Pope praises Cardinal Burke as a lawyer, criticizes fundamentalists

[abucs]

Catholic World News

ok, so what is a ‘fundamentalist’ Catholic and why is the pope singling them out here?

Is the pope saying self-assurance as a Catholic is not a good thing or not a good thing for only a certain type of Catholic for some reason?

Is the pope saying a certain type of Catholic is more likely to be self assured? Surely self assurance is a good thing that we would all want for our children. Arrogance and pretence of course not, but surely self assurance is a good thing?

Is this ‘self assurance’ really a derogatory euphemism?

We can unfortunately have our faith weakened through the hardness of life or by some tragic circumstance but why single out ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics in this way?

confused.

 

[Pulvis]

Have yet to understand the apparent dislike for conservative Catholics. It once was a virtue to be strongly conservative in ones faith. Now not so much.

 

[twf]

Good to hear the Holy Father acknowledge that he isn’t punishing Cardinal Burke. On this very forum we had people predicting that His Eminence would be punished.

The Pope has been criticizing “rigid”, “restorationist”, and “fundamentalist” Catholics throughout his pontificate.

 

[matthewww]

I think fundamentalists are seen in a negative light because they tend to be jerks. don’t throw stones at me. I think people have different ideas as to what it means.

My wife immediately thinks of very religious, reverent people that fast, wear veils, etc

I immediately think of those people that whine about female Eucharistic ministers(is that what it’s called? Those people that are very staunch and anti second vatican council. You know, the people that think they are doing it correctly and that the church is wrong…get triggered if the pope doesn’t constantly talk about abortion or homosexuality.

the more modern idea of fundamentalists is the latter. I think there is just some mild confusion.

 

[JimG]

Reading the article, and the reference to Peter who stated that he would never deny Christ, but ended up denying him three times, it almost sounds as though St. Peter was the first rigid and self-assured Catholic.

 

[RomanoAmerio]

Reading the article, and the reference to Peter who stated that he would never deny Christ, but ended up denying him three times, it almost sounds as though St. Peter was the first rigid and self-assured Catholic.

In that light, it seems that the Holy Father is criticizing not orthodoxy, but hypocrisy and bravado that may not stand up to trial.

To those who feel criticized by the Holy Father’s comments, let us remember that, first, there is nothing to indicate that he is pointing at you or me personally, second, that even the greatest Saints faced criticisms of this sort and did so patiently and charitably, and third, that even if the Holy Father has got us wrong, to bear wrongs patiently is a spiritual work of mercy.

It is also instructive to look at an earlier interview which makes it clear that the Holy Father is against duplicity, not orthodoxy. The example he offered was that of a “new” religious order which seemed to be thriving, but whose founder was eventually found to be a sexual pervert. This is a clear reference to the infamous Marcial Maciel, who is certainly not an example for us to follow!

 

[Estevao]

I would hope that the former prefect of the apostolic signatura would be a great lawyer. I think Burke would also make a great pope. We haven’t had a canonist as Pope since Pius XII, we’re due for one.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Have yet to understand the apparent dislike for conservative Catholics. It once was a virtue to be strongly conservative in ones faith. Now not so much.

Because fundamentalism in any religion often gives way to legalism, which can damage a person’s relationship with God just as much as not following any rules.

 

[abucs]

even if the Holy Father has got us wrong, to bear wrongs patiently is a spiritual work of mercy.

è vero.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding with the term fundamentalist as DaddyGirl suggests?

 

[lynnvinc]

Catholic World News

ok, so what is a ‘fundamentalist’ Catholic and why is the pope singling them out here?

Is the pope saying self-assurance as a Catholic is not a good thing or not a good thing for only a certain type of Catholic for some reason?

Is the pope saying a certain type of Catholic is more likely to be self assured? Surely self assurance is a good thing that we would all want for our children. Arrogance and pretence of course not, but surely self assurance is a good thing?

Is this ‘self assurance’ really a derogatory euphemism?

We can unfortunately have our faith weakened through the hardness of life or by some tragic circumstance but why single out ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics in this way?

confused.

