There is no question that something about Pope Francis catches the imagination of those who might otherwise have nothing to do with the Catholic Church. From the displays of humility that splash across the news to the refusal to live in the apostolic palace or follow time-honored papal traditions to the endless string of off-the-cuff comments signaling a change in rigid doctrinal certainty, Pope Francis marches to the beat of his own drum. And the song it’s playing is ¡Hagan lío! – “Make a mess.”
Amidst controversial papal comments this week that “All Christians and men of good will are called today to fight … for the abolition of the death penalty in all its forms, whether it be legal or illegal…” and that life sentences are a “hidden death penalty,” a story written in Newsweek paints a picture of the pope’s past that in bold strokes depicts a cleric surrounded by his own mythology – and possibly his own theology as well:
He was not what she was expecting, in several ways. The man who would one day be Pope Francis had come to hold a service far from the grandeur of the great cathedral of Buenos Aires. He had travelled – taking the subway train and then the bus – to arrive in one of the shanty-towns, which Argentines call villas miserias – misery villages. He had picked his way down crooked and chaotic alleyways, criss-crossed with water pipes and dangling electricity cables, along which open sewers ran as malodorous streams when the rain came. There, amid ramshackle houses of crudely- cemented terracotta breezeblock, he fell into conversation with the middle-aged mother.
She told him of life in an impoverished slum, terrorised by gangs peddling paco – the cheap chemical waste product left over from processing the cocaine sent to Europe and the United States, or sold to the affluent middle classes of the Argentinian capital. Dealers mix the residue with kerosene, rat poison or even crushed glass and sell it for a dollar a hit to the people of the slums. So addictive is the drug that one day’s free supply is enough to get hooked, creating a short-lived high followed by an intense craving, paranoia and hallucination. The dealers target the children of the poor and adolescents who hang around because there is no work to be had.
The woman looked at the prince of the Church and apologised to him for the fact that her son, amidst all that, had stopped going to Mass. The man, who as Pope was to take the name of Francis – the great saint of the poor – looked into her eyes as though she were the only person in his world. “But is he a good kid?” the priest asked.
“Oh, yes, Father Jorge,” she replied, eschewing the grander titles of the cardinal archbishop. “Well,” pronounced the prelate, “that’s what matters.”
Certainly, the story is apocryphal, we may be tempted to think, and at the very least it has lost clarity through the haze of memory. What priest or bishop, let alone one who would become pope, would say that the first precept of the Church doesn’t matter?
But there is a far more recent story that paints a nearly identical portrait of Bergoglio, now the pope. This time, the account comes from July of this year, when Marie Kane, a victim of Irish clerical abuse, gave a radio interview about her meeting with the pope:
“I think I’ve been angry my whole life at the Catholic Church. I, you know, I could never sit in a Mass without feeling anger…”
“I prayed for change, change in the Church. Um, maybe that’s very naïve of me, I don’t know. But when you’re sitting there and in a very small chapel and the homily was written in English so you could read what he was saying, because [the pope] speaks Spanish, so, it was very moving for me personally, and, yeah, change. That’s…you know, just, do more. Get these guys out of power that shouldn’t be there. That are guilty of coverup. And who covered up in my case as well. And they know who they are, like, you know? So yeah. Change. Change. I’ll never get my faith back. I don’t think I’ll ever go back to the church. And actually the pope, I said that to him. And he said, ‘You know you don’t need, you don’t need to be in the Church, you are part of the Church, you don’t physically need to be in it, inside it you know to be part of God’s family like.’ So, little messages like that were really nice, you know. He put thought into what he said to me today. It wasn’t just answers off the cuff. So a very positive experience, for me.”
When it comes to matters of ecclesiology and adherence to settled teaching, it is hard not to get the impression at times that the Holy Father is, to borrow a phrase from the popular culture, “breaking bad.” There are several accounts from Protestants and Jews and even Atheists who said that Pope Francis (or Cardinal Bergoglio) showed a complete disinterest in their conversion to Catholicism:
1. “When he speaks about evangelization, the idea is to evangelize Christians or Catholics,”to reach “higher dimensions of faith” and a deepened commitment to social justice, Skorka said. “This is the idea of evangelization that Bergoglio is stressing — not to evangelize Jews. This he told me, on several opportunities.”
– Rabbi Abraham Skorka, rector of the Seminario Rabinico Latinoamericano in Buenos Aires and close personal friend of Pope Francis
2. “Bp Venables added that in a conversation with Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, the latter made it clear that he values the place of Anglicans in the Church universal.
‘He called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate was quite unnecessary and that the Church needs us as Anglicans.’”
– Rt. Rev. Greg Venables, Anglican Bishop of Argentina and close personal friend of Pope Francis
3. “And here I am. The Pope comes in and shakes my hand, and we sit down. The Pope smiles and says: ‘Some of my colleagues who know you told me that you will try to convert me.’
It’s a joke, I tell him. My friends think it is you want to convert me.
He smiles again and replies: ‘Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good.’ ”
– Eugenio Scalfari, Atheist founder of La Repubblica (and grantee of three papal interviews despite his habit of reporting quotes without taking notes)
4. “At lunch I asked Pope Francis what his heart was for evangelism. He smiled, knowing what was behind my question and comment was, ‘I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.’ ” (Of course Evangelicals do evangelize Catholics and Catholics do the same to us. However, that discussion we will raise another day.)
– Brian C. Stiller, Global Ambassador, World Evangelical Alliance
Reading these statements from men whom Pope Francis has treated as friends, it’s hard not to wonder what his vision is for the Church, and for evangelization. His approach is also thrown into stark contrast with the mind of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, whose thoughts on “mission” were also revealed this week in an address to faculty and students of the Pontifical Urbanian University in Rome:
“The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people,” retired Pope Benedict wrote. “‘But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?’
“In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired pope wrote. “The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.
“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine…”
Pope Bergoglio’s unorthodox approach to the papacy has indeed garnered the interest of the world. But is a papacy that attracts the interest of unbelievers — but doesn’t bother to convert them — truly effective? Is a shepherd who welcomes but never disciplines his flock leading souls to heaven? Is a spiritual father who chastises his own children for believing too firmly in their own faith but speaks with fondness and affection toward children not his own inspiring anyone to live the True Faith?
There are issues facing the Church today that desperately require attention, but we find ourselves constantly drawn back into the discussion of the latest controversial statement or action of Pope Francis. Around and around we go, trying to determine, “Is it orthodox?” or “Can he say this?” or “Was it a translation issue?” We are inevitably reminded that there is some way to construe it that should let us sleep at night, if not soundly, and that there are several proof points in this regard “to know and share.”
Through it all, distraction, confusion, and frustration arises. In an email I received recently from someone struggling with their faith, the question was pointedly asked, “How can I believe in a Church that doesn’t even seem to believe in itself, in its own mission or purpose?”
