You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Rau
Guest
Questions of evidence, charges, innocence or guilt in this matter might better be left to the secular authorities. That would seem good advice for Chileans and the Pope alike…
Until the proper authorities resolve the matter, it is better to defuse rather than join the fray.
Until the proper authorities resolve the matter, it is better to defuse rather than join the fray.
M
michaelArc
Guest
I
Imdaman
Guest
Well technically speaking the Pope is right. But he probably should have restrained himself from commenting on this.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Among the traditionalist and “rad-trad” communities online, there has been much concern over Pope Francis’ propensity to speak “off the cuff”, or have conversations while he’s still processing things. Talking to reporters on airplanes, for example, has resulted in a few stories which have gotten rad-trads riled up. “Why doesn’t he think things through more before speaking? Doesn’t he care about what his words mean and look like to others?”, they’ve been asking. “Why do all of this vocal musing in an informal setting?”
This is in contrast to Benedict XVI. The “Pope of Teaching”, Benedict was very introspective and thoughtful. Very measured with his words. You could always tell with both speech patterns and body language that he was much more comfortable in a smaller, more formal setting - like a university classroom (which makes sense, he used to be a professor).
That isn’t to say that Pope Francis isn’t introspective, of course. Nor does it mean Benedict XVI wasn’t excellent in informal settings. In fact, there was a tremendous informal interview where Benedict talked about the SSPX situation, it was amazing that even in an informal setting, how introspective and thoughtful Benedict XVI is). But it does certainly show the contrast between their communication styles, which has been very evident. And due to his extroverted nature and often speaking while still processing (or before processing), Pope Francis became a media darling, a breath of fresh air", so to speak. A different approach to the papacy!
With this story, we’re seeing the other shoe drop. The very same manner and approach that some people celebrated as a “breath of fresh air” is now being applied in a different situation. Here, we see Pope Francis giving his opinion about some who is essentially a co-worker, and his first opinion is that there isn’t enough evidence for the coverup claims being made against him. And if Francis is friends with the guy, that plays into things too from an initial reaction standpoint.
This is in contrast to Benedict XVI. The “Pope of Teaching”, Benedict was very introspective and thoughtful. Very measured with his words. You could always tell with both speech patterns and body language that he was much more comfortable in a smaller, more formal setting - like a university classroom (which makes sense, he used to be a professor).
That isn’t to say that Pope Francis isn’t introspective, of course. Nor does it mean Benedict XVI wasn’t excellent in informal settings. In fact, there was a tremendous informal interview where Benedict talked about the SSPX situation, it was amazing that even in an informal setting, how introspective and thoughtful Benedict XVI is). But it does certainly show the contrast between their communication styles, which has been very evident. And due to his extroverted nature and often speaking while still processing (or before processing), Pope Francis became a media darling, a breath of fresh air", so to speak. A different approach to the papacy!
With this story, we’re seeing the other shoe drop. The very same manner and approach that some people celebrated as a “breath of fresh air” is now being applied in a different situation. Here, we see Pope Francis giving his opinion about some who is essentially a co-worker, and his first opinion is that there isn’t enough evidence for the coverup claims being made against him. And if Francis is friends with the guy, that plays into things too from an initial reaction standpoint.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
The thing is, I can relate to Pope Francis with this situation. my brain is incredibly reactionary. My anxiety disorder amplifies this, resulting in things being said or actions being done in a very reactionary fashion. When I was younger, I would say or do things instinctively without even thinking. Even now as I’m older, this still happens. This is despite myself CRAVING stability, and doing everything in my power to that end. It’s the dichotomy of having an anxiety disorder and wanting stability above all else, yet having a brain wired to be reactionary.
The paradigm is that although many people appreciate what I say/do in those situations, the reality is I have hurt people in the past by being reactionary, in thoughts, words, and actions. And that’s all without having 24/7 media exposure and being constantly asked questions, like the Pope does.
I’m unsure if where I stand on the general concept of his thoughts here. If I think about it objectively, I think I get it; Pope Francis thinks there’s not enough proof that this guy covered things up. And the idea of there not being enough evidence can be a real thing sometimes; a dear friend of mine was falsely accused, and it very near killed him.
