The Horror: This is Why Catholic Traditionalist Fear Pope Francis

[trickster]

Why do you keep attacking a straw man? Do you consider the “interview style” of Pope Francis as part of his teaching as well? Because if you do not, then why do you keep saying people here are questioning his teaching?

exactly!

 

[trickster]

Perhaps because some of us sense that attacking his “interview style” is a veiled way of expressing discomfort with the man himself, as well as his message.

I think he is intelligent enough to know exactly how and what to say, and deal with the fallout that may result from it. Face it’s not his “interview style” that is making some people uncomfortable, it’s the message itself.

This is a man who knew enough about how and what to say to run a clandestine network in some of the most difficult years in Argentina, to save people from “disappearing” under the military junta; who managed to substitute himself for another priest to get close to one of the generals of the junta to get information from him, and managed to sneak people to safety in the trunk of his car.

I fully expect that in the interview he weighed his words carefully, and said what he believes needed to be said.

This is the man the cardinals wanted to elect. I expect they want him to say what he thinks needs to be said, as well.

Yes i agree with you Oralabora…I am excited about this new pope. for me he represents hope in terms of aboriginal theology and all that stuff I have been talking about…no one expects this pope to change catholic teaching cause he just can`t do that…however… there is a real chance with this pope to realize the fullness of Vatican II and I suppose that is what is scary…give me your sense Oralabora of my thinking on this…

trickster
bruce

 

[trickster]

Now is this not the very definition of rash judgement that Church doctrine warns about? You are presuming that those who raise concerns on the language style in interviews have issues with actual content. Is that a judgement you can make about another? Why not simply engage in the discussion on the level of what is been discussed rather than assume what you do not know?

On the matter of carefully weighing his words, did he weigh in the reaction by NARAL for an example as a possibility?

I think the entire reason why these threads tend to get hostile is because you and many others as you said engage in rash judgement of those who raise valid concerns on the language style in interviews.

Hey Jabewocky… I find what Oralabora said as completely objective and fair…but what is NARAL…could you get me up to speed on that… I also did not know that this pope disguised himself as a priest to help people escape…that is bravery at its best…wow…

 

[trickster]

No need Bruce. I think we’ve gone as far as we can right now. I agree that there should be mutual respect and I do not doubt the validity of the council. I personally feel though that the true spirit of the council was and has been lost for some time; obscured by the extremes perpetuated by both those who love change for the sake of change and those who are opposed to all change. Right now I feel all one can do is pray and show charity to both sides in the hopes that we will one day stop and ask; what does God will?
Until that day.

God Bless.

Indeed my brother, we are on the same page…it`s all about love and respect…

Bruce

 

[Jaberwocky]

Hey Jabewocky… I find what Oralabora said as completely objective and fair…but what is NARAL…could you get me up to speed on that… I also did not know that this pope disguised himself as a priest to help people escape…that is bravery at its best…wow…

I said it was rash judgement because he/she claimed the following

“Perhaps because some of us sense that attacking his “interview style” is a veiled way of expressing discomfort with the man himself, as well as his message.”

The bolded part presumes something one does not know about the other person that is irrelevant to the actual discussion as well. The motives of the other person does not play a role in determining if an interview is prone to misinterpretation. Hence it seems like a classic example of rash judgement.

You can find some information on NARAL here

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARAL_Pro-Choice_America

The very short version is that they are pro-abortion (and contraception).

 

[trickster]

I just want to address what I said before about the pope being right and we being wrong. … .

Awesome JR…thank you for putting your comments into a Franciscan context. I understand a little bit better. I don`t pretend to be a Franciscan and NOW quite convinced I would fail miserably at Franciscan life but when a superior is wrong, are you simply saying that there are diplomatic ways of balancing the human dignity of that superior while not bowing to sin…

In my discussions, I dont pretend to have you experience and we bring two different contexts and experiences to our discussion and that is why I like your writing and I have always felt respected by you, especially when I was getting a lot of critical analysis`on my aboriginal theology stuff What I was saying is that when I question, it is not in the spirit of doubt, or revolting against our church and the work of the pope, bishops, religious superiors etc…as they are doing the job God wanted them to do; what I mean by questioning and debating is to be honest and transparent about what I think (even if that disagrees with a teaching) cause what I can depend on is very detailed answers; WISDOM, etc., from our elders in the church…people such as yourself…do you understand what I am saying…

