Creation of a "virtual Francis"

[zab]

Perhaps–I would not disagree–but I am not sure we have ever seen anything to this degree, for this long. It is not like a little blip here and here, it is more like a plateau on an EGK machine or something, quite uninterrupted.

At least when Paul VI promulgated Humanae vitae, the newspapers and most everybody else were openly against him, to a point of vitriolic hate. But now, even more insidious, the media latches on to the Popes words and turns them. AND, I must add, it’s not like it’s hard to do!

At least? I really don’t see your point. It almost sounds like you are blaming Pope Francis for the medias turn on his words. But if anyone wants to compare persecutions, I don’t think that there is any persecution more painful than that coming from one’s friends. How sad it is that there are conservative organizations out there that are doing exactly what the secular press is doing by selective reporting of our Holy Father’s words.

 

[YoungTradCath]

At least? I really don’t see your point. It almost sounds like you are blaming Pope Francis for the medias turn on his words. But if anyone wants to compare persecutions, I don’t think that there is any persecution more painful than that coming from one’s friends. How sad it is that there are conservative organizations out there that are doing exactly what the secular press is doing by selective reporting of our Holy Father’s words.

No, purely strategically. When theologians, priests and bishops rebelled against Paul VI, at least they were open and clear about it. On a strategic basis that is an easier thing to deal with because the “enemy”–for lack of a better term–is easy to identify and is plain to see.

 

[JReducation]

Was the good Fr. Z mistaken? When referring to the ordination of a religious priest to a bishop, the old cannon law required that a religious priest who to be ordained a bishop, his religious vows were dispensed and he was secularized. Apparently that old cannon law is no longer in effect.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4226595&postcount=2

He is viewed as such, and most certainly considers himself to be so, but Canonically, he is not.

And that would have happened on his becoming a bishop. A Jesuit is bound by obedience to the Superior General, and to poverty. A bishop is subject only to the Pope, and by definition, owns the Church property of his diocese.

So upon accepting a call to the Episcopate, and with the consent of his superiors, he was Canonically released from his vows. He still, of course, retains the fraternal affiliation with his order, and the Ignatian spirituality,

Canon 705 states: “A religious raised to the episcopate remains a member of his institute but is subject only to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the vow of obedience and is not bound by obligations which he himself prudently judges cannot be reconciled with his condition.”

As of 1983, a religious who is ordained a bishop continues to be canonically a member of his religious order.

He is dispensed from obedience to his major superior in all matters that pertain to his ministry.

In the case of the Jesuits, they do not have a Holy Rule. Ignatius never wanted them to follow a common rule. Therefore, they are not bound to obey a rule that does not exist. They are bound to obey Ignatius. The covenant between the religious and his religious family does not terminate.

If he were a Franciscan, he would be bound to obey the rule of St. Francis. The code of 1983, makes an allowance for him to be dispensed from statutes in the rule that he prudently judges cannot be reconciled. But it is the rule of life that is giving him this permission, not the law. The rule says that the professed member owes obedience to the Church. If the Church requires this religious bishop do X for the good of the Church, he must comply, even if X was prohibited by some other statute in the rule. Obedience is always the first duty of every religious.

As to poverty, the response given by father is good, but it is not good enough for the layman. It’s really written for someone who has a Jesuit education. Jesuits make solemn vows, not all religious do. Those of us who make a solemn vow of poverty lose all right to ownership. If my father left me Microsoft, I have no legal right to own it. I must sign it over to anyone that is not the Church and I must do so the night before I make solemn vows. If I become a bishop, I cannot reclaim my inheritance, nor cannot I accept any inheritance. I may accept a salary for my work as a bishop. I do not have to surrender it to my religious community, unless I live in a community house. In justice, I have to pay my fair share. Otherwise, I can keep that salary. I can accept any donation for the ministry without having to ask for the permission from my superior, because the donation is for the Church that I serve to be managed by the diocese, not for my community to be managed by my community.

When I retire, if I choose to leave alone and the Holy See approves, I can keep whatever I may have saved up. However, if I choose to return to live in a house of my community, I must surrender the leftover according to the rules of my community. These rules are going to vary from one community to another.

 

[JReducation]

Finally, as to the pope obeying the Superior General of the Jesuits, this is unchartered territory. There has never been a Jesuit and none of the previous precedents apply. All of the other religious pope that we had were either monks or friars. Jesuits are Clerks Regular. It is really up to Pope Francis, not up to Canon Law to decide how that relationship will go. There as never been such a situation.