On the other hand, I’m an abuse survivor. When I was younger, I was told by some of my father’s peers “oh, he’s not that bad of a guy” and “I don’t believe that he beat you, he wouldn’t do that”. My mom and her family believed me, but a few of the teachers at my grade and high schools (and the surrounding schools) took his side. But the physical bruises I received, and other very real ramifications of that abuse, were very real - and remain real to this day. I carry being an abuse survivor with my every waking moment, and sometimes in my dreams (although in those cases, they’re more like nightmares). So the idea of saying anything like what I was told when I was younger makes my blood boil. My initial reaction to such comments is the desire for violence, but again; reactionary thinking at work.
I dunno what my point is here, really. I spent a lot of time thinking and writing about whatever without a destination in mind. Pray for the victims and pray for Pope Francis, maybe? I guess so.
The paradigm is that although many people appreciate what I say/do in those situations, the reality is I have hurt people in the past by being reactionary, in thoughts, words, and actions. And that’s all without having 24/7 media exposure and being constantly asked questions, like the Pope does.
I’m unsure if where I stand on the general concept of his thoughts here. If I think about it objectively, I think I get it; Pope Francis thinks there’s not enough proof that this guy covered things up. And the idea of there not being enough evidence can be a real thing sometimes; a dear friend of mine was falsely accused, and it very near killed him.
On the other hand, I’m an abuse survivor. When I was younger, I was told by some of my father’s peers “oh, he’s not that bad of a guy” and “I don’t believe that he beat you, he wouldn’t do that”. My mom and her family believed me, but a few of the teachers at my grade and high schools (and the surrounding schools) took his side. But the physical bruises I received, and other very real ramifications of that abuse, were very real - and remain real to this day. I carry being an abuse survivor with my every waking moment, and sometimes in my dreams (although in those cases, they’re more like nightmares). So the idea of saying anything like what I was told when I was younger makes my blood boil. My initial reaction to such comments is the desire for violence, but again; reactionary thinking at work.
I dunno what my point is here, really. I spent a lot of time thinking and writing about whatever without a destination in mind. Pray for the victims and pray for Pope Francis, maybe? I guess so.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Not limited to that subset by any means. And while you would think the present situation was born of impulsiveness or carelessness or lack of judgment (on top of a sense of justice), many don’t think that is always the case.Among the traditionalist and “rad-trad” communities online, there has been much concern over Pope Francis’ propensity to speak “off the cuff”,
Last edited:
T
TigerLily-1
Guest
Article in National Catholic Register:
K
KevinK
Guest
Another public relations catastrophe.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Pope Benedict XVI made statements which got four Catholic nuns killed in the Middle East.This is in contrast to Benedict XVI. The “Pope of Teaching”, Benedict was very introspective and thoughtful. Very measured with his words. You could always tell with both speech patterns and body language that he was much more comfortable in a smaller, more formal setting - like a university classroom (which makes sense, he used to be a professor).
He was unaware of the ramifications of what he said when he first became Pope.
Jim
Last edited:
P
Pobreton
Guest
I see that even the word “catastrophe” is being used here. It was actually the microscopic elite (some of them waging war… through Twitter… sounds familiar? The “SJW”) that attacks His Holiness that ended up being exposed in the news (here in México and in Chile):
Almost 90 extremists were arrested (arson, death threats, vandalism, etc.). That’s what the newspapers are reporting (and that’s even considering how incredibly leftist the media is around these parts):
http://lanacion.cl/2018/01/20/balan...as-durante-visita-del-papa-francisco-al-pais/
The “small” crowds some news outlets refer to were apparently “guesstimates” and one of those crowds consisted of almost half a million people (at least 400,000 by all reports I’ve seen). And, that’s even after the violent actions and threats on the part of the Catholicophobic extremists.
