Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[jay29]

I fear for the Church right now. In my opinion the pope doesn’t give a hoot for Tradition and I think neither do most of the cardinals that voted for him.

 

[dans0622]

I fear for the Church right now. In my opinion the pope doesn’t give a hoot for Tradition and I think neither do most of the cardinals that voted for him.

Hello,

That’s a rather broad indictment. Upon what do you base this opinion? Why would Pope Benedict, who appointed the vast majority of the Cardinals who participated in the last conclave, have picked such men? About which parts of “Tradition” do you speak?

Dan

 

[McCall1981]

I fear for the Church right now. In my opinion the pope doesn’t give a hoot for Tradition and I think neither do most of the cardinals that voted for him.

I wouldn’t say “doesn’t give a hoot”, but I have some concerns about this as well, so I know where you’re coming from.

If you’re feeling discouraged, remember that the generation at the top of the hierarchy now is from the generation of Priests that lead the “novelties” of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. The generation coming up behind them seems a bit more traditional, so as this younger group moves from being Seminarians/Priests to being Bishops/Cardinals/Popes you might be more happy with the situation.

 

[triumphguy]

Being elected Pope is quite Traditional, in fact it’s probably even more Traditional than almost any other Tradition in the Church.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I fear for the Church right now. In my opinion the pope doesn’t give a hoot for Tradition and I think neither do most of the cardinals that voted for him.

This is a grave accusation about the most senior members of the clergy. Your definition of “tradition” seems to be very far from the Church’s view.

I recommend that you read through the Holy Father’s homilies and audiences - all available on the Vatican website - before you accuse him of “not giving a hoot” for the Church and her traditions.

 

[TimothyH]

Just a point of interest…

Tradition with a capital “T” is part of revealed truth. Sacred Tradition It can never be changed. Truth revealed to us by God cannot be changed. The Pope’s primary mission is to defend the teachings of the Church (based on Tradition) from error.

Lower case “t” traditions are the things we have always done or the things we have done for a long time.

Upper case “T” Tradition is not the same as lower case “t” tradition.

-Tim-

 

[McCall1981]

This is very true, his homilies have gone a long way towards helping me feel better, they’re very good.

Jay29 (or anyone else) here is a link to his homilies, audiences, etc

vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/index.htm

 

[Brendan_64]

Who then defines ‘tradition’? Who defines what traditions ought to be kept and what traditions ought to be altered and adapted to meet the needs of evangelisation in our ever changing world? Who ought to do this if not the Pope and the cardinals of our church?

Or would you rather have a model of the Church whereby each Ordinary decides on the ‘traditions’ for his particular diocese?

The traditions of our Church are not preserved in aspic, they alter and change over time, they always have done. Faith and Morals remain constant, but other procedural practices are simply tools that can be adapted, altered or binned depending on what the hierarchy of our Church feel is useful to propagate the Word of the Lord on Earth and help save as many souls she it can.

 

[Brendan_64]

Social Justic and orthodoxy are not two extremes that have to be brought together. The divide between personal morality and social justice is a false divide.

Injustice is when you deny someone something which is theirs by right. When a man is unfaithful to his wife, he denies her the fidelity which is hers by right. He also denies God faithfullness to the commandments which is God’s by right. Adultery is therefor both a sin and an injustice.

Social justice is concerned with the dignity of man. Dignity is something which is every person’s by right. We are all made in God’s image and God himself became man and died for every single one of us without exception. Every single person, including the toothless homeless guy who lives under the freeway overpass, has infinite value in God’s eyes. When that homless man suffers in pain because he can’t get pain medication or goes three days without food, it is a loss of dignity which is his by right as as someone who is made in God’s image and someone for whom God himself became man and died for.

Every sin is injustice and every injustice is sin. All sin is injustice and all injustice is sin. A world which is perfectly just would have no sin and a world without sin would be perfetly just. No one would sin and everyone would have the dignity which Christ won for them on the cross.

Pope Francis exhibits a breathtaking understanding of the link between justice and morality in so much of his actions. It is amazing to hear people speak about his orthodox positions on personal morality and to hear others ooze over his care for the poor, but to him they are one and the same issue.

-Tim-

Great post!

 

[Brendan_64]

Interesting way to put it. I cherished Benedict too, and I think when he left I sort adopted a low expectations position during the conclave. For me, the “new Pope” didn’t have to be great or inspiring, I just wanted him to be orthodox

You mean orthodox, as opposed to heterodox

There can only be orthodox or heterodox. If we had a heterodox pope we would be in very serious trouble indeed. I don’t think any of the cardinals that could have been chosen as pope could be described as heterodox.

 

[devoutchristian]

I don’t think any of the cardinals that could have been chosen as pope could be described as heterodox.

Some of them were liberation theology sympathizes or supporters. Thus the Holy Spirit didn’t choose them.

 

[Brendan_64]

Some of them were liberation theology sympathizes or supporters. Thus the Holy Spirit didn’t choose them.

That would still not make them heterodox.

 

[devoutchristian]

That would still not make them heterodox.

Yes it would.

 

[McCall1981]

You mean orthodox, as opposed to heterodox

There can only be orthodox or heterodox. If we had a heterodox pope we would be in very serious trouble indeed. I don’t think any of the cardinals that could have been chosen as pope could be described as heterodox.

