The Inquisitr asks. Based on its take on Pope Francis, we are now in a new era of Catholicism, where the Pope has all but said there are no sins of the Left, or in relation to religious doctrine. Believe what you want or nothing at all. Indulge in gay sex. Do whatever you want. As long as you follow your own particular conscience, you're off to heaven.
In fairness, I don't know if that's what Pope Francis has said, or at least if that is what he meant. But then, I don't know what he meant, other than the whole of his teachings suggest that isn't too far from the truth. But in any event, Inquisitr asks, assuming this is the proper take, what think us?
For me, if that is true, then it is a catastrophe for the Catholic Church. For no matter how you twist and spin it, it becomes clear that yes, Virginia, the Catholic Faith can be changed on the whims of a single man. Especially when that man reflects what the majority of believers want in the first place.
Again, I don't know if that is a proper take, but if it is, that's my opinion. FWIW.
"Again, I don't know if that is a proper take, but if it is, that's my opinion. FWIW" I have to remind my self that the title or the blog is Daffy Thoughts. I can't believe that anyone who read his way into the church really takes this article seriously. I think it is pretty clear the Pope isn't changing any doctrine. I also think that Francis tailors his approach depending on the audience and in the case of atheist talking about conscious and obeying as a path toward salvation, seems about right to me. If you get them at least able to do good works then, I think we can hope that faith will come later. Just in the same way that some people's conscious seem to tell them what they want to do is ok, though I rather think that they are listening to a wormwood or screwtape; there are also a lot of people who find the things Francis says are confusing, ambiguous or just plain wrong (from an Orthodox Catholic perspective), who have ulterior motives. They either want to imply that their immoral behavior is ok, he isn't their idea of what a Pope should be, or they want to discredit the Papacy or the Church because need an excuse to leave or not join.
ReplyDeleteYou know a lot of people gripe about the Pope, talking about Mercy to homosexuals and atheist and why doesn't he tell them that what they do is sinful. All I have to say is, why talk about mercy if the sin isn't implied. Even in the case of the infamous "Who am I to judge" in the sentence before he talks about the person in question going to confession. Heck, he talks more about going to confession more than I have ever heard BXVI or JPII. Of course maybe I am off base here and your making fun of the Inquistr, then I apologize.
When it comes to mercy, Pope Francis seems a little less willing to dispense it when it comes to those things rejected by those who to more liberal ideals. Capitalism, questioning the modern take on Global Warming, accepting the wording and narratives of groups typically progressive in nature - these things have been ongoing for him. Meanwhile, while he certain reiterates the Church's position when it comes to those pet sins of the Left, that is where it is about mercy, love, acceptance and tolerance. That's a constant and consistent tendency. And that's not something I pulled out of the air. Ross Douthat has also noticed that, long and short, Pope Francis hates the things liberals typically hate, accepts their take (such as only those part of a wicked fossil fuel conspiracy could be questioning MMGW) on other issues, and when it comes to more liberal sensitivities, he's pretty much 'let's all just get along and love each other.' That's fine. It is what it is. Notice I didn't say I bought the article's interpretation. But there is too much there for me to laughably think there is something wrong with someone who notices the trend. For me, the strangeness is those who keep insisting there is nothing at all to see.
ReplyDeleteFirst let's leave aside global warming because I think we may be on the same side of that debate.
ReplyDeleteIsn't Francis just following the Divine Mercy, where Jesus tells St. Faustina, and I paraphrase that the greatest sinners have the greatest right to his mercy. So Francis spends his time, attention, and love with the unrighteous leaving us good orthodox catholics in the bosom of the Church. Isn't odd that we in the United States think of homosexuality as a left/right issue or that we see so many moral issues that way. So instead of seeing sinners that need our love and conversion, we see them as political opponents that need to be overcome, defeated, destroyed. What the hell is wrong with us. San Francisco, Los Angelus, and New York aren't strongholds of our political opponents but as Catholic Christians we should see them as mission territory for the gospel. I will have to find it one day but Francis was once quoted as saying that you preach the love of Jesus, then comes catechesis and the moral consequences follow.
My reading of Francis's statements on global capitalism, isn't so much that he is calling for overthrow as for reform. His message isn't really different from his predecessors in that regard. We on the right, in the US saw them, on our side and so I think we didn't read their writings on social justice as critically as we should.
David, I remain a right winger because I believe that a liberal market economy brings about more justice than not. I also agree with the Pope when he says the current system fails to bring about a just society. I also wouldn't describe the current system and a liberal market economy, for that matter.
