Speaking of JMB/PF's continuing accommodation to the world and to Catholics who are refractory to orthodox Catholic doctrine, someone has finally sought to pinpoint a fundamental explanation for such leniency.
It explains, of course, why, as I have often observed, he never seems to point out that all of man's sufferings are a consequence of The Fall; that such consequences cannot be cancelled out and were, in fact, not cancelled when God sent down his Son to redeem man from the eternal damnation that is the worst consequence of The Fall.
It is not and has never been the mission of the Church - which prolongs Christ's presence among men throughout time - to erase the material and physical consequences of the The Fall, only its ultimate effect on men's souls. JMB/PF's obsession with 'eradicating' poverty, hunger and war from the world is as unrealistic and impossible as if he were speaking of 'eradicating' disease and death. Suffering is part and parcel of man's earthly lot - as Catholics, we are taught that our individual sufferings constitute our participation in carrying the Cross of Christ. Christ' way, which is the Way of the Cross, would be meaningless if the idea was to spare every man from suffering. (Even the Buddha's basic teaching is based on the fact of human suffering of all kinds, and how to transcend it by attaining detachment from the things of the world which are by their nature nothing but illusion, and in the process losing the self.)
Unfortunately, the writer fails to develop his postulate far enough, nor to spell out better what he means by the revival of obscurantism he believes this Pope is bringing instead of renewal.
My thanks to Lella for providing the link to this item on her blog.
Why the Pope does not speak of original sin
He seems to believe in Rousseau's idea that man
is born innocent and is corrupted by living in society
by Piero Ostellino
Translated from
IL FOGLIO
March 3, 2015
A friend pointed out to me that Pope Francis never speaks of original sin. I don't think it is because of an adherence to the modern view that no longer puts 'sins of the flesh' at the center of individual and collective morality.
Nor are we seeing a confirmation of Nostradamus's prophecy that 'a man of the Society of Jesus' would come to the Chair of Peter and poison the doctrine of the Church.
But it is one thing to attribute human evils and sufferings to the sin of pride committed by Adam and Eve - as St. Augustine and the Church have maintained till yesterday.
It is another thing to attribute such evils and sufferings, as this Pope does, to the inequality between rich and poor, to the modern world which validates the autonomy of politics from religion, a world modelled on the concept of utility, for the production of wealth and the quest for happiness.
Pope Francis seems to believe in the idea of [French philosopher Jean-Jacques] Rousseau that man is born innocent and is corrupted by living in society - in particular, in democratic-liberal and capitalist society, where freedom and private ownership, in his view, would only produce inequalities which generate injustices.
It's the same idea that inspired the Jesuits to aim for a perfect society, regulated by a moral authority, in which all men would satisfy all their natural needs, including eating and procreating, to the tune of a bell rung by the Jesuits themselves - in short, the idea of a perfect society which also inspired the authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century.
Like it or not, this pope, far from obeying any theological principle, is reproposing a reactionary model of political coexistence such as that which held man in medieval obscurantism and later within the schemes of rationalist plans whose very defect was not to consider man as he is but man as he ought to be.
I do not like this Pope - who is
terzomondista (Third World-ist) demagogic and pauperist - nor do many Catholics. Perhaps he may attract new believers in places of the world, like his native Latin America, where social inequalities are most marked.
[Strange hypothesis when all statistics show that the Church in Latin America continues to lose members by the millions to evangelical Protestantism, and that this trend hasn't declined because a Latin American is now Pope.]
But I am afraid that with his subjectivism, he will do more damage to religion rather than bring advantages to it. I understand and respect those believers who see in him the authority that the history of Catholicism attributes to the Pope.
But while the power (historical and political) of the Church has always consisted in her ability to adapt herself to circumstances [without yielding anything from her deposit of faith], the systematic detachment by this Pope from the larger part of historical circumstances in which Christianity has been threatened, now risks causing damage rather than bringing any advantage. And what the Papacy is going through right now is not a moment of renewal, as many would like to believe, but a new time of obscurantism.
Ostellino ought to have, at least, spelled out the damage he warns against. Thinking Catholics can flesh out his postulate but as a journalist/commentator, he cannot assume his readers will read his mind.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 07/03/2015 14:11]