He did give us a hint on the Solemnity of St. Ignatius when he said that the Superior General owes obedience to the pope, but “since I am a Jesuit first and will always be a Jesuit, it is appropriate that I also obey the superior general.” He went on to emphasize “I am Francis, but not Franciscan. I am Jesuit.” In other words, the precedents established by the mendicant and monastic popes do not bind him, because he’s not in the same category of religious. At the same time, those precedents do not liberate him from everything either, because he is not in the same class of religious.

It is useless for us to discuss how much a Jesuit pope can be Jesuit, since there is no precedent.

In closing, I should also call attention to the fact that the only time that religious ordained bishops were separated from their orders was under the Code of 1917. To say that the “old law says” is nonsense. The Code of 1917 was one of the shortest lived codes in the history of the Church (b. 1917 and d. 1983 - age 67). We have codes that govern this which date back to the 13th century.

Bonaventure was a bishop and cardinal who governed his diocese in absentia, because his brothers elected him superior general and then commanded him to drop everything to write the official and definitive works on St. Francis.

Pius V was a bishop, cardinal and pope who governed always as a Dominican Friar.

Clement was a Benedictine who never ceased to be a Benedictine

Nicholas IV was a Franciscan, bishop, cardinal and pope who governed as a Franciscan.

They thought that by separating the bishops from their institutes they could avoid conflicts on interests. But Pope Paul VI, who was one of the best canon lawyers of the 20th century said that Canon Law must be based on faith.

If the Church approves a way of life as a means to salvation, it stands to reason that the law has to continue to respect that way of life as a means to salvation. Therefore, it is inconsistent to create a law that separates a man from a covenant that God chose for his salvation, because God does not withdraw his promises. Paul VI regarded this part of the Code of 1917 to be in conflict with the faith. When the pope approves a way of life as a sure way to haven for those who embrace it, he cannot approve error even though he is exercising the ordinary magisterium. Therefore, this covenant remains in effect so that a Jesuit simply becomes a Jesuit bishop. Remember, the pope is the Bishop of Rome. He is the Jesuit Bishop of Rome. That’s all.

Allow me to repeat my most frequently offered piece of advice. Focus on what’s immediately before you and on what is calling for your immediate attention first. When you have fixed it all, then you can meander out to fixing what the pope says or does.

Begin on

1. Your soul
2. Your spouse, if you have one; religious community, if you have one; immediate family, if you have no spouse or community
3. Your children, if you have any
4. Your parish
5. Your job
6. Your domestic duties

If you still have time and energy, then go fix whatever you think that the pope broke that you now have to go out and pick up the pieces.

As for me, the pope is not my child. I am not his boss. I don’t work for him. I feel no obligation to even look around to make sure that he has not left any candy wrappers, much less alleged or imagined bloopers. If he calls on me to serve in this capacity, then I will serve. But I don’t think he’ll ever call. He has enough people telling him what to do

One of the things that I most admire about Pope Francis is that he knows how we think, but he doesn’t give a darn. One of the things that make me chuckle about us in Traddom, is that we have been screaming for a pope who flexes his muscles. Here he is. Here is a pope who does, says and drives what he wants. Suddenly, we are very uncomfortable. We wanted to pick and choose which muscles he flexes. But if that were the case, he’d be a figurehead driven by a constituency and by traditions that don’t bind him. A pope who flexes his muscles is one who preaches the Gospel, using his style, he words, according to what he sees to be the need of the Church and accepts the advice and feedback of those whom he chooses, not those who choose to offer it. That’s real freedom of power.

 

[McCall1981]

Finally, as to the pope obeying the Superior General of the Jesuits, this is unchartered territory. There has never been a Jesuit and none of the previous precedents apply. All of the other religious pope that we had were either monks or friars. Jesuits are Clerks Regular. It is really up to Pope Francis, not up to Canon Law to decide how that relationship will go. There as never been such a situation.

He did give us a hint on the Solemnity of St. Ignatius when he said that the Superior General owes obedience to the pope, but “since I am a Jesuit first and will always be a Jesuit, it is appropriate that I also obey the superior general.” He went on to emphasize “I am Francis, but not Franciscan. I am Jesuit.” In other words, the precedents established by the mendicant and monastic popes do not bind him, because he’s not in the same category of religious. At the same time, those precedents do not liberate him from everything either, because he is not in the same class of religious.

