Is it a confused papacy or a papacy that likes to confuse? This Crux article about the Francis Effect in Argentina is quite telling of attitudes throughout the Catholic world. Push title for full story:
‘Francis effect’ in Argentina’s
alternate reality a mix of light and
shadows
- Inés San Martín ROME BUREAU CHIEF
- And this Crux article:
On narratives about
popes and allowing
oneself to be surprised
2 comments:
At the end of the first article, the journalist noted:
"After more than a month back home, here’s my conclusion...many Argentinians have a perception of Francis informed more by local politics and personal predilection than the full range of his words and deeds..."
Via the second article, John Allen noted:
"In his time, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI also had a very strong narrative, and, in media terms, a highly negative one. He was seen as an archconservative, aloof, cold, and imperious, sort of the Darth Vader of organized religion.
"In all honesty, Francis’s papacy may be closer in spirit to that of St. Paul VI than either St. John Paul II or Benedict XVI, but that hardly puts him on the far left of the Church.
"Benedict, meanwhile, never was the Blue Meanie of popular imagination, and certainly didn’t revive any anti-modernist putsch in the eight years he was in charge."
==============================================================================
Each article made the following clear:
The secular news media/Catholic extreme wings (right-wing, left-wing) espouse nonsense about Popes.
Liberals pretended that Popes Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI were right-wing reactionaries who had applied the brakes to Vatican II.
"Traditionalists" pretended that said Popes were modernists, Ecumaniacs...who muddle the Faith.
Archbishop Lefebvre, for example, declared that Popes Saint Paul VI, and Saint John Paul II, were New Church modernists who had thrown in with the enemies of Jesus Christ.
Said Popes — Saints — had lost the Faith, according to Archbishop Lefebvre.
Archbishop Lefebvre insisted that Rome's then-high-ranking Churchmen, such as Cardinal Ratzinger, as well as Cardinals and bishops in communion with "modernist" Rome/New Church, were Faith-destroying modernists.
The two articles posted by Father McDonald made the following clear:
Either read what Pope Francis (or Pope Benedict XVI, etc.)...pay attention to his teaching...or be prepared to have a false view of the Pope.
Pope Francis' Magisterium has not confused anybody — except those who've attempted to fit Pope Francis into a convenient liberal or conservative box.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"Pope Francis' Magisterium has not confused anybody — except those who've attempted to fit Pope Francis into a convenient liberal or conservative box."
From Bishop Jon Watroba, President of the Council for the Family of the Polish Bishops’ Conference:
"It is too bad that there exists no unified interpretation and no clear message of the document [Amoris Laetitia] and that one has to add interpretations to the Apostolic document. I personally – perhaps out of habit, but also out of conviction – prefer such documents as John Paul II used to write them, where additional commentaries or interpretations concerning the teaching of Peter were not necessary."
Bishops of Poland; Kazakhstan; Philadelphia, USA; Vaduz, Liechtenstein; and Chur, Switzerland, state that Amoris Laetitia does not allow divorced and remarried persons to receive Holy Communion without annulment.
Bishops of Malta, Germany, and Belgium state that Amoris Laetitia does allow divorced and remarried persons to receive Holy Communion without annulment.
Obviously, someone is confused.
Post a Comment