Vatican II All Over Again

[M-Dent]

But Francis used “right-winger” instead of “conservative”. If anything, “right-winger” is more pejorative than “conservative”.

I personal believe that was an unfortunate term used - since many do not know the cultural and historical reference it may have in regards to the governance he was involved. Argentina at the time was a warzone. Right-wing means something different to a South American (who may understand it in regards to dictatorship and violence) or a current US citizen who thinks the pope just distanced himself from someone such as Archbishop Chaput?

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Francis uses labels like “Gnostics”, “Pelagians”, “Triumphalists”, etc, to describe segments of the Cathollic population or streams of Catholic thought.

He also recently said “right winger”.

Why can’t we use “liberals” and “conservatives”.

Did he speak in English? And how exactly did he apply the terms? These terms in English normally designate political positions AFAIK.

 

[McCall1981]

Did he speak in English?

Well, he was, of course, translated. But the official, approved English translation (which was done by a Jesuit publication) used “right-winger”.

The other terms I mentioned, like Gnostic, are pretty specific and technical (ie, not figure of speech), and I don’t think translation would be an issue.

 

[clem456]

Here is a man who is misused and mischaracterized by his enemies. Generates anger by inviting people to conversion. And is hyper-scrutinized and criticized by his “friends” who claim the same faith and would like him to be triumphant.
Sounds like a familiar scenario. He must be doing something right.

 

[agnes_therese]

This is funny article making fun of them for doing this (there is animplied profanity in it).

patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/09/dear-naral.html

Though unfortunately, given the media coverage and people’s tendency to only read headlines and move on, I think NARAL still got their “win” out of this.

They may have gotten some “win” out of it, but some of their members are very upset that NARAL thanked the Pope, knowing full well his position on abortion hasn’t changed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

They may have gotten some “win” out of it, but some of their members are very upset that NARAL thanked the Pope, knowing full well his position on abortion hasn’t changed.

Good! :dancing:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Maybe some precise definitions will help:

Survey Says…
Todd Aglialoro
catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/survey-says

And so we speak of religious liberalism and religious conservatism as comprising certain characteristics:

Liberalism: Places limited importance on regular worship-observance and on strict adherence to doctrine and morals. Stresses God’s immanence and temporal religious goods (kindness toward others, stewardship of creation). Open to change in belief and practice as the times may require.

Conservatism: Sees regular worship-observance and assent to theological and moral dogmas as essential. Stresses God’s transcendence and eternal religious goods (sanctity, salvation). Resistant to change in belief and practice, preferring to “conserve” what it has.

According to this scheme, Catholicism is a conservative religion. Its principal aim is eternal, its doctrines immutable, its founding duty to hold fast to what it received. This analysis says nothing about Catholic politics, about the spiritual styles of individual Catholics, or about legitimate ways in which Catholicism also speaks of God’s immanence, preaches temporal works, and undergoes change over time. But it’s a handy way of making fundamental—and important—distinctions. It also reveals a natural affinity between Catholicism and other religious-conservative groups: the Orthodox churches, many Evangelical Protestants, Conservative and Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, and Islam.

There are liberals and there are conservatives, and these are useful words for speaking about these groups.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Here is a man who is misused and mischaracterized by his enemies. Generates anger by inviting people to conversion. And is hyper-scrutinized and criticized by his “friends” who claim the same faith and would like him to be triumphant.
Sounds like a familiar scenario. He must be doing something right.

I think the comparison is unfair. We could say this about almost anyone who is misunderstood and characterized as an enemy of the faith ex: Tertulian, Luther, Calvin etc. To say that just because there is confusion and controversy, someone is doing something right is therefore not a reasonable conclusion to make. I am not comparing the Holy Father to these folks but I am just pointing out how your criteria fails to make a proper distinction.

 

[clem456]

I think the comparison is unfair. We could say this about almost anyone who is misunderstood and characterized as an enemy of the faith ex: Tertulian, Luther, Calvin etc. To say that just because there is confusion and controversy, someone is doing something right is therefore not a reasonable conclusion to make. I am not comparing the Holy Father to these folks but I am just pointing out how your criteria fails to make a proper distinction.

I think I was unclear with my post.
I am comparing him to Christ, who in the eyes of his contemporaries should have been the triumphant king who overthrew the Romans. And also to many other Christians over the ages who first speak as they are called to do, and leave the nay-sayers, busy bodies, and hand wringers to do what they do.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That is exactly what happened. The entire interview reads as if there is a great tension between God’s Love, Mercy and Forgiveness and Moral Law, Doctrine, and Dogma. That is unfortunate.

