Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[graciew]

The words in Spanish ,particularly porteño Spanish spoken in Buenos Aires are:
" que se.creen con la verdad absoluta ".
This is expression of an attitude.
Say you want to have a dialogue with a person or group that is intransigent. They believe themselves to know it all and will not concede anything. They won t listen ,they believe themselves owners of the truth.
It is very clear in our language. The phrase can in fact be applied to any sort of discussion.
The tone of the whole interview is very simple. He is answering to journalists.
He also adds that religious fundamentalism is not religious. It is idolatry. God is missing.
He ends up saying fundamentalism ends up in tragedy ,in something evil ,in an attack .
Here are my sources in Spanish. Main newspaper and a Catholic source ,in case.anyone wishes to translate the full conference.

lanacion.com.ar/1850151-la-conferencia-de-prensa-completa-del-papa-al-regresar-de-su-gira-por-africa

aciprensa.com/noticias/texto-rueda-de-prensa-con-el-papa-francisco-en-el-avion-de-regreso-a-roma-desde-africa-10626/

Peace…Peace on earth…

 

[ComplineSanFran]

From the article:

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the pontiff. “We Catholics have some–and not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, with doing evil. They do evil. I say this because it is my church.”

This is what Pope Francis said about Catholic fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are those who believe they possess the absolute truth.

Do any of you know Karen Armstrong and her writings on religion? The History of God, The Case for God, etc. She is an excellent historian and religion scholar. Her book on fundamentalism called The Battle for God describes fundamentalism as present in all the major world religions, mostly rising in the 20th c and essentially coming out of a fear of modernity. Fundamentalism, she writes, is a backlash and digging in to reclaim the traditional to an extreme. Fundamentalists need to have things rigidly in black and white, good vs evil, and will resort to violence to claim righteously what they believe is true and right.

And no, it is not only an American Protestant dynamic. And yes, it is clearly within Roman Catholicism, as the Pope has tried naming.

The book is 10 years old so Armstrong foresees much of what is happening in the US and Islam.

It is worth a read - I haven’t since it came out but will do so again, with open eyes.

 

[Thomas_White]

Do any of you know Karen Armstrong and her writings on religion? The History of God, The Case for God, etc. She is an excellent historian and religion scholar. Her book on fundamentalism called The Battle for God describes fundamentalism as present in all the major world religions, mostly rising in the 20th c and essentially coming out of a fear of modernity. Fundamentalism, she writes, is a backlash and digging in to reclaim the traditional to an extreme. Fundamentalists need to have things rigidly in black and white, good vs evil, and will resort to violence to claim righteously what they believe is true and right.

And no, it is not only an American Protestant dynamic. And yes, it is clearly within Roman Catholicism, as the Pope has tried naming.

The book is 10 years old so Armstrong foresees much of what is happening in the US and Islam.

It is worth a read - I haven’t since it came out but will do so again, with open eyes.

Yes, I know of Karen Armstrong and read one of her books about Buddhism some years ago. The History of God sounds interesting, and I might read it. Thanks for the comment.

I would agree that a component of fundamentalism is a rigid attitude of certainty, where the belief is that one’s view is necessarily correct because it is the “absolute truth”. I think this becomes more ideology than religion.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Treat Karen Armstrong’s writing with suspicion. Personally I avoid here after “History of God”. This thread has some criticism although I’d go further…much further

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223390

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Karen Armstrong was an Anglican Nun, who now professes more towards Buddhism, but she’s very open to all spiritual tradtions.

I have never read any one her works, but saw her speak on Book-TV, promoting one of her books, which one I can’t remember.

She was also the scriptural consultant for the PBS series, on the history of Christianity. She ended up in a conflict with the producers and in her talk she said how they rejected whatever she found that provided support for Christianity’s traditional beliefs about Jesus and only wanted what would was questionable, or controversial.

Anyway, I open to listening to what she has to say, for she is a scholar and I would not reject her writings just because they’re rejected at CAF.

I know well accepted Catholic authors who are rejected here, which only proves the fundamentalist nature of some Catholics.

Jim

 

[clem456]

…
Fundamentalists need to have things rigidly in black and white, good vs evil, and will resort to violence to claim righteously what they believe is true and right.

