As the presidential aids open the large case, Pope Francis stares into it, quizzical, examining the two medals laid therein. An aide of Evo Morales (the Bolivian president and leader of that nation’s Socialist Movement) then turns, draping first one, then the other, around the pontiff’s neck, the latter a four-sided cross inlaid with a hammer and sickle, superimposed by a corpus of Christ. The aides then open a second case, revealing a larger version of the same “crucifix,” rough-hewn, made from wood, laquered in distressed, gold paint. Morales, who has met with Pope Francis on several occasions and demonstrates a certain familiarity with the Vicar of Christ, takes the opportunity to speak into the microphone as he shows him the gift.
Pope Francis shakes his head, eyebrows raised, and says something difficult to make out.
The volume level on the initial video is low, and the audio itself quite muddy. This, combined with Pope Francis’s natural facial expression — which can easily be mistaken for a scowl — along with the shaking of his head, leads early reports to indicate that the pope has expressed his disdain for the gift, some going so far as to say he offers an audible statement of rejection: “No está bien eso” (“This is not good.”)
Catholic commentators, understandably appalled at the gift of a blasphemous crucifix — Christ nailed approvingly to the symbol of the ideology repeatedly condemned by the Church and responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100 million people worldwide — immediately praised the pope’s “moral fortitude” for rejecting the gift.
But that was not what happened.
The pope did not say “No está bien eso” (“This is not good”) but rather, “No sabía eso” (“I did not know that.”) In context, this altered the entire exchange. Later, as slightly better versions of the video surfaced, and teams of native Spanish-speakers turned up the volume and listened, a new translation emerged.
“Holiness , they have carved, fortunately, the symbol of the cross, of the hammer and sickle, that is probably the work of Espinal…[Fr.] Luis Espinal. Interesting as a symbol…” Morales said, stopping short as the pope interjects something.
“I did not know that.” Pope Francis says, a curious look on his face.
“Now you know.” Morales says, smiling broadly, and hands him the cross. In the room, shutter clicks fire off from multiple cameras in staccato as the pope holds the unusual gift, a replica of that carried by the murdered Jesuit he has come, in part, to commemorate.
Repeated viewings of the video, with the benefit of hindsight and a translation, demonstrate clearly that the pope was not, in fact, scowling at the presentation of this gift. It was untrue, as some outlets originally reported, that Pope Francis was “not amused” by the “Commufix” (as some have taken to calling it) and in fact smiled for photos while holding it after it was handed to him.
This should come as a surprise to precisely no one, since Fr. Luis Espinal, whose own “crucifix” this one was modeled after, had well-established Marxist allegiances. It was also known in advance that a replica had been made, with the intention of giving it to the holy father. The day before the meeting between Morales and Pope Francis, America Magazine published an article in which they featured interviews with some Bolivian Jesuits and their associates who knew Fr. Espinal:
“Espinal is part of the iconography of the left in Bolivia,” said Rafael Archondo, director of the Jesuit-run news service Agencia de Noticias Fides.
With Father Espinal, “the pope and Evo (Morales) coincide,” on the priest’s importance, he said, possibly helping to build better relations between the Bolivian government and the Vatican.
Father Espinal was born into a religious family in Spain in 1932, during the Spanish Civil War. He joined the Jesuits — like an older brother; a sister became a Carmelite — and wanted to go to India, but missionary visas were unavailable, Father Albo said.
Father Espinal studied communications and went to work for Spanish television, producing a Catholic program on current affairs. He resigned after a story on internal migrations and slums was canceled without his superiors even seeing it.
He moved to Bolivia in 1968 and “was reborn,” Father Albo said. “He fell in love with the country” and became a citizen in two years, renouncing his Spanish citizenship in the process.
Father Espinal founded a newspaper, worked in TV and film taught communications in local universities and wrote movie reviews — which included “indirect” criticisms of the military rulers. He wrote poetry in Catalan and read the Bible in Greek.
Father Albo showed a reporter a published photo of a crucified Christ attached to a homemade hammer and sickle, instead of a cross, that Father Espinal kept by his bed.
“He was of the left. This is certain. But he never belonged to any party or pretended to be part of one,” said Father Albo, who said he hopes to present a replica of the hammer and sickle crucifix to the pope.
Father Espinal “gave a lot of importance to the dialogue between Marxists and Christians,” he explained. “It was not pro-Soviet … (it was) the need for the church to be close to the popular sectors. Some understand this, others don’t. To me it is very clear.”
Vatican Insiders I have spoken with tell me that the protocol for gift exchanges between a pope and heads of state involve a certain amount of pre-planning and not many surprises. Typically, the Vatican Secretary of State is made aware of any gifts in advance. Often, press releases are issued about the significance of the gifts, which are usually intended to convey a certain meaning. Once gifts are given and photos are taken, the gifts are always handed to an aide, who exits the stage and deposits them somewhere for safekeeping. This is standard operating procedure.
In other words: what took place was completely normal. There was no “awkwardness,” no “moral fortitude” on display. It was, quite simply, a textbook meeting between the pope and a head of state, full of the requisite diplomacy and niceties that such exchanges occasion.
Those Catholics who were initially so excited at the idea that Pope Francis attempted to reject such an inappropriate gift were let down, therefore, when they read the following official explanation of the day’s events:
Bolivia and the Vatican both sought Thursday to tamp down controversy over President Evo Morales’ gift of a “Communist crucifix” to Pope Francis, insisting that no offense was intended or taken by the gesture.
Morales gave Francis the crucifix carved into a hammer and sickle upon Francis’ arrival in Bolivia Wednesday, immediately raising eyebrows given Morales’ past attacks on the church and his socialist bent. Critics said it was a distasteful, and possibly heretical melding of faith and ideology.