Unless someone is very well catechized and very well read, its very hard to even unpack that interview in a completely Orthodox way without stepping on a mine and being blown away to error. ***That is probably why even faithful Catholics had problems understanding it. ***

[bolding mine] And have misinterpreted it. And still are misinterpreting it. They’re doing that because most Catholics today, right now, are not

very well catechized

Definitely have to agree that an opportunity was missed to explain why God’s Love, Mercy, and Forgiveness and even his Will is revealed through the Moral Law, Doctrine and Dogma taught by the Church.

I also just re-read JP2’s Encyclical on Mercy, an important encyclical which spends a good amount of time unpacking the Prodigal Son parable, among many other analyses in that document from the Holy Father. The analysis corresponds with how the Church has always understood and explained the parable: that the son’s experience and knowledge that he had veered from Truth, and his experience of separation from God which was a result of that rejection on the son’s part, preceded the extension of mercy by the Father. The son was already converted (“turned altogether,” from the Latin) when the father “saw him in the distance” and was moved to extend mercy. The father saw the direction in which the son’s heart was already pointed, as symbolized by the physical journey back itself.

 

[AndyP2010]

Well, he was, of course, translated. But the official, approved English translation (which was done by a Jesuit publication) used “right-winger”.

The other terms I mentioned, like Gnostic, are pretty specific and technical (ie, not figure of speech), and I don’t think translation would be an issue.

There was no official approved English translation. The Pope only approved the Italian. The Jesuits did the translations after the fact for their own major language publicians as it say in the introduction.

Bold is mine.

Father Spadaro conducted the interview on behalf of La Civiltà Cattolica, America and several other major Jesuit journals around the world. The editorial teams at each of the journals prepared questions and sent them to Father Spadaro, who then consolidated and organized them. The interview was conducted in Italian. After the Italian text was officially approved, America commissioned a team of five independent experts to translate it into English. America is solely responsible for the accuracy of this translation. This interview is copyrighted by America Press and cannot be used, except for brief quotations, without written permission.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I think I was unclear with my post.
I am comparing him to Christ, who in the eyes of his contemporaries should have been the triumphant king who overthrew the Romans. And also to many other Christians over the ages who first speak as they are called to do, and leave the nay-sayers, busy bodies, and hand wringers to do what they do.

It’s clearer now.

But your point is the same as trying to prove that Pope Francis is Orthodox. I think almost everyone on this thread accepts that. The issue pointed out in the OP is that this Orthodoxy does not matter if the Pope’s comments are ambiguous or missing part of the complete message. It will get used by the media and the social trends of our time (and the now well established trends from abusing Vatican II) to twist him to become a liberal tool.

There is actually no question here on whether Pope Francis is Orthodox. Neither of us here are capable of making that decision otherwise and it will take another Pope to decide something to the opposite if it were even true. But what we are saying is that his language is ambiguous and therefore can be twisted to fit the needs of the Liberals.

To state the problem more concisely

1. Pope Francis is 100% Orthodox
2. Pope Francis’s words in public are ambiguous and not very direct - proven by the twisting done by both sides and the confusion in most as to what he is saying
3. Liberals have already twisted his words to promote their agenda - Evidence is everywhere
4. The modern social trends and the established social trends are just looking for a word of acceptance of the trends and are more likely to forget the minor points against them.
5. The media reports more words of Pope Francis that are favorable to current trends than his controversial statements - as we can see with a comparison of abortion comments vs. interview popularity
6. Therefore Pope Francis’s words are most likely going to be used to promote their agenda than make them think otherwise

The problem will be exactly like with Vatican II. And just as with Vatican II, the younger generation of Catholics who are not very well catechized will grow up in this environment of information given by these Liberal groups and push the boundaries of what was ever thought of as even Liberal.

To this end, it should be said that Jesus was not ambiguous. He caused controversy because what he was saying was unacceptable = man claiming he is God and forgiving sins, claiming to be the messiah while saying his kingdom is not of this world.

 

[Randy_Carson]

To state the problem more concisely

1. Pope Francis is 100% Orthodox
2. Pope Francis’s words in public are ambiguous and not very direct - proven by the twisting done by both sides and the confusion in most as to what he is saying
3. Liberals have already twisted his words to promote their agenda - Evidence is everywhere
4. The modern social trends and the established social trends are just looking for a word of acceptance of the trends and are more likely to forget the minor points against them.
5. The media reports more words of Pope Francis that are favorable to current trends than his controversial statements - as we can see with a comparison of abortion comments vs. interview popularity
6. Therefore Pope Francis’s words are most likely going to be used to promote their agenda than make them think otherwise

The problem will be exactly like with Vatican II. And just as with Vatican II, the younger generation of Catholics who are not very well catechized will grow up in this environment of information given by these Liberal groups and push the boundaries of what was ever thought of as even Liberal.

