Focus on evangelism. We won't quibble over just what message he was wanting to spread, but at least the focus was there. Catholics are not known for their evangelistic zeal. While like most things, Pope Francis sent mixed messages, seeming to come down like a hammer on proselyting to the point where you wondered if just mentioning the Faith was wrong, at least he kept the idea out there. It wasn't as clear as Pope John Paul II's emphasis on evangelism, though that doesn't seem to have yielded the fruits many were hoping for either. But in Catholicism, mentioning the E-Word in any capacity I'll take as a win.
Focus on our consumer, throw away age. He was right in this. Most of our society is throwaway, being a godless, secular age that makes the Tin Man seem heart filled by comparison. Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about as they wise man said. You're born if you're lucky, you live, life sucks and you die. This isn't something corporations, institutions and much of our leadership today seem to dislike. In fact, seeing everything as expendable and throw away - including people when they and their situations don't benefit the agenda at large - has come to define our time. The same goes for truth, principles, and values. I think it's tough for us, especially younger folks, to imagine there was a time when this wasn't true for most of humanity. No matter how many corporations there were, or vast institutions, or elites in leadership rolls, there was an understanding of intrinsic worth of things that they had to pander to, if not believe in. Not today. And it shows.
A fighter. One reason liberals win is because they fight. They earn it. They fight on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and streets, in the hills, and as long as it's not bad weather, they will fight again and again. Conservatives score one victory and then go back to watching the game. Pope Francis, by his grit and determination to keep going to fight the fight, embodied a grit and determination that our modern age isn't always associated with. But he did it to fight for what he cared about, which is a very liberal thing to do. Would that conservatives demonstrate a portion of his dogged determination to see the job through and the agenda achieved.
Exposed his progressive Catholic supporters. Perhaps unintentionally, he gave his 'we're not leftists' Catholic supporters a big reveal. While he was often confusing, inconsistent and sometimes troubling in how he framed things, when it came to calling out the horrifying movement of transgender activism and its terrible impact on young people, he didn't hold back. Nor did he minimize what he said with an 'ah shucks, it's still not a big deal, no judging here.' That was one thing he blasted with both barrels in ways that would make Jerry Falwell proud. What an opportunity for his 'not leftwing Catholic' supporters to stand up to that element of the modern Left, knowing they had the pope at their backs! Yet did they? Was that when they said 'Hey, in keeping with our dear Pope Francis, we too much condemn this horrible movement!'? Nope, not that I saw. Most simply ignored it altogether. Or they pulled the old 'well it's complicated but I love the transgender community, not like those transphobic bigots who only say they disagree because there are people who want to torture gay people', or some such. Nope. As far as the individuals I saw, not one used this to take a bold stand against transgenderism. Which, to me, was more than telling.
Again, I'm not saying there were only four things he did that were worth something, three that he planned to do. But already the criticisms have been flying, and that's fine. I have a hard time believing he is the one to illicit a dogged insistence on traditional behavior in any situation. Nonetheless, I'll leave others to go there. I'm just one who appreciates the olden days approach of waiting to critique him until a little down the road.
Fun reference. Here is a very early post I did when Pope Francis became pope. Most I knew at the time were happy to see him become pope. There was very little in the way of problems. It was his supporters who made it a case of total obedience to the pope or else, setting back a thousand years the Catholic insistence that Catholics don't just mindlessly and blindly bow before the papacy.
I disliked him from the moment he first stepped out onto the balcony, proclaiming a false gospel of human improvement and "a church for the poor". The church has no business taking sides in the class struggle; it is a church for everybody or else it's not the church at all. My opinion of him only got worse after that, and I'm glad he's gone. Maybe now the church can get back to its real mission, the one that Jesus gave to it before he ascended. ---- G. Poulin
ReplyDeleteThere are many things about his time as pope I found problematic. That's what I'm trying to sort though. I don't want it to seem as if my criticisms make up a ten volume set. But I think there are a couple things I can't deny. One, he had a net negative impact on the Church is there is any truth to its historical convictions. Two, he was hardly some strange new thing out of left field. Given the direction the Church has been going over the last century, I wonder why it took so long for someone like him to be chosen, not the fact that he was chosen in the first place.