It turns out, the crucifix was originally designed by a Jesuit activist, the Rev. Luis Espinal, who was assassinated in 1980 by suspected Bolivian paramilitaries during the months that preceded a military coup. Francis, a fellow Jesuit, stopped his motorcade to pray at the site where Espinal’s body had been dumped when he arrived Wednesday.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Thursday the pope had no idea that Espinal had designed the crucifix and was surprised to receive it — a reaction clearly visible in the footage of the encounter. Some reports suggested the pope told Morales “This isn’t good;” one of Francis’ friends sent a tweet quoting him as saying such. But Lombardi said it wasn’t known what the pope had said.
Lombardi said Espinal had designed the crucifix as a symbol of dialogue and commitment to freedom and progress for Bolivia, not with any specific ideology in mind. Lombardi said he personally wasn’t offended by it.
“You can dispute the significance and use of the symbol now, but the origin is from Espinal and the sense of it was about an open dialogue, not about a specific ideology,” Lombardi said.
He noted the context in which Espinal was living: as a priest working for social justice in Bolivia during a period of instability that preceded a right-wing dictatorship known for human rights abuses.
However, one of Espinal’s friends and fellow Jesuits, the Rev. Xavier Albo, said Espinal’s intent was for the church to be in dialogue with Marxism, and said Espinal had altered his crucifix to incorporate the Communists’ most potent symbol: the hammer and sickle.
“In this he clearly wanted to speak about the need to permanently dialogue not just with Marxism but with peasants and miners etc.,” Albo told The Associated Press earlier this month.
So what does this all mean, and why does it matter?
Ours is a religion rich in symbol, ritual, and gesture. Atheistic Communism, an evil ideology that denies human dignity, oppresses true religion, and has taken the lives of countless millions of innocent people, is inextricably bound up with the image of the hammer and sickle, first popularized on the Soviet Flag. Fr. Espinal embraced this symbol because he was a leftist, involved in liberation theology (itself likely a Soviet construct), and a man who desired dialogue — and perhaps even a form of synthesis — between Marxism and the Church. And yet, Communism is an ideology that is completely incompatible with Christianity, as Pope Pius XI made clear in his 1937 encyclical, Divini Redemptoris:
Again, without receding an inch from their [Communists’] subversive principles, they invite Catholics to collaborate with them in the realm of so-called humanitarianism and charity; and at times even make proposals that are in perfect harmony with the Christian spirit and the doctrine of the Church. Elsewhere they carry their hypocrisy so far as to encourage the belief that Communism, in countries where faith and culture are more strongly entrenched, will assume another and much milder form. It will not interfere with the practice of religion. It will respect liberty of conscience…See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless.
This is, of course, a profound opportunity. Since the early days of his pontificate, Pope Francis has dodged accusations of Marxism. He speaks in Evangelii Gaudium, for example, of the need for “programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income”; in his February, 2014 address to the UN he called for “legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State”; in Laudato Si, he admonishes those who show “no interest” in “a better distribution of wealth”. Peppered in his statements and speeches and homilies are not-so-subtle barbs at the free market economy and the injustices inherent in an inequitable share of resources.
But he also insists that his thinking is of a piece with Catholic Social Teaching. He has said, in response to suspicions about his allegiance to socialist concepts, “Marxist ideology is wrong. But in my life I have known many Marxists who are good people…”
This, now, is a moment, an opportunity for clarity. This at last is a chance that has been literally handed to him to settle the question, as any good shepherd would do. Now is the moment for him to speak out about the impropriety, the blasphemy of associating the Crucified Christ with Soviet semiotics; now is the time condemn Communism in no uncertain terms, like his predecessor Pope Pius XI (and others) before him; this is the opening for him to make clear, once and for all, that his concern for the poor and for the sharing of resources not be construed as an attempt to “save Christian civilization” through a collaboration with something so “intrinsically wrong.”
Many believe that Pope Francis has opened a door to the synthesis of Christianity and Marxism. Those who know better understand that the two can never be reconciled. Let us hope that the pope does, in fact, exercise great moral fortitude, and definitively teaches those who have been misled by the promises of this evil ideology the grave danger of their error.
The ambiguity of the Holy Father’s public statements sets him up for this sort of incident. It is difficult to envision St. John Paul II or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI falling victim to a stunt such as this. President Morales knows his counterpart well and decided to exploit the occasion to embarrass the Holy Father. Regardless of Fr. Espinal’s intent in designing the symbol, President Morales knows full well how insulting this “gift” is to the entire Church.
“It is difficult to envision St. John Paul II or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI falling victim to a stunt such as this.”
Well, “Saint’ JPII did kiss a Koran….
This is what happens when Catholicism tries to ingratiate itself to “the world.” It loses its identity.
I guess I was thinking more in the context of an exchange of gifts between leaders. Also, I was thinking of St. John Paul II’s visit to Central America where he visibly scolded a cleric involved in liberation theology. On that issue, he showed a great deal of moral clarity. I agree that the Koran incident was a mistake.
There is no comparison between these two examples. Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] received from the delegation a gift which was regarded as most important in their life, their own holy book. This abominable thing is reported to have its design and origin from a catholic priest.
I’m equating the reactions. You’re equating the nature of the parties bringing the gifts, which cannot be equated.
Then judging of the actions ought to be in context and the nature of the gifts and the party bringing the gifts must feature. Have you reached out to the Vatican for a clarification?
That is a cop out. Islam is religious Nazism. The mere fact that you are splitting these kinds of hairs means that you don’t understand how both responses demonstrates Catholicism’s decline as a moral force.
Cf. the question I asked on Christianity Stack Exchange and the selected answer: Has the Vatican issued clarification for pictures which appear to show Pope St John Paul II kissing the Qur’an? [http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36552/has-the-vatican-issued-clarification-for-pictures-which-appear-to-show-pope-st-j]
Why should any Christian leader, let alone a pope, kiss a document that has inspired millions throughout the centuries to persecute and murder untold numbers of Christians…and continues to do so, today? What, exactly, is the difference between kissing the Koran and kissing a copy of “Mein Kampf” or “Das Kapital”?