It’s a question many are pondering. It grows exceedingly difficult for many to focus on Christ when His vicar, whom we are meant to love and obey, seems often to be standing in the way.
If the first precept doesn’t matter, why do any of them?
Why can’t I skip the innovative mass on Sunday, watch EWTN’s mass and just go to a nice communion service offered through the week at the local parish?
This all boggles my mind.
Keep in mind that none of these statements actually come from Pope Francis himself. These are all things that somebody thought they heard Pope Francis say. Sometimes Pope Francis who is speaking in another language to people might not be precise, and sometimes the person may not remember exactly what the Pope said, and certianly sometimes people have an agenda.
I think one of the things that Francis is learning is that he is often slightly misunderstood. He is learning that as Pope, he must be precise in his language. This does not come easily to him, since he speaks straight from the heart.
So before we start looking for reasons to get on the Pope’s back, let’s keep our powder dry, and not get upset until we know it is really time to get upset.
Please get your head out of the sand.
It is. I realize that not every statement that comes out of the media should be believed. I know there are people who desperately are attempting to bend this Pope to their own agenda. I realize this Popes shoots from the lip sometimes, so not every statement is to be taken at face value, I also realize that for the first time in history, every statement, every gesture of this pope is blown around the world immediately so he is under greater scrutiny than any Pope in history. Other popes may have said things off the cuff that could have been criticized, but they just weren’t reported in those days.
The “mistranslated/misreported” excuse worked the first dozen times. At this point it’s getting quite difficult to pretend that Jorge doesn’t believe the heretical or near heretical statements he makes.
Ah, dear me.
I laughed harder than I should have. At this stage in the game, nearly two years in, that line of thought is quite absurd.
Whether apocryphal or not, these and other numerous and similar incidents betray a consistent mindset and strategy. Bergoglio’s approach may perhaps be partly summed up by his statement that ‘God is not Catholic’ – it reveals a whole theological and pastoral stand and sheds light on his words and actions. Does he and those he appears to support really believe that God’s absolute truth has been uniquely and definitively revealed in the Incarnation of Jesus the Christ, and that this truth subsists essentially and uniquely in the Catholic Church of which he is the Universal Sheperd and not just the Bishop of Rome ? Is this the fundamental truth that must always guide and protect any proclamation of the joy of the Gospel in and out of Christianity? Can one dismiss this sine qua non of the claim to truth as mere ‘ proselytism’ to be sacrificed on the altar of Latin American emotivism that puts two millenia of doctrinal ratio on the backburner? Is Christ just the all Sacred Heart or also the Universal Logos of St John the Evagelist? Ah how increasingly prophetic and non negotiable sounds the proclamation of Pope Benedict ‘Caritas in Veritate’. There can be no real Mercy without the Truth, and this is why the Truth has always ended up crucified rather than applauded.
C. Caruana, I looked up that quote about God not being Catholic, and I think that in the interest of accuracy we should not discuss anything that comes from Eugenio Scalfari. He is not a trustworthy source. That goes for the quote within the article, too.
When Pope Francis or his handlers come out and correct the statement, I will disregard Scalfari.
Several things in this regard are worth remembering.
1) This interview was featured on the Vatican website for some time. It was then taken down, then put back up, then taken down again. There seems to be a struggle within the Vatican to figure out what they want to say with this piece.
2) The pope read the article and was given an opportunity to correct it: “Pressed by reporters on the reliability of the direct quotations, [Fr.] Lombardi said during an Oct. 2 briefing that the text accurately captured the “sense” of what the pope had said, and that if Francis felt his thought had been “gravely misrepresented,” he would have said so.”
3) The pope interviewed with Scalfari two additional times, despite his penchant for quoting without note-taking, and all the furor the first interview caused. This does not signal concern on his part at having been misrepresented.
We must remember that this is a papacy that seems to get things done via back channels. When the media reports, “The pope said X” and it gets wide coverage because it’s such an unexpected thing for him to say, they never take the steps to correct these misconceptions. They have corrected other stories, however — there was a conflict with the Obama administration’s account about what was discussed vis-a-vis religious liberty when the president met with the pope, and the Vatican issued an almost immediate correction — so we know they are able, and capable, of doing so. Pope Francis has hired a PR person from Fox news and an American consulting firm to overhaul Vatican communications. These players would undoubtedly be analyzing media coverage of the papacy and providing analysis. It’s what they’re being paid to do.
St. Thomas more, while on trial, reminded his accusers that “The Maxim of the law is: silence gives consent.”
The silence in these instances is deafening. And none of these people have any reason to lie about a pope they seem to consider a friend.
You forgot to mention the statements the Vatican released subsequent to the first meeting.
““In the Sunday edition of La Repubblica an article by Eugenio Scalfari was prominently featured relating a recent conversation that took place with Pope Francis. The conversation was very cordial and most interesting and touched principally upon the themes of the plague of sexual abuse of minors and the Church’s attitude toward the mafia.
“However, as it happened in a previous, similar circumstance, it is important to notice that the words Mr. Scalfari attributes to the Pope, “in quotations” come from the expert journalist Scalfari’s own memory of what the Pope said and is not an exact transcription of a recording nor a review of such a transcript by the Pope himself to whom the words are attributed. We should not or must not therefore speak in any way, shape or form of an interview in the normal use of the word, as if there had been a series of questions and answers that faithfully and exactly reflect the precise thoughts of the one being interviewed.”
“It is safe to say, however that the overall theme of the article captures the spirit of the conversation between the Holy Father and Mr. Scalfari while at the same time strongly restating what was said about the previous “interview” that appeared in La Repubblica: the individual expressions that were used and the manner in which they have been reported, cannot be attributed to the Pope.”
“Let me state two particular examples,” Lombardi says in his statement. “We must take into consideration two affirmations that have drawn much attention and that are not attributed to the Pope. The first is that among paedophiles are also “some cardinals”; and the second regarding celibacy: “I will find solutions.”
“In the article published in La Repubblica, these two affirmations are clearly attributed to the Pope but curiously, the quotations were opened at the beginning but were not closed at the end. We must ask ourselves why the the final quotations are not present: is this an omission or explicit recognition that this is an attempt to manipulate some naïve readers?”
Scalfari is an 89 year old reporter who basically scammed the Pope into meeting with him, then had a discussion with him, then later went out and published it as an “interview” when it was just a meeting with the Pope on a personal level. He did not record anything, and he said he recontructs things and includes things that were not even said, in order to give the piece some punch or to relay things that were in the air, so to speak.
No one should believe anything that he says.
However, note that this life long atheist apparently asked the Pope to bless his family recently. Apparently the Pope’s method has had some effect on him.
Nice dodge!
I don’t see such an approach as much different from Mother Theresa’s. She taught that we could learn much from the poor “heathens” and saw their gestures of real love and sacrifice as more of a reflection of their hearts being close to God than having them quote things they could not understand as yet. Suffering of the poor (a result of our own failings) was enough to prove their closeness to the true God.
