Pope Francis strikes again with his infamous off-the-cuff interviews. This time he heavily criticizes the USA (which per capita has more Catholics attending Mass each Sunday than most other parts of the world except maybe Africa and the Philippines.) The USA tends to be a religious country, although secularism is catching up with what is happening in Europe and decades ago.
I'll post two headlines and one comment by the Bishop of Oakland, California, he himself a Jesuit, I believe:
From the NCR:
From the National Catholic Register (the other NCR):
Oakland’s bishop in the Wall Street Journal this weekend. This is what Bishop Michael Barber, SJ said the follow which I lift from The Pillar:
In a June 12 Wall Street Journal report, Bishop Michael Barber, SJ said that while McElroy opposes abortion, the cardinal-elect apparently thinks “it’s not wrong enough that you need say or do anything about it or interact with the politicians who are publicly promoting it.”
Barber noted that McElroy speaks out on other political issues, including migration, but is reluctant to speak about abortion, the Journal reported. For his part, McElroy pushed back on that charge, with a spokesman saying that McElroy does speak out about abortion.
Still, Oakland’s bishop told the Journal that Cordileone was “prophetic,” while adding that the San Francisco archbishop and his San Diego counterpart embody “two forces in the Church right now” — with McElroy representing the concerns of Pope Francis, and Cordileone stressing the approaches of Pope St. John Paul and Pope emeritus Benedict XVI.
There are two major schools of interpreting Vatican II. For Pope Francis to denigrate the last two pontificates and all they tried to do for the proper interpretation of Vatican II seems to me to be pouring gasoline on the possible schism that this pope is fomenting or at least continues to polarize the Church even more so than it ever was in the 1970's.
While there are Catholics, some who comment on this blog, who think Vatican II should be done away with, they are a small minority of vocal rad trads. But they aren't as numerous as the German liberals who are trying to destroy the Church post-Vatican II or pre-Vatican II. They are the bigger concern for the number of people they represent and the power they have over those they will force to eat their pork (Bratwurst).
I have consistently said that we have to follow Vatican II, the actual Council, not the Council of the media which Pope Benedict used to call it.
Pope Benedict gave us a hermeneutic for interpreting the Council. Pope Francis is giving another. Which is infallible and who will win?