To this end, it should be said that Jesus was not ambiguous. He caused controversy because what he was saying was unacceptable = man claiming he is God and forgiving sins, claiming to be the messiah while saying his kingdom is not of this world.

Well said.

And those of us who are conservative and tend to be a bit fussy about theological precision are being told that these “small-minded things” just aren’t that important.

Well, the chickens will come home to roost…just like they did in the 60’s and 70’s…and we’ll be dealing with the same bunch of chicken droppings all over again.

 

[TMC]

I don’t see the mass misrepresentation of the Pope’s statement that so many seem to take for granted. Virtually every article I have read on the interview was fair and reasonably accurate - especially by modern journalistic “standards.” I think that every article I read noted that the Pope did not make any change to any Church doctrine. But I have read a lot of things written by Catholics (here and on blogs, etc) either 1) complaining about the Pontiff’s supposedly ill-advised statements, 2) expressing fear that the Pope’s words would be misused or 3) speculating that the Pope meant something other than what he said.

I think that the Pope said what he meant and meant what he said. I think he expressed himself clearly. I think he knows what he is doing. Best of all, I am confident he will have a lot more to say and we will not have to wait long to hear more about his vision for the Church.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I don’t see the mass misrepresentation of the Pope’s statement that so many seem to take for granted. Virtually every article I have read on the interview was fair and reasonably accurate - especially by modern journalistic “standards.” I think that every article I read noted that the Pope did not make any change to any Church doctrine. But I have read a lot of things written by Catholics (here and on blogs, etc) either 1) complaining about the Pontiff’s supposedly ill-advised statements, 2) expressing fear that the Pope’s words would be misused or 3) speculating that the Pope meant something other than what he said.

I think that the Pope said what he meant and meant what he said. I think he expressed himself clearly. I think he knows what he is doing. Best of all, I am confident he will have a lot more to say and we will not have to wait long to hear more about his vision for the Church.

It was confusing enough and reported as such that on its own, NARAL thought it worthy of giving thanks to the Pope (something I don’t think they have ever done).

 

[McCall1981]

It’s clearer now.

But your point is the same as trying to prove that Pope Francis is Orthodox. I think almost everyone on this thread accepts that. The issue pointed out in the OP is that this Orthodoxy does not matter if the Pope’s comments are ambiguous or missing part of the complete message. It will get used by the media and the social trends of our time (and the now well established trends from abusing Vatican II) to twist him to become a liberal tool.

There is actually no question here on whether Pope Francis is Orthodox. Neither of us here are capable of making that decision otherwise and it will take another Pope to decide something to the opposite if it were even true. But what we are saying is that his language is ambiguous and therefore can be twisted to fit the needs of the Liberals.

To state the problem more concisely

1. Pope Francis is 100% Orthodox
2. Pope Francis’s words in public are ambiguous and not very direct - proven by the twisting done by both sides and the confusion in most as to what he is saying
3. Liberals have already twisted his words to promote their agenda - Evidence is everywhere
4. The modern social trends and the established social trends are just looking for a word of acceptance of the trends and are more likely to forget the minor points against them.
5. The media reports more words of Pope Francis that are favorable to current trends than his controversial statements - as we can see with a comparison of abortion comments vs. interview popularity
6. Therefore Pope Francis’s words are most likely going to be used to promote their agenda than make them think otherwise

The problem will be exactly like with Vatican II. And just as with Vatican II, the younger generation of Catholics who are not very well catechized will grow up in this environment of information given by these Liberal groups and push the boundaries of what was ever thought of as even Liberal.

To this end, it should be said that Jesus was not ambiguous. He caused controversy because what he was saying was unacceptable = man claiming he is God and forgiving sins, claiming to be the messiah while saying his kingdom is not of this world.

Well said.

And those of us who are conservative and tend to be a bit fussy about theological precision are being told that these “small-minded things” just aren’t that important.

Well, the chickens will come home to roost…just like they did in the 60’s and 70’s…and we’ll be dealing with the same bunch of chicken droppings all over again.

