J
- Status
)
G
gracepoole
Guest
The headline of the article that discusses the poll also doesn’t demonstrate that Catholics believe Church teachings have changed: “U.S. Catholics Back Pope On Changing Church Focus.” Neither the poll nor its title, then, reflect such a view. There is no “spin from Catholics” here. The poll itself asked Catholics how they view specific issues but it did not report that they believe the Church has changed. It seems more accurate to say that you’re *concerned *Catholics believe Church teachings are changing – but so far, there’s no evidence to support such a fear. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that you’re angry with Catholics who disagree with Church teachings – but of course, that hardly started with Pope Francis.
S
shelby_sun
Guest
That is a good point. Views have been changing for a while now and seeing as Pope Francis has not been our Pope very long, these views were changing under Pope Benedict and possibly under John Paul II. Have there been threads on this site questioning how they were leading the Church or failing to lead it in the right direction? I have not been on this site that long.
The changes mention that came in the 50-60 was also a good point. Do people think those changes have hurt the Church? I am sincerely asking.
M
McCall1981
Guest
So apparently, Scalfari that conducted the recent two la repubblica interviews has said he did not record, OR EVEN TAKE NOTES, during the interview. The interview consists of his “reconstruction” of his “sense” of what the Pope said. This is just surreal 
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dolan-confirms-error-scalfari-interview
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-scalfari-interview-misses-details-conflates-facts
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dolan-confirms-error-scalfari-interview
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-scalfari-interview-misses-details-conflates-facts
J
Jaberwocky
Guest
Very interesting news. Goes to show the times of deception we live in. The Vatican should not have published it on its site though.So apparently, Scalfari that conducted the recent two la repubblica interviews has said he did not record, OR EVEN TAKE NOTES, during the interview. The interview consists of his “reconstruction” of his “sense” of what the Pope said. This is just surreal
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dolan-confirms-error-scalfari-interview
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-scalfari-interview-misses-details-conflates-facts
I personally have decided that unless it is an encyclical or official document of the Church, just ignore the unorthodox sounding things and interpret it in the closest orthodox way. The unorthodoxy could be anything from translation error, agenda driven interviewing to reckless and sourceless publishing like in this case.
J
JReducation
Guest
I think this whole interview is being given just too much attention. There are a number of things that we have to consider here.
In the first place, we’re moving into a new era in the history of the Church. There was a time when popes communicated via encyclicals, councils or letters. These communications were formal. Encyclicals are the most authoritative form of communication from the pope to the people of God. This is not an encyclical.
Until recently, popes didn’t use computers. I remember when Pope Benedict acquired a laptop in 2006. He was fascinated by it. Stop and think about this. Who didn’t have a laptop in 2006? Who still used typewriters? We know at least one man, Benedict XVI.
Pope John Paul II was the first pope to use text messaging. It was very late in his pontificate. Pope Benedict used Twitter, also very recent.
What’s my point?
My point is that as the Vatican moves into the 21st century we’re all going to have to do some adjusting. Today we have a pope who speaks to the media. This was never prohibited. But in European culture monarchs do not speak to newspapers. How many interviews do we see from Queen Elizabeth, King Juan Carlos or Prince Rainier? This is something new to the Vatican and to the rest of us.
The pope is going to have to learn to talk to reporters and we are going to have to get used to reading the pope in the newspaper. This means that we’re going to have to learn to read the pope at two levels: formal and conversational. There are times when he’s going to make formal statements, such as the canonization of the two popes. At other times, he’s going to speak conversationally, as in these interviews.
There is one important piece that I keep harping and many people move right past it. Yet the Pope himself did not move past it. In his interview for the Jesuit magazine the question came up about a religious pope.