And no, it is not only an American Protestant dynamic. And yes, it is clearly within Roman Catholicism, as the Pope has tried naming.
…

Thanks for appreciating the Pope. What fundamentalists need is “good” people who profess belief in the good, beautiful, and true, but do not really believe it, for fear of being called “certain”. That’s the breeding ground of fundamentalism. “Meh, whatever”, is where fundamentalism thrives.

…
I would agree that a component of fundamentalism is a rigid attitude of certainty, where the belief is that one’s view is necessarily correct because it is the “absolute truth”. I think this becomes more ideology than religion.

Neither one of you understand what fundamentalism is. Compline at least includes the essential element the Pope included in his short remarks: violence.

The assertion that belief and adherence to absolute truth equates to fundamentalism is nonsense.
A person who cannot give certainty to absolute truths as revealed by God paves the road for tragedy.

Simple question:
Do either one of you believe that human beings are made in the image of God?
Yes or no? (yes I know, it’s one of those black and white questions you don’t like)
To what degree do you believe it? Do you give your whole assent? Do you give your whole life to that belief? Or is it just an optional platitude, something Christ taught us to make us feel good? Is it true for all people or just for those who feel it?

Do you believe that human beings have an absolute right to food, water, work, safety, peace, freedom of religion?
Yes or no?
Really? Do you believe this with any certainty whatsoever? Or only when it sounds good to you?

Look at your definition of fundamentalism again, and think about the holocaust, and the tragedy of abortion, and those starving in squalid circumstances, all those who are trampled on, because your faith asks too much commitment from you.

These things happen because well intentioned people take what is true and turn their heads from it. You set the table for the very fundamentalism you decry. Fundamentalists are sending you thank you cards as we speak.

Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God and have inestimable worth. That’s absolutely true and I am certain of it. The whole of the Christian faith points to Jesus Christ as the truth, and what he asks of us in response.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Karen Armstrong was an Anglican Nun, who now professes more towards Buddhism, but she’s very open to all spiritual tradtions.

I know well accepted Catholic authors who are rejected here, which only proves the fundamentalist nature of some Catholics.

Jim

Jim, Karen is Roman Catholic, not Anglican.

 

[Thomas_White]

Simple question:
Do either one of you believe that human beings are made in the image of God?
Yes or no? (yes I know, it’s one of those black and white questions you don’t like)
To what degree do you believe it? Do you give your whole assent? Do you give your whole life to that belief? Or is it just an optional platitude, something Christ taught us to make us feel good? Is it true for all people or just for those who feel it?

When we were very young, there was a drawing in our catechisms of a elderly white male with a long beard who sat on a throne in the clouds. This was purportedly a likeness of God. Do I now believe this was a likeness of God? No. Though I accepted this at the age of seven, I no longer believe that we are made in the image of God simply means we look like him in our appearance.

I will admit I do not know what it means that we are made in the image of God, but I do know this revelation is promised to those who attain salvation. Is it that you now have this knowledge?

Does this answer your question?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, Karen is Roman Catholic, not Anglican.

Right!

I stand corrected.

However, she left the Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus only after seven years.

Jim

 

[clem456]

MAN: THE IMAGE OF GOD

1701 "Christ, . . . in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, makes man fully manifest to himself and brings to light his exalted vocation."2 It is in Christ, "the image of the invisible God,"3 that man has been created “in the image and likeness” of the Creator. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, disfigured in man by the first sin, has been restored to its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.4

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).

1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7 (HELLO?)

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."8

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."9 Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

1707 …Man is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness.11

This is not something I ever have occasion to bring up on the street or at the parish, but since what qualifies as acceptable belief is a hot topic of discussion here, I’d like to propose a question…

I’d be curious how many posters here are willing to give the passage above the assent of their faith? To what degree of certainty? Is it confusing? Is it harsh? Is it uncompromising? Is it absolutely fundamentalist?
If not, what part of human dignity do you wish to throw in the dumpster?

