A few days before he stepped down us Pope, Benedict XVI famously remarked in a 45-minute extemporaneous account of Vatican II to the priests of Rome - from his firsthand view as a theological consultant to that Council from 1963-1965 - that the real Vatican-II had been submerged in the public perception by what he called 'The Council of the Media' - which the Vatican-II progressivists and all their allies in the predominantly liberal/secular media of the Western world insisted had created an open-ended, anything-goes Protestantized Catholic Church in place of the Church Christ had instituted.
This viewpoint quickly gained ascendancy through most of the Church and remained entrenched over the next four decades until Benedict XVI finally said, in effect: "Stop it - Vatican II can only be interpreted as a renewal of the Church in continuity with her tradition, not as a rupture with what had gone before."
The rupture theorists coined a catchphrase to justify their misleading claims about Vatican II - they claimed to represent 'the spirit of Vatican II', which basically meant overlooking if not completely ignoring the texts of Vatican-II to perpetrate their own zealously militant and necessarily tendentious interpretation of what Vatican II had decided and even of what Vatican II had 'ordered' in open contradiction of the corresponding Vatican II text.
[This has been most apparent with regard to the Vatican II constitution on liturgy, which never abolished the traditional Mass, never directed that the entire Mass be said in the local vernacular, never forbade the use of Latin in the Mass but encouraged it in the appropriate places, never said sacred music as we knew it was to be replaced by popular inventions, never said the new Mass had to be celebrated facing the people, never said that traditional altars had to be replaced by tables appropriate for celebrating Mass ad populum rather than ad orientem, never said Communion rails had to be torn out, nor that Communion should be received in the hands and that the communicant did not have to kneel to receive the Sacred Host, etc - And yet, all the abovementioned 'changes' were institutionalized almost overnight as soon as the Novus Ordo went into effect, with no objections other than from a relative handful of groups and individuals thereafter labelled 'traditionalist' as if it meant 'apostate' or 'traitor to Vatican II', or if the objector was someone like Cardinal Ratzinger, 'reactionary' and 'restorationist'. The abiding and inexplicable wonder is that the world's bishops all fell in with the false 'spirit' - as if they could not (or did not) read the Vatican-II texts themselves.]
When I first got 'into' Church matters after Benedict XVI became Pope, my first reaction to the much-bandied 'spirit of Vatican II' was that it seemed to have replaced, in the minds of those who advocated it, the Holy Spirit himself. There was now this amorphous undefined but presumably secular 'spirit' that supposedly represented Vatican II, without any reference to the Holy Spirit that presides over the Church...
A similar 'spirit' was conjured after the first inter-religious World Day of Prayer for Peace convened by John Paul II in Assisi in 1958 - as much invoked since then as the 'Spirit of Vatican II'. Now it was 'the spirit of Assisi', which referred to an open-ended, vaguely defined wave of general goodwill and good intentions among men of different faiths, whose aim seemed to be primarily dialog for the sake of dialog and kumbaya cheer all around. One might have been less dubious about this new 'spirit' if its users had said 'the spirit of Assisi' was really the 'the spirit of St. Francis and his teachings', but no, it had to be 'the spirit of Assisi' meaning the 1958 meeting in Assisi.
Father Schall, diverging from his usual contextual re-statement of major points made by the Pope in recent discourses, now refers to a new and equally dangerous 'spirit', in this critical commentary on how the media have been popping champagne corks to celebrate statements Pope Francis made about 'gays' on his inflight news conference returning from Rio. The media have conjured this 'spirit' like a white-hot succubus over Pope Francis, in their determined, concerted and deviant effort to report and interpret the Pope's pronouncements to show that 'he is one of us', meaning he favors and will therefore promote their ultra-liberal pet causes, never mind that as Pope, he is dutybound to uphold, conserve and defend the deposit of faith that has been handed down to him...
The 'spirit' of the Pope's
return from Rio
Reminiscent of the immediate post-conciliar era,
we are seeing a battle between the presumed 'spirit'
of Pope Francis and his actual words
by James V. Schall, S.J.
August 3, 2013
Pope Francis speaks to the media aboard the papal flight from Rio de Janeiro to Rome July 28. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
“Pope Adopts a Milder Tone toward Gays and Women”
— Headline, San Francisco Chronicle July 30, 2013.
“Shift in Tone on Gays Thrills Local Catholics”
— Headline, San Francisco Chronicle, July 31, 2013.