Mother Theresa tirelessly claimed that abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace and love in the modern world. Pope Frances made the unfortunate, and probably unintentionally disturbing comment, that Catholics obsess too much about it. I leave that consideration to your judgement.
But no, the Pope did not say that Catholics obsess about it too much. Here is what he said:
““We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.”
The word “obsess” only appears in relation to a “disjointed multitudes of doctrines to be imposed insistently” This phrase refers to a whole host of isolated and, to many, confusing doctrines that they simply are not ready to accept.
What he did say about abortion is that the church gets off on the wrong foot if that is all that they talk about, because then the message loses the “freshness and grace of the gospel”/ His point is that the essential message of Jesus that really does make people’s hearts burn can get ignored if the focus is on rejecting specific things in the political sphere. One you have a person hooked on the freshness and fragrance of Jesus message, they will not allow abortion to take place.
When was the last time ANYONE in the Church talked about abortion? We don’t hear it from the pulpits or the Vatican, so he is finding a problem where there is none and in the meantime, those of us on the frontlines get this handed to us on a plate.
I have already “considered” that, thank you. Mother Theresa did not “obsess” and pointedly spoke of such mainly to targeted audiences who had the power to change such horrific law. Pope Francis has done the same at chosen times, if you haven’t noticed. Both desired to speak with their activity of love for the most vulnerable which itself does as much if not more to change attitudes to those of hope rather than resorting to desperate actions. Both asked those who were already rigid in their expectations of others to step into the shoes of those living in a completely opposite world than the comfortable and get involved….”smell like the sheep” rather than preach only what couldn’t be appreciated in the present circumstance. And of course his own experience with actually living among the most desperate forced him to find many compassionate ways to help people feel not abandoned, worthless, and full of the despair of sin. If you haven’t experienced life, living it, in the third (or even fourth and beyond these days) then I wouldn’t even think of tossing verbal rocks at those who have walked the walk and can offer real wisdom. As the comment below from fredx2 clarifies and mentions, the context is what is important to the well balanced Christian.
To quote someone of recent memory…”I leave that consideration to your judgement”.
Precisely, the context is what is important to a well balanced Christian. That context does not stop at the experience of a single pope in his single diocese during a single epoch, but includes the two thousand year of teaching by Apostles, Fathers of the Church, Saints and martrys that cannot simply be ‘changed’ to accomodate the times. And yes, mother Theresa did not obsess (your word, not mine), she got her priorities right, and tirelessly spoke against abortion and the most deadly poverty of all, the spiritual poverty of modern people. And as far as I know she never complained about ‘disjointed multitudes of doctrines to be imposed insistently’ perhaps because she had no quarrel with any Catholic doctrine.
I’m seeing some great posts from you, folk. I hope Francis reads them. I’m actually finding them exciting to read, because they are not shallow regurgitations, but seem deeply felt and understood.
I think the problem is that the Pope really does reach out to people where they are. He is not interested in adhering to doctrine every minute of the live long day, he is interested in winning souls to the Catholic church. So he might indicate something is not all that important, simply to put the other person at ease and let them realize he is on their side, that he is not trying to fit their square peg into a round church hole.
I think the Pope really does believe all those things that you mention above. However whether he is ready to push those points on a person who can barely stand to look at a priest or a Catholic church is another matter. He is a bridge builder, and if that means being soft on doctrine at the beginning, so be it. He realizes that lots of people are not ready for hard doctrine yet. So he soft pedals it. He realizes that they can only become ready for hard doctrine after their defenses have been removed.
It is a matter of strategy when dealing with difficult cases, a matter of when to win them over to hard doctrine – not an abandonment of hard doctrine.
Now, that being said, the downside of his strategy is that others might start going “hey, you mean such and such is not important?” And this is a very real risk that Pope Francis runs when he soft pedals doctrine. He may cause confusion. So the question is the confusion worth the winning of these souls to Christ?
Take his approach to Marie Collins. He tells her that she IS part of the church, that she IS part of the body of Christ, even if she never can go into a Catholic church again. This is a beautiful strategy, designed to make her feel comfortable and welcome, even into a church that abused her.
Point taken, especially when made so eloquently. So long as the ‘soft pedalling’ is not the kind of cheap grace that Bonhoeffer warned us about and might be the direct though unintended cause of many losing their souls thinking they can serve the proverbial two masters of the Gospels. And remember, Christ’s ‘mercy’ could turn very severe with unrepentant sinners . This why I find the Pope’s constant pitting of mercy against law so disturbing. God is equally Merciful and Just, pace Kasper and his theological sophistries, which unfortunately Pope Francis finds so spiritually uplifting.
And, like Jesus’ approach of the unexpected to Matthew, for just one example. People had to encounter the Person of Jesus to make the difference:
9 And as Jesus passed by from thence, he saw a man, called Matthew, sitting at the place of toll: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. 10 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners? 12 But when he heard it, he said, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. 13 But go ye and learn what [this] meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
And the “confusion” that Francis shows to some only means that they aren’t really all that deep into that doctrine they espouse in its outward cover only. You have to attract souls personally before any words alone can make a difference.
The Church didn’t abuse her. Bad priests and perhaps a bad bishop abused her. It is the failure of contemporary education that makes her unable to differentiate.
Christ surely never “soft pedaled” anything. Especially with the teaching of Holy Communion, he offended a lot of his followers who flat out left his side. I get the feeling that Bergoglio wouldn’t approve of Christ our Lord’s behavior in most documented cases.
No. The church abused her, through those priests, their protectors and the evidently pervasive and seemingly immemorially sanctioned, clerical culture of the church in the matter, or the protection of the abusers would surely have not been able to continue for goodness knows how long. Surely, centuries.
In their almost captive ambivalence, one can almost hear one part of their minds ponder, ‘But how can they be held to be guilty of such an unthinkable crime, when they are ‘priests of the order of Melchisedek, IN A SPECIAL WAY, with the special priesthood seal on their souls that St Thomas Aquinas assured us of?
I wonder when elders, as St Peter called himself, (original meaning of ‘presbyters) became priests? ‘Elder’ really denoting seniority, not a separate, levitical sort of caste.
Christ warned us that there would be many bad people outside and inside the Church. Those people are responsible for not following the teachings of the Church. The Church herself is pure.
Christ is the head priest and teaches his apostles how to give Holy Communion in persona Christi, thus instituting the priesthood.
