"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Funniest. Pope. Ever.

Seriously, funniest Pope ever!!

From interview 37 or 38, I can't keep track.

"Jesuits were and still are the leavening - not the only one but perhaps the most effective - of Catholicism: culture, teaching, missionary work, loyalty to the Pope. "

Who knew the Pope could be such a kidder?

*subhead*Really?*subhead*

Your Ad Here

16 comments:

Lynne said...

He smiles again and replies: "Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good."

Yup, that's hilarious...

nbtrap said...

I'm getting so sick of this. Somebody please say something to him...

JB said...

Oh wow. Houston we have a major problem.

JB said...

no i really can't believe this:

"Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?
"Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good."

You cannot be serious Francis. it's indeed true that many people have visions of what is good and what is evil; the problem is that many of them think that evil is good, and it's YOUR JOB, and that of the Church to correct and enlighten them with the truth of Christ.

I'm just stunned.

spraffmeister said...

We all need to talk to the Pope's Superior and implore Him to do something about the Holy Father's lack of clarity regarding the doctrines of Christ.

Johnny Death said...

We need a St. Paul , stat

ArtND76 said...

I went to the article and read the whole thing before commenting. This was no statement on doctrine - it was a conversation with a formerly believing non-believer on a range of issues. His statement on proselytism is technically correct and designed to get the reader/hearer to think about the nature of it rather than merely parrot the word.

Regarding the nature of good: I think Francis was dialoging with Eugenio at a more understandable level. Yes, I understand the ultimate good to be the will of God (and I would bet that Francis would say the same if asked), but I also know that if I am dialoging with someone who misunderstands that I don't talk with them in those terms - because they really would not know what I mean by it. It may take several conversations of increasing depth to get to the point where a statement of doctrine can be understood. With that said, then here is a re-paste of the translation of what Francis said about proselytism:

"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good."

Without doing all of those things he just mentioned, merely stating pure doctrine doesn't get very many souls saved. I don't know if it is in the translation or exactly what it is, but as I read the whole thing it appears to me that Francis has a definite set of goals in the conversation - and watering down doctrine is definitely not one of them. Getting hearers to the point where they can even understand the doctrine (as it is meant to be understood) seemed to me to be a big part of what Francis was trying to do here. Another part of what Francis is saying is the need to learn about the hearer's context - about their part of the world - so that doctrine can be stated in terms that will be understood, even if imperfectly at first.

the mysterious said...

I don't think that we're learning from the pope, which is unfortunate. If we observe carefully, he is not concerned about translations and interpretations. He is concerned with the Church and with answering questions succinctly, thoughtfully, respectfully and in a provocative way that leaves the audience thinking.

This is not a naive man. He knows that there is going to be a problem with translations. Today, translations suffer more than they did 100 years ago. One hundred years ago, translations were done by linguists. Today, in order to beat the clock, translations are done by language software. The human element is absent in the translation, allowing for mistranslations. The pope knows this. But he does not let that deter him from preaching.

The Holy Father also knows that very often the reporters to whom he's speaking are not understanding what he's saying. They're not theologians and they're certainly not Jesuits. He definitely speaks like a Jesuit theologian. But he takes them seriously. He does not dismiss them as some corrupt collection of people with an agenda. We seem to do this whenever the word "journalist" is said. We forget that these men and women are our brothers and sisters, not spawns of Satan. We forget hat they are not always Catholic. Many who are Catholic are not educated in higher Catholic thought or may be non practicing Catholics. This does not take away from their dignity, integrity and their desire to understand. These weaknesses only interfere with their actual understanding and how they report what they understand. The pope is aware that these weaknesses exist. But he's not about to dismiss these folks as if they have no value and he's not about to sit them down for theology lecture either. They're there to do a job and he tries very hard to help them do it. We're not observing this sense of service that he brings to these interviews and the sense of brotherhood that he projects toward the journalists.

Pope Francis also knows greed. He speaks about it often enough. He knows that there are people in journalism, just like in the Church, who are self-serving. They're interested in promoting themselves, not the truth. They will spin, distort, misrepresent and ignore. However, again he approaches them as Christ approached the tax collectors and prostitutes of his time. He does not deny them the opportunity to sit down with him, even though he knows that there are some listening for that one sentence that will nail him. In his mind, why should he be any different from Christ?