“Stunning Remarks on Gays: Pope: ‘Who Am I to Judge?’”
— Headline, San Jose Mercury-News, July 30, 2013.
I.
In the struggle between illusion and reality, illusion (even delusion) often gains the upper hand. Images can overshadow an idea thought to be fixed. The above three headlines are taken from local papers suddenly paying careful attention to remarks of the Holy Father.
Though none of the editorials or news columns actually said that the Church had changed its teaching on homosexuality, the unavoidable impression from the headlines and the articles was that finally the stubborn old Church was on its way to doing so. This reaction was what these varied writers made of
the Pope’s remarks on homosexuality, the ones that they thought most important from the papal trip to Brazil.
Judging by the local press, very little went on at World Youth Day in Rio until the Pope’s interview with the Press on his return flight to Rome. Then, like a clap of thunder, the news arrived that the Church had suddenly changed. Instead of opposing gays, the Pope was welcoming them. A new day had dawned.
The San Jose Mercury-News editorial affirmed: “What a heartening declaration from the Roman Catholic pontiff. We hope it helps open the minds of some vocal Christians opposed to gay rights.”
The Chronicle editorial, entitled “Reboot for Catholicism,” continued: “While he (the Pope) hasn’t gone as far as many liberal-minded Catholics would like, he’s clearly aiming to move the church in the direction of both modernity and radical empathy—the very direction it needs to go after so many years of scandal and turmoil.”
We have little doubt about “how far liberal-minded Catholics” and others would like to see the Church go in this area—to full-scale acceptance of the gay life and all it implies.
All the things that the Holy Father said to the millions of youth in Rio about belief, prayer, concern for the poor, humility, and other basic Catholic themes paled by contrast to the remarks about gays. The casual reader of these newspaper accounts could not help but thinking that some radical change of Church doctrine had taken place on the flight back to Rome, one almost the equivalent of denying the validity of the Incarnation.
In context, as even the headlines in Huffpost Gay Voices (July 31) noticed: “Pope Francis Against Gay Marriage, Gay Adoption.” What changed, evidently, was not the doctrine but the “mood” or perception of it.
The Pope specifically said: “No overt homosexual activities” are possible or moral.
[I had hoped he did, but I did not see it - perhaps the transcript I translated did not contain this line!]
From now on, however, as a friend suggested, we are in for a period not unlike the post-Vatican II era. We then saw a war of words between “the spirit” and the “meaning” of the Council. Now it will be between the “spirit” and the wording of WYD Rio, Return Flight.
Those bishops and others who hold the basic teaching of the Catechism will be up against the “spirit” of Pope Francis’s Rio Flight. After all, he told the youth to protest and to “mess” things up. Everyone will know, or think he knows, that this “spirit” means something different from what the doctrine says.
As Father Mark Pilon wrote on The Catholic Thing site:
“This is the danger in off-the-record interviews today. What the press is interested in are simply sound bites and controversy. Complex issues like homosexuality and homosexuals in the priesthood cannot be discussed with the media…in this manner without constantly having to correct their misinterpretations and reportorial sensationalism.”
Many writers have quickly pointed out that Pope Francis did not really say anything different from what we can read in the General Catechism or the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith’s 1986 Document, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” a document signed by Joseph Ratzinger and approved by John Paul II.
What is ironic in this whole scene is that the Pope’s sympathy, if we might call it that, leads the homosexual, if it is followed, back to a moral life that he can live in good conscience. This means no homosexual activity and no homosexual lobby or propaganda.
The secular world evidently sees the Pope’s words as a move in the direction of accepting homosexual activity as itself a good and normal thing. This is what the Chronicle's editorial means when it spoke of “modernity”.
The equivocation on the use of the word “gay” on both sides is striking. It enables the Pope to use the word “gay” to mean someone striving not to practice activities associated with that way of life, while the media and certainly the gay organizations themselves take the word to mean a “right” to do what homosexuals “normally” do. This “right” includes all the benefits of marriage in addition to the things unique to gay relationships.
No gay lobby, as the Pope called it, or no reasonable person would think that the gay movement is about returning to celibacy those who, either by nature or by choice, claim to be “gay”. It is almost ludicrous to think that they do.