DeleteTo say I was happy with his election would be a stretch. I didn't agree with him in the manner that he dealt with people he disliked or felt he had to belittle. I was first insulted when he called faithful Catholics who had many children as breeding like rabbits. I can go on and on but you guys all know about him. I mentioned him in my confessions in the confessionals as being being a heavy cross upon me. I was asked to remember his humanity and weakness as a man and to say a prayer for him every time he said or did something that upset me. And so I did. I refused to dwell on these things and pray for him. Every daily Mass I would pray for him and I'm not saying this to make me seem like a saint because I am not, but praying for him helped me forgive and get passed these perceived slights. I pray for God's mercy on his soul. Sometimes his type of Pope is needed by the Church as penance for the faithful maybe? I don't know. But like my Mama use to say, "offer it up Bobby, offer it up. And I always listened to my Mama ;)
ReplyDeleteAt first I recall many were happy, though of course many had no clue who he was. The idea of a non-European pope was greeted by most I knew as a great thing. It was his quoting of George Bush's 'who am I to judge' that was the first warning flag. I think praying for him is the right thing to do, and praying for his successor. For who is picked to follow him will speak volumes.
DeleteI’ve been listening to a lot of Catholic radio recently and trying to square what they are saying with what I experienced. I definitely gave him the benefit of the doubt in the beginning but he lost me rather quickly. (The breeding like rabbits comment didn’t help me either). I think your point #4 resonates most with me. I am sorry for his death of course, both as a human and a pope, but my experience of whatever he was trying to do and how it translated into action by the faithful… just don’t line up in my estimation. He did apparently hold the line on important topics but it got quite lost in the rest of it.
ReplyDeleteI’m disappointed in this papacy and less excited about the upcoming election. Nevertheless, I prayed sincerely for him in life and now in death, which is all I could do. May God have mercy on us all!
How one sees the impact of Pope Francis seems to be based on one of three things. You believe the past has got to go and it's time to change the Faith and make it right. You think the Church is best served by staying rooted in its historical doctrines and practice with as much caution toward change as possible. Or you think the pope should be obeyed at all cost, full stop. I think the biggest thing will be who is chosen to follow. If it is another in the line of Pope Francis, then clearly the leadership of the Church wants to follow the mainline Protestant approach. We'll see.
DeleteI have to say though, as I’ve processed it some, I do think Pope Francis, in the end, actually gave a good example of dying well. And for whatever legit criticisms I feel I might have of him, I do appreciate that he exited gracefully.
DeleteThat is something I noticed that even his harshest critics stepped back for and gave a thumbs up. He showed a grit and grace in his last moments that is often not encouraged by our modern social sensitivities.
DeleteSay it ain't so, Dave. Daffy (as opposed to Daffey) thoughts indeed. Based on your stated praise of Francis regarding his "focus on evangelism" and that he was a "fighter," you can say the same things about Satan with his long-term focus on evangelism and fighting for what he wants, so I guess you praise Satan as well for these qualities, right? Too extreme a contrast you protest? You can say the same things about Hitler. Still too extreme a contrast? How about just atheists who zealously promote and fight for their rubbish. Do you praise them for their fighting spirit? How about those who fight for abortion?
ReplyDeleteBeing a fighter or an evangelist for a cause are not praiseworthy when the fight and the cause are misguided and cause much harm to many people. I sincerely suggest that you reconsider (and don't just spin) what you find praiseworthy in Francis, and do not express any admiration for anyone just because they were or are dedicated to various kinds of rubbish.
To be honest, part of my reason for doing this is because, let's face it, if you read Shea had written a piece critical about Donald Trump, would you care? Would any sane person? I didn't make these up, these are things I give him credit for (though note, it's only three, and I did add that last one just to expand the list a little). But I felt that will give more credibility to my critiques, knowing that I was prepared to give credit where due. No, I didn't hate Francis or spend my time sticking pins in little Pope Francis dolls as his defenders repeatedly charged anyone who dared dissent from total devotion to his cause. But I believed it was important to lead with at least some positives. Plus, I'm old fashioned, and hold to the old 'don't speak ill of' principle, at least until a given time has passed.
DeleteYou have dodged my primary point. I repeat that credit is never due to anyone for being a fighter if they fight for the wrong cause. The same goes for being an evangelist if the evangelism is wrong-headed.
DeleteAlso, refusing to praise someone for wrongly applied qualities is not the same thing as criticizing a person, so it's not a matter of applying the "speaking ill of" custom (also not a principle and not a moral requirement, but a nice custom).
And the comment by "Anonymous" also misses the same point. Who suggested that one should list the Pope's failures on the day of his funeral? I didn't, so who is anonymous referring to?
