinuated at least once that their position is motivated solely by desire to make money by selling their own publications. (If they only wanted to make money there are more profitable things they could do). Even when some of the criticisms may have a grain of truth (e.g. comments on the state of the Church in Buenos Aires) the fact that they clearly emanate from Francis' bitterest local enemies and are reproduced utterly uncritically by the editor will make any fair-minded person suspicious. It is depressing to see what once was a useful journal operating on the basis that ranting and raving are virtues in themselves, and that the Pope must do whatever Rod Pead tells him.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 13, 2014 12:06:04 GMT
"Looks like the Barque of Peter has definitely sailed and the SSPX are standing on the quay looking at the waves and deluding themselves into thinking they're the ones that are moving."
Ha, brilliant!
It's always courageous to be a minority but I do wonder how ultra-traditionalists rationalise their utter isolation. As far as I can tell, the true Gospel has never been embraced only by a residuum in all Christian history. I sometimes wonder if such ultra-traditionalists are influenced by Biblical stories such as those of Noah, Lot, Gideon, and so forth, and by the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. When the Bible speaks of the light to the gentiles, and the nations coming to the holy mountain, it seems too incongruous that the peoples referred to would be a few scattered groups here and there, minute in terms of world population. Surely there is a point below which the numbers cease to fit into the grand narrative of the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 14, 2014 10:29:55 GMT
Read the Podles post yesterday and meant to comment - when you see someone like Leon Podles saying something like that, you worry. The only comment I'd make is that given the depths of the abuse crisis that Podles has investigated, I would be surprised to see optimism in the man. I have to say Francis appears to more given to PR, but that's reading him through his cheerleaders. Like the Private Eye joke above.
Re: ultra-traditionalists, if you look at the main US trad newspaper "The Remnant", you'll see they are very much as Maolsheachlann wonders. There is something very Protestant about their attitude and their judging the Pope the way they do. Christian Order is by no means the worst of the genre - try John Vennari's Catholic Family News. The biggest problem "trads" or "traddies" have is that they are convinced that because of an attachment to the EF Latin Mass, that they are marked as true Catholics and everybody who goes to the OF or whatever isn't. That is why I don't like the definition "traditionalism"; it is elastic and one man's traditionalism can be another man's modernism. So to the ACPI, the Brandsma Review might be the epitome of traditionalism; to Christian Order, it's very mild; to The Remnant, it is liberal; to Catholic Family News, it is ravingly modernist. And so on.
I remember having a "straw man" conversation with Hibernicus in the RDS at the Eucharistic Congress, when I asked why is someone traditionalist when they attend the EF Mass on Sundays but did nothing else remarkable; and someone who went to the OF every day, said a daily rosary, kept the Friday and Lenten penances and did good works isn't. I find a lot of the criteria which go beyond the EF Mass, such as dress code and attitude to both ecclesiastical and secular authority, on the one hand extremely external (superficial?), but on the other potentially dangerous. If there is an indicator that some one is going off the rails, it should be their attitude to the Papacy, even to Pope Benedict. This is not to say a Catholic should be papolatrous; no one should. But the ultra-trads have a very high bar for papolatry, whether they do this in mad manner of CFN or with an intellectual veneer at the Dietrich von Hildebrand Institute it is a thing to avoid rather than revel in.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 14, 2014 10:40:17 GMT
Just looked at the two pieces about the re-opening of the Holy See Embassy. Deacon Nick certainly has a better handle on the affair than Mary O'Regan. For that matter, so has Father Iggy O'Donovan. Don't agree with Fr Iggy on very much, but he's right on the politics behind. Then my info is that he studied political science in UCD.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 14, 2014 12:26:50 GMT
I think a lot of it comes down to docility and submission. We are told to even be subject to earthly powers. And yet too many Catholics, liberal and conservative, seem to regard the Magisterium with something near contempt. They endlessly assert their freedom to dissent from non-infallible teachings, but it makes you wonder...what do they think the Holy Spirit is doing, dozing for the last few decades? I think the spiritual pride that comes from defying the teaching office of the Church might be more harmful than any amount of folk Masses.
|
|