(Vatican Radio) Lukewarm Christians are those who want to build a church to their own specifications, but it is not the Church of Jesus: this is what Pope Francis said today during a Mass in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae. Present at the Mass were volunteers from the pediatric dispensary “Santa Marta” in the Vatican, entrusted to the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, who for 90 years have supported children and families in need in Rome without distinction of religion or nationality. Listen
The first Christian community, after the persecution, lives a moment of peace, it is united, it walks and grows “in the fear of the Lord and with the comfort of the Holy Spirit”: This was the Pope’s comment following the reading from the Acts of the Apostles. It is this very air in which the Church lives and breathes, called to walk in the presence of God in an irreproachable manner:
"It 'is a style of the Church. To walk in the fear of the Lord is a 'sense of adoration, the presence of God, no? The Church walks and so when we are in the presence of God we do not do bad things or make bad decisions. We are in God’s sight with joy and happiness: this is the security of the Holy Spirit, that is the gift that the Lord has given us - this comfort - that keeps us going. "
In the Gospel from the liturgy of the day many disciples truly believe the language of Jesus, they whisper, are shocked and eventually leave the Master:
**"These people have turned away, they are gone, they say, ‘this man is a bit’ strange, he says things that are hard…It 's too big a risk to go down this road. We have common sense, eh? Let’s go ‘back a little and not so close to Him’. These people, perhaps, had a certain admiration for Jesus, but little ‘from afar: not to meddle too much with this man, because he says things that are a bit’ strange … “.
These Christians - the Pope said - " are not united in the Church, they do not walk in God’s presence, they don’t have the security of the Holy Spirit, they do not make up the Church”:
"They are Christians of good sense only: they keep their distance. Christians - so to speak they are - ‘satellites’, that have a small church, in size: to quote the words of Jesus in Revelation, ‘lukewarm Christians’. The indifference that is in the Church … They walk only in the presence of common sense, common sense … that worldly prudence: This is a temptation just worldly prudence. "
**Pope Francis reflected on so many Christians “that now bear witness to the name of Jesus, even unto martyrdom.” These - he says - are not ‘Christian satellites’, because “they go with Jesus on the path of Jesus”:
"These people know exactly what Peter says to the Lord. They understand exactly what Peter says the Lord, when the Lord asks the question: ‘Do you also want to go, be’ Christian satellites ‘?’. Simon Peter answers him: 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life '. So from a large group there becomes a group a little 'smaller, but those who know perfectly well that they cannot go somewhere else, because only He, the Lord, has the words of eternal life. "
The Pope finally recites this prayer:
"Let us pray for the Church, will continue to grow, unite, to walk in the fear of God and with the security of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord deliver us from the temptation of that ‘common sense’, and in inverted commas, “the temptation to whisper against Jesus, because it is too demanding, and the temptation from scandal. So be it. "

 

[edwest2]

Do any of you know Karen Armstrong and her writings on religion? The History of God, The Case for God, etc. She is an excellent historian and religion scholar. Her book on fundamentalism called The Battle for God describes fundamentalism as present in all the major world religions, mostly rising in the 20th c and essentially coming out of a fear of modernity. Fundamentalism, she writes, is a backlash and digging in to reclaim the traditional to an extreme. Fundamentalists need to have things rigidly in black and white, good vs evil, and will resort to violence to claim righteously what they believe is true and right.

And no, it is not only an American Protestant dynamic. And yes, it is clearly within Roman Catholicism, as the Pope has tried naming.

The book is 10 years old so Armstrong foresees much of what is happening in the US and Islam.

It is worth a read - I haven’t since it came out but will do so again, with open eyes.

I don’t believe any Catholics are resorting to violence. Second, Jesus was quite black and white and does anyone expect less? Jesus was merciful but Western culture has clearly been promoting greyness if not “Hey. What’s the big deal?” The Truth is buried in the process. Pope Benedict:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

I am advocating for 100% truth. Black and white. This is right and this is wrong - backed up by constant Church teaching, not my will.

A sinner,

Ed

 

[Thomas_White]

This is not something I ever have occasion to bring up on the street or at the parish, but since what qualifies as acceptable belief is a hot topic of discussion here, I’d like to propose a question…

I’d be curious how many posters here are willing to give the passage above the assent of their faith? To what degree of certainty? Is it confusing? Is it harsh? Is it uncompromising? Is it absolutely fundamentalist?
If not, what part of human dignity do you wish to throw in the dumpster?

Seriously? What is “acceptable belief”? Are there unacceptable beliefs? Here is a bit of advice, offered with all due respect. These are complex questions, and a person is likely to find themselves twisted up in logic that resembles a pretzel in trying to define the ineffable limits of faith and “absolute truth”. These are beyond the limits of human understanding and language and are not concepts or ideas of the intellect.

It is the mistaken belief that one posseses the “absolute truth” that is the difficulty with fundamentalism. While this might be possible, it would be so only for the extraordinarily spiritual, one who literally is a Saint.