It is useless for us to discuss how much a Jesuit pope can be Jesuit, since there is no precedent.

In closing, I should also call attention to the fact that the only time that religious ordained bishops were separated from their orders was under the Code of 1917. To say that the “old law says” is nonsense. The Code of 1917 was one of the shortest lived codes in the history of the Church (b. 1917 and d. 1983 - age 67). We have codes that govern this which date back to the 13th century.

Bonaventure was a bishop and cardinal who governed his diocese in absentia, because his brothers elected him superior general and then commanded him to drop everything to write the official and definitive works on St. Francis.

Pius V was a bishop, cardinal and pope who governed always as a Dominican Friar.

Clement was a Benedictine who never ceased to be a Benedictine

Nicholas IV was a Franciscan, bishop, cardinal and pope who governed as a Franciscan.

They thought that by separating the bishops from their institutes they could avoid conflicts on interests. But Pope Paul VI, who was one of the best canon lawyers of the 20th century said that Canon Law must be based on faith.

If the Church approves a way of life as a means to salvation, it stands to reason that the law has to continue to respect that way of life as a means to salvation. Therefore, it is inconsistent to create a law that separates a man from a covenant that God chose for his salvation, because God does not withdraw his promises. Paul VI regarded this part of the Code of 1917 to be in conflict with the faith. When the pope approves a way of life as a sure way to haven for those who embrace it, he cannot approve error even though he is exercising the ordinary magisterium. Therefore, this covenant remains in effect so that a Jesuit simply becomes a Jesuit bishop. Remember, the pope is the Bishop of Rome. He is the Jesuit Bishop of Rome. That’s all.

Allow me to repeat my most frequently offered piece of advice. Focus on what’s immediately before you and on what is calling for your immediate attention first. When you have fixed it all, then you can meander out to fixing what the pope says or does.

Begin on

1. Your soul
2. Your spouse, if you have one; religious community, if you have one; immediate family, if you have no spouse or community
3. Your children, if you have any
4. Your parish
5. Your job
6. Your domestic duties

If you still have time and energy, then go fix whatever you think that the pope broke that you now have to go out and pick up the pieces.

As for me, the pope is not my child. I am not his boss. I don’t work for him. I feel no obligation to even look around to make sure that he has not left any candy wrappers, much less alleged or imagined bloopers. If he calls on me to serve in this capacity, then I will serve. But I don’t think he’ll ever call. He has enough people telling him what to do

One of the things that I most admire about Pope Francis is that he knows how we think, but he doesn’t give a darn. One of the things that make me chuckle about us in Traddom, is that we have been screaming for a pope who flexes his muscles. Here he is. Here is a pope who does, says and drives what he wants. Suddenly, we are very uncomfortable. We wanted to pick and choose which muscles he flexes. But if that were the case, he’d be a figurehead driven by a constituency and by traditions that don’t bind him. A pope who flexes his muscles is one who preaches the Gospel, using his style, he words, according to what he sees to be the need of the Church and accepts the advice and feedback of those whom he chooses, not those who choose to offer it. That’s real freedom of power.

The “problem” as I see it is not that he’s flexing his muscles in the wrong way, but that he’s not flexing at all. I think the common complaint (whether justified or not) would be that he’s ok with everyone and everything, not that he’s strong on some issue in the “wrong” way. I would phrase it by saying that he’s “strongly unflexed his muscles”, if that makes sense.

If he were flexing his muscles in a way that trads wouldnt like, it would mean strongly pursuing a liberal agenda, but he doesnt seem to be doing that (to me). Its more like he’s asserting his right to not flex in any direction.

That being said, I am completely lost and confused by him, so Im probably wrong

 

[zab]

The “problem” as I see it is not that he’s flexing his muscles in the wrong way, but that he’s not flexing at all. I think the common complaint (whether justified or not) would be that he’s ok with everyone and everything, not that he’s strong on some issue in the “wrong” way. I would phrase it by saying that he’s “strongly unflexed his muscles”, if that makes sense.

