Vatican II All Over Again

[AndyP2010]

And chances are, he’ll read no further.

Well the Pope could have said that YOUR AN EVIL SINNER WHO BURN IN HELL unless you repent. I think Francis’s approach will more likely get someone to darken the door of the Church so they can go in for further catechesis.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First off I did not say that anyone here said that either the Bible or Pope Francis isn’t Orthodox. I mean really, I have seen this (false accusation of a false accusation) so many times in these threads that I am beginning to wonder if it is just some tactic. Be that as it may, my analogy still holds because neither the Bible or the Pope is ambiguous at all. The Church is the true interpreter of the Bible because only she can at the same time take into account, sacred Tradition, history, the initial audience, genre, and most importantly the guiding hand of the Divine Author the Holy Spirit. So what of Francis’s big interview. The history is now, and what way and how much the Holy Spirit is guiding him is anybodies guess. But what of genre? It 's and interview, conversation between two Jesuit priest, a wide ranging one in fact covering several topics; from his Ignatian spirituality, to what kind of man he sees himself as, his ideas about how the clergy should cary out its pastoral mission and so on. Who is the audience, the Jesuits first of all given the context of the interview and it’s printing in world wide Jesuit journals and so much of the language is Ignatian, 2nd would be the bishops and priest, 3rd would be the faithful and our brother Christians most specifically the EO, and lastly to the whole world. Taking all that into account he isn’t being ambiguous at all. And while when the Pope speaks publicly he is teaching in some degree or another it is still an interview. It is not an encyclical or even a homily, this is not Humanae Vitae or even The Theology of the Body. Given what it is, it is brilliant and at places beautiful and I can’t imagine many doing much better but it is still and interview. continued…

I think what most if not all in this thread have said is that a few words spoken off the cuff by the pope can undo a lifetime of work by those who have toiled in areas that are now being heavily downplayed…demphasized…by Francis.

The excellent Dolan/Barron interview on YouTube featured a reporter asking Dolan if he would be backing off on the homosexual issue. He said, “No”, of course, but why would the reporter have even asked the question?

Because of what they perceived Francis to have said.

Words must be chosen with care when the entire world is listening.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What may be so plain to a catechized Catholic is not plain to the majority of people. I guarantee that if I told a random non-Catholic friend of mine to sit and read the whole interview, the things this given person would take away from the piece are, “Abortion isn’t so bad, gay marriage isn’t fake or at least not so bad, and contraception isn’t so bad.”

Yes, even with the context, most non-Catholics are not going to understand. There are exceptions, very astute non-Catholics, but these are few.

I like Francis, and I think he’s going to do some good things that need to be done. But for some reason, his words are being distorted or misunderstood. So, at the risk of being misunderstood myself, I’m going to put a new spin on an old story to illustrate. Please understand that the following illustration is not designed to mock Francis nor disrespect Jesus or the Sacred Scriptures. I am trying to illustrate a point about how messages are heard and missed.

Please read to the very end.

**Francis and a Woman Caught in Adultery **

2 At dawn Francis appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Francis, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Francis bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Francis was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Francis straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Francis declared.

12 “Great! Thanks, Francis!” the woman exclaimed. And she disappeared into the crowd.

13 “Wait! There’s more!” he shouted after her. But she was gone. “Go now and leave your life of sin”, Francis muttered smiling to himself.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Even in* this*, we have a statement of truth, and the point the Pope is making, as long as we correctly understand the missing part of the above statement. “… so bad … what?” That we can’t be forgiven? In comparison with other sin that good Catholics find easier to accept in themselves? So bad that the draw of holiness can not lead to sanctity?

The Pope is speaking to Catholics and we need to listen and take heed. (1 Cor. 10:12)

But… it doesn’t really matter to the non-Catholic or not-so-great-Catholic, which is who I was talking about. This assumes that the given person recognizes a kernel of truth (which from my hypothetical statement is almost nonexistent imho) which he probably does not.

Forgiveness? What does this mean to modern Western people? Forgiveness of what? That necessarily implies sin. (I know you know that so please don’t say, “I know that,” because that is not the point here.) Modern Westerners doubly and at the same time reject the existence of sin and forgiveness, if not in an absolute sense then at least in a local (“I can’t sin!, but the Islamic terrorists can” sort of thinking, for example) sense.

If sin is not a conscious reality in the lives of people, then forgiveness means nothing to them. Yes, we have nice Hallmark cards and whatever, but sentimental niceties do not constitute a cultural acknowledgement of forgiveness in any real sense. So the usual scenario when you try to talk about forgiveness is something like, “K cool bye.”

Furthermore, we have to take into consideration the social impact of various sins. Sin hurts everybody, but certain sins hurt the larger community more than others. Eg, a single act of gay “marriage” or abortion hurts humanity more than, say, Johnny Smith of his own accord not doing obligatory penance on Friday one week. The latter is sinful and it does have an effect on Johnny, and perhaps in some small way the people who surround him, but an abortion hurts the community much more deeply. Therefore, there is a general feeling that things like abortion need to be stressed more than other things (but not exclusively), because of their more salutary nature and interconnectedness with other things.

