Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[LongingSoul]

The most dangerous thing about fundamentalism is how it dulls and suppresses the spirit. It makes people capable of only paying lip service to love. They say they love, but in fact that are cold and hard hearted towards anyone who isn’t as pious as they are.

I would love to see a movement to take back the spirit completely in the faith. Make the use of ‘spirit of the law’ or ‘spirit of Vatican II’ wonderful concepts to run with, rather than used in discussions as a pejorative.

Todays gospel (I’m in Tuesday here) Luke 10:21 - 24 is perhaps a helpful one to contemplate for those who are feeling confused today?

Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said,
“I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
for although you have hidden these things
from the wise and the learned
you have revealed them to the childlike.
Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father.
No one knows who the Son is except the Father,
and who the Father is except the Son
and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.”

Turning to the disciples in private he said,
“Blessed are the eyes that see what you see.
For I say to you,
many prophets and kings desired to see what you see,
but did not see it,
and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.”

It never fails to surprise me how the gospel of the day can help with a distressing difficulty.

 

[friardchips]

I loved this! Thank you.

As much as I do love Pope Francis, his words are misinterpreted over and over again. It must be noted that I don’t believe he refers to “fundamentalism” the same as proclaiming the Truth with clarity and mercy. After all, that is Eternal Love as Christ Himself was merciful as proclaiming His Truth, Way, and Life.

I tend to view fundamentalism as the exact opposite of this! Only telling people how things should be done, while that in of itself is good, but doing so in a way that is cruel.

Thank you for showing appreciation. Your last sentence made me think that this is also true in relation to those in life whom we can all too often take for-granted.

 

[friardchips]

No.
I read the original.
It is the basics of conflict.
I believe I am absolutely right and you are completely wrong.
And that position causes much damage ,hurts .
I can post it in Spanish if you wish.
Peace

• this is it, I think. Along with Art321’s post. These points seem the most challenging because they are the most personal for each of us. They apply to every day. And because they are personal his words can have the effect of being ‘humbling’.

 

[graciew]

• this is it, I think. Along with Art321’s post. These points seem the most challenging because they are the most personal for each of us. They apply to every day. And because they are personal his words can have the effect of being ‘humbling’.

I edited and added a little more. It was a vrry interesting interview ,for me. And it is true that it is easier for us who can " translate" in our minds as he speaks our own langugae. I can understand that. It must be the same for you in American English.
And yes ,these words do also apply for us in our everyday ,I believe.
Peace.

 

[LoveMercyGrace]

I understand what Pope Francis is saying ( from my experience) because I have experienced this from others.
I have been the subject of gossip, judgement, and being scandalized. it is not important that it is “me”, whats important is this is a problem within the church and it is this fundamentalism which the Holy Father is addressing. this self righteousness,its terrible!
It hurts people, it turns them away, they may even decide the Catholic church is not the true church and leave.
If it were not for Pope Francis talks and daily homilies- he was chosen as Pope 2 months after I came back to the church…
if it were not for him, I know I would have left. He is a beacon of light. Pray for Pope Francis, he asks always, saying do not forget.
Have a blessed Advent!

 

[graciew]

Keep in mind that in Argentina there were Catholics who do not agree with Vatican II, who were also anti-semites and didn’t believe in the Holocaust.

Let’s also remember that Argentina had a large number of Nazi loyalists from Germany migrate there before and after World War II.

We American Catholics have a bad habit of viewing the whole Church based on our American experience.

In 19th Century New York City, there were Catholic vs Protestant gang fights for years.

And in Ireland today, see what happens if you wear orange in a bar on St. Patrick’s Day.

I have not experienced this in Argentina and it may be so.
He did not get into political.
In a.part he says that the Church / introduces our values into politics but bishops ,etc do not do politics.

 

[CRUSADER_KING]

Why is Pope Francis so confusing? What does he mean by “fundamentalist Catholic?” He continues to give modernists ammunition without any explanation. It’s embarrassing.