If he were flexing his muscles in a way that trads wouldnt like, it would mean strongly pursuing a liberal agenda, but he doesnt seem to be doing that (to me).** Its more like he’s asserting his right to not flex in any direction.**

That being said, I am completely lost and confused by him, so Im probably wrong

Have you read these?
Pope Francis: “There can be no dialogue with the prince of this world”

and

Gossip is a form or murder, Pope Francis reflects

 

[JReducation]

The “problem” as I see it is not that he’s flexing his muscles in the wrong way, but that he’s not flexing at all. I think the common complaint (whether justified or not) would be that he’s ok with everyone and everything, not that he’s strong on some issue in the “wrong” way. I would phrase it by saying that he’s “strongly unflexed his muscles”, if that makes sense.

Pay very close attention and you’ll notice that he’s flexing many muscles. It’s just not what people expected.

1. Same sex marriage and abortion:

He said that he is not going to speak about this, because we run the risk of becoming a Church of laws. This has to be discussed in the context of theology, not law.

He discusses the need to go out to the people who are on the fringes, which are these people, but not to tell that to stop doing the “no no” but to invited them to trust that God loves the and that God has answers.

1. Marriage, divorce and remarriage:

He made it clear that the Orthodox have valid and licit sacrament of marriage, but they also have an economy that seems MAY NOT be in conflict with theology of marriage. If it is, so be it. We don’t use it. However, what if is does work and can be adopted by Catholics? Out of mercy we should examine it.

1. Women in higher offices:

He has made it very clear that it’s time that the Church have a feminine voice in positions of influence. This does not mean women clergy. Clergy are not the only people who can occupy positions of influence.

1. Syria:

He is the only world leader who brought people of all faith and no faith out to the streets of major cities around the world to pray together for peace and to show the world’s politicians that they need to listen to the voice of reason and to the moral law.

1. Governance:

He has made it clear that bishops are to go out and be with their people, not flying around. They are not to be executives. They must go out and hear confessions… They must listen to their priests.

1. Religious life:

He has made it very clear that we (including me) have no business with a smartphone, an expensive car and wearing expensive clothing. Either wear a habit or wear simple secular clothes.

He has finally made it clear for the laity and for priests that sisters and brothers are not priests because we are called to be prophets and prophets have a very different, but essential function in Salvation History. He is pushing the issue among clergy laity that religious sisters and brothers belong in the Church and are just as essential to the Church as the clergyman who is a minister. You need prophets and ministers, but they are not the same and Christ never wanted them to be the same.

1. Collegiality:

He has created a number of commissions that will govern and report to him, rather than he micromanaging. It is not Peter’s job to micromanage. The original Peter died without known much of what was happening daily. He could not. He lived with his limitations. Each of the Apostles and their disciples were entrusted with a Church to lead. Mistakes were made, but much good was also achieved.

1. The practice of virtue:

He speaks about virtue in a way that everyone from the most sophisticated to the simplest youth can understand him.

1. Simplifying the externals of the papacy:

In doing so, it sends a message to the many priests who are asked to serve the church as part of the hierarchy and who turn down the offer, because they believe that the religious life and the hierarchical life are incompatible. He has show us that we can do both by simplifying the way that a bishop or a popel does things, dresses and how he lives. When a secular priest is elevated to one of these positions, he can restore it to whatever he feels is permissible for a secular.

 

[JReducation]

If he were flexing his muscles in a way that trads wouldnt like, it would mean strongly pursuing a liberal agenda, but he doesnt seem to be doing that (to me). Its more like he’s asserting his right to not flex in any direction.

Right now he’s not interested in talking to Traditionalists. Archbishop DiNoia was placed in that position to encourage the dialogue. The SSPX and others like them did not take advantage. Pope Francis has moved Archbishop to a post to as he said, “The Church can use a good Dominican.”

That being said, I am completely lost and confused by him, so Im probably wrong

I don’t think that you’re alone in your confusion. In many ways he’s like his spiritual father, St. Ignatius. When Ignatius founded the Society of Jesus, everyone expected it to have the scholarship of the Dominican and the simplicity of the Franciscan.

Suddenly, after he had his order approved, Ignatius came out and said:

1. No more praying in common. Pray on your own time. Go out and be missionaries.
2. Superiors will no longer control their subjects. Their job is to liberate their subjects and to provide the the means to be missionaries.
3. Please Holy Father, allow the Jesuits all of the benefits, privileges and graces that you allow to the Franciscans and Dominicans, but not impose on them the same structure.
4. Do not make us follow any rules, like you do the Franciscans and Dominicans, so that we can be free to find the will of God in the daily spiritual exercises instead of written rule that does not change.