 

[JimG]

Obviously man is not made in the “image and likeness of God,” in terms of his body, since God has no body. We are made in the image and likeness of God in terms of our spiritual soul’s ability to reason by means of the intellect and to love, by means of the will. This is not a new teaching.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Obviously man is not made in the “image and likeness of God,” in terms of his body, since God has no body. We are made in the image and likeness of God in terms of our spiritual soul’s ability to reason by means of the intellect and to love, by means of the will. This is not a new teaching.

God has a body in Jesus Christ.

His body is now a glorified body, but a human body nonetheless.

Jim

 

[Thomas_White]

Obviously man is not made in the “image and likeness of God,” in terms of his body, since God has no body. We are made in the image and likeness of God in terms of our spiritual soul’s ability to reason by means of the intellect and to love, by means of the will. This is not a new teaching.

The question posed was whether one believed that human beings are made in the image of God. The belief that man is made in the image of God is one thing, but “absolute truth” is quite another. The question was in that way irrelevant, but it does provide an example of the complexity of the issue when it could not be reduced to a proper question.

 

[JimG]

God has a body in Jesus Christ.

His body is now a glorified body, but a human body nonetheless.

Jim

True, the Second Person of the Trinity has a human nature including a human body by reason of the hypostatic union wherein he took on a human nature.

 

[JimG]

The question posed was whether one believed that human beings are made in the image of God. The belief that man is made in the image of God is one thing, but “absolute truth” is quite another. The question was in that way irrelevant, but it does provide an example of the complexity of the issue when it could not be reduced to a proper question.

I thought that the question was whether one believed that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and if so, is that a true belief, and is it absolutely true?

 

[HolyCrusader007]

I think again there is a problem with his words being lost in translation.

It is when we sit on self-made thrones saying that everyone is damned to Hell and that every other religious follower is evil that our religion stops being ‘religion’ and becomes ‘idolatry’. Our Lord did not sit on a throne when He came down from Heaven but took the form of a slave (though He spoke with Authority). It was the Scribe and Pharisees who were the ‘fundamentalists’. I’m sure we can all be a bit like this. This is a healthy reminder. It is not that we don’t have the whole truth - this is the where I think the translation has incurred problems - it is that we think ourselves superior because of we know the truth, or at least, we let knowledge of the truth cut us off from others and we build canyons instead of bridges. As for a certain religion specifically, then I see this particular religion as a bit for those who can believe what they want from it, and so in terms of him having friends who are categorised by their ‘…’ religion, I’d say they are just prayerful people who believe in love and find some good in their ‘religion’. I am not sure he is infallible on matters of Islam so it doesn’t worry me. But he is the Pope. The important thing is to trust that he spoke with authority, which he does, and if we find his words challenging then they will be good for us for he is here to serve us and shepherd us. He is right as far as he needs to be and is required to be. His words made me think. I am grateful he spoke them. What he is infallible over is Love Eternal. He speaks with love. In Love. And for Love.

St. Paul said that we should try to be everything for everyone whom we meet. How can we be everything to others when we assert ourselves with over-riding feelings of grandeur?

I find that the words may have been lost in translation. There have been cases where english news sites have misinterpreted the Popes words.

That said, I have 100% confidence in Pope Francis. Francis has played a huge roll wrt my faith. Pope Francis has strengthened my faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Thomas_White]

I thought that the question was whether one believed that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and if so, is that a true belief, and is it absolutely true?

It seems the question cannot even be framed. Belief is the assumption or trust that something is true. An “absolute truth” is a universal that is an unalterable and permanent fact. It is not belief. Pope Francis has said fundamentalism is the belief that one is in possession of the “absolute truth”, and belief is by definition not “absolute truth”. The belief that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God cannot be known as an “absolute truth” as the result of belief, as the term is commonly understood. It is a belief.

 

[JimG]

It seems the question cannot even be framed. Belief is the assumption or trust that something is true. An “absolute truth” is a universal that is an unalterable and permanent fact. It is not belief. Pope Francis has said fundamentalism is the belief that one is in possession of the “absolute truth”, and belief is by definition not “absolute truth”. The belief that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God cannot be known as an “absolute truth” as the result of belief. It is a belief.

So… a belief, which may or may not be true?

How many Catholic beliefs will I need to doubt the truth of to avoid being a fundamentalist?