The last religious pope was Pope Gregory XVI elected in 1831. He was a Camaldolese Monk. He was not a bishop. He was an abbot. They had to ordain him after they elected him. He ran the Papal States as an abbot runs a monastery and its tenants. Hint hint
His Holiness speaks about himself as a Jesuit. He is very aware that he is a Jesuit and will never cease to be a Jesuit. Bl. John Paul recognized this. For this reason he changed the Code of 1917 which said that when a priest from an order is consecrated bishop he was no longer part of his religious community. His vows were dispensed. The Code of 1983 is more practical. The bishop elect is dispensed from those things that can cause a conflict between his religious vocation and his episcopal ministry (Too long and too complicated to discuss here. Trust me.) However, he remains a religious, in vows and a full member of his order, with passive voice (can’t vote or be elected to any office).
Listen to what he has to say, because this is what we (lay, clergy and religious) all have to get used to.
**
"The style of the Society is not shaped by discussion, but by discernment, which of course presupposes discussion as part of the process. The mystical dimension of discernment never defines its edges and does not complete the thought. The Jesuit must be a person whose thought is incomplete, in the sense of open-ended thinking.
Discernment is always done in the presence of the Lord, looking at the signs, listening to the things that happen, the feeling of the people, especially the poor. My choices, including those related to the day-to-day aspects of life, like the use of a modest car, are related to a spiritual discernment that responds to a need that arises from looking at things, at people and from reading the signs of the times. Discernment in the Lord guides me in my way of governing.
A religious must never give up prophecy. …] I am talking about a proposal that is always positive, but it should not cause timidity. Let us think about what so many great saints, monks and religious men and women have done, from St Anthony the Abbot onward. Being prophets may sometimes imply making waves. I do not know how to put it… Prophecy makes noise, uproar, some say ‘a mess.’ But in reality, the charism of religious people is like yeast: prophecy announces the spirit of the Gospel.”
**
In the first place, we’re moving into a new era in the history of the Church. There was a time when popes communicated via encyclicals, councils or letters. These communications were formal. Encyclicals are the most authoritative form of communication from the pope to the people of God. This is not an encyclical.
Until recently, popes didn’t use computers. I remember when Pope Benedict acquired a laptop in 2006. He was fascinated by it. Stop and think about this. Who didn’t have a laptop in 2006? Who still used typewriters? We know at least one man, Benedict XVI.
Pope John Paul II was the first pope to use text messaging. It was very late in his pontificate. Pope Benedict used Twitter, also very recent.
What’s my point?
My point is that as the Vatican moves into the 21st century we’re all going to have to do some adjusting. Today we have a pope who speaks to the media. This was never prohibited. But in European culture monarchs do not speak to newspapers. How many interviews do we see from Queen Elizabeth, King Juan Carlos or Prince Rainier? This is something new to the Vatican and to the rest of us.
The pope is going to have to learn to talk to reporters and we are going to have to get used to reading the pope in the newspaper. This means that we’re going to have to learn to read the pope at two levels: formal and conversational. There are times when he’s going to make formal statements, such as the canonization of the two popes. At other times, he’s going to speak conversationally, as in these interviews.
There is one important piece that I keep harping and many people move right past it. Yet the Pope himself did not move past it. In his interview for the Jesuit magazine the question came up about a religious pope.
The last religious pope was Pope Gregory XVI elected in 1831. He was a Camaldolese Monk. He was not a bishop. He was an abbot. They had to ordain him after they elected him. He ran the Papal States as an abbot runs a monastery and its tenants. Hint hint
His Holiness speaks about himself as a Jesuit. He is very aware that he is a Jesuit and will never cease to be a Jesuit. Bl. John Paul recognized this. For this reason he changed the Code of 1917 which said that when a priest from an order is consecrated bishop he was no longer part of his religious community. His vows were dispensed. The Code of 1983 is more practical. The bishop elect is dispensed from those things that can cause a conflict between his religious vocation and his episcopal ministry (Too long and too complicated to discuss here. Trust me.) However, he remains a religious, in vows and a full member of his order, with passive voice (can’t vote or be elected to any office).