A gay person who was trying to live such a celibate life was, however, the context of the Pope’s remarks. He had been asked to judge of the case of a Vatican priest who may once have been involved in a homosexual life but no longer [supposedly]. It is one thing to judge about the eternal status of someone before God and another to judge the nature of certain acts that are proposed to be done or to be avoided.
We might say, for instance, of a man who committed murder that we do not know how he stands before God, we do not “judge” him. But we are obliged to repeat the fifth commandment.
Several writers have also pointed out that the homosexual community should be leery of overpraising this Pope on these matters. He may be shrewder than they are prepared to admit. If they begin to read him, they will soon find him telling them that they should live celibate lives and that they can do so. It will not be easy, but more is involved, including their own salvation.
The homosexual experience no doubt often leaves the individual wondering if what he or she is doing is right. But today, there are few who tell them of another way.
Pope Francis’s use of empathy and sentiment to call our attention to suffering and injustice has its dangers. As Theodore Dalrymple wrote after the Pope’s recent visit to the Island of Lampedusa in the Mediterranean: “By elevating feeling over thought, by making compassion the measure of all things, the Pope was able to evade the complexities of the situation, in effect indulging in one of the characteristic views of our time - moral exhibitionism, which is the espousal of a generous sentiment, without the pain of having to think of the costs to other people of the implied (but unstated) morally-appropriate policy.” [THANK YOU, Mr. Dalrymple, for articulating excellently the basic and profound reservations I had about the Lampedusa trip and the Pope's one-sided remarks about the entire forced-migration issue!... I am also 'relieved', in a sense, that Fr. Schall, a Jesuit, obviously does not think the Pope is above criticism at all. After all, disagreeing with some aspects of papal style and tone is not a repudiation of the Pope - he is the Pope, our Pope, regardless...As an inconsequential iota of criticism in the universal deluge of acclamation for Pope Francis, my reservations about him, I would like to think, are like the expressions of a 'loyal opposition', so to speak...]]
This comment can also pretty well describe the sort of reaction the Holy Father’s remarks made in the local press here.
II.
In rereading the 1986 “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, I was struck by two passages that reinforce the human dignity that Catholics see in all men, including those claiming homosexual tendencies.
The first one emphasizes the freedom that the Church seeks to protect in us from theories that would reduce us to determined beings. It reads:
What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty, which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity, be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace (#11).
At bottom, the Church stands for the essential freedom that each person bears in his soul, a freedom that always, with grace, enables him to be and live as he ought, not as he must.
The second citation reminds us that the Church does not consider a homosexual person as some sort of alien kind of being who belongs to some species unknown to the rest of mankind:
The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents, and gifts as well.
Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’ and insists that every person has a fundamental identity, the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life (#15).
This is a wise reflection. We are responsible for how we live because we are free. We are not free to determine how it is we ought to live, but free to live as we ought.
Did the Pope change Catholic teaching? The following remarks of Jennifer Roback Morse seem to sum up the essence of what the Pope said: “The Holy Father did not say anything new in his off-the-cuff remarks to reporters on the Papal flight home from World Youth Day. Everything he said is perfectly consistent with the timeless teaching of the Catholic Church, which holds that there is an important moral distinction between sexual desire and sexual acts.”
[Except, of course, that a careful reading of the transcript shows he made no such explicit distinctions. Because I wish he had - How difficult would it have been for a Pope like Francis who has a mastery of simple direct talking to say, "The Church does not condemn homosexuals in any way. What it condemns is the commission of homosexual acts which are sins contrary to nature and contrary to the procreative reason that explains why God created two sexes".
Being fortunate to have natural sexual tendencies, I cannot hypothesize what it might be like for a conscientious Catholic homosexual to avoid homosexual practice, but the testimony of not a few such homosexuals proves it can be done (or even the lives of those saints or Church prelates who may have had homosexual tendencies - and who knows how many of them there were and are - but managed to sublimate these unnatural tendencies in their service and devotion to the Church). It must certainly be difficult - some will say it is contra-natural and therefore 'inhuman' to demand this of Catholic homosexuals - but that does not mean that sublimation of contra-natural tendencies is impossible.]
Most of the articles and editorials in the local papers, to their credit, mentioned this distinction. None of them thought that it did not mean a radical change in the Church’s teaching on homosexual life and practice.
The Pope has not changed the Church’s teaching, but the fact is, many think, on the basis of the “spirit” of the Rio Return comments, that he has or will. What else can headlines that tell us of a “milder tone,” "thrilling shift,” or “stunning remarks” mean?