 

[Art321]

Why is Pope Francis so confusing? What does he mean by “fundamentalist Catholic?” He continues to give modernists ammunition without any explanation. It’s embarrassing.

I do believe that your attitude towards Pope Francis is completely misguided! There have been times that he has talked in very vague terms that have been twisted by the media to fit their own agenda, but I truly don’t think that he means that. And as if you read the thread, you would have seen what his message meant!!

Something that I have gotten from his statements is patience. From the wording of your post, it seems you could use this virtue. Come now brother!

 

[commenter]

I read over the text of the interview, now posted on another thread. The pope pointed out that all religions have fundamentalists, not just RC’s. He also pointed out that he does not like the word “tolerant”, a word which is almost blasphemous to criticize in 2015, when tolerance is worshiped!

I agree with the pope, that some Catholics use Catholic doctrine to bash other persons in the Church. That does not mean Catholic doctrine lacks the fullness of truth, it means people can be mean. Our doctrine must be affirmed, but always in love for persons.

 

[pianistclare]

Fundamentalism typically denys Mercy, forgiveness, etc. It is typically based on personal/heretical understanding of scripture, doctrine, dogma, etc.

Fundamentalism is also typically a kind of idolatry where the individual or group places too much focus on one part of the religion and misconstrues or ignores the rest of the teachings.

Fundamentalism leads to Islamic Terrorists, Westboro Baptist Church, etc.

Fundamentalism often condones or commits violence and/or hateful language/acts against non-believers.

A few examples of potential Catholic Fundamentalists would be:
– Catholics who hate all Protestant and/or Orthodox Christians
– Catholics who claim Vatican II is not a valid council
– Catholics who claim all non-Catholics are automatically going to Hell
– Catholics who claim all baptised Catholics are automatically going to Heaven
– Catholics who refuse to socially interact or allow their children to interact with non-Catholics
– Catholics who believe Jews should be eliminated
– Catholics who believe the Holocaust is a lie.

Fundamentalism also leads some to take weird or nonsensical positions as well. Like people who refuse legitimate medical treatments out of religious objections to all medicine.

In regards to the Catholic Church, any one who is truly faithful to the Church is NOT a “fundamentalist”

I pray this is helpful.

God Bless

 

[FollowChrist34]

Fundamentalism typically denys Mercy, forgiveness, etc. It is typically based on personal/heretical understanding of scripture, doctrine, dogma, etc.

Fundamentalism is also typically a kind of idolatry where the individual or group places too much focus on one part of the religion and misconstrues or ignores the rest of the teachings.

Fundamentalism leads to Islamic Terrorists, Westboro Baptist Church, etc.

Fundamentalism often condones or commits violence and/or hateful language/acts against non-believers.

A few examples of potential Catholic Fundamentalists would be:
– Catholics who hate all Protestant and/or Orthodox Christians
– Catholics who claim Vatican II is not a valid council
– Catholics who claim all non-Catholics are automatically going to Hell
– Catholics who claim all baptised Catholics are automatically going to Heaven
– Catholics who refuse to socially interact or allow their children to interact with non-Catholics
– Catholics who believe Jews should be eliminated
– Catholics who believe the Holocaust is a lie.

Fundamentalism also leads some to take weird or nonsensical positions as well. Like people who refuse legitimate medical treatments out of religious objections to all medicine.

In regards to the Catholic Church, any one who is truly faithful to the Church is NOT a “fundamentalist”

I pray this is helpful.

God Bless

Exactly. The Pope is referencing fundamentalism with respect to how some Catholics treat those outside of our faith - nothing to do with inner squabbles. I think he may also have how we treat Muslims in mind in addition to the above list, which is spot on.

 

[gilliam]

Exactly. The Pope is referencing fundamentalism with respect to how some Catholics treat those outside of our faith - nothing to do with inner squabbles. I think he may also have how we treat Muslims in mind in addition to the above list, which is spot on.