 

[HelenRose]

At the end of Vatican II, liberals thought they had been given permission to remake the Church, and off they ran. Naturally, they were aided by their willing accomplices in the media.

It took 40 years and two popes, JPII and BXVI, to reign them in.

Are we seeing the pontificate of Pope Francis being hijacked in the same manner?

I really believe that Pope Francis is considerably smarter than the media. He knows exactly what he is doing and why. If they want to make fools of themselves, fear not, they are just spinning in their own circles.

 

[McCall1981]

I really believe that Pope Francis is considerably smarter than the media. He knows exactly what he is doing and why. If they want to make fools of themselves, fear not, they are just spinning in their own circles.

I certainly hope so

 

[edwest2]

I really believe that Pope Francis is considerably smarter than the media. He knows exactly what he is doing and why. If they want to make fools of themselves, fear not, they are just spinning in their own circles.

They are, but some will be continuing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AndyP2010]

But… it doesn’t really matter to the non-Catholic or not-so-great-Catholic, which is who I was talking about. This assumes that the given person recognizes a kernel of truth (which from my hypothetical statement is almost nonexistent imho) which he probably does not.

How do you know. Your assuming just as much the other way. Your assuming a lot about million and millions of people you don’t know and will likely never meet or communicate with. Most of them speak a different language than you and live in cultures very different than your own. Yet you feel comfortable to say that the Pope shouldn’t talk the way he does because of assumptions you have about all of these people about whom you know all so little. You must be a really confident lot to disagree with the Vicar of Christ the current holder of the keys to the Kingdom. Your a better group of men than me I guess.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I like Francis, and I think he’s going to do some good things that need to be done. But for some reason, his words are being distorted or misunderstood. So, at the risk of being misunderstood myself, I’m going to put a new spin on an old story to illustrate. Please understand that the following illustration is not designed to mock Francis nor disrespect Jesus or the Sacred Scriptures. I am trying to illustrate a point about how messages are heard and missed.

Please read to the very end.

**Francis and a Woman Caught in Adultery **

2 At dawn Francis appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Francis, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Francis bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Francis was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Francis straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Francis declared.

12 “Great! Thanks, Francis!” the woman exclaimed. And she disappeared into the crowd.

13 “Wait! There’s more!” he shouted after her. But she was gone. “Go now and leave your life of sin”, Francis muttered smiling to himself.

I am afraid that example does highlight the problem very well.

Everything so far in the secular media about Pope Francis has sounded as if Doctrine, Dogma, Morals are in tension with Love & Mercy. So Love & Mercy seems to have been communicated as acceptance without insistence on the faith and morals.

 

[Jaberwocky]

How do you know. Your assuming just as much the other way. Your assuming a lot about million and millions of people you don’t know and will likely never meet or communicate with. Most of them speak a different language than you and live in cultures very different than your own. Yet you feel comfortable to say that the Pope shouldn’t talk the way he does because of assumptions you have about all of these people about whom you know all so little. You must be a really confident lot to disagree with the Vicar of Christ the current holder of the keys to the Kingdom. Your a better group of men than me I guess.

I hate to break this to you but I have had Pope Francis quoted to me (his interview) by many in various countries as I spoke to them about abortion recently. They knew the interview but they didn’t know about the condemnation.

As I said once before, you are arguing a rather moot point. The fact that the language is ambiguous is pretty clear. I could quote some parts of the interview and ask you what they mean and you will struggle just as many Apologists are struggling to interpret what they mean.

How do you expect the average Catholic to interpret it successfully?

The best language is to be direct. No one gets confused by direct language (that is a fact). Have you heard anyone misquote the condemnation on abortion? No, because its nearly impossible to do so.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I really believe that Pope Francis is considerably smarter than the media. He knows exactly what he is doing and why. If they want to make fools of themselves, fear not, they are just spinning in their own circles.

I am not so sure that is true. Pope Francis is a brilliant man for sure. But far more brilliant men who specialize in media perception fail at handling the media.

I think its fair to say by the reaction next day by Pope Francis himself with his strong condemnation on abortion that even he did not anticipate what happened. I respect the Holy Father and I love him. But lets not turn him in to a Superman or Jason Bourne character and assume his every move is planned or calculated.

 

[McCall1981]

I am not so sure that is true. Pope Francis is a brilliant man for sure. But far more brilliant men who specialize in media perception fail at handling the media.

I think its fair to say by the reaction next day by Pope Francis himself with his strong condemnation on abortion that even he did not anticipate what happened. I respect the Holy Father and I love him. But lets not turn him in to a Superman or Jason Bourne character and assume his every move is planned or calculated.

I’m praying this means he’s starting to understand

 

[clem456]

I am not so sure that is true. Pope Francis is a brilliant man for sure. But far more brilliant men who specialize in media perception fail at handling the media.

I think its fair to say by the reaction next day by Pope Francis himself with his strong condemnation on abortion that even he did not anticipate what happened. I respect the Holy Father and I love him. But lets not turn him in to a Superman or Jason Bourne character and assume his every move is planned or calculated.

I’m praying this means he’s starting to understand

Good thing you folks are on top of this issue.