As an example, Tim said you were a professor…did you expect your students to regurgitate what you taught them, or did you want to see them think and arrive at a personal understanding of what you taught… if the question makes any sense…

As you know…trying to talk about creating an theological foundation which can provide a bridge between aboriginal spirituality and catholicism - a calling from God which am exited about - is in itself a pursuit that many at first glance will consider disrespectful to orthodoxy and you have read my stuff and I don`t think that you would consider me disrespectful…

Anyways, rambling now… thanks again for putting your statements into context for all of us…as always appreciated.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[trickster]

Part of the thread, I believe earlier on worried that the Pope would be limiting the traditional mass. I believe that was a media misinterpretation myself. I believe he is trying to be inclusive.

Hi SchohMike…yeah…I know what you are saying, but I don`t remember reading it in the article that this thread is about…perhaps it is connected to another thread.

I totally respect your appreciation of the Extraordinary form of the Mass and I am sure you respect my preference for the new mass…with quitars and all that stuff…to me it is reflective of the world I live in … not of a medieval past…symbols, music, context, etc. help focus us on both the sacrafice of the mass as well as the celebration of the mass as a catholic family too…I don`t think both are contradictory, the are complimentary

I have been to traditional masses which are beautiful and I even knelt for communion recieved communion on the tongue, something I havent done since the early 70s…so it brings back memories yet I prefer standing for communion and recieiving the host in my hand… I remember when it was introduced to us as kids and I remember how liberating it felt for me.

So I agree with you - why do we compare notes on what mass is what - lets respect all the masses for the meaning they hold to the human heart…Jesus appreciates authenticity, regardless of what format is external…

cheerz my friend
Bruce
trickster

 

[trickster]

This is what I like about St. Francis. His reaction to the interview would be

What we have done in my community is very simple. The superior has taken almost everything that Pope Francis has said, which is quite a bit, given it to the novices to read and highlight that which directly affects how we live religious life and how we serve the Church. It’s a good exercise for the novices and it’s good for us as a community. It helps us focus on what’s before us.

On Monday night we had our community meeting. The results were distributed. The grand total of what the Holy Father has said that applies directly to the Franciscan Brothers of Life and their ministry consists of 1 1/2 pages double spaced.

The rest, has nothing to do with us, our faith or our daily life or there is nothing new in it. By the end of the community meeting, everyone looked at the superior who said,

Everyone is now at their respective houses and in bed, except me. That’s because I’m trying to tidy up my thoughts for tomorrow.

Nice! I agree with your excitment about Pope Francis…he makes me feel hopeful about my calling too…

 

[trickster]

Does he hold out the offer of love and compassion for those who seem to deserve righteous judgment and condemnation? Yep. And that can seem pretty ambigiuous whether you read it in John 8 or an American Magazine.

Does Francis act humbly? Gentle and humble in heart? I think so.

Does he make pretences and get about in long robes demanding respectful greetings in the market places and places of honor at banquets. Not as far as I can tell.

Sounds like a traditionalist to me.

"…We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods"

Note the bold word.

We do insist on many things.

well said LionIRC - well said

 

[MarkInOregon]

The problem with the interview does not have to do with one sentence. It is the entire tone of the interview. That tone suggests that there is a battle between God’s mercy and love vs. Dogma, Doctrine, Moral law and Discipline. When one reads that line and many others with that tone of mind, then its more correct to interpret it as the media had done rather than as you want it to be interpreted.

Only to those looking for it–does it read like that. It certainly wasn’t the impression or tone I head when I read it.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[trickster]

Well our Prime Minister is a neoliberal first and foremost. He has never been a moralist. He’s an economist.

At the same time, I respect the Americans who actually are working hard to prevent these important issues from being thrown to the side of the social and political curb. I do think capitulation to popular trends like these (e.g. abortion and homosexualization) are dangerous as they just breed another set of more radical policies and degradations in their wake. These issues are talking about the singular value and dignity of the human person as such and human life generally. Anyone who studies history knows what happens when a culture devaluates the human person or human life and where it tends to go. Human life is sacred - period. Even an agnostic or atheistic secularist who has studied history realizes the importance of this belief and will often agree with it in principle or practice: i.e., that human life must at least be treated as sacred.

