Tuesday, May 5, 2015


But first, Pope Francis visits my alma mater (yes, as a graduate of the North American College's Sabbatical program in Rome, I'm now considered an alumnus--for fund raising purposes).  What a wonderful city to live and go to school. It was like heaven!

And you might want to read this by pressing this sentence:


Charles G said...

I hope Gagliarducci is correct, but I fear it is wishful thinking.

Lefebvrian said...

Surely by now this apologetic cannot be taken seriously by anyone who is paying the slightest attention...

JBS said...

Yes, very interesting. But, who the devil is Andrea Gagliarducci? I've never heard of him before.

Tom said...

There was/is a "Council of journalists",

But time and again, journalists simply presented to the public that which Churchmen had declared.

On November 26, 1969 A.D., it was Pope Venerable Paul VI, not The New York Times, who declared that the "new rite of the Mass" was a "liturgical innovation."

"We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits.

"No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass.

"We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant."

It was "wreckovating" Cardinals and bishops, not Time Magazine, who authorized "in the name of Vatican II", that sledgehammers and wrecking balls be smashed against beautiful altars, sanctuaries and churches.

It is priests, not journalists, who, "in the name of Vatican II," placed dogs upon sacred altars.

The Associated Press did not force Cardinals, bishops and priests to misrepresent Vatican II.

It was Popes, Cardinals, and bishops, not the news media, who authorized/practiced, Communion in the hand, altar girls, Mass versus populum, inculturation...who "razed the bastions" of the Church.

Joe Potillor said...

As I've said before, there are times when he (Pope Francis) is mis-represented, but he does not help himself in the way he speaks.

Anonymous said...

I think the most rigid and ultra conservative position you can take is to defend a left wing bishop because he is a bishop. I'm a papist if that means having respect for the office. But when someone who sits in the office wants to play the Jesuit iconoclast then out of respect for the office and the Church I get worried. Just as the Joy of the Gospel presented ridiculous political commentary I expect the same from man made global warming encyclical. After its release we'll have papists making more excuses for Francis. Telling us what he really meant. When in fact they should focus on understanding the global warming hysteria as a sinful belief system. It has become a religion of left wing crackpots because it rejects the dominion that God granted to humans over the Earth. It's a belief system that would like to reduce the amount of humans so mother Earth can breathe (abortion being a good means). It suggests that man is greater than God and that our normal existence is too stressful for the Earth which He created for us to use responsibly. Francis' encyclical on this topic if written for any other reason than to expose the man made global warming nonsense as a pagan discipline will only help to promote junk science and dangerous evil instruction disguised as virtuous concern. Sorry, Gagliarducci I believe my own ears and eyes. They might fool me once but not 490 times.


Daniel said...

This happens about once a week around here:

1) Fr. McDonald criticizes the media and/or Catholic liberals for falsely presenting the pope as a moderate or a liberal.
2) Conservative commenters here pile on and criticize Pope Francis for being a moderate or a liberal.

Me, I prefer to read for myself what the man has to say without anyone else's interpretation. He can not be easily pigeon-holed as a liberal or moderate or conservative because he thinks for himself.

rcg said...

My impression of Pope Francis is of a man who wants people to investigate the Church and participate meaningfully. He is trying to attract people that have moved to the periphery of the Church, or even out of it by their own actions or the actions of people who are in the Church. That is excellent because he is reaching out to the groups, like homosexuals and others harmed by these circumstances to seek Christ. I think he is more than a little naive about how these sorts of people treat the Church (hint: similar to how they treat their bodies and others around them). So in this way his method is clearly to model the father character in the parable of the Prodigal Son. He seems to have the same hesitation dealing with insurgency that comes through clerical paths so would do well to create a leadership model based on the parable of the Talants to ensure just treatment for those trying to support and defend the Church from within.

JBS said...


"I prefer to read for myself what the man has to say without anyone else's interpretation..." That's very funny. You clearly prefer to come here and read others' interpretations so that you can then interpret their interpretations as being out of conformance with your own. At least, that's my interpretation after reading for myself what you've written, and without reading anyone else's interpretation of what you've written.

WSquared said...

...which is why I don't take seriously what the media says and thinks about Pope Francis.

A relative gave me an article from the Washington Post, which he told me was "all about how Pope Francis was going to change the Catholic Church."

I curtly responded that dogma and doctrine doesn't change, even if discipline and pastoral approach might-- within reason. He seemed... surprised and a little bewildered.

As for the article, it was "the usual" as usual. Snore. Nothing to see here.

I wasn't going to waste my time getting upset-- though I might retrieve it, because I could use it to light the bonfire that's waiting for us in the back yard.