HUGE SHIFT IN TONE, BUT NO SHIFT IN DOCTRINE, BUT A MAJOR SHIFT NONETHELESS
A great interview with John Allen, what follows his interview, I didn't watch yet, but is must see and hear from the Washington Post. The later interview his highly politicized drivel and 1970's ideology, especially the comment of priest in dresses:
It seems that, from the Pope down, no one seems to get it that the Church is under attack from within and without by ruthless and unprincipled foes who are clever and relentless. They will use every nuance of language, every misstatement, every hint of ambiguity as a weapon against the Church in order to sow doubt, dissent, and chaos. Some of these foes are Bishops and Priests who are either deliberately attempting to de-construct the Church and her theology or who are either in total denial or just plain dumb. Given this state of affairs, it is incredibly irresponsible for a Pope, or any true Catholic, to make such careless statements or engage in behavior that sends mixed messages. This is a time for precise dogmatic language, carefully and strongly stated theological principles, and no nonsense plain talk. Instead, we have all kinds of nuanced political talk, ambiguous behavior in dress and speech, and the appearance of a naive and "bull-in-a-doctrinal-china shop" rambling through various venues that plays right into the hands of our enemies. This is not what the Church needs. At this point, I do not look for better...
Along with this "major shift in tone" we have Catholics coming out of the woodwork telling the media either A) How refreshing it is to finally hear a pope say such a thing or B) How this is no change in the Church's teaching.
I'm sorry, but I think Catholic journalists and bloggers should find something more substantive to write about. But since we need to beat this story to death, I'll add a couple of observations:
1) The question AND the answer were too vague. Any Catholic with an I.Q. above 60 knows that there has been a gay priest problem. I would like to assume that the pope was speaking about gay priests who are remaining chaste. If his comment was meant as a blanket statement, we have a huge problem. If we have a priest who is actively gay and living a duplicitous lifestyle, then the pope as supreme pontiff has every right and DUTY to judge such a priest and take disciplinary measures to protect the integrity of the faith and protect the faithful from scandal.
Tremendous damage has been done to the Church and its credibility by priests who have led double lives or "come out" of their "closets" or decided to lead some kind of personal "crusade" to liberate the Church from its teachings. Unfortunately, the dissenting mob is going to take the lack of precision in the pope's remarks and have a field day.
2) This seems to be just the latest salvo in what I call "The Church of Public Relations" (COPR). The COPR seems stuck on trying to make everyone like us, with this shallow message: "Please like us. See, we're really not such bad people." This doesn't work. It's empty, phony and any fool can see right through it.
THE CHURCH NEVER HAS BEEN BAD. I, for one, would like to see a Church that stands up and defends itself, teachings, history, everything. Reaching out to the world is good. Pandering is not. I hope the pope is doing the former and not the latter.
It is now an old saying that "perception is reality" or, as John Allen suggested, a change in tone translates in its effect to a change in substance (even without change in official doctrine or policy).
I fear that this change in tone will or has already weakened (if not torpedoed) the Church's stand in the public square as a bastion against encroaching barbarism.
OOPS, I meant to post the following comment here, but posted under the "Gold" entry by mistake..sorry, Fr.! JJ
--From N.Y. Times Op-Ed blog, an interesting piece by Ross Douthat, "Conservative Catholics and the New Pope":
"A number of Catholics of my acquaintance are resistant to the idea... that there might be real daylight between the new pontiff’s emerging program and the approach of his two predecessors. In their view, the possibility that Francis intends to be a social-justice pope who deliberately soft-pedals debates over doctrine and morals is just a media creation, reflecting press caricatures of the church’s divisions rather than Francis’s actual statements and intent. They might be right: I don’t think anyone can doubt that Francis differs from Benedict XVI stylistically and liturgically, but beyond that sweeping conclusions are as yet unwarranted."...
He ends by saying: "So popes are not all saints, and the pope isn’t identical with the church — and it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for conservative Catholics to reckon with this fact."...
Hmmm, whew, a day of reckoning? What do you think?
I see a huge change in personality and the common touch. He loves people and his like a grandfather. But in terms of the actual teachings of the Church, he is orthodox. He is traditional and he is devotional. I think he appeals to many different camps in the Church and makes all of them a bit uncomfortable at the same time. There is something prophetic in this, that he afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted, much like Jesus did. I personally believe he could have kept more continuity with Benedict in style and have the same impact worldwide without causing needless consternation about externals.
Ellis has a very good point in light of the sex abuse scandal. The pope's language gould have very easily been spun by the media to read: "Pope soft on sex abuse." You may see that yet, but the media likely spun it the way they did because a) it helps the gay movement more and b) the "soft on sex abuse" spin, while harmful to the Church, would also have vilified gays as a group. Better to portray the Church as caving.