A question you should pose to the Vatican and that would be the way for you perhaps to get a satisfactory clarification and help others by spreading that clarification. It would be more beneficial and helpful than what you are currently doing.
Do you seriously believe the Vatican would answer such a query??
You won’t know unless you try.
Well, by the same token, it can be said that Pope Francis received a gift from a man (who seems to be known as a radical lefty) who considered the item as representative of something very important in his own life (a belief that there should be a marriage between Church and communism/socialism).
I respect St. John Paul II as a saint that we can pray to (because the Church has approved as such). But I do think there are many questionable actions in his public life (kissing Koran being one of them). I think of it as amidst all that, thankfully he repented or was invincibly ignorant of them, privately did penances, and made it to heaven.
But yea, in that context, I really do not like the post-fix “the Great”. If we are to refer to St. John Paul II as “the great”, then we would not have words to use in a post-fix for saints like St. Pius X.
Now if you are Polish, I understand where you are coming from. I have met many Polish persons who just refuse to look at this objectively due to a sense of nationalism, and perhaps even gratitude for what St. John Paul II accomplished for Poland. So if that is the case, I do understand you but I respectfully disagree with you as well.
Well, by the same token, it can be said that Pope Francis received a gift from a man (who seems to be known as a radical lefty) who considered the item as representative of something very important in his own life (a belief that there should be a marriage between Church and communism/socialism).
*
I believe your comments [and those of others] would merit showing that they deserve a hearing if one could draw from them that the commenter has a grasp of the story and has tried to follow the reasoning in an argument presented earlier.
– From my comment: This abominable thing is reported to have its design and origin from a catholic priest [Fr. Espinal] as is reported the Bolivian President Evo Morales explained to Pope Francis.
– People have judged Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] without first having asked for a clarification or explanation from the Vatican. In this case, there has been clarification sought from the Vatican from which has been absent a condemnation of the symbol but an explanation that it was made as a tool for dialogue [thereby refuting your thinking that it is a symbol for a proposed belief system].
– If John Paul II is a saint and declared so by the Church, why do her children think it is beneficial to bring up the alleged saintly man’s failings? I respect you acknowledge that he is a saint unlike some of those who it would appear want to drag him from heaven to answer for e.g. “his Qur’an kissing”. They refer to him a saint in quotes. It ought to be clear they should really consider whether they are true children of the Church.
[PS The Church hasn’t declared him “great” so i have no issue with your position, if you noticed, that’s why I bracket the title.]
– On the day of judgment, the world will rise up and condemn these children of the Church because the world recognized the sanctity and greatness of LORD’s saintly pope but her own children would rather denigrate him [cf. Pope Benedict XVI’s “First Convert” | CWR by Roger Dubin: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2187/pope_benedict_xvis_first_convert.aspx
First, it seems to me that you are now trying to say that Papal actions were not OK now because they did not accept a belief system. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Because encouraging one to continue to live in an erroneous belief system is worse, like what is done by kissing the Koran. (anyway, if you believe the words of the Vatican that the person who presented this “crucifix” to Pope Francis did so without any belief in what he presented, you are sorely mistaken. This is why I would hold that Pope Francis has made a blunder like St. John Paul II here)
Second you ask If John Paul II is a saint and declared so by the Church, why do her children think it is beneficial to bring up the alleged saintly pope’s failings? [we do not go around saying we do not respect St. Peter that much because he denied our LORD
Well the answer is rather simple. There is no record that St. John Paul II ever recanted any of his problematic actions. St. Peter wept over it and we know he was ashamed of his actions. There is nothing to indicate the same with St. John Paul II. In many ways, he laid the foundations (from his writings and his actions) for many of the abuses we see in the areas of ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and dialogue in general.
Making matters worse is that many continue to perpetrate similar actions to him by citing his actions as a precedent. I also think that it can be reasonably argued that Pope Francis papacy is merely the natural next step of St. John Paul II’s papacy in that regard.
So St. John Paul II’s actions need to be criticized in public. This is not done to give him dishonor but to make sure people don’t blindly end up committing the same mistakes.
Because encouraging one to continue to live in an erroneous belief system is worse, like what is done by kissing the Koran.
*
Is what you take the “kissing of the Qu’ran” to be without having asked for a calarification or explanation. This is what Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] has written on Islam & the Qur’an:
You can’t follow you own logic through. He is in heaven therefore whatever sins he committed and punishment due to them have been forgiven and remitted respectively. It seems to me that you will not be satisfied and won’t let go unless the saintly pope comes down from heaven to publicly make right what he publicly made wrong [St. Peter did not weep before those before whom he denied his LORD]. From this it appears you make yourself god over God, so please go through the heavens and bring down the saintly pope so that he might make right to your satisfaction.
Look, let me try and explain this as clearly as possible, one more time.
1) St. John Paul II said a lot of things and did a lot of things, some of which were good.
2) But St. John Paul II also did a lot of things and wrote a lot of things very publicly that promote religious indifferentism for an example. Some of those are actions such that if someone else had committed them, they probably would have been never considered for the sainthood.
3) Whether or not St. John Paul II made it to heaven is irrelevant towards making sure that others do not follow those bad aspects of his life. For that purpose, those bad actions should be condemned publicly.
Which part of this is difficult to comprehend and requires me to presume myself as God?
Sometimes it is not a matter of grasping logic, but a problem of faith.
Pope leaves decorative honours with the hammer and anvil in Bolivia
: Brilliant! I would say. She is the one who crushes the head of the serpent.
Yup just because of Polish.
Silence signifies agreement. The Pope will not clarify anything about this incident anymore than he will speak about the Irish Referendum or the SCOTUS decision on sodomy.
He does not give a tinker’s darn about the faithful’s love of truth and Tradition; he sees their faith as pharisaical.
The old rhetorical response – Is the Pope Catholic? – has lost its salt.
