And you might want to read this by pressing this sentence:
Pope Francis, the Papacy of the media and the real Papacy
Some money quotes to ponder:
(The re-emergence of 1970's thinking and ideology by those who had fallen into obscurity:)
Since Pope Francis’ election, the expectations placed on this
pontificate have increased with his every action or speech. This climate
of expectation was fostered by those Cardinals who had campaigned in
favor of his election with the complicity of the secular media.
Everything in the Church was to be perceived as a breath of fresh air
and revolution, as if the Church before Francis was merely a place of
scandals and dysfunction. This reading obviously betrayed the facts, but
it helped some people to move once again to center stage under the Pope’s shadow,
such as Cardinals Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga, Walter Kasper and
Godfried Daneels. Their pastoral-theological viewpoint would have become
extinct in a short time, by natural death, and their influence, already
diminished greatly, had almost disappeared. These cardinals identified
in Pope Francis the possibility of renewing their former influence,
since the Pope was more interested in a pastoral approach to governing than in power struggles.
(Media fabrications:)
Benedict XVI was aware of this risk. On February 13, 2013, two days after he announced his resignation, he spoke to the clergy of Rome
about a “Second Vatican Council of the media” and of the real Second
Vatican Council. They were prophetic words. There followed a conclave of
the media and the real conclave, a synod of the media and the real synod, a pontificate of the media and the real pontificate.
(The Real Pontificate:)
But there is a real pontificate that is never discussed. This real pontificate is well known by the “hidden Vatican,” which – in the face of talk about revolution – has faithfully and silently carried on its work, advancing the Vatican reforms that for some time had already been under way. This real pontificate demonstrates that Pope Francis defends the natural family and attacks gender ideology. The media pontificate broadcasts that Pope Francis has opened up to homosexuals, saying “Who am I to judge?” The real pontificate clarifies that, with this sentence, Pope Francis nailed the coffin shut on the issue: if gays live the life of the Church, he is no one to judge them; if they do not, he is still not going to judge them, but they are outside of the Church. Full stop. Any additional word would be superfluous.
In the real pontificate, Pope Francis appreciates the conservative Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna for his interventions at the Synod of Bishops; moreover, he does not dislike, but rather holds in great regard, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, perhaps the only one able to bridge theology and the South American spirit, thanks also to his knowledge of Liberation Theology and his friendship with Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez; Pope Francis also maintains good relations with his Master of Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, and he is not against Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, whom he had transferred to the Order of Malta from the Apostolic Signatura.
(Pope Francis begins to distance himself from those who reemerged from their 1970's obscurity:)
In the history of this pontificate, there is a moment in which the hidden Vatican, with its weight of reasoning and its reforms carried out in the spirit of continuity won over Pope Francis as he became more aware of the importance of the curial institution. At this moment, his usual consultants seem to have been sidelined. In anticipation of the encyclical on ecology, it is widely rumored that the Pope completely rejected one of Victor Fernandez’s drafts, although he is the Rector of the Catholic University of Argentina and one of the Pope’s principal ghostwriters. It is also rumored that “human ecology” – a legacy of Benedict XVI – now occupies more space in the drafts of the upcoming encyclical, and that this concept, if included, would balance some of the ecological positions coming from the 2007 Aparecida document, very much present in Pope Francis’ draft of the encyclical.
Nevertheless, by the time the hidden Vatican started winning over Pope Francis’ heart, certain situations inside the Vatican had already gone sour. As a consequence, the quiet revolution begun by Benedict XVI could only be carried forward within the new forms of the “parallel Curia,” and this adjustment has created the need for further discussion.
(The real enemies of Pope Francis fueling the pontificate of the media:)
The establishment of a sort of parallel Curia and the continuous
discussion about new structures has slowed down the process of an
already ongoing reform. At the moment, multiplying discussions serves
only the aims of the old men who have returned to power and are desirous to retain their influence. Not by chance Cardinal Maradiaga has spoken about the possibility of a third Synod on the Family, while the German bishops published a multilingual translation of their summary of the German faithful’s responses to the Synod’s questionnaire, probably hoping to be able still to dominate the discussion.
Today’s enemies of Pope Francis’ reform are therefore probably the same cardinals and bishops who initially backed the reform – those, that is, whose promotion of a media pontificate over the real pontificate has risked a wholesale misinterpretation of Pope Francis’ intentions.
My final comment:
Today’s enemies of Pope Francis’ reform are therefore probably the same cardinals and bishops who initially backed the reform – those, that is, whose promotion of a media pontificate over the real pontificate has risked a wholesale misinterpretation of Pope Francis’ intentions.
My final comment:
10 comments:
I hope Gagliarducci is correct, but I fear it is wishful thinking.
Surely by now this apologetic cannot be taken seriously by anyone who is paying the slightest attention...
Yes, very interesting. But, who the devil is Andrea Gagliarducci? I've never heard of him before.
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.
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.
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.
Mike
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.
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.
Daniel,
"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.
...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.
Post a Comment