Is it ever wise for any clergy, to include the pope, to use examples of real people in order to promote a good with a bad example and in the process humiliate the person on a public/worldwide stage? Isn’t it better to use positive examples and not to demonize the behavior of those whose behavior really isn’t immoral?
You can watch a portion of what the Holy Father said (His Holiness looks very well, btw) HERE, which is a link to a twitter feed.
In this clip, we see what a scold Pope Francis is. And this is His Holiness downfall, moralizing while scolding people.
You would think he could empathize with people who are lonely and have pets to fill the void. Loving pets isn’t sinful and this woman did not deserve this:
Speaking at a conference on birth rates with Giorgia Meloni, Pope Francis recounts a story of how he scolded a middle aged woman for calling her dog “her baby”, saying: “Madam, so many children are hungry and you with this little dog!”
Then he recounted another story a priest told him a few weeks ago after the Wednesday outdoor general audience. The priest said he went up to a woman who had a baby carriage with her. He bent down to bless the baby which was actually her beloved pet dog. The pope went on to ridicule her for having a dog in a baby carriage rather than a real baby!
But the other thing is that His Holiness is humiliating a real person who he met or others have met and talking negatively about them and their peccadilloes (which really aren’t) on a worldwide platform.
How would you feel if Pope Francis came up to you, noticed something negative, scolded you and then revealed it worldwide without your name, of course, but you know it is you that he is talking about and bringing calumny to you? Can you imagine the inner turmoil and shame you would feel? It is like breaking the seal of Confession during a homily!
He did the same thing at the beginning of the pontificate when he talked about a person who had many children as though the person was a rabbit. How did that person feel, someone who embraced all the children God gave her and because of her Catholic Faith.
My point here is that clergy, even the pope, when teaching the truths of the Church, especially morality, should never used examples of real people they have met, especially in the parish where they are ministering, in a negative way. Catholics have a right to privacy from their clergy, to include the pope and not be be humiliated in talks or homilies that directly refer to them, without their permission, although no name is used.
Folks, this is very serious and a part of Pope Francis’ compulsion to talk too much even about people he has met and scolded.
I wish the religious press would do their job, find the persons publicly scolded and ask them how they felt to hear the pope speak in a scolding fashion on a worldwide stage.
15 comments:
To me, it is unmerciful and hateful.
As suggested, no understanding of the person's situation was ascertained.
There are those who continue to glorify the HF who is simply a man elected by men. The Good Shepherd via the Holy Spirit would not inspire such behavior.
This era will last as long as the Holy Spirit permits. Until then, people like this woman who was publicly victimized by atrocious behavior would do well to avoid the broader Church in the person of its current leader.
"Catholics have a right to privacy..."
Once a Catholic, or anyone else, has acted publicly, that "right" is meaningless. If you push a dog-carrying baby carriage around in public with your "fur baby" inside, public comments might follow.
"Folks, this is very serious and a part of Pope Francis..." No, it's not "very serious."
"I wish the religious press would do their job, find the persons publicly scolded and ask them how they felt..."
Oh, not "feelings" again. The "constant privileging of our subjective emotional experience," is the logic of young children and immature adults. External experiences, being scolded by a member of the clergy for example, do not cause our emotions.
But, we've become addicted to "feelings." One day when a news reporter approaches a person whose house has just been demolished by a tornado and asks, "How you feel right now?" I'd love to see that person to respond, "What kind of a worthless question is that? How the hell do you THINK I feel!? You should do your job as a journalist, not a psycological counsellor."
Apologies, off-topic, but I hope you'll indulge me.
Further to your post on the Anointing Screen used during the Coronation of King Charles (III), I found the following in the Orthodox Arts Journal: https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/the-design-of-the-anointing-screen-for-the-coronation-of-king-charles-iii/
Interestingly, this screen is described in terms of a "veil", as I had done. I have also seen instances likening it to an iconostas/iconostasis - a correlation I never made. The iconostas has its origins in the Book of Revelation (21:12), the 12 gates each representing a different point of entry into heaven. The iconostas is a point of entry - something one gazes into though the ability to see all is limited. A veil obviously shields from view that which it is covering.
The iconostas, in its original form was low, akin to a communion rail. Over time, it started to reach up with certain icons being specifically and consistently placed, the great feasts of the church and saints and martyrs. Local custom drove and continues to drive its size. It's purpose was principally liturgical, a physical barrier affording limited access as well as catechesis, teaching the faith.
"VICTIMIZED!"
Poor ol' Cain is a VICTIM because his murder of Abel was publicly reported.
George Wallace is a VICTIM because his racism was named.
All those children in second grade who are told PUBLICLY to keep their hands to themselves are VICTIMS!
I wonder if Pope Francis smiled during this interview...
Fr. MJK,
We'll part company on this one, I'm afraid.
I agree, it occurred in public. Reasonably, one should not expect privacy. Let's forget the fur baby for a moment. Regarding the Church, is it really unreasonable for someone to expect a degree of privacy with their Holy Father, who is not a civil servant? In today's age, and post ridicule, someone with some time on their hands could likely find video and figure out who this person is. Her private moment, despite the potential eye-roll fur baby moment, is not out there for public consumption and ridicule.