Do you know this on good authority or those are just your hopes? You know, to convince yourself that H.H. Pope Francis is the “evil latin american commie” the “rad trads” are sure he is?
It was St. Thomas More who reminded his prosecutors of the legal maxim that held that “he that holds his peace, gives consent.”
“He does not give a tinker’s darn about the faithful’s love of truth and Tradition; he sees their faith as pharisaical.”
I was referring to that comment. I find it not only prejudicial, but also ignorant.
Or do you agree?
The way I see it is this: Many “traditional catholics” in the US see the Church the way they want it to be, and any other kind of pastoral approach is regarded as “liberal” or “communist”.
Pope Francis has flaws, and I miss Father Benedict a lot, but Pope Francis is the Holy Father, wether you like it or not.
Calling him names and asserting things about him (without proof) , cause equal damage to the Church as the one done by the “church of nice” bunch and the liberation theology mafia.
Dear Juan. Ignorance? You have no idea, but cut IANS a break. You only have to read some of his thoughts whereas IANS has to be IANS 24/7/365.
O, and google
Pope Francis little book of insults
and read his own words describing those of us who love Tradition.
Saint Vincent of Lerins taught that the most religious in the Church are the ones least susceptible to being misled by novelty – they reject it.
As for causing damage, you are functionally a liberal in that you blame the victim and excuse the perps. We trads had not one damn thing to do with wrecking the Church.
IANS was born into this Perfect Society in 1948 but that Perfect Society is invisibilium for it has been replaced by the Purloined Society, and that Purloined Society now exists because the modernists and new theologians stole Tradition and substituted a crummy anthropocentric ecumenical circus in its place.
When you criticise trads for the deplorable state of the church that makes as much sense as blaming a thermometer for your Uncle’s fever.
Grow a set and defend the entirety of Catholic Tradition. That is the job of a man for all men are created to be warriors not whining wimps.
I don’t know what IANS are. Is the SSPX or something? I Don’t care as a matter of fact.
You told me “to grow a pair”, when you use a movie line as name. Funny.
That’s because the traditional approach and other approaches are inherently contradictory. You just don’t see the contradictory because of the inherent “live and let live” attitude in most modern approaches.
It’s “God told us this way to worship” vs. “Everyone worships God in their own way.” In the Old Testament God gave very specific instructions about how the Temple should be constructed and how the sacrifices should be conducted. The same is true today through the different traditional rites of the mass handed down to us by those monks and saints who preserved it. Do we want to conform to God, or do we want God to conform to us?
Also……..Pope Felix III told us, ‘an error that is not resisted is
approved. A truth that is not defended is suppressed.’
CCC: ” 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
– by protecting evil-doers. ”
CCC: ” 2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it:
It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth.
They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.”
Excellent piece, Steve. Good job.
Thank you.
I congratulate you on a fine and straightforward piece of writing.
Although not nearly so egregious as this outrage (and there are so very many with Bergolio), you may recall that in March 2014 President Barack Hussein Obama met with Bergolio in the Vatican during which time the two exchanged ‘gifts’. Obama’s gift to Bergolio was a custom-made leather-covered mahogany seed chest, filled with fruit and vegetable seeds, and made from wood taken from the de-constructed pews of what was once known as the ‘sisters’ gallery’, a part of the Baltimore Basilica, and traditionally occupied by Carmelite contemplative nuns who in former times would quietly attend Mass in the Basilica while sitting behind a privacy screen obscuring them from other Mass-goers.
These very same pews were once used by Pope St. John Paul II and Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
Bergolio gave Obama a copy of ‘Evangelii Gaudium’. I don’t know one which came off the worse for that particular exchange.
In any event, I felt deeply saddened to think of those now empty pews of the contemplatives and that wood of the Basilica converted into the equivalent of a Bergolio’s Burpee ‘seed box’ for the Vatican Garden.
The two meet in September and then on to ‘Red October’. Pray the rosary all!
Perhaps, after crucifying Pope Francis on every thing he does, we should remember that God expects us to pray for His Vicar here on earth, to pray for his conversion of whatever wrong he is doing and to remember this little tidbit: “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”.
God expects us to issue correction when and where correction is due, especially the Pope who is suppose to be a leader and shepard. This article is a great example of such charitable admonition.
I’m not judging your prayer life, only your comments about the pope. And if we are to do admonitions, we are to do it privately, not publicly. Did St Catherine of Sienna do all her things to the popes publicly?
She didn’t have newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet either. Neither did Gregory XI. That said, Catherine was no shrinking violet and used the PUBLIC means of communication available in her day, viz. hand-written letters, for all kinds of work; no one had to guess her opinion. We saw the kind of reticence you seem to recommend here in operation during the recent homosexual scandals. It wasn’t a good idea then and it isn’t now.
Here is one other thing to think about: Would we want our priests to publicly admonish us and our sins?
I want to put this tangent to bed, right now. These are extremely PUBLIC actions, and they are thus subject to PUBLIC analysis. Your sins, or mine, are not known to the Masses, are not broadcast on TV, are not distributed throughout the world on both traditional and social media, etc.
Public actions warrant public criticism. I cannot make this case firmly enough. If you haven’t read it, have a gander at our long examination of whether Catholics can, in good conscience, criticize the pope:
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/can-a-catholic-criticize-the-pope/
This is the editorial position of this publication, and of any publication with a modicum of sense. And since the ultimate point of this article is to hope that the holy father actually uses this as an opportunity to contradict the impression he has previously given, this is something any Catholic should be able to get on board with.
Matthew 18:15
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
I think when a leader of the people sin or endorse problematic things without any display of remorse, it raises questions as to whether one can trust the leader for advise on other matters. There is also a problem where followers are likely to imitate the leader.
Those problems cannot be solved by privately admonishing the leader. Also in this case, you have to admit that none of us can just visit the Vatican and make an appointment to meet with the Pope, right? So how would you suggest we address the problems I mentioned?