Adhering to doctrine every minute of the live long day = winning souls to the Catholic church
Still doesn’t mean that God is defined and contained solely as “Catholic”. What a limited understanding of the Creator of the Cosmos with many other created existences probable and possible and of various states of existence and worlds beyond our own. And, btw, “Catholic” is still in formation of knowing its completeness itself via the continuing revelations of the Holy Spirit still in action….as Jesus just happened to mention for our understanding. Mustn’t put God in limitations that even you appear to not understand with the term “Catholic” as used here by the Pope. God cannot be institutionalized. We are ones also continuing to be in debt to Him, as are all others. Francis would not take such an intended definition that is normally used to separate brothers and sisters of faith. He is, after all, a father to all people, not just formally Catholics and must work for that unity of love. You took it far beyond what was necessary. Francis is a mystic and brilliant….a good doctor of souls via his own experience with so many of the world’s rejected, beyond the usual guarded approach of most suburban pastors who wouldn’t dare “smell like the sheep”. Much will happen for God’s intended will for our urgent times within his short papacy.
‘the continuing revelations of the Holy Spirit still in action.’ Please don’t soft pedal on doctrine yourself – surely you have been taught that THE Revelation was finished and complete with the death of the last apostle? No new Revelations are on the cards , and anyone who claims as much is skirting heresy.
So this story has been out for a while. Where is the Vatican correction on it? After a year and story after story attributed to “translation error” and “misunderstanding” with a good dose of “hearsay”, I would think that the Vatican would get a clue that the English speaking world is having a major problem with these things.
Now is the time to fire the poor translators and get a grip on the Vatican leaks.
Let’s face it, if Pope Francis hadn’t been quoted with many other conversations that seemed less than Catholic without the Vatican stepping in and correcting, none of us would believe the statement above. But there have been many conversations, no corrections that make a lick of sense and this is all becoming a pattern.
And then again, perhaps the fact that a few people are way too disturbed about second hand reporting of minor incidents and minor problems with phrasing that took place during meetings with the Pope (not in encyclicals, not in official positions of the Vatican) they just felt that it was not worth a retraction over nothing.
Look, there are some out there who will not be satisfied no matter what the Pope does. These people were convinced Benedict was a modernist, that Cardinal Mueller was an apostate, and so on.
The point is, get upset when the Pope really does something wrong, not when he is reported to have said something by someone in a meeting with a third party that was not recorded and is not on the record.
The heretical statements bother me, but what I’m disturbed by is his destruction of the FFI for being “too orthodox” and now the sisters for “praying too much”.
Bergoglio is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and Christ warned us that they would be inside the Church.
Wolf in shepherd’s clothing.
That’s great for people who have no one being led astray by these “second hand” reports that the Vatican never denies. I have a convert husband (who is about to jump back to Presbyterianism because the Pope says “God is not a Catholic God) and teenage girls who come to me every day for explanations.
I’m tired of being accused of not being satisfied with anything PF does. It’s old. I want to go back to the time when I didn’t have to constantly run interference for the Vatican who corrects NOTHING.
Maybe he should try a language of precision–like Latin.
Fredx2 I thought the same you did until I saw a clip in Spanish (I’m Salvadoran) of Pope Francis saying exactly this to viewers. If I find it I’ll post it but the holy father spoke in Spanish, it was him, not edited, and he said that everyone should reach out to his brother or sister, “not to make him Catholic”, God will take care of that later, just reach out to him, in love. He actually said that. Now, in a sense, I can understand some people are so enthusiastic about converting that they forget the person before them, wanting to speak of nothing else but the conversion. This is wrong. However, it is also wrong to speak as though sharing the True faith, is not an integral part of loving our neighbor. It is the highest form of loving the neighbor because it is the highest good.
Because you, it is assumed, are already convinced of what you believe in. As yet, the others haven’t come to the same point, realization. And you don’t coax them by the rule and/or fear book alone.
That boy’s soul is just as important as mine. Go forth and sin no more holds for both of us. Men of God should be teaching that.
Actions speak louder than words when it comes to “teaching”. And most of his critics can’t hold a candle to the living out of the Gospel and Doctrine that Francis has demonstrated. He was one who learned the difference from going from rigid authoritarian to living the Mercy of Jesus in action. He then has wisdom along with his words. Others? Not so much.
I’m sorry, but I’ll follow the saints who managed to live the Gospel far more than Bergoglio ever has and never had to disrespect the orthodoxy of devout Catholics (and themselves) to do it.
Francis is like Jesus: as long as the poor were consoled and instructed by his teachings, the respectable, monied, self-styled pious could ‘whistle’. Their lack of affection for him would have meant zilch to him, except that his infinite divine mercy made him mourn for them, as portrayed by his lament over Jerusalem, in those sublimely moving words:
‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them
that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children
together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!’
I think you’re confused. Jesus let people who chose to reject him go on their own way. He never hated a rich man just for being rich.
You guys fantasize that Jesus was some leftist because of what he said to ARROGANT rich men, yet you ignore the fact that he was just as harsh to wicked poor men.
I’m not sure, my friend, that he has shown much living of the Gospel and Doctrine, except that which he has hand picked to suit his fancy. His “look at me” humility, the namecalling of those who love tradition and the underhanded devastation of those he considers enemies sure aren’t found in my Gospel.
As for Doctrine, “Soon, Soon”.
Just like Archbishop Romero, who’d also been very conservative, until he saw how the poor in the favellas, culverts and the like were forced to live, and that they were being blamed for their very poverty, persecuted and murdered.
Do you know “most of his critics”? Who are you to judge, if I may make reference here to someone you seem to know well? If speech reflects thought, then Francis thinks in caricatures. (And when he wears mercy on his sleeve, he even makes a caricature of himself.) I’m afraid that you’re taking after your hero here. What a sad way to approach the world, and what a terrible way to deal with it. It leaves no space for the genuine appreciation of the Spirit. Ratzinger once described “the white of the origins” as being those blank spaces in history which escape our scrutiny, but are where the Holy Spirit does His work. Here’s a nice example: http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-unique-compassion-and-pastoral-care.html
Nice. I very much appreciate the photo heading up the linked blog. It was another one of those signs of the times, widely reported, but ultimately rejected.
Probably because it would go against your personal, formed conscience.
Not if Pope Francis tells me otherwise.
Seems like Franics is making the Catholic faith about as necessary for a soul as deciding what sports team you follow.
That’s not such a bad metaphor; particularly being a team sport. Arguably a better metaphor than Paul’s one of the runners in the stadium.
Remember what Jesus said to his own co-religionists, the elders, scribes, lawyers and Phrisees, about people from the east and the west entering his Kingdom, while many of the sons of Abraham would be turned away? How wicked they were? How they scoured the earth for proselytes, only to make them ten times worse than themselves! Don’t imagine for one second that being a Catholic ipso facto makes you superior to a Protestant or an agnostic with the love of the Holy Spirit in his heart.
The meaning of the PILGIRIM church still hasn’t got through to you yet, has it?
It isn’t individual Catholics or Protestants who are superior or inferior. It is the Catholic Faith that is superior to all other belief systems.
Thank you!
You assume much. The superiority or inferiority of individual people also has little to do with their salvation, else only great intellects and pious saints would reach heaven. You seem to be on an entirely different page.