I used to teach Sociology of Religion and the topic of fundamentalism (within Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) came up. The way I explained it (my own informed interpretation) is not a going back to that ole time religion, but rather a response to the evils of the modern secular world (and there are some disgusting evils, that’s for sure), even eschewing ecumenism. A stiff and rigid adherence to one’s own faith (and often a literal interpretation of the scriptures) to the extent of developing belligerence toward other religions and people who adhere to them…which can lead to conflict, wars, or just meanness towards others different from oneself in beliefs.

I think Pope Francis’s idea is that we need to get along with others, even with those of other faiths. It is not only practical but Christian. Even Jesus spoke of the Samaritan man (despised by the Jews) as being the better person in his parable.

I guess one might say that fundamentalism is like following the letter of the law, but going against the spirit of the law.

I think Thurber’s “Bear Who Let It Alone” can serve as an example of “fundamentalism” (from lc.cycu.edu.tw/Language/html/upda_files/textbook/The%20Bear%20Who%20Let%20It%20Alone.pdf ):

In the woods of the Far West there once lived a brown bear who could take it or let it alone. He would go into a bar where they sold mead, a fermented drink made of honey, and he would have just two drinks. Then he would put some money on the bar and say, ”See what the bears in the back room will have, ”and he would go home. But finally he took to drinking by himself most of the day. He would reel home at night, kick over the umbrella stand, knock down the bridge lamps, and ram his elbows through the windows. Then he would collapse on the floor and lie there until he went to sleep. His wife was greatly distressed and his children were very frightened.

At length the bear saw the error of his ways and began to reform. In the end he became a famous teetotaller and a persistent temperance lecturer. He would tell everybody that came to his house about the awful effects of drink, and he would boast about how strong and well he had become since he gave up touching the stuff. To demonstrate this, he would stand on his head and on his hands and he would turn cartwheels in the house, kicking over the umbrella stand, knocking down the bridge lamps, and ramming his elbows through the windows. Then he would lie down on the floor, tired by his healthful exercise, and go to sleep. His wife was greatly distressed and his children were very frightened.

Moral: You might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backward.

-James Thurber

 

[RomanoAmerio]

I think Thurber’s “Bear Who Let It Alone” can serve as an example of “fundamentalism” (from lc.cycu.edu.tw/Language/html/upda_files/textbook/The%20Bear%20Who%20Let%20It%20Alone.pdf ):

That was very amusing! I have always found the works of Mr. Thurber both wise and witty. Thank you, Lynn!

 

[Ginny89]

I used to teach Sociology of Religion and the topic of fundamentalism (within Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) came up. The way I explained it (my own informed interpretation) is not a going back to that ole time religion, but rather a response to the evils of the modern secular world (and there are some disgusting evils, that’s for sure), even eschewing ecumenism. A stiff and rigid adherence to one’s own faith (and often a literal interpretation of the scriptures) to the extent of developing belligerence toward other religions and people who adhere to them…which can lead to conflict, wars, or just meanness towards others different from oneself in beliefs.

I think Pope Francis’s idea is that we need to get along with others, even with those of other faiths. It is not only practical but Christian. Even Jesus spoke of the Samaritan man (despised by the Jews) as being the better person in his parable.

I guess one might say that fundamentalism is like following the letter of the law, but going against the spirit of the law.

I think Thurber’s “Bear Who Let It Alone” can serve as an example of “fundamentalism” (from lc.cycu.edu.tw/Language/html/upda_files/textbook/The%20Bear%20Who%20Let%20It%20Alone.pdf ):

Ok, so which Catholics are these who are mean to non-Catholics? I certainly have not met them. Even those who are against euceminism seem to be against it for principled reasons, not simply the dislike of the other. Many Muslims would be against ecumenism who are otherwise tolerant folk (as opposed to Jihadists).

Also, fundamentalism in many minds seems to be a notion that leaves out people who follow a humanist/liberal ethical view as people equally capable of fundamentalism. The SJW variety are certainly extremely intolerant of ‘the other’ from their own view-point. Indeed even perpetually name-calling folks who disagree can show fundamentalism of its own kind.

 

[JPUSC]

I used to teach Sociology of Religion and the topic of fundamentalism (within Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) came up. The way I explained it (my own informed interpretation) is not a going back to that ole time religion, but rather a response to the evils of the modern secular world (and there are some disgusting evils, that’s for sure), even eschewing ecumenism. A stiff and rigid adherence to one’s own faith (and often a literal interpretation of the scriptures) to the extent of developing belligerence toward other religions and people who adhere to them…which can lead to conflict, wars, or just meanness towards others different from oneself in beliefs.

