Who Is the Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exiled_Child
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Exiled_Child

Guest
nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/feb/19/who-is-pope-francis/?insrc=hpss

On December 22, 2014, Pope Francis delivered the traditional papal Christmas speech to the assembled ranks of the Roman Curia. This annual meeting with the staff of the church’s central administration offers popes the opportunity for a stock-taking “state of the union” address. In 2005, his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI had used the occasion to deliver a momentous analysis of the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” that he believed had distorted understanding of the Second Vatican Council by presenting it as a revolutionary event, and to which he attributed many of the ills of the modern church. The phrase “hermeneutic of rupture” was eagerly seized on by those seeking a “reform of the reform,” and became a weapon in the struggle to roll back some of the most distinctive developments in the church following the Second Vatican Council of 1962–1965, which had been presided over first by John XXIII and then by Paul VI.

The scope of Pope Francis’s 2014 address, however, was far more local and specific. Having briefly thanked his hearers for their hard work during the previous year, the pope launched into an excruciating fifteen-point dissection of the spiritual ailments to whichpeople in their position might be prone. It was a dismaying catalog of “curial diseases”—the spiritual “narcissism” that, as part of the “pathology of power,” encouraged some to behave like “lords and masters” (in Italian, padroni); the “Martha complex” of excessive activity, which squeezes out human sympathy and renders men incapable of “weeping with those who weep”; the “spiritual Alzheimer’s” that besets those “who build walls and routines around themselves” and forget the spirit of the Gospel.

The pope’s tally of curial sins also included cliquishness, acquisitiveness, careerism, competitiveness, and indifference to others; the “existential schizophrenia” and “progressive spiritual emptiness” of many who abandon pastoral service and “restrict themselves to bureaucratic matters”; the “theatrical severity and sterile pessimism,” the “funereal face” that often attend the exercise of power; and the “terrorism of gossip” by which the cowardly “are ready to slander, defame and discredit others, even in newspapers and magazines.”

Though presented by Francis as a pastoral aid to a seasonal examination of conscience,the speech was widely perceived, not least by many in his audience, as a scathing critique of the current papal administration. Such excoriation of the Curia by a pope is unprecedented in modern times, yet there was nothing in its substance that need have surprised. The conclave that elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope in March 2013 was beset by a sense of scandal and dysfunction at the heart of the church. The cardinals met in the wake of the startling resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and under a rain of revelations about corruption and money laundering in the Vatican bank, clerical sexual abuse, and the failure of the church authorities to confront it—all given lurid coloring by the “Vatileaks scandal,” the leaking to the press by Pope Benedict’s own butler of hundreds of confidential documents revealing corruption, maladministration, and internecine feuding within the Curia itself.

In the run-up to the conclave, cardinal after cardinal demanded a pope who would purge the church of these ills, starting with the reform of the Curia. Francis was elected largely because he was perceived as someone who would deliver this. His pastoral emphasis on the missionary proclamation of the mercy of God to fallible people in difficult situations seemed to point away from sterile preoccupation with ritual and doctrinal niceties, bureaucratic obstructionism, and the ignoble protection of the church’s institutional interests.

One of Francis’s first major acts was the establishment of a commission of eight (subsequently nine) cardinals charged with the radical overhaul of the church’s central structures, starting with the Vatican bank. His very choice of name signaled a turn away from the doctrinal and institutional concerns of his immediate predecessors, and pointed instead to his passionate insistence on the church’s loving engagement with the poor who make up most of the world’s population.

The article continues online…. In my opinion, it’s very much worth reading…
 
When he was elected Pope, someone asked me what I thought; my response was that he would upset a lot of apple carts.

Most of what goes on for any Catholic revolves around their parish. But while the local bishop generally is not personally known and Rome is a far distant entity, much of what we perceive through the media - secular or Catholic - forms our images of what being a Catholic means.

Sadly, we seem to have only two terms - progressive and conservative; and for those who perceive themselves in one camp or the other, looking at the other camp is often only viewed in the extremes. Thus progressives are perceived as pushing for changes in moral and doctrinal matters, and conservatives are seen as hide-bound individuals who put form over substance.

And while that may be true for some on the ends; there are many “in the middle” who see areas which need changing, or areas which have been lost to any understanding, and simply want to bring the Church closer to the Gospels.

What I find most interesting about this Pope (and I strongly admired the last two for so many things) is his very strong commitment to what he perceives the clergy (particularly the bishops, cardinals, curia members, and his own office) should be. A short cut to that is the question Christ asked of His apostles: “Who do you say I am?”

There are many who see what this Pope identifies as clericalism, to be the glory of the Church and in particular the hierarchy. And any attack on the pomp and circumstances is seen as an “all or nothing, throw the baby out with the bathwater” action which threatens al of centuries of practice.

