Let me reiterate, what Pope Francis said to Italian bishops behind closed doors, needed to be said, but without being crass or insulting.
If Italian seminaries and priesthood needs to be cleaned up, and evidently Pope Francis knows something that I don’t, then it was right and just that he speak to the very bishops who have enabled a situation that now needs a desperate reform.
Bishops are the ones who accept candidates for the seminary and priesthood. If they select morally, emotionally and mentally compromised/corrupt men, it isn’t the men’s fault but the bishops. The pope knows this.
But this is how the pope should have said it without insulting those who, through not fault of their own, were accepted into the seminary and ordained priests by the bishops Pope Francis was lecturing:
35 comments:
The pope is in charge of replacing bishops who don't replace vocation/seminary directors and staffs who don't do their jobs, which clearly they are not, top to bottom.
Pope Francis has a penchant for insulting folks and is able to be very creative in the variety of his insults, though crude in some situations such as the one descried in this post. His disparaging, mean spirited comments about Catholics devoted to the Latin Mass, the American Catholic Church, families with many children (?rabbits), etc. come to mind. Regarding the TLM, I would venture a guess that far less than 0.5 % of folks attending the Latin Mass are sedevacantists.
Anyway, I ran into a blog that has collected many of PF's insults, with links, so the context may be seen. Not all are horrendous, but they are not infrequent. Let's just say that such behaviors are not uniting the Church.
https://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/
And I still don't see the insult he should have tip-toed around in the first place, nor such need for "sensitivity". He used a word regarding those people which they use themselves self-descriptively.
It is the media who invents and drives outrage over a word, and which decides constantly through the Style Manual, which words are approved and which are now verbotten.
Same with the n-word which began among rural and backwoods folk mispronouncing "negro"(black), and which word blacks use self-descriptively.
And all the towers of jello cave to media pressure, counsel angst over lack of sensitivity, express outrage over always shifting word use, and it all rather pathetic in attempts to be seen as acceptable and maybe even liked.
Off the subject, past the influence of the Style Book language Nazis driving people to frothing biting frenzy over word uses,....
before anyone argues, the dreaded n-word in the South came about via negro often south-speak pronounced nigra, which among the backwoods became the dreaded n-word...all quite natural evolution...
but today's culture so ready to "trigger" that even my stating the south-speak pronunciation of negro as nigra enough to cause reader's hearts to skip a beat, and maybe even negro/black causes bright vision flashes......THAT is how shaped people have become by the media Style Book jack booted thugs....
and same ongoing with Francis gutter language.
The story in regard to the alleged "slur" in question has not been of major interest to me — except for similarities between the story in question and the Pope Benedict XVI Regensburg Address Saga.
I have found that the story in regard to the (alleged) "slur" has been hyped by the news media. We also have Pope Francis' detractors enjoying another of their fleeting "we gotcha, Bergoglio!" moments — moments in which, to their delight, they can pile on the Vicar of Christ.
But I believe that Father McDonald has identified the important question at hand.
That is, do "Italian seminaries and priesthood (need) to be cleaned up...evidently Pope Francis knows something that I don’t, then it was right and just that he speak to the very bishops who have enabled a situation that now needs a desperate reform."
On August 20, 2018 A.D., Pope Francis declared: "I make my own the words of the then Cardinal Ratzinger...'How much filth there is...even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to [Christ]!'"
It was in 2005 A.D. that then-Cardinal Ratzinger issued the above horrific, bleak assessment of the priesthood. At least in regard to the priesthood, as well as seminaries in Italy: I hope that the level of "filth" has subsided the extent that Pope Francis can handle effectively.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Who would've thought that the best defense MT could produce is that Pope Benedict did the same thing, even though he most certainly did not (can you imagine Pope Benedict calling Muslims "towel-heads" or "goat-****ers"?) Somehow, the Regensburg address doesn't have the offensive sting of referring to people with same-sex attraction as queers practicing faggotry (not my words).
Nick
Mark, there you go AGAIN with the false equivalencies, comparing outrage over BXVI restating classic Catholic doctrine and pointing out shortcomings of Islam, with outrage over Francis using crude gutter language perceived as a slur according to ALL media outlets including especially Francis-friendly outlets. Just ignore them and make it a Francis enemy thing, why don't you (predictably, AGAIN).
AGAIN intentionally misleading, essentially lying, and then daring to parade yourself as a devout Catholic.
AND ignore the ignorant Francis using gutter language.
AND ignore Francis not taking action as normal except against mostly imaginary enemies, saying one thing, while doing another (nothing) for 10yrs, while Benedict's pronouncement against active homesexuals in the priesthood led to seminary visitations to my recollection.
And you trot up for communion and don't burst into flames?