I think Pope Francis’s idea is that we need to get along with others, even with those of other faiths. It is not only practical but Christian. Even Jesus spoke of the Samaritan man (despised by the Jews) as being the better person in his parable.

I guess one might say that fundamentalism is like following the letter of the law, but going against the spirit of the law.

I think Thurber’s “Bear Who Let It Alone” can serve as an example of “fundamentalism” (from lc.cycu.edu.tw/Language/html/upda_files/textbook/The%20Bear%20Who%20Let%20It%20Alone.pdf ):

Would the parable of the Samaritan man be proof that the Catholic doctrine of “no salvation outside of the Church” is moot since someone of a different religion is the one called righteous?

 

[RomanoAmerio]

Would the parable of the Samaritan man be proof that the Catholic doctrine of “no salvation outside of the Church” is moot since someone of a different religion is the one called righteous?

That is an interesting question, but I do not think this interpretation is correct, JPUSC.

The parable of the Good Samaritan was spoken by Christ in response to a specific, nit-picking question from a lawyer (a “fundamentalist” of his time?): “Who is my neighbour?”

It does not directly address the issue of salvation, unless one understands it in a mystical or symbolic sense - and one would have to be a great Saint or scholar, and consider the rules of sound Catholic exegesis, before attempting to do so.

This is not to say that Samaritans were unsaved: like the Jews, some Samaritans were also baptized and came to faith in Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles. They were not saved by “remaining as they were”.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus!

 

[twf]

I would hope that the former prefect of the apostolic signatura would be a great lawyer. I think Burke would also make a great pope. We haven’t had a canonist as Pope since Pius XII, we’re due for one.

While I like and respect His Eminence, he is way too much of a polarizing figure. Cardinal Sarah would be a better choice I think. Plus he’s African and can pull the “black card” when liberals attack him for adherence to orthodoxy.

Besides, Cardinal Burke is American. Its an unwritten canon law that an American can never be Pope…it just isn’t done.

 

[RomanoAmerio]

While I like and respect His Eminence, he is way too much of a polarizing figure. Cardinal Sarah would be a better choice I think. Plus he’s African and can pull the “black card” when liberals attack him for adherence to orthodoxy.

Besides, Cardinal Burke is American. Its an unwritten canon law that an American can never be Pope…it just isn’t done.

I too would love to see Cardinal Sarah as our next Pontiff.

 

[JPUSC]

Catholic World News

ok, so what is a ‘fundamentalist’ Catholic and why is the pope singling them out here?

Is the pope saying self-assurance as a Catholic is not a good thing or not a good thing for only a certain type of Catholic for some reason?

Is the pope saying a certain type of Catholic is more likely to be self assured? Surely self assurance is a good thing that we would all want for our children. Arrogance and pretence of course not, but surely self assurance is a good thing?

Is this ‘self assurance’ really a derogatory euphemism?

We can unfortunately have our faith weakened through the hardness of life or by some tragic circumstance but why single out ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics in this way?

confused.

“I always try to understand what’s behind people who are too young to have experienced the pre-conciliar liturgy and yet still they want it. Sometimes I found myself confronted with a very strict person, with an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that we find in all religions. Among Catholics there are many, not a few, many, who believe to hold the absolute truth and they go ahead by harming others with slander and defamation, and they do great harm. … And it must be combated. Religious fundamentalism is not truly religious. Why? Because God is missing. It is a form of idolatry, in the same way as worshipping money is idolatry. Being political in the sense of convincing these people who have this tendency is a policy that we religious leaders must adopt”.”

“Not taking risks, please, no… prudence…Obeying all the commandments, all of them… Yes, it’s true, but this paralyzes you too, it makes you forget so many graces received, it takes away memory, it takes away hope, because it doesn’t allow you to go forward.”

“How do I receive the redemption, the forgiveness that God has given me, the making of me a son with His Son? Lovingly, tenderly, with freedom? Or do I hide in the rigidity of the closed Commandments, that are more and more “safe” – with emphasis on the scare-quotes – but that do not give joy, because they does not make you free.”

 

[JPUSC]

Good to hear the Holy Father acknowledge that he isn’t punishing Cardinal Burke. On this very forum we had people predicting that His Eminence would be punished.