I’m sorry you’ve lost me there. We are not talking about wordly wisdom, which the World is pleased to call ‘intelligence’; we are addressing the matter of people who normally view every word a pope or prelate utters as infallible, nevertheless, deeming that their own sensum fidei or ‘intelligence(!) is superior to that of the pope and the cardinals, today; seemingly on the grounds that they disapprove of Vatican II.
Would you please point out to me where I was impugning the intelligence, as opposed to Christian wisdom, of critics of those who feel so superior in their Catholic faith to Protestants, as to rail against the notion that they might actually be pleasing God, right where they are – despite the Catholic church’s egregious credentials?
It’s a “matchless VARIANT of the Christian faith”? Any strong points that a non-Catholic community has is something that came from the Church to begin with, so I’m not sure what this attempts to point to. I’m not sure what you mean by “ram it down Protestants’ throats” all the time. If I have Jesus Christ, really, truly and substantially present and I am able to receive him in the most intimate way possible in this life (holy Eucharist), what kind of charity or mercy is it not to desire my separated Christian brothers and sisters to have Jesus Christ in this most intimate way too? That’s contrary to charity and mercy. We know conversion involves many things, the action of the Holy Spirit, a heart’s openness to the voice of God, free will, the cooperation (witness) of other brothers and sisters, understanding of faith, ignorance of faith, etc. , so I know in the end, only God knows exactly where that heart was and whether it knew the Truth but for whatever reason did not ascent to it, or whether it was genuinely not convinced of that Truth, but on our part, we’re supposed to love our brothers and sisters, and what kind of Christian withholds Our Lord in the Eucharist to himself as though “eh, you don’t really need this?” You haven’t stated this, but this is how I read claims to not “ram” things down Protestants’ throats. On my part, I don’t desire to “ram” anything but out of love to share with them the greatest thing they can possibly have and God wants them to have, this side of heaven.
Modernism, relativism, inculturation, all trademarks of the heretical Jesuits. So what is your point? that the Pope seeks to deconstruct the Church? That the Pope is not a Catholic? That if there is no ultimate Truth then there is likely no God? More shocking than this Pope is the number of clerics who voted for gay rights and the dissolution of marriage, whatever their palaver of “mercy”. Socialism is an infectious disease that has run rampant in the Church ever since John XXIII swore non-aggression to atheistic Communism. And ironically this Pope just made him a saint without miracles.
If you’re concerned about socialism in the Church, here’s a report you may have missed that is worth your attention:
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/why-is-the-churchs-largest-charitable-organization-involved-with-communist-pro-abortion-activism/
FYI – there has been some misunderstanding of the vote on the three contested paragraphs at the synod.
Much of the media is reporting that a majority of the bishops voted in favor of major relaxations in regard to gays and the divorced and remarried.But this is not true.
The interim report had horribly sloppy language, apparently put in there by ONE bishop, who then handed the report to the media before he allowed the other bishops to look at it.
This sloppy language was totally rejected, and was replaced with language that basically came straight out of the catechism. Then,they voted on the NEW language. However, on the final vote, even this language was rejected and could not reach a 2/3 vote. This is probably because the bishops were tired of the synod being portrayed as a synod on gays and divorced and remarried when it really was a synod on the family. So they refused to even let language that was consistent with the Catechism to be included in the report, because they wanted a synod on the family, not a synod on gays and remarried.
So yes, a majority of the bishops approved language that was completely consistent with Catholic doctrine, but it failed to get a 2/3 vote.
Some don’t let facts get in the way of their desire for gossip.
Very interesting, fredex2. Thank you.
you are a feckless dreamer and will be shocked about a year from now.
Do you know which bishop it was fredx? It sounds incredibly sly and worldly for a putative man of God.
It was nowhere near as strict and wholesale as the communism of people in the early church. What are you blethering about!
We don’t need that kind of communism. More importantly neither do the destitute. What they do need is an ample sufficiency – work providing a living wage, housing and some disposable income – from monied folk increasingly corrupted and given to pillaging even their essentials. People who lionized and wanted a state funeral for Margaret Thatcher, who had reintroduced mass homelessness to this country. No doubt descendants of the monied hordes who were fanatical supporters of Mussolini and Hitler, before WWII. Nor was that confined to this country. Shame on you! Those people whose welfare you are so reckless about are other Christs!
bloodsucker is what you sound like. this nation is bankrupt on failed welfare programs and this nation is more generous helping the poor and needy than any other nation and all without the Socialism of Bergoglio. I truly wonder if you are mentally rational.
Do you have a home to live in? Do you have enough money to buy food and clothing? Do you have a little disposable income?
Are you in full-time employment, but not in need of Pension Supplement? Or are you retired and with a reasonable pension?
If so, keep reading the Beatitudes and Sermon on the Mount (no, not the Mound), and don’t grizzle about being fleeced by parasites. It is an old but still extant axiom of the faith that when you give to the poor, you are only giving back to them what is theirs by right.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/quotes-from-the-fathers-on-mercy-that-might-enlighten-or-offend-you
Do you care that most of the families you call parasites have been unable to find full-time work providing a living wage for several generations now. There will be a reckoning, you may be sure. Oppression of the poor is one of the sins the Church has historically designated as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. In the early church they pooled all their money. Something Karl Marx could only dream of.
I’ve never known anyone in this country who wanted a job that could not get one. I’ve known many that became well fixed by mowing lawns and cutting wood and clearing snow and raking leaves. You are an obvious poor mouthing crack pot. Probably you are too demented to appreciate the federal debt of over $200,000 dollars per privately employed person. A small religious community can easily pool their resources, contributions from working people, to share them, so what? Christ never spoke against employment or productivity and inb fact endorsed both in His parables. You are infested with hatred.
Read the parable of the rich farmer who built bigger barns in which to store his bumper harvest.
How about the parable of the rich farmer? Or is that an immoderate question, moderator?
“And the Lord said unto them: go now, and give unto Caesar the power to take that which the steadfast man produceth, and give his increase unto those who will not work. And give also under Caesar the servitude of every physician, so that he who seeketh the care of the physician shalt be forced to beg Caesar’s scribes and stewards and shufflers of parchment for permission to be treated. Thus, by giving all that thou hast and owneth unto Caesar, thou shalt achieve Heaven on Earth.”
No. It is bankrupt because of a gigantic scam by the banks, and because the wealth of the country has been so polarised in favour of the coffers of the rich, that people no longer have any appreciable disposable income to spend.
What a fantasy world you are living in. I’m afraid it doesn’t speak well of the Church. Tridentine, I suspect, as despite ever poorer funding and standards of public education, most younger people would know the score considerably better than you.
The recent synod has made me wonder what kind of pope will come out of the next conclave. Will he have the mind of the not quite 2/3’s or will he have the mind of those who stood up to challenge them?