An appropriate companion piece to this is by a writer for National Catholic Reporter whose world view I generally despise and do not share, but in this case, she is more honest about her main point than most of her colleagues are:
When does our hope
in Pope Francis
become denial?
by Jamie Manson
July 31, 2013
Full disclosure: I do not feel excited or hopeful about what Pope Francis said about women and gay priests during his epic press conference on the way home to Rome.
Now, wait. Before you click me off as a hater or an incorrigible pessimist or an angry feminist lesbian or another choice label, please understand this: I don't dislike Pope Francis.
I think he has an authentic warmth. I appreciate his desire to be among the people. I laugh at some of his jokes, and there are themes in his sermons that genuinely move me. I share his desire to break down clericalism and the injustices of capitalism, and I believe wholeheartedly in his vision of ecological justice.
More substantively than even all of this, I share with him a deep passion for the poor and marginalized. Like Francis, I, too, have my most vivid encounters with Jesus among those who are homeless, mentally ill, incarcerated or suffering with addictions.
But Francis and I part ways on the topics of women's equality and the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people in the church. The pope's statements on the plane only reinforced the depth of my disagreement with him.
An excessive amount of commentary has been launched into cyberspace since the news of the pope's comments on women and gay priests hit the Internet, so I'll attempt to give the short, bullet-point version of why I do not share in the hope or excitement of some of my colleagues and friends.
In terms of his much-touted use of the word "gay," I believe he used it not so much as a sign of respect but because the word was being used in the context of the rumored "gay lobby." Few people still know what this mysterious lobby inside the Curia is or what precisely they are advocating for (clearly it isn't LGBT rights), but Francis was again clear he was not pleased with this lobby, saying he needed to distinguish whether a person was gay or part of the gay lobby.
After Francis delivered his now-legendary "Who am I to judge?" line, he immediately reaffirmed the teaching of the catechism. He may not have used the "intrinsically disordered" phrase, but he did make it clear that "the tendency isn't the problem." Obviously, same-sex acts and same-sex marriage still are the problem. The real question I think he was asking was, "Who am I to judge a celibate gay person who seeks the Lord and is of goodwill?"
[That is really the context of what he said, but of course, MSM - and even many in the Catholic media - chose to cite only his actual words, which can be misinterpreted as a general statement applied to all homosexuals, practising or not. From my own viewpoint, I also regret the fact that, as textually said, it sounds like bare-faced sanctimony which Popes should never display, as well as an implicit judgment on other Popes, as though they had 'judged' homosexuals unfairly!]
While his words about a new approach to divorced and remarried Catholics were encouraging, they were couched in his mentioning that a new "pastoral care of marriage" was being developed.
[But what new approach can there be that will not exempt remarried divorcees with a Church marriage that has not been annulled from the universal rule about the sanctity and inviolability of marriage? The reason this is a complex issue is that it does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all solution. It requires a pastoral case-by-case consideration, not a sweeping general rule.]
My sense is the main thrust of initiative will be to make the boldest Roman Catholic declaration yet that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Remember that just two years ago, as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, he called same-sex marriage an "anthropological setback," and on the plane, he affirmed the Church's opposition to marriage equality.
[He did??? Where??? How could I have missed it? It is such statements I look out for!]
Pope Francis's words about women were spirit-breaking. The idea that we need a "deeper theology of women" is remarkable only because, for the past half-century, Catholic women theologians, many of them women religious, have been developing, writing and teaching a profound theology of women.
[I have not read any of it, nor even about any of it, because feminist rants have never interested me, but let me guess what the thrust of their 'theology' is: There is no way the Church can justify not allowing women to become priests, and who cares what John Paul II wrote about it (or that Pope Francis has now bluntly said, "That door is closed"].
Just because the hierarchy has not cared to read it doesn't mean it doesn't already exist. I shudder to think whom Francis would ask to formulate this "deeper theology."
As a woman who has discerned a calling to the priesthood for more than 20 years, Francis's hiding behind John Paul II's theology and claiming that the "door is closed" on the ordination issue was profoundly painful. [What exactly is the 'calling to priesthood' that the writer has discerned? She wants to be a priest - that does not necessarily translate into a 'calling', as in 'God wants you to be a priest'. God wants each of us to serve him in the way we can do best. Woemn cannot be priests. Yet it would be far easier for women wanting to be priests to sublimate their ambition in many other ways of serving the Church than it is for homosexuals to sublimate their sexual desires.] Hearing these words, I felt the same kind of humiliation I would have experienced if a door had literally been slammed in my face.