Mark, there you go AGAIN with false equivalencies/lies in equating outrage over BXVI restating classic doctrine and shortcomings in Islam, with the outrage over Francis using gutter language.
And yet you present yourself here as a good devout Catholic who trots up for communion (and somehow doesn't burst into flames).
While ignoring the gutter language.
While ignoring all the active gays currently in seminary in Italy happening in Francis' own back yard and entire under his reign as pope.
While ignoring BXVI's words were followed by semimary visitations.
While 10yrs after Francis' empty words, he has done exactly zero.
Sorry for another double post, internet crashed when posting first time, backspace did not show it posting, so rewrote/sorta and posted again. But, as for bashing dishonest posters, anything worth doing once is worth doing twice.
And a holy, holy, holy guy who missed the memo about trying for moral ends thru immoral means gets the hammer, every time...I grew up loathing phony Christians, they still are easy to spot, and feelings haven't changed.
This is too much. Basta! Father McDonald do not be eating or drinking when you read this. The Cardinals need to go to the Pope and tell him to resign.
On May 25, Pope Francis’ inaugural World Children’s Day featured a male performer who danced in drag for children.
Carmine De Rosa, one of the official artists at the event, appeared in a myriad of drag outfits along with some suggestive cardboard costumes and danced in front of an audience of children.
In a pink dress with a plunging neckline and full makeup, De Rosa shared on social media, “Today on stage at the Olympic stadium in Rome for World Children’s Day announced by Pope Francis. What a great emotion!”
Bob, the following is among my comments at 12:37 p.m:
"The story in regard to the alleged "slur" in question has not been of major interest to me — except for similarities between the story in question and the Pope Benedict XVI Regensburg Address Saga."
I did not delineate similarities that, in my opinion, pertain to the two stories in question. Bob, you did not ask me to expound upon my statement in question. That is what you would have done had you been interested in engaging me in charitable conversation.
Instead, in vile, nasty fashion, you rushed to judgement against me. (For that matter, Nick rushed to judgement against me.)
Bob, you are unaware as to that which I meant in regard to my comment that there are "similarities between the story in question and the Pope Benedict XVI Regensburg Address Saga."
You engaged in speculation. You "read between the lines" in regard to my comment in question. You did so in uncharitable fashion.
Bob, you stated that I present myself "here as a good devout Catholic who trots up for communion (and somehow doesn't burst into flames)." Bob, even for you, that comment is disgraceful beyond comprehension.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, if you're going to present what is a clear cut straw man argument = false equivalence, you should have explained your point, period. Otherwise, it's asking to be challenged. There have been some orators who helped me refine my detection of straw man arguments - the last master of this was Obama.
Mark Thomas,
As with a previous discussion surrounding recent oddities of churchmen with regard to how they approach people engaging in same-sex sexual activities, there was sufficient public information to form the judgment I made. The judgment, in this case, being that the similarities between the Regensburg address and the current embroglio (no pun intended) are so tenuous that to draw a comparison is a cheap shot against Pope Benedict.
Nick
Mark, oh you poor dear...your feelings getting hurt for being called out on constant misrepresentations of prior papacies, and your constant use of false equivalencies in those misrepresentations...
Vile? I have said nothing vile to you. Called you a phony? Darned tootin', I called you a phony and for reasons patently obvious to readers here, and I am not the only one here aware of your disingenuity, as any thread with your postings shows in replies. What you constantly do here is dishonest, no two ways about it, and dishonest people don't rate very high in anyone's book as for Christian example or worthiness.
Bluntness is not a sin. Being deceptive is a sin. I am blunt. I am not perfect, but at least I am honest.
Honest enough to say I have found fault with every papacy of my lifetime, John for just HAVING to get with the times, Paul for letting himself get run over by the updaters except on birth control, JPII for not taking stronger action for fear of schism when he was a strong man, and kind and timid BXVI for not being strong at all and only ruling from an ivory tower...
But all good men who tried...
And then we have Francis, crude, vengeful, always plotting paranoid Francis unworthy to be mentioned on same planet with every Pope of the 20th century, and among worst popes in all of history.
woundedpig, everyday on Father's blog comments are offered in passing. Folks who are interested in such comments will, in logical, charitable fashion, ask for an explanation. "Person X, please explain the following."
That is all that was required from Bob. That is, if he had desired to engage me in charitable fashion. But that is not the manner in which Bob had desired to engage me. Bob has, time and again, engaged me in hateful, insulting, fashion.
I made a mistake in having responded today to Bob's vicious post in question.
As is written on Father's blog: "Please do not attack others who make comments here but focus on the content not the person and show charity at all times."
Bob, today, in undeniable fashion, violated the above. Actually, he has violated the above countless times. But I erred by having responded to Bob's hateful comments in question. What a waste of time and energy on my part. Mea culpa!