But again; if each Cardinal, each bishop, each curia member were to have to give an answer to Christ’s question, then they would have to assess their own views of these matters, as they act as an alter Christus. Christ acts through them; they “stand in the place of Christ” in their sacramental actions. Is that the sum and limits of their modeling of Christ to us? That seems to be at the base of the Pope’s questions and direction.
 
When he was elected Pope, someone asked me what I thought; my response was that he would upset a lot of apple carts.

Most of what goes on for any Catholic revolves around their parish. But while the local bishop generally is not personally known and Rome is a far distant entity, much of what we perceive through the media - secular or Catholic - forms our images of what being a Catholic means.

Sadly, we seem to have only two terms - progressive and conservative; and for those who perceive themselves in one camp or the other, looking at the other camp is often only viewed in the extremes. Thus progressives are perceived as pushing for changes in moral and doctrinal matters, and conservatives are seen as hide-bound individuals who put form over substance.

And while that may be true for some on the ends; there are many “in the middle” who see areas which need changing, or areas which have been lost to any understanding, and simply want to bring the Church closer to the Gospels.

What I find most interesting about this Pope (and I strongly admired the last two for so many things) is his very strong commitment to what he perceives the clergy (particularly the bishops, cardinals, curia members, and his own office) should be. A short cut to that is the question Christ asked of His apostles: “Who do you say I am?”

There are many who see what this Pope identifies as clericalism, to be the glory of the Church and in particular the hierarchy. And any attack on the pomp and circumstances is seen as an “all or nothing, throw the baby out with the bathwater” action which threatens al of centuries of practice.

But again; if each Cardinal, each bishop, each curia member were to have to give an answer to Christ’s question, then they would have to assess their own views of these matters, as they act as an alter Christus. Christ acts through them; they “stand in the place of Christ” in their sacramental actions. Is that the sum and limits of their modeling of Christ to us? That seems to be at the base of the Pope’s questions and direction.
Agreed on all points, my Oregonian friend.🙂 What bums me out, is that this is without a doubt the best thing I’ve ever published on CAF, and almost no one seems to have even noticed it!
 
Agreed on all points, my Oregonian friend.🙂 What bums me out, is that this is without a doubt the best thing I’ve ever published on CAF, and almost no one seems to have even noticed it!
Thanks so much , Exiled Child. It was really very good.
 
Wonderful article! I hope our readers will finish reading the rest of it! I was struck by these words:
That judgment, however, carefully ignores the significance of Bergoglio’s consistent adoption of a rhetoric, in word and act, manifestly at odds with the ethos of the previous two pontificates. For admirers of the “dynamic orthodoxy” (a euphemism for the vigorous exertion of central authority) that characterized the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Bergoglio’s frank acceptance of clerical fallibility and the perils of authoritarian leadership are both startling and deeply unappetizing. Outraged conservative opponents like Cardinal Raymond Burke, in a dramatic departure from the protocol that inhibits cardinals from public criticism of living popes, have described the church under Francis as “a ship without a rudder.” [And Burke is still at it, now giving press to the fact that he will **resist the Pope, should he fail to comply with Burke’s ideals concerning divorced and remarried spouses.]
Even the demotion last November of Cardinal Raymond Burke as head of the Apostolic Signatura, the church’s supreme court, was notably tardy, considering that Burke’s regular appearances in the capa magna, the twenty-foot-long train of scarlet watered silk sported by cardinals until the late 1960s, signaled an understanding of the church utterly at odds with that of the pope.
 
And Burke is still at it, now giving press to the fact that he will resist the Pope, should he fail to comply with Burke’s ideals concerning divorced and remarried spouses.]
Burke’s ideals or Christ’s? I dont recall that it was Cardinal Burke who proclaimed unabashedly, 2000 years ago, that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Yep! Checked and rechecked it again, and it says Jesus, not Raymond Burke.:rolleyes:
 
Burke’s ideals or Christ’s? I dont recall that it was Cardinal Burke who proclaimed unabashedly, 2000 years ago, that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Yep! Checked and rechecked it again, and it says Jesus, not Raymond Burke.:rolleyes:
Since the synod, the Pope has said clearly and publicly that no doctrine is going to be changed. So that issue is off the table.

As noted in the article, “in a dramatic departure from the protocol which prohibits Cardinals from criticisms of living Popes…”

For a Cardinal to have a bone to pick with a Pope is not exactly earth shattering new news.

To do so publicly?

Un hunh… And that is not the first comment, but one in a series of public calling out.
 
Since the synod, the Pope has said clearly and publicly that no doctrine is going to be changed. So that issue is off the table.

As noted in the article, “in a dramatic departure from the protocol which prohibits Cardinals from criticisms of living Popes…”

For a Cardinal to have a bone to pick with a Pope is not exactly earth shattering new news.

To do so publicly?

Un hunh… And that is not the first comment, **but one in a series of public calling out. **
And then he backpedals when the press seemingly ‘got it wrong.’ Not the first time for this maneuver, either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top