In my other piece today, I said that the “image of a Rorschach papacy upon which one can project whatever ideological alignment one wills if they only squint hard enough has become impossible to dismiss.”
Now see this, from the Public Religion Research Institute:
I haven’t had time to go through the rest of the charts and statistics, but this is exactly what I’m talking about.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
What’s his position on the designated hitter?
Presumably that the DH should be a switch-hitter?
Ooohhh… let’s not go THERE.
lol
The truly infamous man will be more a culmination of the world’s preferred iniquity than singularly evil himself. I wonder if we aren’t seeing in Francis a prelude as to how the Internet Age might bring that about.
What this says is that, regardless of what one thinks the pope’s strategy is for rebuilding the Church, , and whether you personally favor it or not, it is not working. A huge group of Catholics have totally misinterpreted his thinking and consequently or perhaps coincidentally are endorsing serious sin, outright heresy. This alone should signal to the pope and his team that some tweaking, an adjustment, is urgently needed to the ”friendly and welcoming” theme.
Approval of sin is exactly his plan, under the guise of mercy.
There is no such thing as a Catholic that supports gay marriage! Beliefs such as this are beliefs of a heretic! A heretic is not a Catholic.
So very odd that Obama is (and evidently always has been) a divisive ‘Rorschach’ President for the Nation as Bergolio has been a divisive Bishop of Rome for the Church.
I attach here, for those interested, a link (below) to an old New York Times editorial of January 28, 2007. Written by Jodi Kantor, the piece headlines as “In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice’. The eerie thing about this is that with only a little tweak it could be Bergolio’s style and substance being analysed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html?pagewanted=print
Thanks for the link. This sentence caught my eye: ”In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice.” Not much tweaking needed to apply this to the pope.
One thing about this papacy that should be of interest to Catholic apologists is how it undermines their oft-repeated argument that Protestantism leads to division because it lacks an authority to interpret and bring about unity. I’m not sure that this argument has ever been very good, and it certainly required subtlety and nuance to get at the truth, but in its popular form it now seems outright impossible to maintain. For the argument that Catholics made against Protestants interpreting scripture now applies to Catholics interpreting the pope. This poll seems like proof that we need an authoritative interpreter of the authoritative interpreter.
Yes. Poor Marcus Grodi even wrote to the Pope to ask if he should cease bringing in Protestants as he (Francis) seems to say they are just fine where they are. If I recall the Vatican responded saying “don’t believe everything you hear.”
My guess is PF is delighted with this survey as it indicates a high degree of uncertainty and thus, in his mind, is an open issue. An open issue being one that a Catholic can choose to be for or against without penalty of sin. Such is the nebulous state of morality in the Catholic Church in our age where conscience has been declared supreme. God have mercy on us.
Definitely a diabolical ambiguity.
This morning we are treated to yet another epiphany that elucidates the papacy of Jorge Bergoglio. One well-known American Catholic writer, with a nod to St. Paul, told us to watch Francis’ moves and not to fixate on his words. This notion seems to have become the shibboleth of America’s nouveax-ultramontanists (to be fair, there was little else for them to discuss concerning the pope’s American trip) . But all those Catholic “conservatives” who rushed to assure us that the pope’s unannounced visit to nuns and then his secret meeting with Ms. Davis were “clear indications” of his “true agenda,” must consume some humble pie this morning. Permit me to mix metaphors and say the Vatican today peremptorily pulled the rug from under the Bergoglio cheerleaders, leaving them flat on their collective derrières. Here’s the story from a notorious British left-wing rag (note the gloating): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/02/vatican-pope-kim-davis-same-sex-marriage?CMP=ema_565a