 

[TMC]

I think what most if not all in this thread have said is that a few words spoken off the cuff by the pope can undo a lifetime of work by those who have toiled in areas that are now being heavily downplayed…demphasized…by Francis.

The excellent Dolan/Barron interview on YouTube featured a reporter asking Dolan if he would be backing off on the homosexual issue. He said, “No”, of course, but why would the reporter have even asked the question?

Because of what they perceived Francis to have said.

Words must be chosen with care when the entire world is listening.

What makes you think that the Pope was speaking “off the cuff” and not choosing his words with care? This was a planned interview conducted over three days. Hardly an off the cuff event. I think the Pope said what he meant and meant what he said. I don’t think he is some naïf who does not understand the import of what he says.

 

[Aramis]

I hate to break this to you but I have had Pope Francis quoted to me (his interview) by many in various countries as I spoke to them about abortion recently. They knew the interview but they didn’t know about the condemnation.

As I said once before, you are arguing a rather moot point. The fact that the language is ambiguous is pretty clear. I could quote some parts of the interview and ask you what they mean and you will struggle just as many Apologists are struggling to interpret what they mean.

How do you expect the average Catholic to interpret it successfully?

The best language is to be direct. No one gets confused by direct language (that is a fact). Have you heard anyone misquote the condemnation on abortion? No, because its nearly impossible to do so.

That interview was not meant for the average man on the street. It was done of a Jesuit by a jesuit for Jesuits to read.

 

[McCall1981]

What makes you think that the Pope was speaking “off the cuff” and not choosing his words with care? This was a planned interview conducted over three days. Hardly an off the cuff event. I think the Pope said what he meant and meant what he said. I don’t think he is some naïf who does not understand the import of what he says.

Because he gives off-the-cuff homilies everyday, and has given multiple off-the-cuff interviews and remarks throughout his pontificate. The whole book “On Heaven adn Earth” is an off-the-cuff interview.

When asked the question “Who is Jorge Bergoglio?” he had to pause to think of an answer, so he didn’t know the questions ahead of time.

 

[TMC]

That interview was not meant for the average man on the street. It was done of a Jesuit by a jesuit for Jesuits to read.

What do you base this statement on? It was planned to be published in several public magazines in multiple languages around the world. They also provided advance copies of the interview to the larger newspapers, etc. It was conducted by Jesuits, but not limited to being for Jesuits. Nothing the Pope said gives that impression, nor does anything that the interviewer said.

 

[Aramis]

What do you base this statement on? It was planned to be published in several public magazines in multiple languages around the world. They also provided advance copies of the interview to the larger newspapers, etc. It was conducted by Jesuits, but not limited to being for Jesuits. Nothing the Pope said gives that impression, nor does anything that the interviewer said.

the publisher’s preface on one of the web published versions notes that it was done by a Jesuit for publication in several Jesuit journals. It was later decided to release it to other venues. Note that His Holiness is a Jesuit as well.

 

[TMC]

the publisher’s preface on one of the web published versions notes that it was done by a Jesuit for publication in several Jesuit journals. It was later decided to release it to other venues. Note that His Holiness is a Jesuit as well.

It was published in Jesuit journals that are provided to the general public. It was prereleased to the NY Times and other major media outlets. The Pope was speaking to the whole world, not just Jesuits. And even if he were, how does that change his message?

There seems to be a effort by many to minimize the Pope’s statements by claiming that he does not have the savvy to say what he really means and/or that readers don’t have the intelligence to understand what he said. I think that is ridiculous and insulting to both the Pope and the general public.

 

[TimothyH]

I’m praying this means he’s starting to understand

McCall, are you really praying for this?

The man is

• 76 years old.
• Speaks eight languages including coversational Latin.
• Has been a Jesuit, consecrated religious for 56 years
• Has a degree in philosophy and taught literature and psychology at high school and college levels
• Has been a priest for 53 years
• Was novice master and professor of theology at a major seminary, and was a seminary rector for six years
• Was a Provincial Superior of the Jesuits for six years
• Has been a bishop for 21 years
• Has been Metropolitan Archbishop of one of the largest archdiocese on earth for over 15 years
• Served for six years as the president of the Argentine Conference of Catholic Bishops
• Served as the ordinary for the Eastern Catholics in Argentina while also serving as a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church
• Has been a cardinal for 12 years
• Held five positions on the curia including head of the Congregation for Divine Worship

I wonder if you guys are aware of this; Cardinal Bergoglio instituted a weekly Tridentine Mass in Buenos Aires three days after Summorum Pontificum was issued. Are traditionalists aware of this? Do any of you know that he was one of the first Bishops in the world to respond to Summorum Pontificum???

I’m a pretty smart guy but this man’s qualifications in just about any area make me want to go into the corner, curl up in the fetal position and suck my thumb. I don’t know what I could possibly think that I understand better than he, except maybe how to configure a Cisco switch or how to set up an email server.

I don’t think I would have the guts to kneel before God and pray that this man attains to my level of understanding on just about anything. I think Jesus would come out of the monstrance, put his arm around me and just laugh…

-Tim-