Secondly, *qua *citizen of your country, anyone can and should fight against things like abortion or a culture that misrepresents the purpose and meaning of human sexuality, as this tends to the reduction and degradation of the human person and especially of women. You simply do not need the Catholic Church to tell you that these things are wrong and dangerous or need a license from the Pope to fight against these evils; but that you know that they are problematic and dangerous and tend for the worse is already a credit to the Church, of course. Most people are firstly overwhelmed by sophistical arguments, consequently confused and finally submit to the popular trend especially if failure to do so results in marginalization or any other social penalty.

Gawd my friend…you sound like a fundamentalist republican from the tea party…where`s your Canadian moderation

I think to simplify the issue on gay rights, abortion as simply a matter of popular trends it to miss the point of gay activists and pro-choice people. When you say homosexualization…what are you saying - that there is a movement on the part of the gay community that they want everyone and everything to be gay…do you consider pro-choice people as followers of the devil…do you not see the authentic struggle that they feel, do you not understand what may have driven them to the point of taking the position that they have…

The villianization of those who differ from us is the cause of wars; the intolerance based on our perception that we are right has led to holocausts…indeed the thinking of the conservative movement is dangerous if it is not tolerant…

Not only should we not JUST talk about abortion, contraceptions and gay rights, we should talk about CONTEXT, the gospel, and the fullness of catholic teaching…maybe put more emphasis on love and respecting the choice of others…without forgetting the message go and sin no morewhich applies equally to us catholics…who sin by alienating those whom we have categorized as them.

 

[trickster]

I said it was rash judgement because he/she claimed the following

“Perhaps because some of us sense that attacking his “interview style” is a veiled way of expressing discomfort with the man himself, as well as his message.”

The bolded part presumes something one does not know about the other person that is irrelevant to the actual discussion as well. The motives of the other person does not play a role in determining if an interview is prone to misinterpretation. Hence it seems like a classic example of rash judgement.

You can find some information on NARAL here

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARAL_Pro-Choice_America

The very short version is that they are pro-abortion (and contraception).

Awesome…thanks for the update on NARAL…

 

[Jaberwocky]

Awesome…thanks for the update on NARAL…

No problem

 

[trickster]

This is not the place for tidying up thoughts.

I read the interview for the 5th time, and I still can’t see source of all the negative reactions.

Yeah, me neither… I thought it was a wonderful and intimate and authentic interview of Francis…thank God we have a pope so humble and open … and a pope who does not want to be afar… but wants us to be at his level and he wants to remain at our level while he does his job which is the Petrine Ministry…I agree with you.

trickste
Bruce

 

[trickster]

This is on another post in Catholic answers…I believe you can find it on the Catholic Answers home page… Ànother lengthy inteview;

Pope Francis has again caused a sensation with a lengthy interview, telling the Italian daily La Repubblica that he will work toward a Church “that is not just top-down but also horizontal.”

The interview—which appeared on the same day the Pope began consulting with the Council of Cardinals about possible Vatican reforms— ranged over the Pope’s hopes for the Church, his concerns about youth unemployment and neglect of the elderly, his favorite saints, and other topics.

La Repubblica has made the entire interview available in an English-language translation.

The interview was conducted by Eugenio Scalfari, the founder of the left-leaning Repubblica. Earlier in September the newspaper had published a long letter from Pope Francis, responding to an editorial by Scalfari. Now, Scalfari reveals, the Pontiff followed up with a phone call, suggesting a private meeting. That meeting, which took place last week at the Pope’s apartment in the Casa Sanctae Marthae, furnished the material for the interview.

Scalfari, a professed non-believer, opened the conversation by expressing some misgivings that the Pope might try to convert him. The Pope quickly put him at ease. “Proselytism is solemn nonsense,” he said. “We need to get to know each other.”

Nevertheless, the Pope challenged his interlocutor at several points in their conversation. When Scalfari said that he did not believe in the existence of a soul, the Holy Father replied: “You do not believe in it but you have one.” And when the Italian journalist said that the Pontiff would not be able to convert him, the Pope replied: “We cannot know that—but I don’t have any such intention.”

