Here's the last paragraph of the Vanity Fair article:
From the very first days of his papacy, Francis has spoken in ways that suggest he is seeking, prompting, even urging on, a massive change within the authoritarian, dogmatic, stubbornly unchanging Church that has shown its bitter fruits in the thousands of abused young faithful across the Catholic world. A drastic purging of the obstinate entitlements, the secrecy, the unaccountability, the wealth, the self-satisfied traditionalism, could be the necessary condition of making a fresh start.
READ FULL VANITY FAIR ARTICLE HERE
POPE VS. POPE: HOW FRANCIS AND
BENEDICT’S SIMMERING CONFLICT COULD SPLIT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
When he retired, the ultra-conservative Pope Benedict XVI was expected to disappear from view, clearing the way for his liberal successor, Francis, to clean house in the notoriously corrupt Vatican. Instead, he stayed, setting the stage for a de-stabilizing brawl over morality, theology, and the Church’s horrific legacy of sexual abuse.
When I saw the word "ultra-conservative" attached to Pope Benedict I knew there was no need to read this piece.
Also, why didn't they refer to Pope Francis as "ultra-liberal?"
Off topic, but this is how religion can be perverted to fit a political agenda. Please read this article about how some clergy engage in "blessing" abortion clinics (instead of an exorcism):
Once again, the secular press attempts to report on the Church and once again, they completely miss the mark.
“Vanity Fair”? C’mon, Father, really?!
Secular liberal tripe; look at author’s list of previous articles for this rag. Heavily overstated, snarky style of a gossip columnist at best.
His Vatican insider is a mid-level Curial gossip. His background includes troubled junior seminary experience and references the Pink Palace, perhaps just so you will think him “fair and balanced”? Good grief.
I could go on with all the ridiculous literary tactics and non sequiturs employed in the article, but the length of this post reply would rival/ surpass what MT often does here.
Did Fr. K alert you to this secular article? Just wondering...
Oops, I forgot to say that “anonymous” reply just sent was from me. I was pretty riled up when I wrote it...sorry. I probably need Confession now. )-:
Anonymous 9:43. Nope.
I did read the article and I do think both the Catholic Church and the political landscapes are both incredibly divided. So I think article is correct about the division in the Church between opposing viewpoints.
This article seems to be an opinion shaping piece that reverses the roles and omits facts. For starters, Pope Francis assumed the image of a proletariat Pope while supporting the obstinate entitlements, the secrecy, the unaccountability, the wealth, the self-satisfied traditionalism of the ruling class. That last part about traditionalism (sic) is intended to distract from the traditional entitlements by alluding to liturgical matters. I think it is fair to say that liturgical matters are not on the minds of many of the Vatican hierarchy until it is brought up by liturgical traditionalists. They already hold the liturgical high ground and control it. This is evidenced by their use of a free hand changing it to suit their political goals. What they don't like is being proven wrong about what they are trying to do with the liturgy and with their distorted versions of it.
Post a Comment