Yes, the New Evangelization means reaching into places where no Catholic has evangelized before. And maybe Pope Francis making the cover of Rolling Stone will have a positive effect on the secularists, agnostics, atheists and anti-Catholic people who read and write for it. But my clairvoyance says MAYBE NOT!
Does Pope Francis really want to be associated with what is written about his immediate and still living predecessor, Pope Benedict in comparing the two popes?
17 comments:
We live in an era of ignorant and irresponsible media, on both the left and the right (I won’t get into which side is more ignorant or irresponsible – choose your team and yell for them).
So, how should the Pope (any Pope) deal with this fact? Watch and parse every word like our inauthentic, plastic politicians who do as their media consultants tell them? Or speak out authentically as he believes the Holy Spirit moves him to do? (I mean in everyday communications, not formal documents).
To use the lingo of Rolling Stone magazine, what would the boss do? What_did_the boss do? And how often was He misunderstood? (Although, not being too strong on the theology of the Trinity, I suppose, Rolling Stone distinguishes between the boss and the boss’s son).
I don't mean to be excessively cynical, but you've just given us one definition of what "THE NEW EVANGELIZATION" is, however, there seem to be multiple definitions of this thing and nobody seems to agree on anything definitive. We've been hearing about this 'NEW EVANGELIZATION' since the 1970's, but it still seems to be something we are awaiting or just starting or having expensive conferences to discuss. Before the great dismantlement of the late 60's and early 70's, there were more faithful Catholics, Bishops spoke in one united voice and there was no debate about where the Church stood on certain issues. Now we have Bishops' conferences, "collegiality", bishops contradicting bishops, cardinals contradicting cardinals and endless public debate about how the Church has changed or how it hasn't changed or how it cannot change.
I propose we re-evaluate what hasn't worked--pretty much everything since the great dismantlement--and go back to THE OLD EVANGELIZATION.
The Church is in a new Babylonian Captivity. She is blind to her own de-construction/destruction, and this "seeing-eye" Pope seems to be stumbling around in the dark. God help us...
Anyone here read The Seven Storey Mountain? As I recall it was that "Old Evangelization" that drew Thomas Merton into the Church. Same goes for Robert Hugh Benson, Heywood Broun, Dave Brubeck, G.K. Chesterton, Gary Cooper, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Fritz Kreisler, Clare Booth Luce, Cardinal H.E. Manning, Patricia Neal, St. Elizabeth Seton, St. Edith Stein, Evelyn Waugh and others. How many famous or celebrity converts has our "New Evangelization drawn? If the current awards shows are any indicator, most of our celebrities are converting to some form of Satanism. And the public just drinks it in.
Well, Merton is certainly no one to build an orthodox theology upon…neither am I impressed with most "celebrity converts."
Actually, I'd suggest that the Church is in desperate need of a New Evangelization--from within. But I'm afraid it'll not get anywhere until the pope personally puts the restoration of sacred liturgy on the papal front burner--in principem locum, so to speak. But does anyone see this happening anytime soon? Until it does, "new evangelization" is just same ole same ole verbiage.
JP II had charisma too. However, he never would settle just for notoriety. Unfortunately, we can probably look forward to further similarly disconcerting performances by the new curial cardinals as well.
When Holy Father urged the faithful to make a mess we did not know just what he meant. Now we are finding out and like Victory of England in the olden days we are not amused.
Do they expect the Holy Father to declare that what is wrong is now right, that what is sinful is now virtuous? If you will excuse me for belaboring the obvious,these people do not know Christ.
Pope Francis, being head of the Holy catholic Church, and holding to the teachings of the one True Faith, does hope that this can change and those outside the Church can come to know the Truth that is embodied in Christ and His teachings. What effect will his approach have? Hopefully it will have some goood effect.
I know someone who watched just a little of the Grammy's telecast the other night and characterized
what he saw as "satanic". This is not a word this person would normally use to describe what one finds
on TV these days, although he has used pejoratives in describing other shows. Having come to know
what to expect from these kind of offerings, I did not waste my time viewing any of it. From commentaries I read, the show was even worse than I expected it to be. It would make a good example
in displaying what could be termed secular chatechesis, to convey to others how far things have fallen in our culture.
