When I was being interviewed on a Catholic radio show once, we were talking about the state of things in the world and the Church. This was when the Episcopal Church made news after it voted to name the New Testament as an anti-Semitic, racist document. During the radio show the host brought that up, but said 'A certain denomination did such and such.' I responded that it was the Episcopal Church. After all, it was in the news. Anyone knowing about the story knew who we were talking about. Anyone not knowing about it has a right to know. He was not happy, and I wasn't asked to be back on his show.
Quite frankly, I've never cared for that approach of 'You know, there's this denomination in the news that did this crazy thing.' You mean the Episcopal Church? Or, 'You know, it was that damp, foggy island just north of France.' You mean England? Or, 'You know, if you don't study harder, you're going to get an F like Rick and some other people*.'
As a pastor, I didn't care for that trick. If I felt inclined to point out a problem with something particular, I would name it. And if I didn't feel inclined to name it, I didn't point it out. Even if it was calling out our own denomination or one of its offices. I think let my yes be yes and no be no means something.
Unfortunately, too often Pope Francis seems to think it means let your maybe by possibly, then you can always have wiggle room. In an age that sees Truth and Facts the way vampires see garlic and mirrors, I can't help but think that's a bad look. I fear it gives too many already awash in our age of duplicity a feeling of justification for doing the same thing.
Plus, what does he mean by saying he deserves attacks and insults because he's a sinner? That's rubbish, too. However sinful, he doesn't deserve attacks or insults. Rebukes, yes. Correction, of course. A gentle kick in the butt maybe. But not personal attacks or insults. Technically, nobody deserves that, and if I fall into the habit of merely launching attacks and insults at people under the justification that 'the sinful son of a bitch has it coming', then I'm the problem. Glass houses after all.
The more I listen to Pope Francis, the more I want to cringe. He's quickly become so many things I try to raise my boys not to be. And I hate that. I see a lot of potential in him, and I think he could have done great things. Perhaps he wasn't ready for the spotlight. I don't know. I just wish he would act the part of a mature religious leader, rather than a frat boy jockeying for laughs from all the cool kids at the house party.
*That's a humorous story from my youth. A friend of mine named Rick was in French class with me, and he and the teacher hated each other. One day, the teacher called out the superintendent's daughter for not paying attention. He said, 'If you don't pay attention, you're going to get an F like Rick and some other people.' Rick immediately protested being called out. The teacher responded that he didn't just call him out, he mentioned others than just Rick. At which point Rick said, "Oh sure, Rick and some other people!' I always cherished that as a way to be overtly slick and duplicitous while leaving just enough wiggle room for implausible deniability.' Nonetheless, that isn't the sort of story that should come to my mind when I read the latest statements by our pope.
UPDATE: Apparently many are responding with great joy that Pope Francis has once again called out one of those other Catholic types, however thinly veiled. Here's but one example:
So let me get this straight. If it was wrong for Arroyo to say the pope does the Devil's work, then wouldn't it be wrong for Pope Francis to do the same thing? Or does Catholicism operate under the old Protestant stereotypes that being pope takes away the rules of the Lord? Or is it because it's my side doing it, in the greatest tradition of liberal values: Of course it's wrong when non-Liberals censor things!? Or is Deacon Greydanus, and perhaps the pope, pushing us into the post-modern world where we don't sweat consistency of principles or morals anyway, as long as we win? I don't know. But then, can we really be sure Pope Francis meant EWTN? After all, he didn't name names did he?
"And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness." That's perhaps the best example for us.
ReplyDeleteTrue. If only their father didn't keep breaking out of the tent and running around for all to see.
DeleteI was watching to see if Mark Shea would make up comment on the drone strike that did nothing but kill innocents. Even during the Obama administration he probably would have criticized when it happened, when it was still thought to have an actual terrorist target, based both on an opposition to drone strikes generally as well as an objection to the blatantly posturing nature of the strike (Biden's foreign policy a disaster? Time to kill some terrorists!) The revelation that only innocents died would lead to him expanding his discussion to note that when you sin, you often get nothing in the end.
ReplyDeleteOf course, crickets. But he didn't seem to be saying as much recently in general so I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is just taking a break or trying to be less combative. Then on twitter he pounced almost immediately on Pope Francis's words to attack Arroyo. No, he's just as combative as always. The truth is that either he is willing to bury evil if it hurts his enemies or he just doesn't care anymore, so long as it's his side committing the atrocities.
That's what I mentioned the other day. I'd say we no longer have to use the label 'New Prolife'. There's nothing close to anything prolife in most of their advocacy at this point. It's largely pro-Left. And if the Left is moving to kill more innocents, or causing the innocent to die, those 'NPL Catholics' are more than happy to ignore it, or even attack those who bring it up. If that's pro-life in any way, then ham is Kosher.