Knowing what PF is capable of behavior wise, why would I ever want to approach him knowing that as a public figure, my personal burden/adornment that is special to me might become a "teaching moment" at a future event? Reasonably, I might avoid any contact/photo ops / any "do you want to meet the HF??"
Similarly, I was asked at an event if I wanted to say hello to a high ranking cleric whose name I won't mention. I said "no" to the shock of the person asking. When asked why, I said I had met him a few years prior after standing for almost an hour waiting to say hello, was confronted with indifference, sarcasm and a lack of social grace. I left feeling foolish for waiting, more foolish for presenting myself (which we were invited to do), embarrassed/awkward at this person staring blankly at me with his mouth open and I really regretted the whole thing. I thought, he just wants my donation and doesn't give a $#!t otherwise. What an organization I had no say in belonging to.
Now, the above was all feelings, true. But, I'm a human and feelings come along with the experience. The Church has many feelings/emotions attached. Liturgy should pull at our heart strings and our passion for Christ and the Church should pour forth. I don't think, therefore, that feelings can be discounted.
Certainly, the HF should know how to act and when to hold his tongue. Among men, however, clods abound.
PF despises faithful Catholics: an irascible and uncharitable man
Fr. MJK,
I posted my comment before being able to devote time to the video. Having watched the video, I was initially inclined to concede that victimized was too strong a word given the examples you provided. However, what's provided by the Oxford Learner's Dictionary leads me to stand by my argument.
This woman, perhaps is....I don't like saying this.....simple minded and/or impaired, could easily have approached the HF genuinely and sincerely, per her experience and state, only to publicly scolded and ridiculed. Even if she is just fine and simply dotes over her pet, was it really worth scolding/ridiculing a member of his flock (assuming). If not some a$$ who snuck past security to make some display to garner attention, or shame the HF, his comportment could stand some improvement.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/victimize
I saw one of our deacon’s wife go into Victoria Secrets. When she came out I told her that spending so much money on sexy underwear to motivate her husband was a scandal when most poor people can’t afford underwear at a bargain basement!
That did not happen, but if it did, I wonder if FrMJK would support my homily example?
The quality of Victoria's Secret products has, evidently, really fallen off. Despite being classier than Frederick's, I likely would have questioned her choice of store in the first instance :)
Poor innocent me!
I thought Victoria's Secret or secrets were matters much known only to the doctors of Queen Victoria d 1901.
Or the large state of Victoria (Australia) secrets for example: how 2 two top level criminal defence lawyers could simultaneously be defending some of the biggest crime lords in the nation while being active registered police informants...See big Royal Commission on this particular Victorian secret...
Or which State of Victoria people involved in the "prosecution" (aka persecution) of Cardinal Pell may have received or been influenced by the $3.2 million transfer from a certain Vatican prelate to X, y and z in Victoria, Australia..a large suspicious transfer of Vatican $$$ to Victorian persons ....a transfer that had to be investigated by a Federal Agency, usually kept busy tracking suspicious large transfer of funds - re terrorism, drug dealing and sex trafficking of minors...
Historically and in our own times there have been lots of "Victoria's Secrets"..!!
People who buy Victoria’s Secret generally need to keep their body a secret too!
The paradox for this layman is why the Pope walks on tenterhooks to prevent people with sexual perversion from melting down but feels safe kicking some old cat lady in the stomach.
What if it was an elderly out and proud gender fluid non binary otherkin person, who coped, in part, with lonliness and isolation by loving 2 or 3 pet cats...
I'd say in a case like that Pope Francis would have preached an eloquent sermon (equal to the original St Francis!) on the great love non binary gender fluid elderly people shower on their pet cats, who, as part of God's beautiful creation, unconditionally return the love to their LGBT IQ+2++ owner...oh! An example of unconditional love that so many miserable, rigid, emotionally stunted, bigoted white, straight, conservative Christian males can learn from!
Sorry, this is largely off topic (but perhaps a little relevant?)...
If only one of the hundreds of pro LGBT Jesuit and Paulist American priests could inform Francis of the very little publicized realities of LGBT life is the fact (as acknowledged by honest gay journalists) that abuse of methamphetamine et al has now ravaged large parts of the LGBT community as badly did the HIV/AIDS virus...then Pope Francis could give a much publicized sermon on the terrible evil of producing, selling and using large quantities of methamphetamine?
Sorry to digress here, but I have had an interest in military history since I was 10...the uncle I referred to above or on a recent post somehow at the end of WW2 ended up as some sort of intelligence officer with some connection or association with I think MI6 which officially didn't exist back then...I think..
Anyway, as a young man I remember my uncle telling me that in some major battles in North Africa (and elsewhere?) many Australian and British troops had mastered the skill of taking enough amphetamines to be very alert and up all night, attack with energy at dawn but still be able to get a few hours sleep later; while German troops often took too much amphetamines and after 4 or 5 days without sleep could become disoriented, even paranoid and make sometimes serious mistakes...
Last night on SBS a Russian officer was stating that only large amounts of drugs could explain the insanely reckless manic and suicidal charges of some Ukrainian troops in recent battles there...
Post a Comment