Pope Francis criticises ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics

[friardchips]

Like so many other things in faith, it’s not either/or.

Spiritual people are not ignorant or timid of teaching.
And Canon lawyers and theologians are not necessarily un-spiritual people.

A healthy spiritual person does listen to the Church to discover Christ and bring him to others.
One word for listen is
“ob-audiere”, or obedience, which is a word many people using modern notions of spirituality consider problematic.
And yes, if we obsess on our own way of thinking, we become fundamentalists. Some fundamentalists exalt church teaching for their own purposes, some try to bend it and change it to their own purposes.

So it’s not a matter of who’s talking about teaching and who’s not. Love is the fulfillment of it all, and that’s the challenge.

Not wanting to take the thread too far back, I liked this post. I think it seems to express the need for reliance on the Holy Spirit to guide us as individuals within the Church community also as a whole. Without this reliance we can put up road blocks and become blockheads who obsess over blockages; rather, we need to clear the roads, and make our paths straight.

 

[AnneTeresa]

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.

Can you show where the pope talked about the “bad old days”? I’ve never heard that before.

 

[Thomas_White]

Can you show where the pope talked about the “bad old days”? I’ve never heard that before.

I think the “bad old days” of the popes were many centuries ago, probably during the Middle Ages.

There is a quote from an interview where Pope Benedict XVI is asked whether he believes the Holy Spirit guides the conclave of cardinals in the election of the next pope. He replied that this was true only in a general sense, and he meant it was true only if the cardinals were attentive to the Holy Spirit but through the ages there had been a number of examples of “bad popes”.

 

[clem456]

The ultimate Pope in need of forgiveness:

Peter was following at a distance. 55After they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting among them. 56And a servant-girl, seeing him as he sat in the firelight and looking intently at him, said, “This man was with Him too.” 57But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know Him.” 58A little later, another saw him and said, “You are one of them too!” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” 59After about an hour had passed, another man began to insist, saying, “Certainly this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean too.” 60But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” Immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. 61The Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, “Before a rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times.” 62And he went out and wept bitterly.

He knew Jesus personally, and denied him.
That’s a tough one to top.

 

[phil19034]

You know, I’ve been in the church for 33 years and have yet to meet or see one of these horrible mean fundamentalists.

Have met a lot of folks in Church who’ve told me that every heresy under the sun was a-okay though.

I think it depends on where you live. Also the Catholic fundamentalists are usually quiet in the Parish (unless they attend a schismatic chapel).

In America, most parishes are influenced by the progressives, so the fundamentalists (if they haven’t left the parish) usually keep their mouths shut.

But I would venture to guess that most Catholic fundamentalists either attend a schematic chapel or keep their mouth shut in the parish and only discuss their fundamentalism with family.

But the point is that “Catholic fundamentalists” are NOT orthodox in their faith and they are NOT loyal to the magisterium (yet they claim to be both)

 

[clem456]

I think it depends on where you live. Also the Catholic fundamentalists are usually quiet in the Parish (unless they attend a schismatic chapel).

In America, most parishes are influenced by the progressives, so the fundamentalists (if they haven’t left the parish) usually keep their mouths shut.

But I would venture to guess that most Catholic fundamentalists either attend a schematic chapel or keep their mouth shut in the parish and only discuss their fundamentalism with family.

But the point is that “Catholic fundamentalists” are NOT orthodox in their faith and they are NOT loyal to the magisterium (yet they claim to be both)

Do you think that a “progressive” can be a fundamentalist?

 

[Thomas_White]

Do you think that a “progressive” can be a fundamentalist?

No, “progressive” has the opposite meaning of the word “fundamentalism”. It would require a redefinition of they way the word is commonly understood.

 

[friardchips]

No, “progressive” has the opposite meaning of the word “fundamentalism”. It would require a redefinition of they way the word is commonly understood.

I think they overlap. Normally a fundamentalist is vulnerable also to odd interpretations from progressives. Progressive fundamentalists could be summed up as heretics because they venture so far off the ball that they might as well belong to non-Catholic churches. It is sad. But hey, whose perfect. No one.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think they overlap. Normally a fundamentalist is vulnerable also to odd interpretations from progressives. Progressive fundamentalists could be summed up as heretics because they venture so far off the ball that they might as well belong to non-Catholic churches. It is sad. But hey, whose perfect. No one.

fundamentalism: literalism as applied to scripture, dogma and doctrine; a strong interest in returning to a previous ideal.

This is not a definition of progressivism.

 

[phil19034]

Do you think that a “progressive” can be a fundamentalist?

ahhh… I don’t know, I guess it depends on the topic? However, I do think they are similar, but they are usually extreme opposites.

Either way, both are out of balance, out of harmony, and sometimes even heterodox.

For example:
– a progressive will tend to overemphasize Mercy and de-emphasize Divine Law (Justice)
– a fundamentalist will tend to overemphasize Divine Law (Justice) and de-emphasize Mercy

To be in harmony and orthodox, we must be 100% all in for Mercy while being 100% all in for Divine Law at the exact same time. Bishop Barron did a great job talking about this during his keynote speech at the World Meeting of Families.

God Bless

 

[JimR-OCDS]

fundamentalism: literalism as applied to scripture, dogma and doctrine; a strong interest in returning to a previous ideal.

This is not a definition of progressivism.

Correct.

There seems to be an attempt to redefine the term for some reason.

I think I know why, but won’t get into it.

Jim

 

[friardchips]

fundamentalism: literalism as applied to scripture, dogma and doctrine; a strong interest in returning to a previous ideal.