He will have what the Church needs for the times….and according to the intentions of the Holy Spirit.
Pope Bergoglio’s unorthodox approach to the papacy has indeed garnered the interest of the world. But is a papacy that attracts the interest of unbelievers — but doesn’t bother to convert them — truly effective? Is a shepherd who welcomes but never disciplines his flock leading souls to heaven? Is a spiritual father who chastises his own children for believing too firmly in their own faith but speaks with fondness and affection toward children not his own inspiring anyone to live the True Faith?
Sounds simply like the father of the prodigal’s attitude of love in the gospels…..and the reaction by the elder son who was jealous of the greater attention given to the known and confused and expectant sinner. Since people desire and are already comforted by their circumstances within the Church’s home then why the reaction of insult when they witness a true reaching of love to all the others by the Father?? It’s a test of the already and self anointed “faithful”….to examine their own state of perhaps belief but without a love for the rest….which could be a bit too harsh even on themselves…..God seen only as a hard and restrictive Father which attitude can make it harder to actually love as Jesus did.
It doesn’t sound at all like that. The father of the prodigal son welcomed back a repentant child. He didn’t give him permission to go out and keep doing what he was doing after a tasty meal.
He respected his son’s free will. He only ran out to him when he saw him returning and getting close, but hoped for such to happen while waiting. Both sons had ulterior motives…after all it took the prodigal the experience of seeing a future with nothing but pig food before he realized he would have it better with the good Father….for that alone he was willing to just be a servant. But the Father didn’t care….just so He had his son back with Him. Some learn the hard way and others, like the older brother, wouldn’t dare to take such a risk since he already realized how much he had and was used to the security and comforts….but nonetheless wanted even more attention. Only the Father’s love was perfect.
Perhaps you need spiritual hearing aids 🙂
Also, medical hearing aids. I don’t recall the father giving the lad a list of demands on him regarding his future obedience, to be signed by him – and perhaps notarised.
Yes, Jesus’ admonition to “Go and sin NO MORE” is so yesterday. 🙂
The point being, the prodigal son “came to himself” — he woke up to what he had been doing, he admitted to himself and to his father that he had been sinning and was unworthy. This is the core of repentance and forgiveness. You aren’t intentionally misreading the Scripture message are you?
Why do you fantasize about what’s in the text, instead of reading it? Jesus related the parable; he didn’t figure in it, himself.
Of course, a knowledge that one has sinned and is unworthy is the core of repentance and forgiveness. What it is NOT is the point, the nub, the core of the parable! The father made absolutely NO demand on the son, but went potty with delight just spotting him in the distance!
Which do you think would be the most likely feeling to prompt the son’s future dutifulness towards his father: that father’s daft, unconditional love, which just highlighted his own unworthiness; or if he felt under constraint, because he’d given a formal undertaking to his father, (arguably under duress from an empty stomach), that he would do this and that, and not do that and the other?
The text makes clear the repentance of the son. Just the fact that he has “returned to the father” indicates a softening of his heart, a turning away from sin. The father running to the prodigal son is an indicator of the joy God feels when a sinner repents, and how he rushes to meet us to give us the grace of contrition, and absolution.
We can start quoting the homilies of saints if you’d prefer to quibble with this particular scriptural fantasy. It’s kind of slow-pitch softball on this one.
There you go again! I can’t believe it…. I didn’t refer to the son directly, still less denied his contrition. I spoke only about the father’s UNCONDITIONAL love. I’ve heard of dyslexia with regard to spelling, but whole words and sentences?!?!
In the last sentence I suggested, in the form of a question, that such unconditional love as the father showed was more likely to inspire true contrition and sorrow for his sins, than being presented with a set of house rules by an authoritarian father.
Jesus knew what he was saying relating that parable, but you legalists will not learn from anyone. And you overlay his words and message with your own.
As for your last sentence, I can’t make head or tail of it – which only confirms the impression you give that English is not your first language.
Oy. The Father, representing God, allowed the prodigal son his free will. He let him go, he gave him his inheritance, even though he (the father) was still alive. The request of the son was a terrible sin against the father — to request one’s inheritance while the parent is still living. The disrespect would have scandalized the hearers in Jesus’ time. This is the essence of someone saying, “My will be done and to hell with your will.”
Did the Father go after the son? Did he beg him to come home, not to waste his substance with riotous living? Did he check up on him while he was living such a scandal-riven life? No! He let him be.
This is the doctrine of free will, not the doctrine of unconditional love, although the Father did have that also. But, as you can see, unconditional love is sometimes ‘helpless’ when a person is bent on sinning.
It was only when the son woke up to his errors (through self-induced suffering) and began the journey back to his father that the doctrine of repentance and forgiveness come forward. You see, the son had to begin the journey through his own free will. Yes, he was still a ways off, but he was in sight of his father. And of course, the father, loving unconditionally, came running toward his repentant son.
This is not rocket science. I don’t believe I was the one fantasizing about the text.
Oy, yerself. It seems to be a matter of emphasis. My reading of the parable is that what Jesus was stressing was the Father’s love for us, not our love for Him, as St John put it.
This contorted interpretation would do Kasper himself proud. God’s mercy never fails, but it can only be activated for us and by us with metanoia, a genuine and freely chosen repentance that makes us aware of God’s Justice and empowers us to abandon the pig sty of sin. Only after this can we enjoy the Father’s feast I.e, approach holy communion worthily without profaning it, or coming to it unsuitably dressed inthe garb of humble repentance, not before. This has been a constant two thousand year Catholic teaching, which is now under threat. Wake up!
Dumb. Ask yourself how the parable would have turned out if the prodigal son had returned unrepentant, haughty, and disrespectful to the father? Suppose he came back making additional demands on the father, even though he had already squandered his inheritance? This puts the lie to the false interpretation that denies that the key to the parable was something other than the Son’s repentance. The Father’s love was always there; but the son had rejected it. The interpretation being offered here is in discontinuity with 2,000 years of Christian understanding of the parable.
‘The Father’s love was always there; but the son had rejected it.’
He didn’t reject his father’s love. He took it for granted and went on a dissolute spree.
But how you can see the main point of the parable as the lad’s contrition, rather than the father’s unconditional love, and claim it as congruent with 2000 years of Christian understanding of the parable, beats me. Of course, to illustrate that main point, it was necessary for the son to act the way he did. As someone indicated, it wouldn’t have been much of a lesson, if the son wasn’t contrite for his sins, but that was, nevertheless, a subsidiary point.
The false dichotomy you’re presenting (as well as your ardent quest to contradict everyone displaying orthodoxy in the comment thread) has begun to border on trolling.
The father’s love and the son’s repentance are mutually exclusive. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and. The parable tells us that the Father always welcomes us home, but that we have to make the journey to him – the journey of repentance.
This is maybe fifth grade level catechism. And that might be setting the bar high. If you’re interested in re-interpreting all of the Church’s teachings in a different light, perhaps you’re in the wrong place?