[To feel 'humiliated' by being told some home truths is a form of arrogance. Besides, was she not already 'humiliated' when John Paul II made his definitive statement saying No to women priests? her new 'humiliation' must be frustrated rage that Francis has now unequivocally restated the Church position on women priests when she was obviously hoping he would not.]
Francis got some positive attention for saying women are more important than priests and bishops, even if they have no chance of being ordained. In essence, he said even though women will never have ecclesial decision-making power or the opportunity to exercise sacramental ministry, they are so much more special than the men who get to run and lead the Church.
[Of course they are. In the sense that only women can procreate, only women can be mothers, and in catholic families, mothers are usually the first teachers of the faith to the children. Mothers provide and nurture the environment in which vocations can sprout and young people can discern their calling. Mothers give birth to the men who will become priests and eventualky have a hand in the decision-making and governance of the Church at various levels.]
This last point raises an important question about the laity's response to Pope Francis: Who among progressive Catholics of the last two decades would have ever abided by such patronizing rhetoric? In previous papacies, this kind of a statement about women would have raised the ire of all progressive Catholics. [Manson hits the nail on the spot here. Pope Francis gets a pass - "Let's pretend he didn't say it, let's ignore what he says on this - it doesn't fit into our narrative" - for saying something that would have called down hellfire and damnation n Benedict XVI from all the usual suspects!]
Francis locked the deadbolt on John Paul II's closed door to women, and he reaffirmed the Church's woefully inadequate teaching on gays and lesbians as well as its ban on marriage equality. Yet we still hear that many progressive Catholics "cannot get enough" of the new Pope.
I have even heard Catholic women who have been fierce fighters for the full inclusion of women in the Church claim that they still feel hope and are excited about this Pope and his proposed deeper theology of women.
Yes, Pope Francis is a warm pope of the people with a deep passion for many marginalized communities. But he is still advocating
some very unjust, harmful doctrinal positions.
[These are not just positions, lady! This is immutable Catholic doctrine itself that you happen to think is 'very unjust and harmful' - your opinion does not make it so!]
So why do Catholics, especially many progressive Catholics, continue to give him a pass?
Francis is changing the tone in the hope that the church will be perceived in a better light, but there is little evidence to suggest he will or wants to make doctrinal changes on women's equality, same-sex relationships or contraception, and his response to the issue of clergy sex abuse has been underwhelming at best.
[Excuse me? What else can he add to the array of practical instructions already in place - on the level of the universal Church, and in dioceses and parishes - for dealing with this issue? Oh I know! Perhaps you expect him to discipline Cardinal Mahony, for example, for all the misdeeds he has admitted to, in this respect (all done under the Pontificate of John Paul II, not under Benedict's]? Or Cardinal Law? Or Mons. Magee? Or Cardinal Keith O'Brien [to whom the Pope's example of 'sins of youth' would directly apply]? But wouldn't the same mercy he applied to Mons. Ricca be applicable to these bishops as well? Surely, they too must have repented of their misdeeds and are desrving of mercy! Ah, but SNAP types will say - "Mercy shmercy! These are devils and must be sent back to hell - or whatever the equivalent is in modern punishment!"]
Have we gotten to the point where our desire to realize the church of our dreams and our insistence that Francis will be the man to make our dreams come true is clouding our perception of what Francis is really saying?
Recently, when I criticized the pope's words about the existence of a gay lobby, a friend chastised me, saying I had already decided I didn't like the pope, so there was nothing he could do that would please me.
I took the comment to heart, and I continue to use it as a litmus test for my own reactions to Francis. But I also turned the tables on my friend.
Couldn't it also be argued that there are progressive Catholics who have decided they like this pope so much that they have practically given him immunity from any criticism?
Are we truly listening to the full context of what Francis is saying, or are we just hearing what our hearts most deeply want to hear? It is important to be people of hope, but at what point does being hopeful and optimistic slip into avoidance and denial of what this man truly believes?
I realize Catholics are starving for inspiring, authentic pastoral leadership, but honesty and solidarity demand that we speak out against unjust, spiritually harmful words, even if they are coming from a charismatic figure in whom we desperately want to believe and trust.