I know there are rules about speaking badly of Church officials and such, so I’ll stay general when I say that there are a couple of Cardinals I personally believe would not be orthodox Popes. Do I know this for a fact, no, but I certainly think it’s true. They were not picked (and admittedly they probably never had a realistic chance), so there you go

Also, I suppose by saying orthodox I mean not just having a baseline acceptence of Church teachings, but being “strong” in defending Church teachings as well.

 

[McCall1981]

Yes it would.

The Church formally condemned Liberation Theology, so no one is officially in that movement any more, but some “lean” in that direction. I think their orthodoxy would depend on how much they lean.

 

[Brendan_64]

The Church formally condemned Liberation Theology, so no one is officially in that movement any more, but some “lean” in that direction. I think their orthodoxy would depend on how much they lean.

Could you point me to that specific declaration that it is contrary to the teachings of our Church. I don’t just mean the disapproval of it by Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II.

 

[devoutchristian]

The Church formally condemned Liberation Theology, so no one is officially in that movement any more, but some “lean” in that direction. I think their orthodoxy would depend on how much they lean.

Of course, that is what i meant.

 

[McCall1981]

Could you point me to that specific declaration that it is contrary to the teachings of our Church. I don’t just mean the disapproval of it by Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II.

This is the doc I know of::

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html

I’m not an expert on this or anything though. Here’s a thread discussing this issue, if you’re interested.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199233

“Liberation Theology” is a broad term, and there is a lot of variation between the people that adhere to it, so what LT exactly consists of, and what is speficially condemned about it, are (as I understand it) more general principles.

When JP II and Benedict spoke against it though, they did so in the offical capacity of their position as Pope or head of the CDF, so it wasn’t just their personl opinion. If anyone else knows more about it, I’d be interested too.

 

[Brendan_64]

This is the doc I know of::

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html

I’m not an expert on this or anything though. Here’s a thread discussing this issue, if you’re interested.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199233

“Liberation Theology” is a broad term, and there is a lot of variation between the people that adhere to it, so what LT exactly consists of, and what is speficially condemned about it, are (as I understand it) more general principles.

When JP II and Benedict spoke against it though, they did so in the offical capacity of their position as Pope or head of the CDF, so it wasn’t just their personl opinion. If anyone else knows more about it, I’d be interested too.

The instruction refers to

“The present Instruction has a much more limited and precise purpose: to draw the attention of pastors, theologians, and all the faithful to the deviations, and risks of deviation, damaging to the faith and to Christian living, that are brought about by certain forms of liberation theology which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought…”

So in itself it is not condemning all forms of liberation theology, or even all forms of liberation theology that use concepts borrowed from Marxist thought, but only forms of liberation theology that use Marxist concepts in an insufficiently critical manner.

This instruction stops well short of declaring liberation theology to be heterodox and incompatible with the teachings of the Church.

I’m certainly not a proponent of liberation theology, but I sometimes think that much hostility towards it from many Catholic laypeople is politically, rather than theologically motivated.

I’ll put my cards on the table, I’m have socialist political views (of a democratic socialist nature) myself, and I see no conflict between these and my faith, not does the Church, but that still doesn’t stop certain laypeople trying to claim that somehow my political views are incompatible with the teachings of the Church.

I do sometimes think that people get their political and theological views mixed up, and think that because they disapprove of a political viewpoint it follows that it must be contrary to the religious beliefs that they hold dear, and that works on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[McCall1981]

The instruction refers to

“The present Instruction has a much more limited and precise purpose: to draw the attention of pastors, theologians, and all the faithful to the deviations, and risks of deviation, damaging to the faith and to Christian living, that are brought about by certain forms of liberation theology which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought…”

So in itself it is not condemning all forms of liberation theology, or even all forms of liberation theology that use concepts borrowed from Marxist thought, but only forms of liberation theology that use Marxist concepts in an insufficiently critical manner.

This instruction stops well short of declaring liberation theology to be heterodox and incompatible with the teachings of the Church.

I’m certainly not a proponent of liberation theology, but I sometimes think that much hostility towards it from many Catholic laypeople is politically, rather than theologically motivated.

I’ll put my cards on the table, I’m have socialist political views (of a democratic socialist nature) myself, and I see no conflict between these and my faith, not does the Church, but that still doesn’t stop certain laypeople trying to claim that somehow my political views are incompatible with the teachings of the Church.

I do sometimes think that people get their political and theological views mixed up, and think that because they disapprove of a political viewpoint it follows that it must be contrary to the religious beliefs that they hold dear, and that works on both sides of the political spectrum.

I see what you’re saying, but Liberation Theology was a very broad movement. It was not a specific set of doctrinal statements that the Church could look at and check off which were orthodox or not in black and white kind of way. LT had both good and bad aspects, both orthodox and non-orthodox. I think it’s pretty clear that the Church rejected the core principles that defined what liberation theology was, so I think the Church rejected LT about as strongly as possible given that it was a broad movement (but we certainly don’t have to agree, there is definitely some grey area there).

That being said, I think you’re right that certain socialist beliefs are definitely compatible with Catholicism. The early church when they shared everything certainly had some things in common with it. I think the problem comes from the fact that practicly speaking, in today’s society, socialist economic beliefs are virtually always paired with atheism etc. But you’re absolutely right that these things don’t have to go together.

I think it’s good that the Church kind of crosses up the political spectrum a bit by having some views associated with “liberals” and some associated with “conservatives”. Its a reminder that we shouldn’t try to be liberal or conservative, but Catholic.