So for the record, I refuse to give credit to Satan for being a fighter for his cause. I guess you and I and "Anonymous" will have to simply agree to disagree on what deserves praise.
And because of some misreading of what I have actually set forth, let it be very clear that I am not declaring that Francis is Satan. I used the Satan reference again to clearly demonstrate why it can simply be wrong to praise anyone because they possess X quality.
Delete"I repeat that credit is never due to anyone for being a fighter if they fight for the wrong cause."
DeleteI disagree. I think of Yamamoto or Manfred Richthofen or Saladin. All on the wrong side, both highly respected and given plenty of credit where it is due. I prefer that to the modern trend I've seen of youngsters arguing that being on the wrong side of anything precludes any praise at all (see Columbus, Washington, Jefferson, and a growing list of those whose accomplishments are said to be negated by their sins and failings). In the case of Pope Francis, I think he made a couple good points and, as I said, anyone who promotes evangelism in Catholicism will get a point from me. I recall coming into the Church and seeing people I worked with who were known to be Catholic and telling them with much enthusiasm what I was doing - only to see their eyes glaze over and act as if that's an odd thing that I should think they care. So the praise was, IMO, justified. The last point thrown in, again, to add a little and make a point I'll build upon when I get to my critiques.
In the examples I provided, it is clear that I am pointing out the flaws in promoting an objectively immoral cause or otherwise acting immorally in pursuit of an objectively immoral cause or acting immorally in pursuit of a moral or at least morally neutral cause; not just any cause. Perhaps you had Mr. Greydanus advise you on how to set up unjust straw man arguments, because you have intentionally taken my statement and jumped all over the fact that I did not specifically mention the immoral aspects that are clear from the examples I provided and other comments.
DeleteAlso, your reference to "youngsters" and conclusions they make that may very well be erroneous do not apply in any way to what I have set forth, but I did get a chuckle out of the lame irrelevance you brought forth to further avoid my actual position and make it look like it's something other than what I have stated.
I will now attempt to simplify further for you in the hopes that you will honestly engage my precise points and avoid recasting them, again in classic Greydanus style he likes to use (over the years, I have had many run-ins with him in various forums, similar to some of your experiences with him) to unjustly set up a straw man to knock down.
Consider the basic principles of Catholic Morality and judging if a person acts morally by fulfilling all of the basic precepts (act, circumstances, intention all must be good for an act to be good), and that no credit is given to anyone who fails to act morally, and that person deserves no credit simply because he or she fought immorally or for an immoral cause. In fact, using skills and qualities in an immoral purpose or in an immoral way should be condemned; not praised in any way.
So straight up: do you give credit to Satan for being a fighter for his cause? If so, why? If not, why not?
Do not dodge for a third time this all-important question regarding whether or not you give credit to Satan for being a fighter for his cause.
With regard to the three people you mention to try to avoid the principles involved, note that to the extent that any of them acted immorally, even with courage as fighters, or as evangelists, etc., they get no credit for wrongly applying the qualities you deem make it just fine to conclude something along the following lines:
Saladin, one of the butchers of Islam, perhaps the greatest heresies the world has ever known, receives credit from Dave Griffey because, after all, he was a fighter for his heretical ideology that does not follow the precepts of natural law and excuses rape and murder as part of what he fought for. Continue to go along with the world if you wish in giving him misplaced credit, but from a Catholic moral point of view, your praise of him for having an X quality used in pursuit of objectively immorality is a form of relativism I would hope you would reject for the reasons stated.
And since you have indeed ducked this before, I repeat once more a most important question that illustrates the problem with your "credit" position:
Do you give credit to Satan for being a fighter for his cause? If so, why? If not, why not?
As always, only the truth will set you free.
I don’t see a straw man anywhere near my arguments. I had said the few things I mentioned were areas I give Pope Francis credit for. With the exception of the last thing I mentioned. That being obviously a set up for my critiques to come later. You obviously had issues with me doing so, going so far as to say “credit is never due to anyone for being a fighter if they fight for the wrong cause.” I pointed out that this is not how I see it, nor is it seen that way historically. I gave a few obvious examples of giving credit to those who have otherwise fought for the wrong cause. That’s not a straw man. That’s explaining why I think it is justifiable for me to say I sincerely believe his emphasis on evangelism, at least in the broadest sense, would never hurt in a Catholic setting, and his hunkering down on our ‘throw away’ generation is also good to hear (though I concede he didn’t go far enough with that). I also admired his determination and endurance when it came to fighting on to the end. I was hardly alone in that observation, as even some of his more outspoken critics tipped a hat in that case. I chose to focus on these issues on the day of his funeral because that’s how I believe it’s best to operate. There will be time to unpack the criticisms in the not too distant
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOkay, Dave. I see that this is beyond you if you do not understand how I argue X and you turn it into a weaker Y, which is the essence of a straw man argument. And instead of accepting my clarification with integrity, you just doubled down again on what I DID NOT ARGUE. Moreover, my clarifying that my argument is based on Catholic principles of morality also means nothing to you since you have also doubled down on promoting and favoring the world's judgment on such things.