I want to be hopeful that Francis might have a transformation. Personally, my heart has a deep investment in it: I would love to be able to return to active Catholic ministry again, and I want all of the exceptional women and LGBT Catholics who have the ability to spiritually lead and inspire to be able to answer God's calling.
I want to believe real reforms are in the imminent future. Again, my heart is invested in this: I would love to have the opportunity to marry my partner in the church of my childhood, the church with the "sacramental view of the world" and the finest social justice teachings on the books.
[Fine words, but the Church will not change her teaching in order to accommodate the individual preferences of her members!] I want all LGBT couples to have the chance to marry in the church with which their hearts identify.
[Yes, but faith is not a sentiment - it is committed belief in a set of doctrines from which you may not pick and choose only what you want to believe.]
But there was nothing Francis said on that plane that leads me to think we are any closer to either of these possibilities. I remain hopeful justice will come someday, but I think it is important to accept the reality that
the residual effects of a patriarchal, homophobic, clerical formation can still dwell within a man who is otherwise committed to justice and deeply pastoral. [It is certainly to be hoped that the deposit of faith Pope Francis is dutybound to uphold is not just 'the residual effects of a patriarchal, homophobic, clerical formation' but core convictions that he sincerely and profoundly professes himself!]
For many progressive Catholics, the Benedict years were painful and divisive. But the upside of having a pope that was less pastoral and more rigidly orthodox was that it helped some Catholics break out of some of the trappings of our tradition: the passivity, the clericalism, the adulation of the papacy. [And what is it that we have now but absolute and a-critical adulation, not of the Papacy, but of a person to a degree one had not imagined possible - like Obamamania on mega-steroids!]
Laypeople began to embrace the idea that God has infused all of God's people with deep sacramental power. [If that is so, then why, Ms. Manson, insist you must be a priest to have sacramental power? But you implied earlier in this article that women wanting to be priests want to have a hand in 'ecclesial decision-making power', not just in the sacramental ministry. Is this not careerism a priori - the priesthood as a way to power, not as service to the Church and the People of God?]
Since our new pope is so likeable and
so obviously committed to justice for many marginalized groups, it appears that even some of the most liberal Catholics are gradually being lulled back into an odd, filial submission to Francis.
[How exactly is he 'committed to justice' in ways that his predecessors were not? Just because he invokes 'the poor' more frequently than vote-seeking politicians on the stump? Did anyone credit Benedict XVI for his constant efforts to get the G8 nations to condone the international debt of the poorer nations? Or his repeated insistence that the richest nations adhere conscientiously to the Millennium Development Goals set by the United Nations? What was Caritas in veritate but an impassioned argument for authentic social justice in the world? Has the Church in the past 100 years ever relented in its universal efforts to provide emergency assistance, health and education services to the neediest around the world? It is most unfair to perpetrate the myth that only with Pope Francis has the Church begun to 'care' about the poor, and it totally ignores the Social Doctrine of the Church that has evolved since Leo XII's encyclical Rerum Novarum.]]
Hearing so many English-speaking folk refer to him as "Papa" suggests this pope may even be fulfilling the need for a benevolent, spiritual father.
[It's simply the banal enthusiasm of new 'converts' who previously had no use for any Pope, suddenly employing a term of intimacy such as come wives do who call their husbands 'Papa'!] I'm not sure how healthy this is spiritually or how helpful it is for the future of badly needed reforms in our church.
[Lighten up! Calling someone 'Papa' who is an actual 'Papa' as in pope, and therefore, spiritual father, cannot be unhealthy and cannot possibly hamper any reform in the Church!]
The response to the papal plane ride has set up an interesting challenge. How do we remain people of hope with a deep admiration for much of what the pope says and does while also not losing our prophetic edge in fighting for true justice for women, LGBT people, sexual abuse survivors and those suffering from lack of access to contraception?
[Simple! Get real! Stop pinningyour hopes on lost causes in the Church! You may all think Pope Francis is talking your talk - don't think he will walk your walk.]
If we cannot be honest about what this pope believes, and if we refuse to criticize him when criticism is justified, we could run the risk of giving the Vatican public relations machine exactly what it wants: a return to the days when the pope was an object of affection, adulation and unequivocal goodwill -- no questions asked.
[Which is exactly what we have had since March 13, 2013, right?]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 05/08/2013 04:59]