It would be ideal if we could meet the Pope, convince him and make him aware of the problems, and see him a changed man. That would be awesome! I am all for it! But it cannot be done and meanwhile, the other problems I mentioned persist.
In the case of you and me (assuming you are an average lay person like me), if I had sinned, you can meet me privately and correct me. You can also afford to not worry about others following me because I am not in the position where others look up to me to decide on how to act as a good Christian.
Let us please be thorough when quoting Scripture, such as quoting the verses immediately following, too: “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
The public words and actions of the Pope speak not only to the collective faithful, but to the world, right? And as others have said, the CCC is very clear about public sins and how to handle them as a practicing Catholic.
Quoting Scripture out of context and/or twisting its meaning to suit one’s opinion is problematic.
Here’s the point, people. We are told by our Lord that we are not to complain about his vicar or his bishops etc. He tells us to shake the dust off our sandals and move on. So clearly if people aren’t getting through to the pope by now, and obviously you’re not with the millions of opinions against him, then I guess we should just all move on to another Church – Lutheran maybe? More things will happen if we pray and pray and pray even more. I’m not saying no one on here prays. If all of us on here prayed 1 rosary together, we just might be able to help the Pope in whatever it is the bloggers of the universe believe he is doing or not doing. God will be that helper. We are to treat him as a heretic, according to Catholic teaching. Are you all ready to do that? Then what? And I didn’t twist scripture. That point of the little piece of Scripture says we are to talk to the sinner alone. We could all write to the pope and tell him our worries about him and offer prayers for him. Have you all written to him and offered your help in getting him to understand that he is portraying himself as a communist, socialist, marxist – everything but the vicar of Christ? I didn’t think so. You are all too busy judging the pope – which is the job of Christ. Judge not. If you are all wrong about him, the judgement will be severe. For all of us.
“We are told by our Lord that we are not to complain about his vicar or his bishops etc.”
No, we are not. In fact, the inspired word of God warns us:
“Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” – Acts 20:28-30
“I guess we should just all move on to another Church – Lutheran maybe?”
Don’t be absurd. “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal.” – Jn. 6:68
“If all of us on here prayed 1 rosary together, we just might be able to help the Pope in whatever it is the bloggers of the universe believe he is doing or not doing.”
My family and I pray for him in every Rosary. I assume others here do the same, and I have heard as much from some of our readers.
“We are to treat him as a heretic, according to Catholic teaching. Are you all ready to do that? Then what?”
We have no ability to treat him as a heretic. Only a successor of St. Peter or a Council can make such a determination. But it is important, in our view, to point out the errors he is making that either a) appear to be heretical in nature, at least materially or b) are not necessarily heretical per se, but show a resistance to or defiance of established teaching.
Why is this important? So that Catholics, who should naturally follow the example of their shepherd, do not follow him into error. Remember: infallibility is a limited charism, which applies specifically to ex officio acts, not governance. There’s latitude for corruption without ever denying the promise Christ gave to the Church.
“We could all write to the pope and tell him our worries about him and offer prayers for him. Have you all written to him and offered your help in getting him to understand that he is portraying himself as a communist, socialist, marxist – everything but the vicar of Christ?”
Over 341,000 Catholics (including prominent civil figures, bishops, and cardinals) have signed a filial appeal asking him to uphold Church teaching on marriage, and to state definitively that he will not allow the Synod to attempt to do otherwise. The petition is here: http://filialappeal.org/
The pope has not even acknowledged this. Information in and out of the Vatican on these matters is a one way street. It is at time possible to get a response from a dicastery or commission; I am unaware of any member of the faithful — other than a dissenter, a trans-gendered person, or a person in an adulterous marriage — who has received the personal attention of Pope Francis in response to a request. If they are out there, I’d love to hear their stories.
As for the rest of your comments, they don’t merit a response until you’ve read and understood the case I laid out in the “Can a Catholic Criticize the Pope” article. Aquinas certainly believed we could do so, and in fact had a duty. Pope Francis himself has welcomed criticism.
But so does common sense. If a pope is performing public actions or issuing public statements that scandalize the faithful, private reproof is insufficient. These errors must be addressed publicly, so that the faithful who are troubled by them can be assured of what the mind of the Church truly is on these issues. Most Catholics have neither the education nor the time in matters of doctrine to know why certain things are wrong; it is the duty of those who know better to inform them of these deviations so that they may evaluate what is happening with well-formed minds and consciences.
My apologies for the repetition, but you are misusing Scripture again. Would you agree that truth is a desirable thing when quoting God’s word? You tell us to shake the dust from our sandals and move on in regard to the Pope’s erring words and actions. However, in the context of Scripture, that quote from Matthew 10:14 was in relation to evangelizing the Gentiles, particularly those who rejected the Gospel. In the context of the time, shaking the dust off one’s sandals meant utterly rejecting and having nothing to do with that ‘house’ again. It was akin to treating that house as a dead thing. With the Pope we are dealing with one of our own house.
Tell me, was John the Baptist wrong when he publicly called the religious leaders of his day sinners?
Also, the tired tactic of calling those who disagree with one’s opinions a Protestant, or suggesting they become Lutherans has lost any force it might have had, even on an emotional level. It is name calling, and is beneath those who desire an honest conversation. These are difficult times and we all must be willing to deal with the deeper issues that are coming to the surface.
and you are missing the point. John the Baptist was a minister of sorts, we are laity. I know for a fact it’s a sin to bash the pope or the bishops. We do not have to agree with them, but we are to bring it to the Lord. He is in charge, He picked these men, good or bad, and for His own reason. You have basically all branded him a heretic without proof other than from bloggers who bloviate about everything that man does that you deem wrong.
John the Baptist was a minister of sorts, you say. How precise.