He may be talking about inner debates as well. The list you quoted isn’t the Holy Father’s, it is from a member here. It may or may not include what he was thinking of.

This is the full exchange:

**Philippine De Saint-Pierre, KTO (France): **Holiness, good afternoon, you paid homage to the platform created by the archbishop, the imam and the pastor of Bangui. Today more than ever, we know that fundamentalism threatens the entire planet. We also saw this in Paris. Before this danger, do you think that religious leaders should intervene more in the political field? (Pope Francis asks for clarification) …the religious “dignitaries,” bishops and imams?

Pope Francis: “To intervene in the political field.” If that means to make politics, no. Whoever is a priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, this is his vocation, but they make a “live politics” by preaching values. True values. And one of the greatest values is the fraternity among us. We are all children of God. We have the same father. In this sense, we have to make politics of unity, reconciliation. A word that I don’t like, but I have to use it is “tolerance.” But, not only tolerance, co-existence, friendship. That’s how it is. Fundamentalism is a sickness that exists in all religions. We Catholics have some, not just some, so many, who believe they have the absolute truth and they move forward with calumnies, with defamation and they hurt (people), they hurt. And, I say this because it’s my Church, also us, all of us. It must be combatted. Religious fundamentalism isn’t religious. Why? Because God is lacking. It’s idolatrous, as money is idolatrous. Making politics in the sense of convincing these people who have this tendency is a politics that we religious leaders must make, but fundamentalism that ends up always in tragedy or in crime, in a bad thing comes about in all religions a little bit.

Again he said, "That’s how it is. Fundamentalism is a sickness that exists in all religions. We Catholics have some, not just some, so many, who believe they have the absolute truth and they move forward with calumnies, with defamation and they hurt (people), they hurt"

 

[Landon_Caeli]

The root of the problem traces back to the very meaning of “religion”. Cicero, for example, thought that the Latin “religio” derived from the verb relegere in its sense of “to re-read or go over a text.” …But Augustine and Christian writer Lactantius rejected this!

Writing in the early fourth century, Lactantius opted for religare, a verb meaning “to fasten or bind.” “We are,” he said in his book “Divinae Institutiones,” “tied to God and bound to him [religati] by the bond of piety… Augustine, preferred this etymology to Cicero’s while suggesting yet another possibility: re-eligere, “to choose again,” religion being the recovery of the link with God that sin has sundered.

…It becomes quite clear that fundamentalism or the strict interpretation of the reading and rereading of texts were never truly Christian traits. Islamic or ancient Judaism? Probably so. But Christianity is rooted in piety and recovery from sin.

 

[gilliam]

The root of the problem traces back to the very meaning of “religion”. Cicero, for example, thought that the Latin “religio” derived from the verb relegere in its sense of “to re-read or go over a text.” …But Augustine and Christian writer Lactantius rejected this!

Writing in the early fourth century, Lactantius opted for religare, a verb meaning “to fasten or bind.” “We are,” he said in his book “Divinae Institutiones,” “tied to God and bound to him [religati] by the bond of piety… Augustine, preferred this etymology to Cicero’s while suggesting yet another possibility: re-eligere, “to choose again,” religion being the recovery of the link with God that sin has sundered.

…It becomes quite clear that fundamentalism or the strict interpretation of the reading and rereading of texts were never truly Christian traits. Islamic or ancient Judaism? Probably so. But Christianity is rooted in piety and recovery from sin.

Sorry, but this isn’t about semantics

 

[Landon_Caeli]

Sorry, but this isn’t about semantics

I worked a little too hard on that for it to be dismissed so quickly… Which part do you disagree with?

…You really don’t see the connection there?

…it describes the age old problem of fundamentalism since the 4th century and beyond.