This is not a definition of progressivism.

Which is why I said that fundamentalists are vulnerable to progressive understandings, because they’re ideas are already somewhat narrowed, and so can tend to float into the wrong areas for research and get caught up in all funny ideas with funny-minded people. Fanatics and progressives overlap sometimes. An odd mixture, granted. But it happens.

The link: lack of spiritual application and tendencies for applying practical meanings at the omission of spiritual insight. It applies to both quarters so often play in fields not far away from the other though fighting from different corners initially.

Whatever you do don’t get caught in the middle otherwise you’ll get an ear-ache on both sides.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Which is why I said that fundamentalists are vulnerable to progressive understandings, because they’re ideas are already somewhat narrowed, and so can tend to float into the wrong areas for research and get caught up in all funny ideas with funny-minded people. Fanatics and progressives overlap sometimes. An odd mixture, granted. But it happens.

The link: lack of spiritual application and tendencies for applying practical meanings at the omission of spiritual insight. It applies to both quarters so often play in fields not far away from the other though fighting from different corners initially.

Whatever you do don’t get caught in the middle otherwise you’ll get an ear-ache on both sides.

This would be incorrect because the fundamentalists is not listening to those outside their political/religious ideology.

Jim

 

[clem456]

This would be incorrect because the fundamentalists is not listening to those outside their political/religious ideology.

Jim

More accurately “outside their own rigidly self defined” ideology.

 

[Thomas_White]

Which is why I said that fundamentalists are vulnerable to progressive understandings, because they’re ideas are already somewhat narrowed, and so can tend to float into the wrong areas for research and get caught up in all funny ideas with funny-minded people. Fanatics and progressives overlap sometimes. An odd mixture, granted. But it happens.

The link: lack of spiritual application and tendencies for applying practical meanings at the omission of spiritual insight. It applies to both quarters so often play in fields not far away from the other though fighting from different corners initially.

Whatever you do don’t get caught in the middle otherwise you’ll get an ear-ache on both sides.

Again, I think this is a question of definitions. Pope Francis has spoken about current problems in the church involving conservatism and fundamentalism, but I don’t think he meant to equate these two terms. There is the conservative/liberal (progressive) difference in viewpoint, and I don’t think either is necessarily extreme.

Fundamentalism, however, is an extreme religious view. There would be its opposite extreme, but I don’t know what to call it, actually–“radical”, perhaps, like what occurred when Marxism became an element in Liberation theology during the '70’s.

 

[Brendan]

This would be incorrect because the fundamentalists is not listening to those outside their political/religious ideology.

Jim

That would also describe ‘progressives’.

 

[edwest2]

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

That’s quite a mish-mosh there. I don’t think there is a book anywhere or a list anywhere that describes allegedly “fundamentalist” Catholics.

Ed

 

[phil19034]

That’s quite a mish-mosh there. I don’t think there is a book anywhere or a list anywhere that describes allegedly “fundamentalist” Catholics.

Ed

That’s why I said “examples of potential Catholic Fundamentalists.” I was listing examples of heterodox beliefs/positions that would be considered “fundamentalist” in nature.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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.

Mmmh. Examining the Pope’s notion of religious fundamentalism (as opposed to interpretations of it by others) I get the distinct impression of a straw man.

In his question Philippine De Saint-Pierre was talking about ***Islamic ***fundamentalism, as no other kind of fundamentalism ‘threatens the entire planet’. The Pope replies by equating the Islamic brand with a fundamentalism in Catholics. But what is this Catholic fundamentalism? Catholics don’t strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people. Even the IRA don’t act from religious motives. Theirs is a political organisation dressed a Catholic pseudo-identity. And they don’t produce suicide bombers.

So what, according to the Pope is a Catholic fundamentalist? Taking his reply:

1. A Catholic fundamentalist believes he has the absolute truth.
2. He produces calumnies and defamation.
3. He hurts people.

Examining the reply more closely:

1. As a Catholic I believe the Church has the absolute truth, in the sense that only Catholicism possesses the fulness of Christ’s revelation. Why should the Pope object to that? Because as a corollary I believe that all other religions have a greater or lesser degree of doctrinal error - and there are consequences to that.
2. Following on 1, error in religion is not indifferent. It will spiritually hamstring the individual who believes it, making it more difficult for him to save his soul. One religion is not as good as another. So as a Catholic I would urge non-catholics to leave their religions which hamper their spiritual - and consequently moral - welfare, and convert to Catholicism. In some eyes this lack of admiration for non-catholic religions would certainly add up to ‘calumnies’ and ‘defamation’.
3. Telling people that only Catholicism is the religion actually founded by Christ and that all other denominations were founded by humans without a mandate from God will certainly annoy them - ‘hurt’ them if you like.

The $20 000 question then is: do the attitudes described above in any way violate charity? Is there a chasm between a love of the truth with a corresponding aversion for error, and a love for one’s neighbour? This is where the Pope goes wrong. Charity for an individual does ***not ***means charity for the individual’s erroneous convictions. Standing by one’s Catholic identity and rejecting anything that compromises it does not mean rejecting non-catholics. I look on any false religion with aversion, seeing how its errors distort and compromise the truths it might have, but that doesn’t mean that I feel aversion for the people in that religion. I honestly don’t think the Pope can see this.

 

[outremer]

I wonder if Jimmy Akin is diligently working on yet another article on [enter number] things to know and share about how Pope Francis was distorted by that oh so vile media.