I was not aware that pointing out error was a sin. When you say it is a sin to “bash” a pope or bishop, please give us the exact definition of bash. I imagine that the meaning of the word bash and the idea of speaking truth in defense of Christ and His Bride are two different things.
you are under the illusion that I am referring to you. BLOGGERS are the ones bashing the pope. And I’ve seen some pretty horrendous comments on other sites doing just that and if you don’t know the meaning of the word bash, look it up. You are playing games. I told you that I am done with this conversation.
Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law, based largely on section 37 of Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), sets forth in general terms the proper disposition of Catholics when it comes to our relationship with Church hierarchy.
Canon 212 has three sections. The first section describes the faithful’s general obligation and responsibility regarding Church authority, stating that we’re “bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.” We don’t hear too much about that, and we’ll continue the discussion of “obedience” in the next section.
The second section talks about the faithful’s right to make their spiritual needs and desires known to the pastors of the Church.
The key section, when it comes to problems in the Church, is the third section, which provides:
In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence that they possess, [the laity] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters that pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.
And your point? You are suggesting that the article and comments are inappropriate?
Well put, Sir! Well put!
Public actions warrant public criticism I understand is the editorial position of this publication just not sure that this is what Church teaching CCC 907 calls for. Perhaps it is my understanding of public criticism.
*
I do believe that your article does follow CCC 907, to me it is well researched, lays out the case and then concludes well
I.e. to me, it does not go out judging or denigrating the Pope but expresses the impression given and respectfully hopes that the what transpired leads the Pope to make the appropriate and courageous and clear teaching.
CCC: ” 907 “In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a DUTY
to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church,
and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful,
with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.”
Also in Code of Canon Law 212.3
Goodness, I thought Jesus was talking about the tendency of the Pharisees to stone women caught in adultery. In that instance he was appealing to the ‘better angels’ of the crowd. Judging is different than punishment, right? Jesus didn’t give permission to sin, he provided mercy after the judgment of this woman. She still sinned. Just because she was granted mercy by the Lord didn’t mean she hadn’t sinned. He told her to stop sinning, right? Mercy and compassion come after judgment, not before. Everyone wants to skip that step. Jesus did not dispute the judgment of the Pharisees. He brought mercy to the execution to the judgment, as was His right as supreme Judge.
Your hyperbole about about ‘crucifying’ the Pope is silly. Of course we should pray for him and so forth. Is anyone disputing that? Not dealing with the Pope’s troublesome words and actions does not make them go away, nor does it ameliorate the effects of those words and actions.
The irony here is that Jesus was nailed to the hammer and sickle and suffered greatly. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw the pictures of the “gift” given by the Bolivian president. Then, I immediately thought of the gift John Paul II bestowed upon Our Lady of Fatima: the very bullet that was meant to kill him in a communist plot. Some things never change.
The difference is that we venerate the Cross because it was Christ’s instrument in His work of salvation for us.
Replacing the Cross with a hammer-and-sickle by nailing Christ’s corpus on it seems to suggest that the abominable symbol should equal the Cross and also be venerated.
Good point, Mara. I wrote and article for STAR (St. Austin Review) not long ago. On the cover of the magazine was a depiction of Jesus nailed to a swastika. Which, of course, he was. He was and is nailed to many things. And, that’s the irony. Because the earthly princes of this world are blind to the victory of the true cross. I just hope Pope Francis has the eyes to see it.
Again, this is a clever point of irony, but George, we’re Catholics, not relativists. Symbols have objective meanings, and we don’t get to make them say whatever suits our agenda. The president of Bolivia is an avowed Marxist, an ideology whose raison d’etre is provide man with a materialistic and humanistic means of salvation as an alternative – and in direct opposition – to the Christian Gospel. Soviet Communism is antichrist to its core.
As such, do really suppose the Marxist who presented this “gift”, or the commie apostate who created it, intended to say, “Look here, Holiness, the political ideology that I love and support is clearly antithetical to the Catholic faith, and is responsible for the destruction of your Savior’s Body throughout the world. That’s right, we’re a bunch of murderous thugs who hate you.”
You may want to suggest that the symbol can be viewed that way, but you would be wrong in the same way that Protestants are wrong to suggest St. Peter’s cross represents the devil. Neither Protestants nor the devil get to say what Catholic symbols mean; and likewise, Catholics do not get to say what the symbols of their enemies mean.
This is a symbol of Marxist blasphemy which says, “Look here, Holiness, the salvation that you’re looking for in your Savior is not found in His Holy Cross, but rather the hammer and sickle. Join us comrade, and be liberated. Through Soviet Communism we will show you the true meaning of Christianity.”
If a pious Catholic were to place a real crucifix (Corpus on Cross) over an image of the hammer and sickle, in the same manner that an exorcist places the crucifix upon the head of the demon possessed, that would be a positive sign of Christ’s victory over Satan. But when a Marxist replaces the Holy Cross with the hammer and sickle, the only thing being said is the disgusting blasphemy that Soviet Communism is man’s true path to salvation.
Brian, you are quite right in all of your points. Marxism, and, I would add, National Socialism, as well as Liberation Theology are all a deception. The “gift” to Francis was cruel and, I think deliberately so, because it was meant to be a slap in the face to all Christendom. Pope Francis should have bent down and gathered dirt from the floor, spit on the hand he received it with, making spittle, then rubbed this in the eyes of the Bolivian, so that he could finally open his eyes and see truth.
For all those arguing that Francis played the gentleman, ask yourself what you would do if someone gave you the “gift” of a picture of your mother’s face pasted on some porn star’s naked body.
The Body of Christ has been raped and crucified over and over by the sickle and crescent. The Bolivian president’s public bit of blasphemous political theater is no time for niceties and keeping up appearances.
If someone spits in my face, I’ll try to turn the other cheek, but spit in my mom’s face, or Our Lord’s face, and call it a gift…you’ll be getting a different reaction.