But feel free to find a citation from a saint or pope before 1960 who supports with your interpretation of the Church’s longstanding tradition. We’ll busy ourselves with more productive things while we wait.
How do you know? You don’t. It makes no mention of the father giving him instructions concerning his future behaviour. We have no idea what the father said.
But the impression given is that such thoughts were anything but at the fore-front of his mind. It would, in any case, have been clear to him that it was not a lesson his wastrel son was going to forget in a hurry. Why do you ignore the text that is there in front of you, in favour of a figment of your imagination?
Your questions could easily be applied to your comments, pbecke.
Because I know how to think. Let’s start there.
I also know how to read:
“And the son said to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, I am not now worthy to be called thy son.”
This is a description of repentance.
But you don’t have to take MY word for it:
CCC 1439: “The process of conversion and repentance was described by Jesus in the parable of the prodigal son, the center of which is the merciful father:37 the fascination of illusory freedom, the abandonment of the father’s house; the extreme misery in which the son finds himself after squandering his fortune; his deep humiliation at finding himself obliged to feed swine, and still worse, at wanting to feed on the husks the pigs ate; his reflection on all he has lost; his repentance and decision to declare himself guilty before his father; the journey back; the father’s generous welcome; the father’s joy – all these are characteristic of the process of conversion. The beautiful robe, the ring, and the festive banquet are symbols of that new life – pure worthy, and joyful – of anyone who returns to God and to the bosom of his family, which is the Church. Only the heart Of Christ Who knows the depths of his Father’s love could reveal to us the abyss of his mercy in so simple and beautiful a way.”
No feast before conversion is equivalent to no communion before repented and confessed sins. That has been consolidated traditional Church teaching for over 2000 years, and contemporary bleeding heart liberals dressed in ecclesiastical robes are trying to subvert it, profaning in the process the three fundamental sacraments of marriage, the Eucharist and confession. All in the name of a false mercy. The King offers everyone the invitation to the wedding feast, but woe to him who turns up unsuitably dressed-he us unceremoniously thrown out.
“Only the heart Of Christ Who knows the depths of his Father’s love could
reveal to us the abyss of his mercy in so simple and beautiful a way.”
I have no quarrel with that. Indeed, it is the very point I have been making. Christ’s stress is not on the son’s compunction, but on the father’s love at the mere sight of him in the distance – doubtless, looking pretty tatterdemalion and skinny by that time. A parable indeed of our Father in heaven’s love for us, ‘not our love for Him’, as St John put it. He loved us first, when we were sinners… ..even unrepentant sinners, though we no longer have any excuse for such impenitence.
A telling insight.
I think where you go off track with this analogy is that the prodigal son returned to the father’s bosom regretting his “sin”. Of course the father welcomed him with open arms but the father also did not make changes to his expectations. That the elder son was not happy is another thing which the elder son will have to address. But the prodigal son returned to the father’s household and accepted the way things were not expecting the father to change them for his benefit.
Bingo! Well said.
In a sense it seems to me that nobody is quite right in this discussion.
The elder son was a reference to the Jewish people and their
heretofore exclusive knowledge and covenant with God the Father, whom
they had known with a special closeness, and who had enjoyed His love
and protection from the beginning. One of the essential points of the
parable is that the son who repents of his waywardness and submits
himself to the law of the Father (i.e., the Gentiles who come to know
and follow Christ) will be able to take part in a New Covenant.
Christ
was a Jew speaking to other Jews, and this parable, like so much else
in what we call “the Good News,” has to be understood in that light.
Obviously what is most important in the parable is not merely that God’s
love is unconditional–which is so very pleasing to the modern ear that
many people are incapable of seeing any further than that–but that it
is UNIVERSAL. God loves us and wishes for our return, even if we do not
know Him, and even if we are ungrateful. It’s important to realize
what a scandal this was, and while the teaching elements of the story
can be expanded to be suggestive of God’s relationship to wayward
Christians as well, it hardly can be said simply to be “a story about
unconditional love” or “a story about repentance,” both of which are
tendentious and reductive. As someone notes above, it’s a both-and thing.
Importantly in the current context,
though, is that there is absolutely nothing in the parable to suggest
that the INHERITANCE of the Kingdom of God is somehow unconditional,
which is an entirely different thing, and which the parable certainly in
no way “emphasizes.” The story explicitly lays out the conditions for
admittance to God’s house the acknowledgement of the wayward son of His
authority, a confession of his wrongs, a commitment not to repeat them,
an explicit recognition of his unworthiness, etc. Going from that to,
“The parable is all about how God loves us unconditionally” is an
unbelievably flat, crude, and self-serving interpretation of Scripture,
which just so conveniently feeds into the long-standing desire on the
part of modern Catholics to soft-pedal the law of repentance.
So
it seems to me that in the present debate, those who emphasize
repentance actually appear to be capturing the whole story inasmuch as
they recognize that God’s love is available to all–but that it is not
simply mailed out regardless of a person’s circumstances or behavior,
which would contradict not only the details of this particular parable
but also everything else Our Lord ever had to say on the subject.
Perhaps we have the first proddie to sit upon The Seat of Peter? Lord protect Your Bride from all enemies seen and unseen, from within and from without… Amen!!!
I think a few people are beginning to awaken to the truly radical nature of Pope Francis’ theology and his vision for the Church. We can only grit our teeth and pray he does no irreparable harm. It is certainly a radical departure from the worldview of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. I don’t think the two ways of seeing the Church can be reconciled with intellectual honesty. Talk about a hermeneutic of rupture!
Bosh….don’t encourage or tempt to apostasy…far worse than mere gossip about a good man.
I have no doubt Pope Francis is a good and holy man – much holier than I am. But you mistake criticism for apostasy and / or gossip. I believe Pope Francis has dramatically misread the world situation. I believe the world needs to hear a bold call to repentance, something it has not heard for many years. “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Jesus said that unless we repent we will not enter the Kingdom. Where is the call (insistence?) on repentance and radical conversion from this Pope?
Totally agree. The greatest Satanic deception of our times is a false mercy, that will send millions of our contemporaries to hell. Holy Mary and Christ Himself have repeatedly revealed that ours are times of special Mercy for a generation that has increasingly rejected God and his Commandments and consequently is heading for material and spiritual catastrophe. The Prince of this world is creating a gigantic and false facade that imitates God’s mercy almost perfectly, in order to decieve many into choosing the wide comfortable highway to hell rather than the narrow hard path of the cross indicated by Our Lord.The real apostles of this interim time of genuine Mercy are Saints Faustina and John Paul II, not Kasper and Marx. Too apocalyptic? Read St Paul about Principalities and Powers of the air, or the recently beatified Pope Paul VI about the smoke of Satan having invaded thr holy of holies. My constant prayer is that Pope Francis distinguishes clearly between these two Mercies.