To come to these articles with the same mindset at the Holy Father, we have to let go of our tendency to be defensive, over protective, suspicious, over analytical. In a sense, we must be like St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Francis of Assisi. These were men who came to the table with no expectations, no agendas of their own, no intent to defend, justify or apologize for their faith. They came with one simple idea in mind. They wanted to hear the Church speak. They would store what they heard, knowing that it was often incomplete, because of the circumstances. In other words, they knew that what they were hearing was part of the whole, because popes, councils, cardinals, theologians and other could not address the whole in the amount of time that they had.

Clinton said...

Sure. The Jesuits have been such an asset to the Church that Pope
Clement XIV suppressed the order back in the 1700's. Somehow, I
don't think he did that because they were the awesomest order ever....

My college roomate graduated from a Jesuit prep school, and stayed in
touch with many of his classmates over the years. To a man, they'd all
graduated from that prep expensively educated and yet instilled with a
sneering contempt for the Church-- and they'd be the first to tell you it was
a contempt encouraged by the Jebbies at that school. I doubt a single one
has returned to the Faith or will ever pass it on to his children...

Leavening? With all due respect, Holy Father, from here it looks more like
rot.

FGA said...

Please allow my brief response to the comments of ArtND76

This was no statement on doctrine - it was a conversation with a formerly believing non-believer on a range of issues.”

You are correct that this was no “statement of doctrine”. It was however a conversation that a very intelligent and well educated person knew would be broadcast around the world. Knowing this he has a responsibility to speak the truth and speak it clearly.

--
“Yes, I understand the ultimate good to be the will of God (and I would bet that Francis would say the same if asked)…”

He was asked: “Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?” And, He responded: "Each of us has a vision of good and of evil.

“His statement on proselytism is technically correct and designed to get the reader/hearer to think about the nature of it rather than merely parrot the word.”:
I am sick and tired of people trying to explain away Brogolio’s comments as if he this poor man had no idea how his words might be interpreted. He knows full well what he is saying, why he is saying it and what impact it will have on both Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
I am likewise sick and tired of the elitist arrogance of those explaining away his words as if the rest of us are just “two dern stupit to unnerstan”

St. Benedict's Thistle said...

I truly hope that people stop a moment and just ponder the fact that the Pope is speaking to a journalist. A Journalist. Therefore, he is not speaking MERELY to an individual, but to the WHOLE WORLD. He knows his words will be published far and wide. Therefore, we must acknowledge that he is speaking to all humanity, that he knows it, and that he says these particular things with a particular motivation. I do not know what the motivation is, but we must at least be frank that he is saying these things in the way he says them, on purpose.

It is utterly useless to parse the Pope's words in the attempt to make them fit properly within the context of the Church's teachings. Indeed, the extent to which some are going in the attempt is heroic, but also rich with denial, and even desperation.

It is high time to awaken out of slumber, friends. Watch and pray.

Connecticut Catholic Corner said...

Can he be this out of tune with the Catholic world at large or perhaps... in all due respect, could he be getting senile?
I just can't believe an informed Pope could CONTINUE to make these sort of statements... like "the worst evil in the world today is...unemployment". Really? Does he honestly believe that?
I cringe every time I see he's made a public statement.
:(

Christine said...

I've said this elsewhere and will say it here: Pope Honorius wrote a series of letters (not ex cathedra) promoting monothelitism--a heresy. He was later condemned as a heretic at the Council of Constantinople. This condemnation was affirmed by Pope Leo I. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius."

It does us well to remember that not every remark of the Pontiff--whoever he may be--is to be considered infallible or even correct--especially where those remarks are not in keeping with Church teaching or Tradition. The Church is much larger than this or that pontificate; it stretches far beyond the pastoral style of this or that pope. Defend the Papacy--yes. Defend every single off-the-cuff remark of the Holy Father, no matter how unsound? No.

Connecticut Catholic Corner said...

Well said Christine and thank you for that reminder.

JB said...

Christine, don't tell Anchoress that. She's now pronouncing Francis to be a mystic and if we would just let go of our silly attachment to "comfortable" Catholic notions, whatever that means, we'd all magically see that Francis is really the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit.

paladin said...

Well... one clarification: Pope Honorius was not condemned as a heretic, since the decision of the Third Council of Constantinople which *claimed* that Pope Honorius was a heretic was never ratified by the reigning Pope at the time (Pope Leo II). Rather, Pope Honorius was ultimately condemned for not using his authority to resist the heresy.

Post a Comment