The Pope has been criticizing “rigid”, “restorationist”, and “fundamentalist” Catholics throughout his pontificate.

In a nutshell, Pope Francis’s approach to difficult personnel choices is to keep people in place, while entrusting the real responsibility to somebody else and thus rendering the original official, if not quite irrelevant, certainly less consequential…

The question put to Francis was how he handles Church officials who may not be fully on the same page, or simply not his kind of man.

“Nails are removed by applying pressure to the top,” the pope said, “or, you set them aside to rest when the age of retirement arrives.”

In other words, sometimes Francis removes someone directly - the best known for-instance being American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who lost his position as head of the Vatican’s Supreme Court in November 2014.

cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/12/08/rather-pulling-nail-pope-francis-finds-another-tool

 

[dans0622]

I would hope that the former prefect of the apostolic signatura would be a great lawyer. I think Burke would also make a great pope. We haven’t had a canonist as Pope since Pius XII, we’re due for one.

Hello,

Actually, Pope Paul VI was a canon lawyer, too. Nevertheless, I agree: we’re due for a canonist pope…at least let’s get a JCL in there!

Dan

 

[lynnvinc]

Ok, so which Catholics are these who are mean to non-Catholics? I certainly have not met them. Even those who are against euceminism seem to be against it for principled reasons, not simply the dislike of the other. Many Muslims would be against ecumenism who are otherwise tolerant folk (as opposed to Jihadists).

Perhaps there are degrees of “fundamentalism.” I think a “test” for whether someone is fundamentalist would be if they consider [selected the outgroup religion] to be bad and dangerous because of their religion (or ethnicity). It used to be Jews, but now it seems to be Muslims.

I know a lot of people just have some slightly negative feelings about Muslims, but some other go much further and fear they are taking over, say, Europe or America, the way they used to fear the Jewish take-over. I’ve heard that some think Muslims will be imposing Sharia law in Europe or America (I know a lot of Muslims and they don’t even want to live under Sharia law, but are committed to modern democracy and laws).

However, it seems that Cardinal Burke thinks of Islam as being such a threat. If so, he would be in the category of fundamentalist Catholics. That’s perhaps why Pope Francis made his comment in the context of praising Cardinal Burke as a lawyer.

There is a difference between ordinary conservatism within religion (maintaining chastity and adhering to the strict rules re personal conduct) and fundamentalism (which could include the former, but would also include this fear and loathing of the outgroup).

I’m not sure of your meaning of “ecumenism,” but the ordinary meaning of cooperation & finding common ground among religions (not a total merging of them) does not bring up any “red flags” for me. In fact I like ecumenism and have participated in some interfaith programs – one was “Faith in Action: the South African Experience,” which was a conference at Aurora University in IL involving faith leaders from all faiths (Protestant, Catholic, African-Traditionalist, Jewish, Islam, Hindu) came to explain how they had all joined together and fought against Apartheid in S. Africa. The Jewish rabbi and Muslim imam embraced each other having not seen each other for over 10 years. The Hindu, Ela Gandhi, the granddaughter of Mahatma Gandhi, was a great hit. We all had to strain our ears to hear her very soft words of wisdom.

Also, fundamentalism in many minds seems to be a notion that leaves out people who follow a humanist/liberal ethical view as people equally capable of fundamentalism. The SJW variety are certainly extremely intolerant of ‘the other’ from their own view-point. Indeed even perpetually name-calling folks who disagree can show fundamentalism of its own kind.

I don’t see why they couldn’t also be included as “fundamentalists.” It is mainly about this fear and loathing of the outgroup and their beliefs, even more than about strong, rigid adherence to beliefs of one’s own “religion.”

We perhaps all tend to dislike or disavow beliefs that contradict our own beliefs, otherwise we’d chuck ours and take on the others. That’s not the issue, so much as a very strong fear and loathing, almost approaching a need to stamp out the other beliefs and perhaps the people who hold them.

In a way fundamentalism is akin to the authoritarian, prejudiced, and paranoid personality types, with some similar traits. Or, people who have those psychological styles/disorders perhaps tend to be attracted to the more fundamentalist branches of their religions.

(I remember reading something when I taught Psychological Anthropology decades ago about how some international conflicts might be traced to psychological disorders of national leaders.)