 

[Ontheway]

Sometime ago on CAF Fr. Grodin wrote the following in answer to the question, “Was Jesus unfair to the Pharisees?”:

"The main issue that Jesus had with some Pharisees in the Gospels is not the Law but how the Law was applied. What happened over the centuries was that the Pharisees had not just tried to apply the Law but built ‘a fence around the Law.’ For example, the Law simply said to avoid work on the Sabbath. The ‘fence around the Law’ decided by Pharisees and scribes then meticulously defined ‘work.’ These decisions of men were considered equal to the Law.

"There was also the matter of emphasis, not all laws are created equal. Jesus attacked the idea of following the ‘minutiae’ to the detriment of the greater good those smaller laws were ordered towards.

“And then there’s the issue every religion faces: enforcement of law without the context of love or true justice. This is essentially the hypocrisy of appearing to follow the law but our internal disposition is the exact opposite of the point of the law.”

So it occurs to me that Fr. Grodin’s answer might describe the Holy Father’s issue with Catholic fundamentalists.

Thank you. This helps quite a bit. Pope’s comments were made in Spanish (?) so there may also be a translation issue. They also have to be taken within the context of his trip to Central Africa and the Christian/Muslim crisis there.

I think I feel a little better now.

 

[Ron_in_minden]

I like your definition of Catholic “fundamentalism”. Having said that, I don’t think I have ever encountered a Catholic who would hold such views. The Pope on the other hand seems to think that there are many. I wonder what he has in mind.

I too have yet to meet this type. I see it on tv and in the movies but I’ve never come across them in real life thank goodness. Maybe I’m just too young to remember the “bad old days” of which the pope talks about.

 

[Thomas_White]

Excellent comments by Pope Francis about fundamentalism, and I totally agree with the remarks. As the Pope said, we “have some–and not some, many–who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation and doing evil. They do evil.”

I think the pope is speaking of the fundamentalism of those who believe they are already in possession of the absolute truth and as a result are judgmental of others. This is no rare thing.

 

[Lost_Found]

Note to self -It’s been a rough day so why must i wade into the deep end of the pool, i should be playing in the shallows, finding a fun thread.

BUT I do need guidance on this since it has been bothering me as of late, therefore could someone please set me straight:

I keep hearing “MY Church” from particular Catholics. Why do Catholics say that? I thought it was Christ’s Church (Mt 16:18). It is not my Church, it is not even the Pope’s Church. When we see it as Christ’s Church, we don’t need to be apologetic for its beauty. We are not the authors of its beauty, that much I know; it’s only there because it’s a gift from God. I have yet to meet a human being who lives up to it, but that’s just obvious - We strive, but fall short. Yet we are called to strive. (Mt 5:48 be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect). It’s clear, that it’s not fair game to attack people, but we have a duty to attack bad ideas.
Which is it we are all arguing about? I wish it would be more clear - Are we disputing doctrine, pastoral approach, ideas, or people? One person is talking doctrine, their opponent is talking pastoral, and everyone is at arms. This brings much confusion to an everyday Catholic such as myself just trying to do the right thing.

 

[friardchips]

Sometime ago on CAF Fr. Grodin wrote the following in answer to the question, “Was Jesus unfair to the Pharisees?”:

"The main issue that Jesus had with some Pharisees in the Gospels is not the Law but how the Law was applied. What happened over the centuries was that the Pharisees had not just tried to apply the Law but built ‘a fence around the Law.’ For example, the Law simply said to avoid work on the Sabbath. The ‘fence around the Law’ decided by Pharisees and scribes then meticulously defined ‘work.’ These decisions of men were considered equal to the Law.

"There was also the matter of emphasis, not all laws are created equal. Jesus attacked the idea of following the ‘minutiae’ to the detriment of the greater good those smaller laws were ordered towards.

“And then there’s the issue every religion faces: enforcement of law without the context of love or true justice. This is essentially the hypocrisy of appearing to follow the law but our internal disposition is the exact opposite of the point of the law.”

So it occurs to me that Fr. Grodin’s answer might describe the Holy Father’s issue with Catholic fundamentalists.

Reading this again this makes a lot of sense.