If a pope or bishop or priest has to adjust the way he presents his message to prevent someone from misunderstanding, from misquoting, or from intentionally misrepresenting the clear meaning of his words - well, he will never say a word in public.
Perfect communication, on this side of the tombstone, is impossible.
Benedict, too, with all his careful intellectual planning, ran into this buzzsaw with the infamous Regensburg Lecture. (Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute called it one of this century's pivotal speeches.)
Almost no one I know thinks that the manner in which he presented his thoughts regarding Faith and Reason - the essence of the lecture - thinks that it was a good move to introduce the quote from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
As academically nuanced and carefully prepared as Benedict's lecture was, the violent reaction to his quoting the late 14th century emperor was, as we all know, calamitous.
We do not have an obligation to speak in such ways that no one can misunderstand or misrepresent what we say. We have an obligation to speak the truth, but ALWAYS to speak the truth in charity.
"Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don't want to get married anyway." (BXVI, "Light of the World", 2010.)
ytc - No, the implication is that no matter how hard one tries to present his/her material, someone, somewhere will misunderstand or misrepresent it.
Even if one presents what he considers to be an unambiguous statement - a quote, at that, from a late 14th C emperor - there are those who, for one reason or another, will find it a casus belli.
While I might take issue with the wisdom of B16's using such a quote at all, his usage was exactly "spot on."
An official of the emperor was speaking to St. Basil about the emperor's disgust at Basil's defense of orthodoxy in the face of Arianism. “No one has ever spoken so audaciously to me,” the emperor's official said.
“Perhaps,” the saint remarked, “ that is because you’ve never spoken to a bishop before. In all else we are meek, the most humble of all. But when it concerns God, and people rise up against Him, then we, counting everything else as naught, look to Him alone. Then fire, sword, wild beasts and iron rods that rend the body, serve to fill us with joy, rather than fear.”
McKinley - I said, "While I might take issue with the wisdom of B16's using such a quote at all, his usage was exactly "spot on."
I did not say or suggest that Benedict's choice of words was poorly chosen.
His words, for the purpose of his lecture, were well chosen. (I and others might not have used the quote in the way and at the time he did, but for his purposes they were well chosen.)
My point, again, is that no matter how carefully we choose our words, someone is going to misunderstand or misrepresent them. But that potential misunderstanding or misrepresentation should not be the factor that determines what we say.
15 comments:
It seems that, from the Pope down, no one seems to get it that the Church is under attack from within and without by ruthless and unprincipled foes who are clever and relentless. They will use every nuance of language, every misstatement, every hint of ambiguity as a weapon against the Church in order to sow doubt, dissent, and chaos. Some of these foes are Bishops and Priests who are either deliberately attempting to de-construct the Church and her theology or who are either in total denial or just plain dumb.
Given this state of affairs, it is incredibly irresponsible for a Pope, or any true Catholic, to make such careless statements or engage in behavior that sends mixed messages. This is a time for precise dogmatic language, carefully and strongly stated theological principles, and no nonsense plain talk.
Instead, we have all kinds of nuanced political talk, ambiguous behavior in dress and speech, and the appearance of a naive and "bull-in-a-doctrinal-china shop" rambling through various venues that plays right into the hands of our enemies. This is not what the Church needs. At this point, I do not look for better...
Along with this "major shift in tone" we have Catholics coming out of the woodwork telling the media either A) How refreshing it is to finally hear a pope say such a thing or B) How this is no change in the Church's teaching.
I'm sorry, but I think Catholic journalists and bloggers should find something more substantive to write about. But since we need to beat this story to death, I'll add a couple of observations:
1) The question AND the answer were too vague. Any Catholic with an I.Q. above 60 knows that there has been a gay priest problem. I would like to assume that the pope was speaking about gay priests who are remaining chaste. If his comment was meant as a blanket statement, we have a huge problem. If we have a priest who is actively gay and living a duplicitous lifestyle, then the pope as supreme pontiff has every right and DUTY to judge such a priest and take disciplinary measures to protect the integrity of the faith and protect the faithful from scandal.
Tremendous damage has been done to the Church and its credibility by priests who have led double lives or "come out" of their "closets" or decided to lead some kind of personal "crusade" to liberate the Church from its teachings. Unfortunately, the dissenting mob is going to take the lack of precision in the pope's remarks and have a field day.
2) This seems to be just the latest salvo in what I call "The Church of Public Relations" (COPR). The COPR seems stuck on trying to make everyone like us, with this shallow message: "Please like us. See, we're really not such bad people." This doesn't work. It's empty, phony and any fool can see right through it.
THE CHURCH NEVER HAS BEEN BAD. I, for one, would like to see a Church that stands up and defends itself, teachings, history, everything. Reaching out to the world is good. Pandering is not. I hope the pope is doing the former and not the latter.