DeleteThat just sounds petty on the part of Deacon Greydanus so there has to be a backstory. I was actually wondering somewhat recently if I should contact the Register and complain about him (SGD) because of things I'd come across he wrote that just disturbed me - in content and tone. All I could think was, "How can I take the Gospel seriously from this guy (as he posts homilies on the Register site) when this is how he acts on social media?" Having largely left following Catholic social media about 10 years ago I somehow missed the leftist descent of many people I (now formerly) respected. It just makes me sad, but I can see how such platforms might easily corrupt. When I was a new mom I prayed about starting a blog like so many were doing at the time (early 2000's) and thank God I really felt Him tell me not to do it. I could see I would get too caught up in the feedback loop and it would pull my attention away from what was truly important. Plus I was pretty sure I wasn't going to be able to maintain a prayer life equal to the task of engaging perpetually online. I hardly do that now and I'm not online nearly as much as I used to be.
ReplyDeleteWhat I've seen it over the years is that the people whose personalities are their platform (because you have to brand yourself at some point to make money) and got their start on blogs/social media have for the most part become miserable people and a lot have gone Left. But they won't give it up because... money now. And I resent that so many of these "professional Catholics" hardly represent the Catholic Faith I want people to know and love but they get paid to do it. Maybe in person they are different but online is where I see them so that's what I see.
From what I can see, his contributions to the Register aren't that partisan (mostly). Likewise some of the homilies he's published aren't too bad, though I've seen a couple under the 'why are those people bringing their politics into my church?' template. Like so many others - Shea being a prime example - his face to face persona is pretty cordial. It's when they're safe behind their keyboards that they become nasty partisan with few rules, just win.
DeleteHis behavior on Twitter should still be grounds for removal from The Register, if it's bad enough (I don't read his tweets, or anyone's tweets, all that often, but the Register people should.
DeleteYes, his Register offerings are fine taken at face value. But seeing his online behavior just too at odds with Gospel charity makes me not able to take him seriously, even as a deacon. ESPECIALLY as a deacon! That's the sad thing. Same as Shea and others. I hope the Register is watching, and I hope he has the integrity to quit if he feels that EWTN is not "Catholic" enough for him.
DeleteBut in defense of Deacon Greydanus, can we really single him out when the pope is no different? After all, if it's so bad to accuse someone of doing the devil's work, isn't Pope Francis just as guilty? And if it isn't wrong, then what's the big deal?
DeleteI suppose, but I thought about contacting NCR in the summer after I saw a SGD post specifically calling out Arroyo then as a horrible person and regretted ever being on his show. (This was in response to comments Arroyo apparently made about Simone Biles on a different show.) I think the comments Arroyo made are open to criticism, but the calling out specifically of him as a person and passing such public judgement...I find that reprehensible behavior for anybody, but more so if it's a bad public witness to Christian charity.
DeleteIn the same vein, I can't take anything PF says that seriously either. His penchant for speaking in ambiguities, his lack of speaking about Christ, the support he's given to the crazy progressive sector of the Church, and his baffling policies towards China that throw poor Chinese Christians under the bus makes anything actually good he might say or do hardly carry any weight. Not enough to pay that close attention anyway.
Total side question: is SGD a convert?
DeleteI don't know. I never had the impression, but he could be.
DeleteAnd yes, Pope Francis seems to become more of the problems he had than the positives. Early on, I saw glimmers of some issues, but felt there were a lot of good points he was making and a lot of potential - even if from the first his supporters became pretty fanatic (despite many of them having spent decades trashing the previous popes). But over the years it seems he's latched onto the problems and let those define his papacy.
DeleteI gave PF one year and then quit following him. After a year I was just, no. And that was even before his "breed like rabbits" comment.
DeleteI just looked it up. SGD is a convert from a Dutch Reformed background. I asked because I got to thinking that Shea, Simcha Fisher, Gloria Purvis, and Dawn Eden, etc... they're all converts. (Sean Dailey I don't know.) I know correlation is not causation and am not making anything of it, but I thought that was an interesting commonality.
Addendum to above thought: I'm wondering if there's some jaded idealism going on.
DeletePerhaps. If you're not born and raised Catholic, you'll likely never see it truly Catholic. It's like that scene in Jaws. When do I get to be an islander? Never. If you're not born on the island, you'll never be an islander.
DeleteSame with Catholicism. I'm sure many can immerse themselves, in some cases better than the 'cradle Catholics'. But you just can't quite keep those non-Catholic ways of seeing things entirely away. And some of those quirks that comes with various non-Catholic ways of seeing things.
It could be that tension that has caused them to more or less give in and join the Left. At the end of the day, why would Eden or Shea suddenly defend that which they once condemned, and condemn in many ways those and those things they once celebrated? Again, at the end of the day, hard to say. Perhaps different for each.