In answer to a leading question about the problems facing the Church today, Pope Francis answered:

The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old… You tell me: can you live crashed under the weight of the present? Without a memory of the past and without the desire to look ahead to the future by building something, a future, a family? Can you go on like this? This, to me, is the most urgent problem that the Church is facing.
Regarding the need for change within the Church, the Pope complained about a “Vatican-centric” view prevailing in Rome, and said “I’ll do everything I can to change it.” He said that the atmosphere of the Vatican can nurture narcissism, with courtiers flattering superiors and protecting their own temporal interests. “The court is the leprosy of the papacy,” he said.

When Scalfari observed that some priests tempt him toward anti-clericalism, the Pope replied sympathetically: “It also happens to me that when I meet a clericalist, I suddenly become anti-clerical. Clericalism should not have anything to do with Christianity.

Later in the interview the Pope says that St. Augustine and St. Francis are his favorite saints, and speaks at length about the example of St. Francis and his desire to follow it, especially in his work to rebuild the Church.

Pope Francis also discloses that although he does not consider himself a mystic, he did have a unique spiritual experience just after the conclave voted to elect him as Roman Pontiff. As he fought off anxiety and doubt, the Pope recalls, “I closed my eyes and I no longer had any anxiety or emotion. At a certain point I was filled with a great light.” The experience lasted only a moment, the Pontiff says, but gave him a great sense of peace.

Scalfari concludes the interview with this observation about Pope Francis: “If the Church becomes like him and becomes what he wants it to be, it will be an epochal change.”

 

[choliks]

I think the problem here is that you cannot expect lay persons who have not taken a vow as you have to act in the same way when there is good evidence to the contrary.

As I said, Pope Honorious and his decisions is a case that sticks out in the history of the Church like a sore thumb. So it is not possible for a lay Catholic to just say they will trust in the Pope to always make the right decision. That would be unreasonable in light of historical evidence.

From a lay person perspective, it is legitimate to therefore raise concerns. The father/authority may then evaluate the concerns and decide whether he is going to ignore them but that decision has not been taken.

On a different note, there is no issue here of obedience. There is nothing to obey when one cannot even clearly infer what was said. Even if one could clearly infer what was said, it is an interview so one cannot take it as a Papal decree or command. What one can decide is if the language is ambiguous and whether it lends itself to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. To that degree, the evidence clearly affirms it.

I think the good Brother is NOT EXPECTING us laity to act like a religious in either solemn or simple vows if it’s not our vocation. IMO, the reason Brother JR keeps on sharing his life and that of his community in threads like this, is the HOPE we can learn something from the consecrated life, since it’s a path to holiness.

We love to say that we admire the great Saints like John of the Cross, Thomas Aquinas, Therese of Lisieux, Teresa of Avila, Mother Theresa, St. Francis, etc. for their holiness. But we fail to see the orders and congregations–families they belonged to. These are families that greatly contributed to their holiness.

 

[otjm]

I have read the entire interview few times now and I also read his daily homilies, speeches and letters. I think it is safe to say that for any person who is not well catechized, the interview reads as if God’s love and mercy are in contention with Doctrine, Dogma, Moral laws and disciplines. That is why NARAL and probably many others in the media saw the Pope’s interview as revolutionary.

I really do not see how or why one needs to defend the language style of the Pope. If this was a doctrinal truth that he will always use efficient language and right language at all times, I at least understand. But there is no such guarantee and yet we have everyone trying to justify it. Why?

Let’s back it all up a bit.

I will agree with you, at least to a limited extent about the Pope making an issue between Doctrine and Morals, and mercy.

My recollection is that he is not the first to do that (although, the first to do it so explicitly from a position such as his for some time).

The first person to do that?

The first person was Christ, and He was doing that throughout the Gospels. Every time He took issue with the Pharisees, the scribes and the Sadducees, that was at the bottom of the issue.

The Pharisees were in particular excellent about knowing doctrine; and they parsed morals down to the finest jot and tittle. And Christ was less than meek and mild in condemning them for putting form over substance, and for being experts at knowing what the law was, but having no clue why the law was. Christ Himself repeatedly violated the letter of the Hebrew law (remember issues about Sunday: about purity laws concerning who you sat with, ate with, conversed with - a prime and astounding example was His speaking with the woman at the well).