The pope approved it all. It was not what was expected and it is still misunderstood today. For example, when the pope told the young people to go out and make a mess, he was telling them the same thing that Ignatius told the young Jesuits of his day. Go out and challenge the Church. It is better to make mistakes than to do the same thing over and over again, even if it does not always work

The confusion comes from a pope that is taking a very Jesuit road and most people did not want this.

To those of us who belong to religious orders, we have no problems with this. We trust that he is setting his agenda and following it. The next people will do the same. Why are we so calm about it?

Easy! We change superiors every 6 years. Each time a superior comes in, he changes everything according to his understanding of the Holy Rule, the needs of the community, the needs of the Church and the message of the Gospel. So we spend our lives in an eternal state of change and we’re still around. So will be for the Church. Each person who leaves office leaves something good behind.

We’re also happy, because we have a pope who is finally making the laity realize that we are not the same. I’m consecrated religious and Pope Emeritus Benedict will never be a consecrated religious. I never had to live by his style, nor he by mine. God calls us to live in one Church, but two different world: the consecrated (which is covenant) and the secular (wish is by appointment or election by the Church.). Pope Francis lives very much by his Jesuit covenant.

How many popes have we had flex this many muscles, from top to bottom, in just 6 months? By flexing, I mean to do what the Exercises of St. Ignatius tell him to do, regardless of what everyone else wants him to do. That’s a lot of use of freedom.

 

[GraceSofia]

Allow me to repeat my most frequently offered piece of advice. Focus on what’s immediately before you and on what is calling for your immediate attention first. When you have fixed it all, then you can meander out to fixing what the pope says or does.

Begin on

1. Your soul
2. Your spouse, if you have one; religious community, if you have one; immediate family, if you have no spouse or community
3. Your children, if you have any
4. Your parish
5. Your job
6. Your domestic duties

If you still have time and energy, then go fix whatever you think that the pope broke that you now have to go out and pick up the pieces.

As for me, the pope is not my child. I am not his boss. I don’t work for him. I feel no obligation to even look around to make sure that he has not left any candy wrappers, much less alleged or imagined bloopers. If he calls on me to serve in this capacity, then I will serve. But I don’t think he’ll ever call. He has enough people telling him what to do

Excellent plan! Thanks for the reminder.

(This reminds me of the book called 7 Habits of Highly Effective People where he talks about Circles of Influence, things you can do something about: health, children, problems at work, and Circles of Concern, things over which we have little or no control like the national debt, terrorism, the weather, and the pope. All of the good pop psychology was already discovered by Catholics ).

 

[JReducation]

Excellent plan! Thanks for the reminder.

(This reminds me of the book called 7 Habits of Highly Effective People where he talks about Circles of Influence, things you can do something about: health, children, problems at work, and Circles of Concern, things over which we have little or no control like the national debt, terrorism, the weather, and the pope. All of the good pop psychology was already discovered by Catholics ).

I won’t even call it a need. I believe that it’s a [insert word] to mind everyone else’s business.

I understand that we should want all to go to heaven. But it is unreasonable to worry about someone else’s part of the puzzle. I recently heard someone say something to another person that the other person found discomforting. Instead of apologizing and backing off, the speak pushed forward with something like “we’re only concerned bout your soul.”

When I was a novice we read wonderful stories of how Francis, Anthony, Bonaventure, Clae and Agnes of Prague would often speak out of concern for the salvation of the other. But when the other resisted, they turned ans preached to fish, birds, trees, or simply thanked the person for their time and walked away.

The logic was eminently evangelical, which Francis made our own. If the other person is not interested, shake the sand off your feet and hope that someone better than you comes along. Maybe you’re not the instrument that God wants in this picture. The other part of this lesson is to MYOB when asked to do so. Charity and respect are two sides of the same coin. We must learn to look at both sides of the coin, not just the side that we like. Too much respect renders us inactive due to an overdoes of PC. Too much charity renders us ineffective, because we can easily become intrusive in the life of another. For all we know, we can be sabotaging what God is planing.

The best advice is to begin with the inner circle and move toward outward circles slowly and only after we have taken care of matters that are more immediate.

 

[McCall1981]

Br. Jay (or anyone else), what do you think of this:

I’ve been noticing that all of the things that have contributed to the “virtual Francis” have been unofficial comments that have been (or have been interpreted as) fairly “liberal”.

If, however, you look at Francis’ more official actions, they seem to tend a little more in the “conservative” direction. Here I’m thinking of the LCWR reform, Lumen Fidei, his fairly moderate Curial appointments so far, etc.