Listen to what he has to say, because this is what we (lay, clergy and religious) all have to get used to.
**
"The style of the Society is not shaped by discussion, but by discernment, which of course presupposes discussion as part of the process. The mystical dimension of discernment never defines its edges and does not complete the thought. The Jesuit must be a person whose thought is incomplete, in the sense of open-ended thinking.
Discernment is always done in the presence of the Lord, looking at the signs, listening to the things that happen, the feeling of the people, especially the poor. My choices, including those related to the day-to-day aspects of life, like the use of a modest car, are related to a spiritual discernment that responds to a need that arises from looking at things, at people and from reading the signs of the times. Discernment in the Lord guides me in my way of governing.
A religious must never give up prophecy. …] I am talking about a proposal that is always positive, but it should not cause timidity. Let us think about what so many great saints, monks and religious men and women have done, from St Anthony the Abbot onward. Being prophets may sometimes imply making waves. I do not know how to put it… Prophecy makes noise, uproar, some say ‘a mess.’ But in reality, the charism of religious people is like yeast: prophecy announces the spirit of the Gospel.”
**
S
shelby_sun
Guest
Bro. is so right, this Pope is not going to stop being a Jesuit. What some people just fail to remember is that many, many bishops and cardinals of the Church chose this Pope fully knowing what he was like and what his view were. They must have felt that the Church need to be guided in a new way. That doesn’t mean dogma is going to change.
I feel Pope Francis will continue to have us focus on finding God in everyone and in everything. God is still in a woman who had an abortion or man who is having an affair. We must not fail to remember that.
I feel Pope Francis will continue to have us focus on finding God in everyone and in everything. God is still in a woman who had an abortion or man who is having an affair. We must not fail to remember that.
J
JReducation
Guest
People are reacting without knowing a lot of details. Allegedly, the reporter has told another reporter that he did not take notes nor did he record the conversation. He reconstructed the dialogue from memory. He sent the script to the Holy Father to look over. No one knows how carefully, if at all, the Holy Father read it.
This new bit of information, if it is true, only reinforces my point. It was an informal conversation and the reporter did not set out to make the Pope look bad. Nothing that he says is contrary to faith or morals. It’s just vague or out of order. An informal conversation between the pope and anyone does not constitute Catholic teaching. We can’t react to it as if it was the new edition of the catechism.
We have to accept that we’re in an era where popes are going to make more use of modern communication than ever before. Modern communication is only as good as what you put in. Just as we read the President through the newspaper, we should read the Pope.
OK . . . I’m assuming that everyone reads the President through the newspaper as I do. Maybe people don’t. When I read in the newspaper that the President said that clams fly, I look at this against what I know about the President. If he repeats it or if he has said it before, then I give the report some credit. If he has never said that before and he never repeats it again, I just let it go.
The way that I figure it, either he didn’t say that clams fly or there was more to the context. In either case, it’s not a complete report. Therefore, it’s no use letting my blood pressure rise over this.
This new bit of information, if it is true, only reinforces my point. It was an informal conversation and the reporter did not set out to make the Pope look bad. Nothing that he says is contrary to faith or morals. It’s just vague or out of order. An informal conversation between the pope and anyone does not constitute Catholic teaching. We can’t react to it as if it was the new edition of the catechism.
We have to accept that we’re in an era where popes are going to make more use of modern communication than ever before. Modern communication is only as good as what you put in. Just as we read the President through the newspaper, we should read the Pope.
OK . . . I’m assuming that everyone reads the President through the newspaper as I do. Maybe people don’t. When I read in the newspaper that the President said that clams fly, I look at this against what I know about the President. If he repeats it or if he has said it before, then I give the report some credit. If he has never said that before and he never repeats it again, I just let it go.
The way that I figure it, either he didn’t say that clams fly or there was more to the context. In either case, it’s not a complete report. Therefore, it’s no use letting my blood pressure rise over this.
- Status