My hope is that over time, Francis’ governance and actions will start to dampen all the misrepresentation going on. As we’ve been stating here, he IS orthodox, and he IS taking actions that completely contradict the media’s narrative (like excommunicating the Australian Priest). We just need that reality to overshadow the false narrative.

For instance, today Fr. Z has a good article about how National Catholic Reporter is shocked that Francis would excommunciate the Australian Priest, because Francis is suppossed to be so dismissive of rules.

Hopefully, as more of those actions add up, the media will become disillusioned by him and give up the false narrative. My fear though is that since the false narrative is valuable to their agena, they will keep it up no matter what, even if they have to ignore his reality. As was metioned before, perception matters, and can still do damage even if it isn’t true

 

[TimothyH]

I think Father Z is the only one who cares about what NCR says anymore. He and NCR have a history.

-Tim-

 

[AndyP2010]

It was confusing enough and reported as such that on its own, NARAL thought it worthy of giving thanks to the Pope (something I don’t think they have ever done).

I guess then that the Regensberg address was ambiguous enough that there were riots and people died. Do I think that Benedict XV! was ambiguous? No, but evil has a way of twisting truth to lies. Francis shows no sign of changing, we need to learn how to respond.

 

[OraLabora]

It’s clearer now.

But your point is the same as trying to prove that Pope Francis is Orthodox. I think almost everyone on this thread accepts that. The issue pointed out in the OP is that this Orthodoxy does not matter if the Pope’s comments are ambiguous or missing part of the complete message. It will get used by the media and the social trends of our time (and the now well established trends from abusing Vatican II) to twist him to become a liberal tool.

There is actually no question here on whether Pope Francis is Orthodox. Neither of us here are capable of making that decision otherwise and it will take another Pope to decide something to the opposite if it were even true. But what we are saying is that his language is ambiguous and therefore can be twisted to fit the needs of the Liberals.

To state the problem more concisely

1. Pope Francis is 100% Orthodox
2. Pope Francis’s words in public are ambiguous and not very direct - proven by the twisting done by both sides and the confusion in most as to what he is saying
3. Liberals have already twisted his words to promote their agenda - Evidence is everywhere
4. The modern social trends and the established social trends are just looking for a word of acceptance of the trends and are more likely to forget the minor points against them.
5. The media reports more words of Pope Francis that are favorable to current trends than his controversial statements - as we can see with a comparison of abortion comments vs. interview popularity
6. Therefore Pope Francis’s words are most likely going to be used to promote their agenda than make them think otherwise

The problem will be exactly like with Vatican II. And just as with Vatican II, the younger generation of Catholics who are not very well catechized will grow up in this environment of information given by these Liberal groups and push the boundaries of what was ever thought of as even Liberal.

To this end, it should be said that Jesus was not ambiguous. He caused controversy because what he was saying was unacceptable = man claiming he is God and forgiving sins, claiming to be the messiah while saying his kingdom is not of this world.

I don’t want to get into the “conservative vs. liberal” game.

But I have to question: perhaps people with an agenda are twisting the words of Pope Francis. Is it not also true that people with an agenda twisted Pope Benedict’s words? There are people who used his words to forward a, shall we say, traditionalist agenda, and there were those who twisted his words to make him appear to be the rottweiler then wanted to believe he was to forward their anti-Church views.

It’s unfortunately a result of living in an era of strong agenda politics, where the communication means now in use make it very easy to sugar-coat an agenda by editing bits and pieces of speeches, interviews, etc. It’s so hard, on the 'net, to find unbiased views. Even in the media world, the notion of “news” is increasingly confused with the notion of “editorial”.

It would appear that the only true solution would be for the pope to shut up and be content with waving at the crowds from the window of the (now not used) papal apartments, except to say things like “greetings to the Knights of Columbus from Hicksville…”.

Obviously you can’t tend a flock that way. He has speak and face the risk of being misinterpreted. Every public leader faces that risk.

 

[McCall1981]

I guess then that the Regensberg address was ambiguous enough that there were riots and people died. Do I think that Benedict XV! was ambiguous? No, but evil has a way of twisting truth to lies. Francis shows no sign of changing, we need to learn how to respond.

You’re right, but the examples people bring up about Benedict are Regensberg and the condom quote. That’s pretty much it in eight years of being Pope. Francis has had about eight of these moments in six months.

I’m hoping that the strong pro-life things he said the day after the interview came out are a response of sorts. If so, that could indicate that he saw the media flury, didn’t like it, and was “correcting” it, in a sense. It would imply that he is becoming aware of the situatuion and is starting to address it.

At least I hope so