In other words, I’m wondering if “virtual Francis” is based more on style/words, while “actual Francis” is based more on substance/actions. What do you all think, is that a fair assessment?

 

[Cojuanco]

Me, I see all this as simple orthodoxy in faith, in word and in deed. I mean, the Pope is the last person in the world that would claim perfection. But Catholicism is a religion of both/and, and refuses to be bound to our ideological conceptions.

The pagan media, we all know will keep getting every Pope wrong, since Pius IX at least this has happened. But we Catholics should know better.

You know, I’ve seen quite a few Catholics in the comboxes basically say he’s throwing the pro-life movement under the bus with this. I do not think so. I think he seems to want to stop us from the real risk of turning the culture wars into our idol. Else we become a mere charitable NGO, like the institutions we all here like to rip on. Pro-life work is important, but it must be done in the context of the Gospel. We can pass the most stringent abortion laws in the world, we can build a million orphanages, we can make gay marriage unthinkable; but if we put that before Christ, it defeats the entire point of all that work.

 

[JReducation]

Br. Jay (or anyone else), what do you think of this:

I’ve been noticing that all of the things that have contributed to the “virtual Francis” have been unofficial comments that have been (or have been interpreted as) fairly “liberal”.

If, however, you look at Francis’ more official actions, they seem to tend a little more in the “conservative” direction. Here I’m thinking of the LCWR reform, Lumen Fidei, his fairly moderate Curial appointments so far, etc.

In other words, I’m wondering if “virtual Francis” is based more on style/words, while “actual Francis” is based more on substance/actions. What do you all think, is that a fair assessment?

Without being excessively cruel on innocent journalists, because there are some of them too. Many of them don’t understand what the pope is saying anymore than many people in the pew. They extrapolate.

Others do wishful thinking, according to their agendas.

In substance, he is following the line of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. His style is different from their own, because of everything I said about his Jesuit background and the fact that he was always a missionary and a shepherd of souls, not a professor.

There is danger among Catholics to believe that he has no scholarship. This is not true. The man is university professor, theologian, psychologist and engineer. This is not a dumb man, just very different.

 

[Aramis]

Br. Jay (or anyone else), what do you think of this:

I’ve been noticing that all of the things that have contributed to the “virtual Francis” have been unofficial comments that have been (or have been interpreted as) fairly “liberal”.

If, however, you look at Francis’ more official actions, they seem to tend a little more in the “conservative” direction. Here I’m thinking of the LCWR reform, Lumen Fidei, his fairly moderate Curial appointments so far, etc.

In other words, I’m wondering if “virtual Francis” is based more on style/words, while “actual Francis” is based more on substance/actions. What do you all think, is that a fair assessment?

As I’ve pointed out in other venues - as yet, His Holiness has yet to change any rules affecting the faithful, to affirm anything that hasn’t been affirmed before, to deny anything that hasn’t been denied before.

He’s just phrasing it slightly differently.

 

[McCall1981]

This is a good article from Fr. Frank Pavone, Director of Priests for Life", on Francis’ abortion remarks. I think it’s a good example of how the virtual Francis doesn’t line up with actual Francis.

priestsforlife.org/library/4786-no-the-pope-is-not-diluting-the-anti-abortion-focus-of-the-church

 

[McCall1981]

Without being excessively cruel on innocent journalists, because there are some of them too. Many of them don’t understand what the pope is saying anymore than many people in the pew. They extrapolate.

Others do wishful thinking, according to their agendas.

In substance, he is following the line of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. His style is different from their own, because of everything I said about his Jesuit background and the fact that he was always a missionary and a shepherd of souls, not a professor.

There is danger among Catholics to believe that he has no scholarship. This is not true. The man is university professor, theologian, psychologist and engineer. This is not a dumb man, just very different.

I agree, but do you think the media and the “world” will come to see this as well, or will he always be seen as the virtual Francis?

In other words, I wonder how lasting the virtual Francis will be?

 

[Cojuanco]

I agree, but do you think the media and the “world” will come to see this as well, or will he always be seen as the virtual Francis?

In other words, I wonder how lasting the virtual Francis will be?

Ask Pius IX. Even today a lot of the uninformed make him out to be an utter reactionary when they refuse to contextualize the Syllabus of Errors. Tis a story as old as mass literacy and the popular press.