DeleteAnd once again you also move in a direction I am not interested in. My argument is simply that you provided bogus praise in a few areas......Period.
This is now way too frustrating to continue because it's like talking to the proverbial wall, and since you refuse to properly address precisely what I have argued as a more honorable person would do, which includes the pusillanimous refusal to answer the one question you know will show the error of your ways, I must also bid you a larger farewell, because I will no longer read or contribute any more comments to this blog, and I will also withdraw my recommendation of it made to others based on integrity concerns and the requirements of Catholic morality that supersede mere worldly judgments.
To be honest, yeah, I'm having a hard time getting your point. These are things I personally believe were praiseworthy. I have many criticisms of Pope Francis, but chose to wait until after the funeral because, well, that's just something I've always preferred to do. You say these points of credit are bogus, but I disagree. Now if I was still a Baptist, would his approach to evangelism warrant the same level of kudos from me? No way. That's when I'd be unpacking just what message he is trying spread. But for Catholics, anything that reminds them they are supposed to take at least something of their faith out into the world I consider a win. The other points I feel are valid as well. You might not, and that could be where the disagreement is. In that case, it's apparent we will have to agree to disagree. Again, when I get around to the critiques of Pope Francis, of which there are many out there right now, then you'll see how I put all these things into perspective.
DeleteOh, and I should say I consider Satan to be Satan, and not people to be Satan. There is a gulf of a difference between the two. That's why I'm not bothering with if I would give credit to Satan or not. Two different animals by far. The same goes for Hitler. Since Pope Francis was neither of those two, I saw no point addressing how I would go about evaluating those two.
DeleteI should add, if I may, that if this is how you respond the minute I don't properly trash and hash someone you clearly only want trashed and hashed, and that's the way you choose to discuss the point, ignoring my point while accusing me of the same, and even ratcheting up the accusations and name calling, then all I can say is there's the door.
DeleteI think your posting is measured and fair. The day of his funeral is not the time to jump into his failures and list his shortcomings. Another day, perhaps.
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that I think the most shining moment of Pope Francis's papacy was the promotion of the Eucharistic Revival. I realize it was not a success in other places, but in my Diocese (Cleveland), and in my parish, it most certainly was.
My very faithful bishop and pastor both took it seriously and made every effort to promote Eucharistic Adoration, public Eucharistic processions, and education on the Eucharist and the fact that it is Truly Jesus - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - in the Host and the Precious Blood.
If he did nothing else right, IMO, *this* was an important and worthy movement for the entire worldwide Church.
Yes, he was a failed sinner. But this work - the Eucharistic Revival - was worthy and holy and a fitting way to end his papacy.
Peace and good to all here.
That didn't seem to have been as big a deal in our diocese, but not for a lack of trying. We've been through quite a lot of change in recent years, as has our parish, and that might be why it didn't quite punch home as I've heard from others. Of course he was a flawed person, as are we all. I think it will be his impact as pope, and more than that, how different people see that impact that says where the Church will go in the future.
DeleteOne doesn't get credit for evangelization when the evangel isn't being proclaimed. Francis taught, in so many words, that the mission of the church is to make the world a better place. That's false. The mission of the church is to grow and nurture the church. The other thing would be rightly called an anti-gospel. --- G. Poulin
ReplyDeleteI get that, and agree. To a point. But as I said above, if we were Baptists, then you better believe I'd be on Pope Francis like a bad suit over whatever message it was that he was spreading. Not to mention the usual confusion about when evangelism is a great thing or its proselytizing which is a grave evil. But Catholics aren't known for their evangelistic zeal (nor or Orthodox, who might be even less inclined than Catholics). And I've seen Catholics - especially his supporters - all over the place about how wonderful it was that he so emphasized spreading the word. Which I see as something. Now the point is getting down to just what word it is we should be preaching.
Delete