Well, technically, we have been approving joint worship sessions with Protestants who vocally insult our heavenly mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, by denying teachings pertaining to her (like that of the Perpetual virginity, Assumption into heaven, Immaculate conception, her heavenly Queen-ship etc.). These are the same people who denigrate Christians who pay honor to her. We are even about to celebrate 500 years of the reformation that lead to such protests with those people. Our Church leaders praise their “faith” and even try to adopt things from them.
I think what we see today is not that surprising in that context.
Denying, the teaching about Mary, they don’t not understand is one thing, to celebrate evil Marxism by bonding it with the very image of God’s sacrificial love is goodness–the death on a tree chosen by our loving God are two very much different things. The latter reeks of the diabolical.
You can’t draw any rational moral equivalency between the two. All wrongs are not equal.
Well, couldn’t one say that many simply do not “understand” the evil of Marxism just as much as they do not “understand” the importance of Marian doctrine?
What is present in both cases is a blind rejection of the gravity of heresy and error, even when the heresies directly attack those whom we love and revere (like our Lord or Blessed Mother). As far as I can see, both wrongs here are equal in the sense that they come from the same distorted mentality. They are equally diabolical.
The fact that we are making distinctions here only suggest that we have simply become desensitized to the diabolical nature of Protestantism.
Imagine that a right-wing leader somewhere in the world handed the pope a swastika with Christ crucified on it. Does anyone seriously doubt what his reaction would be? Why is it different with Communism’s symbol? The Nazis never managed to approach the number of innocent victims the Communists were able to kill. Why is the former’s symbol then so odious that it is legally banned in several European countries while the latter’s shows up “sin problema” in photos of the pope published around the globe?
Because the Nazis turned on the Communists when Hitler broke the Nonagression Pact, so they hate them, too.
The Nazis do indeed seem to get the harsher treatment. I’d blame it on the snappy uniforms, but we know that an equality-obsessed West still has its share of fellow travelers, still able and eager to try to salvage and absolve the Right Sort of Socialists from the Wrong Sort. Apparently Fr. Espinal and Evo Morales count as the Right Sort.
Oh, and by the way. America magazine was embarrassingly wrong (nothing terribly new there, I guess). Its article says he was born during the Civil War in Spain. But if Espinal was born in 1932, he was fully four years old before the Spanish Civil War broke out (July 18-19, 1936).
Thanks Steve for enlightening us on this dark subject. In your article you point out that the Pope knew he was going to receive the communist crucifix in advance and, I will add, may even have arranged for the gift to be given to him. So to me it is reasonable to suppose Pope Francis did this to proclaim by this symbol his belief in Liberation Theology which combines Communism and Catholicism.
Since Vatican II the Jesuits have been largely transformed in order that seeks to better conditions particularly among the poor through such Marxist/Communist means as Liberation Theology, Social Justice, preferential option for the poor, etc. On the other hand they de-emphasize traditional Catholic doctrine saintly living and eternal life.
For more on this please see: ‘The Jesuits’–The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church by Malachi Martin, 1987
The Crucifix fits perfectly here, atheistic Communism and Marxism have literally crucified millions and millions of these poor souls. God has allowed this crucifix for a reason, I believe. It will mean something later, if not now.
That may be a clever point of irony, but the intent and essence of this piece of political sacrilege is blasphemy and nothing else. It is manifestly an attempt to state that Communism vis-a-vis the hammer and sickle is an instrument of man’s salvation equivalent to the Holy Cross…or even worse, in place of it.
Yes, I understand that..but God can always use evil for good… no matter what evil’s intention is.
The Pope merely SHOULD have stated: “Communism, Marxism, and Collectivism all violate the Catholic Faith. Therefore I can not accept your cross with the hammer and sickle.”
Everyone knows that one picture is worth a thousand words, and will be used as propaganda by those with evil agendas.
“Religion is the opium of the people”. If the Bolivian president does not believe that he is not a Marxist.
Dear Mr. Skojec,
I appreciate both your religious zeal and your abilities in journalism.
Is it possible that your time could be better spent on exposing the source of confusion/error, rather than on dealing with its symptoms?
If so, here are a few questions to ponder:
Why would Paul VI install the symbolic “Door of Good and Evil” onto the Vatican?
Have the “churchmen” who have eaten from “its fruit” been kicked out of “the garden”?
Which “True Romans” have the power of Holy Ghost resting upon them? (In order to maintain the promises of Christ?)
Godspeed,
Curtis
Thank you for having the courage and discernment to call this one like you see it and resist the urge to deny that a scandal has occurred. I also appreciate the attempt to see the silver-lining. But I think we both know that Pope Francis has no intention of taking the opportunity to denounce communism.
This pope does not play his cards close to the vest. He befriends tyrants, he does not denounce
them. His strategy is to infiltrate communist and socialist countries by posing as their friends in the struggle for income equality. Instead of fighting extreme left wing governments like Bolivia and Cuba, he wants to make them allies. He hopes that the Church will be able to play a larger role in those countries as he succeeds. So he needs to make the Church safe for communism. This will not be hard. He has shown that he knows how to play the class struggle game. And Laudato Si shows that he is not afraid to use ‘the environment’ and ‘science’ as excuses to consolidate more power with the state. What will emerge is a Church that is welcome in any country wishing to use these propaganda tools to further their agenda. Instead of rejecting the ‘opiate of the masses’, these countries will start distributing it to keep their populations in line and justify their ‘income distribution’ schemes.
I know this sounds a bit far-fetched, but this sort of unholy hybrid is not unheard of. Remember back in the 80’s when the Chinese started introducing private property and semi-free markets? Before and after Tiananmen Square almost all of the pundits were saying that a little bit of freedom will either lead to a revolution or a return to hard-line communism. Nobody could foresee that decades later the communist government would still be in charge and that the
economy would still be free.
I can’t really imagine what type of Church will emerge if Pope Francis succeeds. It will
probably be larger, but at what price?
I don’t see a silver lining at all. I see an opportunity to create one – an opportunity which, as I said, “any good shepherd” would take.