The Holy father also said things like:
Prominent people within our Church are taking the same stance: http://www.cooperativa.cl/noticias/...barros-es-una-polemica/2018-01-18/081809.html
The Pope also had a meeting with victims of sexual abuse. (To give some context: The radicals in the media were crucifying him, since before the New Year, because supposedly he was not going to meet with abuse victims. Now, they don’t have the guts to say: “Oops, our mistake…”)
Some chilenos are very angry at Barros. That is evident. The Christophobic media is using that to make unsuspecting people think that Catholicism is almost a thing of the past in Chile and they all hate the Pope. They are lying about known statistics, for instance, even the not-very-Christian-friendly Enc. Britannica has to acknowledge more realistic numbers: https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/30/184030-004-FFEFAA14.jpg
P.S.
Are you guys reading the things people are writing on the section for comments over at that Fox news site? Pffff…
P.S.S.
And just to clarify even further. The Pope said (emphasis added):
Almost 90 extremists were arrested (arson, death threats, vandalism, etc.). That’s what the newspapers are reporting (and that’s even considering how incredibly leftist the media is around these parts):
http://lanacion.cl/2018/01/20/balan...as-durante-visita-del-papa-francisco-al-pais/
The “small” crowds some news outlets refer to were apparently “guesstimates” and one of those crowds consisted of almost half a million people (at least 400,000 by all reports I’ve seen). And, that’s even after the violent actions and threats on the part of the Catholicophobic extremists.
The Holy father also said things like:
Listen , here: http://www.cooperativa.cl/noticias/...-chile/2018-01-17/184521.html#vtxt_cuerpo_T10“…No puedo dejar de manifestar el dolor y la vergüenza que siento ante el daño irreparable causado a niños por parte de ministros de la Iglesia. Me quiero unir a mis hermanos en el episcopado, ya que es justo pedir perdón y apoyar con todas las fuerzas a las víctimas, al mismo tiempo que hemos de empeñarnos para que no se vuelva a repetir.”
Prominent people within our Church are taking the same stance: http://www.cooperativa.cl/noticias/...barros-es-una-polemica/2018-01-18/081809.html
The Pope also had a meeting with victims of sexual abuse. (To give some context: The radicals in the media were crucifying him, since before the New Year, because supposedly he was not going to meet with abuse victims. Now, they don’t have the guts to say: “Oops, our mistake…”)
Some chilenos are very angry at Barros. That is evident. The Christophobic media is using that to make unsuspecting people think that Catholicism is almost a thing of the past in Chile and they all hate the Pope. They are lying about known statistics, for instance, even the not-very-Christian-friendly Enc. Britannica has to acknowledge more realistic numbers: https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/30/184030-004-FFEFAA14.jpg
P.S.
Are you guys reading the things people are writing on the section for comments over at that Fox news site? Pffff…
P.S.S.
And just to clarify even further. The Pope said (emphasis added):
There’s a difference between dismissing accusations (which is what some people in the media try to portray) and asking for proof.“El día que me traigan una prueba contra el obispo Barros, ahí voy a hablar. No hay una sola prueba en contra. Todo es calumnia, ¿está claro?”
Last edited:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
And I’d say he dismissed the accusations and questioned the integrity of the accusers:There’s a difference between dismissing accusations (which is what some people in the media try to portray) and asking for proof.
Spanish is one of the Pope’s native languages so there isn’t a translation issue. Using the phrase,Todo es calumnia
or, in English, “Is that clear?” is usually used to end discussion, not permit it."¿está claro?”
I’m afraid that this interaction will cause a lot of Catholics in Chile to leave the Church.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
The Pope is fluent in Spanish, no?
The Pope has been in diplomatically sensitive positions for at least 45 years, surely he would know how to speak softly when necessary. He could have dressed his skepticism in a less blunt manner. But he didn’t in this instance. Now I don’t know the particulars of this situation, but I’d still be asking what triggered him to drop the diplomacy.
The Pope has been in diplomatically sensitive positions for at least 45 years, surely he would know how to speak softly when necessary. He could have dressed his skepticism in a less blunt manner. But he didn’t in this instance. Now I don’t know the particulars of this situation, but I’d still be asking what triggered him to drop the diplomacy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.