It is now an old saying that "perception is reality" or, as John Allen suggested, a change in tone translates in its effect to a change in substance (even without change in official doctrine or policy).
I fear that this change in tone will or has already weakened (if not torpedoed) the Church's stand in the public square as a bastion against encroaching barbarism.
OOPS, I meant to post the following comment here, but posted under the "Gold" entry by mistake..sorry, Fr.!
JJ
--From N.Y. Times Op-Ed blog, an interesting piece by Ross Douthat, "Conservative Catholics and the New Pope":
"A number of Catholics of my acquaintance are resistant to the idea... that there might be real daylight between the new pontiff’s emerging program and the approach of his two predecessors. In their view, the possibility that Francis intends to be a social-justice pope who deliberately soft-pedals debates over doctrine and morals is just a media creation, reflecting press caricatures of the church’s divisions rather than Francis’s actual statements and intent.
They might be right: I don’t think anyone can doubt that Francis differs from Benedict XVI stylistically and liturgically, but beyond that sweeping conclusions are as yet unwarranted."...
He ends by saying:
"So popes are not all saints, and the pope isn’t identical with the church — and it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for conservative Catholics to reckon with this fact."...
Hmmm, whew, a day of reckoning? What do you think?
I see a huge change in personality and the common touch. He loves people and his like a grandfather. But in terms of the actual teachings of the Church, he is orthodox. He is traditional and he is devotional. I think he appeals to many different camps in the Church and makes all of them a bit uncomfortable at the same time. There is something prophetic in this, that he afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted, much like Jesus did.
I personally believe he could have kept more continuity with Benedict in style and have the same impact worldwide without causing needless consternation about externals.
What Gene said.
Ellis has a very good point in light of the sex abuse scandal. The pope's language gould have very easily been spun by the media to read: "Pope soft on sex abuse." You may see that yet, but the media likely spun it the way they did because a) it helps the gay movement more and b) the "soft on sex abuse" spin, while harmful to the Church, would also have vilified gays as a group. Better to portray the Church as caving.
If a pope or bishop or priest has to adjust the way he presents his message to prevent someone from misunderstanding, from misquoting, or from intentionally misrepresenting the clear meaning of his words - well, he will never say a word in public.
Perfect communication, on this side of the tombstone, is impossible.
Benedict, too, with all his careful intellectual planning, ran into this buzzsaw with the infamous Regensburg Lecture. (Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute called it one of this century's pivotal speeches.)
Almost no one I know thinks that the manner in which he presented his thoughts regarding Faith and Reason - the essence of the lecture - thinks that it was a good move to introduce the quote from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
As academically nuanced and carefully prepared as Benedict's lecture was, the violent reaction to his quoting the late 14th century emperor was, as we all know, calamitous.
We do not have an obligation to speak in such ways that no one can misunderstand or misrepresent what we say. We have an obligation to speak the truth, but ALWAYS to speak the truth in charity.
PI, is the implication there that BXVI was not being charitable?
"Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don't want to get married anyway." (BXVI, "Light of the World", 2010.)
Which pope is right? Confusion reigns.
I think Emperor Paleologus' words were remarkably on point and should be spoken aggressively today.
Ignotus' words...mealy mouthed as usual.
ytc - No, the implication is that no matter how hard one tries to present his/her material, someone, somewhere will misunderstand or misrepresent it.
Even if one presents what he considers to be an unambiguous statement - a quote, at that, from a late 14th C emperor - there are those who, for one reason or another, will find it a casus belli.
While I might take issue with the wisdom of B16's using such a quote at all, his usage was exactly "spot on."
Leave it to P.I. to use Pope Benedict for his example of poorly chosen words.
BTW, where' the "calamity"?
An official of the emperor was speaking to St. Basil about the emperor's disgust at Basil's defense of orthodoxy in the face of Arianism. “No one has ever spoken so audaciously to me,” the emperor's official said.
“Perhaps,” the saint remarked, “ that is because you’ve never spoken to a bishop before. In all else we are meek, the most humble of all. But when it concerns God, and people rise up against Him, then we, counting everything else as naught, look to Him alone. Then fire, sword, wild beasts and iron rods that rend the body, serve to fill us with joy, rather than fear.”
Where are such bishops today? Are they in Rome?
McKinley - I said, "While I might take issue with the wisdom of B16's using such a quote at all, his usage was exactly "spot on."
I did not say or suggest that Benedict's choice of words was poorly chosen.
His words, for the purpose of his lecture, were well chosen. (I and others might not have used the quote in the way and at the time he did, but for his purposes they were well chosen.)
My point, again, is that no matter how carefully we choose our words, someone is going to misunderstand or misrepresent them. But that potential misunderstanding or misrepresentation should not be the factor that determines what we say.
Pope Francis' Letter to Muslims for the Feast of 'id al-Fitr, ending the month of Ramadan.
http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=716319
Post a Comment