Francis is not saying, and has not said, that the law - doctrine or morals - is of no importance, should be ignored, or should be overturned.

Francis is not saying that the woman who obtains an abortion is guilty of nothing; but what he is saying is something the Church has said (and which many are not aware of, or understand very little about) is that a) that woman still is a child of Christ’s; b) has not committed a sin which cannot be forgiven; c) is in dire need of compassion and understanding as opposed to condemnation - or worse than that, abandonment- d) may not have been completely culpable, and e) needs our mercy if she is to find God’s mercy.

There are any number of people who get a bit quakey when dealing with anything except absolute black and white. Rather than reaching out to those in dire need, they retreat to the solace of absolute laws, and often are quick to question why, for example, there are not more excommunications. Out on the street, application of black and white simply drives people further away.

Sadly, there are many who only know the application of black and white; and when one is driven away, too often we hear something to the effect "Well, they hated (the Church) (Christ) (the priest) (put your example here…). Without getting to know the one in trouble, they label and move on.

There is a time for rules; and the Pope is clearly one who knows and fully supports the rules.

But like Christ, he wants us to understand the other part - the part about mercy - and apply it. What Christ tried to teach, and what the Pharisees too often didn’t get, is that one can apply mercy without getting rid of the rules.

Just as some will find a conspiracy where there is none, there are those who will find ambiguity where there is none. The ambiguity lies not in the message or the messenger, but in the hearer.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR MESSAGE

I’ve cleaned up this thread. Please remember that the purpose of TC Forum is to discuss Catholic traditions and Catholic customs.

I’m only allowing the discussion of the papal interviews here because I believe that the environment here is safer than in a news forum where those who are anti-clerical, anti-Catholic or simply pessimists would take advantage of this opportunity to push their agendas, which would take something away from the simplicity and spontaneity of the Holy Father’s conversation.

Please do not disappoint me by turning this into a theological analysis or a critical review of Francis’ papacy.

 

[Lion_IRC]

The problem with the interview does not have to do with one sentence. It is the entire tone of the interview. That tone suggests that there is a battle between God’s mercy and love vs. Dogma, Doctrine, Moral law and Discipline…

Sorry, I just dont see that in the interview. You cannot “tone police” written text where English as a second language might be a factor.

Maybe I dont see it because I am not looking for some subtext of the kind to which you allude. Who can suggest such a thing? God’s love IS our dogma, doctrine and our moral law.

All I see in his (verbatim) reported public statements is “…the simplicity and spontaneity of the Holy Father’s conversation.”

But it’s no surprise that he gets paraphrased and contextualized and nuanced and blatantly misrepresented by some vested interests.

 

[JReducation]

As I said in another thread, I don’t believe that the problem is the interview at all, tone or other. The problem is expectations. The interview did not deliver what people were expecting. Some people have inserted their ideas into it and others are grieved because their ideas are not represented

One has to look at the Pope’s expectations. One has to ask, why he agreed to this in the first place. If I’m not mistaken, this is the same man who wrote him a rather well written letter about his lack of belief. The letter caught the Holy Father’s attention and he responded to it. That response led to a face to face dialogue. In reality, this is not an interview in the formal sense of the word interview. It’s almost a “Getting to know you” interview.

Pope Francis is trying to get to know this man and his world. The man is trying to understand the pope and his world. Neither is focussing on dogmas, moral laws, disciplines or more formal subjects. This does not mean that these subjects are not important. It simply means that they are not part of that conversation because the conversation was not about those subjects. The Holy Father had said that he would not do interviews on abortion, same-sex marriage, divorce, contraception, etc. He has already said that everyone knows what the Church teaches on these issues. Everyone knows that he is a son of the Church. Therefore, everyone knows his answers to the questions. This interview as a conversation about things that are different from the usual.

The most positive thing in this interview is that it reflects a determination on the part of Pope Francis to change the face of the Vatican and the papacy. He’s not promising to deliver perfection. He knows that what we have now is not working. Anything new may be worth trying rather than repeat the old over and over again, when it does not work or works only for a few.