After the disastrous papacy of Benedict...
Some people just don't get it. As a Catholic (and obviously a Catholic did not write that article), I consider Benedict's papacy to be the greatest of my lifetime... yes, even greater than superstar JP2, whom I love. When you say "disaterous papacy", you need to look at Paul VI, the worst pope of the 20th century... and yes, I'll say it, Francis, who is on course to be the worst pope of the 21st century... just by all the confusion and doubt he has sewn in his first year.
Wow... I just looked at the captcha: "doubt". Cue the Twilight Zone music.
Father M:And maybe Pope Francis making the cover of Rolling Stone will have a positive effect on the secularists, agnostics, atheists and anti-Catholic people who read and write for it. But my clairvoyance says MAYBE NOT!
Father! Here is my problem with well-meaning Catholics who say Pope Francis' popularity with non-believers is a good thing. Such articles make it clear that the ONLY reason for them thinking he is 'cool' is because they think he is breaking with Catholic Tradition.
If they are deceived in this supposition, or have been 'tricked' into it, how can that be a cause for rejoicing?
Why would Francis not want to be on a cover of a magazine that hates Catholicism and God and morality? Why would Francis have a problem with that? Did he have a problem with Jane Fonda praising him for being pro abortion? No he didn't. Did he get bothered when NARAL praised him for being pro abortion? No he didn't. Does he get upset that gay magazines make him a cover boy? He's a modernist who loves the spotlight. He could care less about what the Church teaches and everybody, including those idiots at Rolling Stone know it. Keep trying to rationalize his heterodoxy. He will do anything and everything that the left demands without blinking an eye. His complete disregard for Catholic teaching becomes more apparent every day and Catholics who actually believe everything the Church has always taught know he is just another modernist clerical jackass who needs to be ignored.
So....pastor Gene...you're a better convert than Thomas Merton? To use one of your own sayings "LOL", or one of mine LMAO.
I'm the guy who posted about Thomas Merton's conversion. He later became less of the kind of Catholic I admire and more the kind of hippie our bishops currently admire, but that's beside the point. The Seven Storey Mountain tells a compelling story of conversion that didn't rely on the contrived, air-brushed propaganda we're being spoon-fed today as "THE NEW EVANGELIZATION." I still say THE OLD EVANGELIZATION was far more effective.
Thanks anon, but I was talking to pastor Gene.
Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi has strongly criticised an article on Pope Francis that appears in the latest edition of Rolling Stone magazine.
Although he acknowledged that the Holy Father’s appearance on the publication’s front cover shows a diverse interest in the Pope, the Jesuit spokesman denounced the article's negative portrayal of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s pontificate, saying the piece disqualifies itself as serious journalism.
“Unfortunately, the article disqualifies itself, falling into the usual mistake of a superficial journalism, which in order to highlight the positive aspects of Pope Francis, thinks it should describe in a negative way the pontificate of Pope Benedict, and does so with a surprising crudeness,” Fr. Lombardi said in a statement.
In the piece titled "Pope Francis: The Times They Are A-Changin'", author Mark Binelli calls Benedict’s papacy “disastrous” and goes so far as to attack the former pontiff’s appearance and character. He also describes Benedict’s acclaimed apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis as “wonky” but without explaining further.
“What a pity,” Fr. Lombardi said. “This is not the way to do a good service even to Pope Francis, who knows very well what the Church owes to his predecessor.”
Published every two weeks, Rolling Stone was founded in 1967 and focuses on politics and popular culture. Last year its editorial judgement was strongly criticised when it pictured the prime suspect in the Boston bombings on its front cover.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/fr.-lombardi-censures-rolling-stone-article-on-pope?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2014-01-29%2017:19:01#ixzz2rqEUPyXq
Anonymous, you have caught Ignotus' disease..the inability to read clearly. Just where did I say I was a "better convert than Merton?" I said that his writings contain some problematic issues. But, I'm sure you would not understand that...
And the best is not so long as we can say this one is better.
Post a Comment