I think the stakes are clear. If he chooses, as it appears he has done, to gloss over this and not denounce these blasphemous symbols, we can know with a reasonable degree of certitude that he is friendly to Marxism, if not certifiably a Marxist himself.
We are running out of reasonable interpretations. In the interest of fairness, I was providing the only escape route I could find. The reality of what happened this past week is very hard on many Catholics. If they want to hold out hope, then they have a right to – but they must have some structure around what they also have a right to expect from their shepherd.
Stumbling from scandal to scandal, always waiting for corrections and clarifications, is a proven recipe for disappointment. I think it’s time to start looking farther off on the horizon. Imagine our disappointment, when 3, 5, or 10 years down the road, this papacy ends and a new pope that is just as (or more) radical than Francis takes over?
The Church has decided to try to close the gap between Church and state and that the way to do it is to embrace countries and cultures that are not thoroughly modern and secularized.
How will it be able to acomplish this? What sort of compromises might be required? What does this mean for Catholicism in America and Western Europe? Will traditionalists leave the Church? For what? Will there be a huge boom in the world population of people that call themselves Catholic? What will it mean to be Catholic in the years ahead if it is melded with a social justice doctrine that requires obeisance to the state? These questions are hard to contemplate, but they make more sense than, ‘When will this pope get his act together?’
Clearly one of the compromises the Church has decided to make is to turn a blind eye to blasphemy.
We may be a while yet in climbing out of the Modernist Crisis. and the costs along the way may be higher than any seen to date.
All we know is that this kind of ecclesiology doesn’t have legs in the long-term. It doesn’t pass on life. Ultimately, it’s fatal.
Ultimatley yes. Perhaps this is the begining of the end. But maybe Francis is just bringing us to the precipice so that we can gather more souls before the end begins.
I agree Steve. Giving him the maximum benefit of the doubt, let’s suppose the gift was sprung on him completely unawares. I’ll admit, the thing was just so bizarre that he may have had a genuine deer in the headlights (WTF) moment, and with all the cameras and the pressure of a public moment, just decided to go with the flow.
But afterwards, from a point of critical distance, upon witnessing both the insult and injury to his flock, and the grandstanding of the Church’s enemies, he has got to denounce this thing, and strongly. In the face of blasphemous scandals, the supreme pontiff needs to put his shoulder to the yoke, not shrug it off.
Dear Mr. Miles, (and Mr. Skojec)
Francis is simply following “marching orders” from the Second Vatican Council. John Paul II and Benedict XVI followed the same ideals before him: John Paul II allowed a Buda to be placed on the high alter at Assisi; John Paul II publicly kissed a Koran; Benedict XVI publicly participated (in worship) at a Jewish Synagogue, etc. These are not acts of blasphemy (or heresy) to them. These men are members of the Freemasonic “Second Vatican Church”. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is still currently in exile.
God bless,
Curtis
“Oh Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee, and for those who do not have recourse to thee, especially the Freemasons and those commended to thy care.” (St. Maximilian Kolbe )
You have a point about postconciliar ecumenical enthusiasms. But I can’t imagine for the life of me John Paul II – after having lived under communism for much of his adult life, seen friends killed or imprisoned, and experienced a ferocious battle with Latin American communists on his 1983 visit to Nicaragua – accepting such a gift with such equanimity.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as reported in a ZENIT article, distinguishes between true and false ecumenism.
If he had been quick on his feet, it could have been quite a teaching moment (and not a punching one).
But I am still perplexed as to how this was a surprise. There were media reports (including in America Magazine!) in the days leading up to the meeting indicating that there was going to be an effort to offer a replica of Fr. Espinal’s “communifix” to Pope Francis. This wasn’t a closely held secret.
Instead, he laid it at the feet of Our Lady, like it was a bouquet of roses.
Unbelievable. Let’s compare and contrast shall we?
Gift 1: Soviet blasphemy.
Papal response: An honor to lay before Our Lady.
Gift 2: Rosary bouquet
Papal response: This concerns me, what’s with all this retrograde counting?
There has been a further development. The two earthly honors are at the shrine of Our Lady, in the Pope’s own words, “it [the “crucifix”] is traveling with me/Christ is coming with me.”
The hits just keep coming. The pontiff is very popular because many think he will change doctrine whether it be on marriage, homosexuality, liberation theology, socialism, environmentalism, etc. And he gives hint that he will go with the flow which is scandalous, confusing, and misleading. In the end, I do not think the Lord will let him go definitely down any of those paths hat lead souls away from Christ. But presently the ‘new evangelization’ and missionary efforts are pretty much at a stand still.
This is the ‘new’ evangelization: “Join us comrades (uh hum!) I mean Catholics, in overthrowing the capitalist oppressors that are destroying our environment and denying us the dignity of a living wage!”
We’re now received proof, it seems, that the consecration was never done, for the errors of Russia (Communism) are now revealed to have found sympathies with the Holy Father.
So to end my end of this discussion, discussing the pope is nothing more than pure gossip. We have absolutely no proof that this man is a communist etc. So he accepts a gift. Other popes have done things, too. They are our leaders. We are to be obedient to them UNLESS they make some rule that is a sin. And then we are to bring it up to them, not to the world, but to them individually. Write to him and tell him your concerns. Stop blasting and discussing him like he is the anti-christ. This ends my comments for this discussion.
I hate to bum anybody out, but it’s now official: EWTN News headline – “Pope Calls ‘Communist Crucifix’ Protest Art, but Says He Wasn’t Offended ”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-calls-communist-crucifix-protest-art-but-says-he-wasnt-offended/#ixzz3fnbwpmlX
It was protest art, protesting Christianity and, he wasn’t offended.
The only question is why all this teaching–by both word and act–that is coming from above (from shepherd to flock) so confusing?
Can confused teaching (deliberate or otherwise) be from God–for He loves His sheep. They know His voice and he knows them. Would He lead them astray?