There's nothing wrong with showing sinners mercy. But you must admit, there is a different tone with some who are sinners than that reserved for others. Personally, I like Pope Francis. I admire his holding our feet to the fire and calling us to get out of the bleachers and put our faith where our mouths are. But he is clearly informed by his Latin American culture. Liberation theologies are rife down there, and much of what defines the way in which they act and prioritize seems to be Pope Francis. For instance, the idea that Socialist Democracies have fewer problems or abuses than Capitalist nations is more left wing than accurate. They both have problems.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, there are times when what Pope Francis says, and the way he says it, reflects a more 'liberal' take on things. When commenting on the Holocaust, he lashed out at the Western Democracies for not doing enough. That is a very controversial debate, one that historians debate long and hard. What more could they do? Some say we should have bombed the camps. There is much there, but he took a definite stand that aligns mostly with a more progressive spin, including the charge that it was just racism and not a legitimate reason for not doing more (one of the defining characteristics of the Left is brutal and unwavering criticisms of it own heritage, in our case that of the Christian West - it's also a defining characteristic of Latin American liberation theologies, as even Ronald Sider - no fan of Capitalism - noted). In addition to that, when he called out remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust, he included Christians, Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. That last one is also debated. We have little clue exactly how they were targeted, how many were, and the numbers involved. It's likely more Jehovah's Witnesses died in proportion during the Holocaust than homosexuals. But it is part of the more progressive, pro non-heterosexual normality movement, that elevates the issue of homosexuality to front stage of any and all events. That Pope Francis included that, to the exclusion of other groups, again reflected the narrative associated with more progressive leanings.
Likewise, Global Warming. When he came out and basically said embrace it to save the destruction of humanity, and resist those who question it because they are part of some vast, Fossil Fuel conspiracy. Once again, that is one of the worst parts of that debate (and pushed to its limits, almost heretical if you think about it - after all, are those who advocate MMGW any less prone to sin or special interest? Not according to the Faith, or common sense). And yet as laughable as it is to think scientists who advocate for MMGW are somehow immune from ulterior motives, and those who question it are part of the Vast Conspiracy, it's very popular among the more radical, and as often as not, progressive advocates of MMGW. And, once again, Pope Francis echoes those words and viewpoints.
(Cont.)
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with showing sinners mercy. But you must admit, there is a different tone with some who are sinners than that reserved for others. Personally, I like Pope Francis. I admire his holding our feet to the fire and calling us to get out of the bleachers and put our faith where our mouths are. But he is clearly informed by his Latin American culture. Liberation theologies are rife down there, and much of what defines the way in which they act and prioritize seems to be Pope Francis. For instance, the idea that Socialist Democracies have fewer problems or abuses than Capitalist nations is more left wing than accurate. They both have problems.
Likewise, there are times when what Pope Francis says, and the way he says it, reflects a more 'liberal' take on things. When commenting on the Holocaust, he lashed out at the Western Democracies for not doing enough. That is a very controversial debate, one that historians debate long and hard. What more could they do? Some say we should have bombed the camps. There is much there, but he took a definite stand that aligns mostly with a more progressive spin, including the charge that it was just racism and not a legitimate reason for not doing more (one of the defining characteristics of the Left is brutal and unwavering criticisms of it own heritage, in our case that of the Christian West - it's also a defining characteristic of Latin American liberation theologies, as even Ronald Sider - no fan of Capitalism - noted). In addition to that, when he called out remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust, he included Christians, Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. That last one is also debated. We have little clue exactly how they were targeted, how many were, and the numbers involved. It's likely more Jehovah's Witnesses died in proportion during the Holocaust than homosexuals. But it is part of the more progressive, pro non-heterosexual normality movement, that elevates the issue of homosexuality to front stage of any and all events. That Pope Francis included that, to the exclusion of other groups, again reflected the narrative associated with more progressive leanings.
(Cont.)
ReplyDeleteOr Global Warming. When he came out and basically said embrace it to save the destruction of humanity, and resist those who question it because they are part of some vast, Fossil Fuel conspiracy. Once again, that is one of the worst parts of that debate (and pushed to its limits, almost heretical if you think about it - after all, are those who advocate MMGW any less prone to sin or special interest? Not according to the Faith, or common sense). And yet as laughable as it is to think scientists who advocate for MMGW are somehow immune from ulterior motives, and those who question it are part of the Vast Conspiracy, it's very popular among the more radical, and as often as not, progressive advocates of MMGW. And, once again, Pope Francis echoes those words and viewpoints.
Again, I personally like the man. I admire that he has told us - if we've listened - that before we build our righteous cause on condemning a bunch of lofty social issues that don't impact us, why don't we really take what we have, give it to the poor, and follow Jesus. I also don't mind him condemning the excesses or blind spots of those who have tried to hold to the traditions of the faith. But his lumping fundamentalist with terrorists, his condemnation or swift dismissal of traditions to embrace the spirit of the Now, and sometimes, the fact that he does seem to say 'hey, those Catholics are the problem' more than previous Popes who seemed to say 'Us Catholics are the problem' when they said it at all, his willingness to almost say the sins of the modern left are things we can just agree to disagree over, are parts I'm not thrilled with.
And I can't say with a straight face that he's not clearly comfortable and sympathetic to more progressive ideals and the influences that seem to define the attitudes of Latin American Liberation theologians. That doesn't mean I dislike him, it means I just see him as a product of his culture and his time. As we all are.
a fair position to take Mr Griffey (since you refer to me as Mr Pardue although you can call me Andy if you like) I think that time and history will be the test of this. Thank you for your thoughtful response .
ReplyDelete