There is more than one way to swing a cat. Francis reads the signs of the times and knows that a very propitious time for a universal call to repentance may not be far off.
If you keep insisting that Pope Francis can do no wrong, intentionally or unintentionally, you are not doing him any good, nor our church, for that matter.
I’m sorry but it doesn’t matter to me how charismatic Pope Francis is if he asks priests and bishops to “make a mess” for the Church and if he wants to upend Church teaching to overlook what is clearly against what Christ, Tradition and the Magisterium has upheld as Church teaching for over 2000 years that I have to question where and how he is trying to lead the Church into new territory. From the reports of the confusion in the Synod to his casual remarks that appear to water down or make the teachings of the Church wishy-washy it appears to me that He is taking the Barque of Peter where he! wants it to go and not where Christ intended.
Following Christ is NEVER going to take us down an easy road. In fact, following Christ means picking up our crosses, whether they be illness, oppression, rejection, hardship or abstaining from ideas and situations that Christ himself stated were sinful. As Pope, Francis must uphold those teachings and make them clear enough, always in charity, so that those who are struggling with these teachings can understand and embrace their particular cross without feeling rejection by the Church. I believe that those who really, honestly, in their hearts want to belong to the Catholic Church and be obedient to the Church and in fact, to Christ, will be humble enough to submit to Him, not demand that He change to suit whatever lifestyle or situation they are in. They can make (and have to make) a choice to turn away from what separates them from Christ and follow the Way He has shown us. That includes this Pope. His agenda is not to make everybody feel good. His mission is to lead all who want to Christ. Pope Francis seems to think that if you give a little here and give a little there those in difficult situations will embrace the Church. I don’t think this is what Christ meant for his Vicar. After all, many of his followers left when his teachings became “too hard” for them. He asked his Apostles, “will you, then leave me too?” And the Apostles answered, “LORD, to whom shall we go? You have the words of Everlasting Life.”
Well said. In confirmation of the truth in your words, listen to this brilliant insight of George Weigel about the synod:
‘The 2014 Synod was extraordinary in its demonstration that too many bishops and theologians (and bishop-theologians) still have not grasped the Iron Law of Christianity in Modernity: Christian communities that maintain a firm grasp on their doctrinal and moral boundaries can flourish amidst the cultural acids of modernity; Christian communities whose doctrinal and moral boundaries become porous (and then invisible) wither and die
You said exactly what I trying to.
Excellent points…
Amen to all you said so well. God bless you Stella.
Your mistake (if in fact it is one) is to believe that Bergoglio wants to bring people to the true Faith. He may want to bring them to those who control the buildings, but he has no desire to bring them to the One True Faith. He knows precisely what he is doing and why he’s doing it.
Excellent article.
Sometimes I feel as if I am the only one “trying” to follow the rules. Perfect? No, but I am constantly trying to do so, and I try to instill that in the children. Perhaps it is because I had top-notch teachers (mom and dad) who knew the rules, and told me that even though it isn’t always easy, it’s the right thing to do.
Now I find myself questioning the way I practice my faith. Why? Because our dear Pope has an uncanny way of being wishy-washy…whether it be gay “marriage” or abortion, it seems that as long as we “understand the plight of the poor and disenfranchised” then we are doing our jobs as Catholics and nothing else is required of us. The problem is, that is not the truth. The three commandments speak of a jealous God who demands something of us. Even Jesus, Himself, said the most important commandment was to love God completely. What is lacking here is obedience. Obedience to the Heavenly Father who sends His Holy Spirit to guide His Church through our Holy Father. Faith and morals are not matters of opinion. When they become matters of opinion up for discussion, it is then that that the “criminals are running the asylum.” Sometimes I wonder if our Holy Father really truly understands he’s the boss and it is his job to carry on the traditions, morals and faith of the Church. Like my father said, “Pope Francis makes a wonderful priest.”
Bearing the heat of the day is no joke, is it?
Does Pope Francis really believe? Does Pope Francis really hold and profess the Catholic Faith? Has the Pope safeguarded the faith since his ascension to the papacy? Those are the questions I would really like some prompt answers to.
‘You are infested with hatred.’
If that’s the case, pot meet kettle.
How you could have remained ignorant of the fact that most couples in the US in employment have to hold down as many a three part-time jobs, each. And, for all that, they are one or two pay- cheques away from homelessness is a scandal in itself.
Students are mercilessly ripped off for their loans. Usury used to be a serious sin. Not in any more in the US or UK.
‘Christ never spoke against employment or productivity and in fact endorsed both in His parables.’
Read Jesus’ parable about the rich farmer, who enlarged his barns after a bumper harvest. What would you do today in his shoes, even after reading that parable. No. don’t tell me….
‘…. this nation is more generous helping the poor and needy than any other nation…’
That is a very sick joke, which you may well have to pay for. God would not enjoy your sense of humour Yours is the only country in the modern world that doesn’t even have a single-payer, national health service. And the poor have to scavenge from food banks! In the UK, too, after Thatcher re-introduced mass homelessness, US-style.
Ah, another lonely communist. What, 100 million people killed in the name “compassion” weren’t enough? You should move to Cuba — your buddy Fidel still preaches that old-time religion.
That’s right. Swallow our side’s propaganda, whole. We in the West have been killing the poor every day for many, many decades. You think you’re really clever. You won’t on Judgment Day.
On the other hand, China housed, fed and clothed a quarter of the world’s population, while half your population are now homeless, living in culverts etc, like the street orphans they kill in Brazil. You must feel Christ would be real proud of you.
Moreover, British people who had worked in China were unanimous that they had never seen a happier people, when interviewed on TV. People could even leave their hotel room unlocked, without being burgled or in the case of women, raped.
As for Cuba, I can think of few places I’d prefer I’d prefer to live in.
Ah, so you are a communist? Thanks for that bit of info. You’ve done enough ideological trolling. The grownups are trying to talk about Catholic things. Buh-bye.
1. “Our side”? There is no “our side”. There is My Side, and everybody else. You are not on my side.
2. “You think you’re really clever”. I don’t think I’m clever. I am in fact clever.
3. Re Judgment Day: see you there. I imagine there will be some surprises for us all.
4. You are the only person i have ever heard from who would paint Our Lord as a supporter of Mao Zedong, a man who is responsible for the murder of 60 million people. This indicates both a lack of connection to reality on your part and an inability to reason. And since there is no way to have a reasonable discussion with an unreasonable man, I therefore have no further interest in anything you may have to say.
You have my pity, however. May God bless you.
Hey I currently attend Franciscan University, where the author is an alumni to! 🙂
I approve this message.
Benedict XVI played both sides of the fence. He was a suit & tie modernist at Vatican II among his fifth column cohorts and then, in his role as pope, he’d occasionally throw a bone to Tradition. It was transparent in a non-transparent, rabbinical sort of fashion.