Pax.
Mark Thomas
woundedpig said..."Mark, if you're going to present what is a clear cut straw man argument = false equivalence, you should have explained your point, period."
woundedpig, I did not present, even remotely, "a clear cut straw man argument..." I did not present any argument in regard to my comment in question.
I stated simply that I have encountered "similarities between the story in question and the Pope Benedict XVI Regensburg Address Saga." I did not detail my comment in question. I am unaware that anybody has requested that I explain said comment.
Therefore, those who have pronounced upon said comment have done so unaware as to my comment's meaning.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, you can explainify all you want, but readers here can predict with 98% accuracy that any thread in which you comment will be a game of "but whattabout" with out of context quotes used in false equivalencies in an attempt to justify every burp, belch and gas passing of Francis, while ignoring his true outrages. I have differences of opinion with many posters here, but none of us resort to dishonest practices trying to make points, while with you they are habitual.
Back to Francis motivation for his ribald and humorous-to-bishops commentary, the guy works hard at being inscrutible, but after just having an entire continent tell him NO! over a gay friendly new teaching, much of India telling him to get stuffed, and with a conclave upcoming and hopes for a Francisish successor, a bit of play of not-gay-friendly to gain votes for his camp and camp followers would not be suprising.
Father, the problem is as you say the Bishops. The whole thing (including the 'word') was held behind closed doors. We should not know what was said. The problem is we do, it can only have come from a Bishop.
Those Italian bishops, with a few notable exceptions, are fops, timeserving careerists who are better suited to be baristas at StarBucks. I recall the incident of the priest celebrating “Mass” on a raft in the water in a bathing suit. Such “Unity.” Was he disciplined? Doubt it. That is why we should give the big middle finger to Traditionis Custodes and just carry on and ignore these evil, brainless charlatans in the Vatican. Basta!
I rarely comment here any more because this fine blog has been highjacked by Mark Thomas who over time has chased off some really fine commentators: Bee, John Nolan, ByzRus, Jerome Merwick, Gene etal. It really is sad because I always looked forward to their wit and wisdom. I miss them greatly and hope they are doing well!
At the risk of boasting, I am an excellent hijacker. Beside Father's blog, I have highjacked:
A beer truck on its way to a liquor store. Well, to tell the truth, I thought that I had hijacked a beer truck. It was late at night. I was groggy. Turned out I was watching a 1938 James Cagney movie.
=======
LaGuardia Airport. It was spur of the moment. I boarded a commercial airliner at random. It was prior to the Fidel Castro years. I was ahead of my time. I told the pilot, "This is a hijack. Fly this plane to Cuba."
When we landed in Cuba, I learned that I had boarded American Airlines flight 107. New York to Havana.
It was my first attempt at hijacking. But it wasn't a total loss for me. I returned to New York with a box of cigars.
========
Finally...
I hijacked an armored car. But I waited until the crew had delivered the cash. My Catholic sensibilities had kicked in. I wanted the thrill of hijacking an armored car without the guilt of having stolen the money.
:-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Careful MT, besides the Vatican, the FBI and CIA and Homeland Security monitor my most humble blog…
MT,
You once mentioned you have been banned from several blogs. Makes sense
Father McDonald, thank you for that info. My monumental power had gone to my head. After all, I have hijacked your blog. I also have such power that I have "chased off some really fine commentators: Bee, John Nolan, ByzRus, Jerome Merwick, Gene etal."
In addition, as a certain person has claimed often, I am a special, secret, magical, George Soros agent. As I am on George Soros' payroll, I figured that nobody can bother me.
But as the Vatican, FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security monitor your...sorry, MY blog (recall that I have hijacked your former blog), I had best watch my step for a while.
But with persistence, I hope to chase off the Vatican, FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security...just as I have "chased off some really fine commentators: Bee, John Nolan, ByzRus, Jerome Merwick, Gene etal."
:-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM,
I do hope that you are keeping well.
MT, In all honesty, you are a significant contributing factor to me taking my leave. Among a few others, I simply gave up trying to reason. As well, where I'm not a subject matter expert, I gave up competing to learn and understand as I, like many a pewsitter, are not sophisticated relative to matters for which I haven't received formal instruction.
As Fr. AJM and others have pointed out, all is not well, and that's obvious given the more limited ordinations and sweeping diocesan restructurings with associated parish consolidations. To be sure, social change and population shift are contributing factors.
Last, I have greatly committed myself to my Eastern Catholic Church and parish. Eastern Christian spirituality, liturgy, among other aspects of our life have kept me busy - a happy problem, at least to me. Finally, much of what is considered here seems increasingly remote to me - I simply haven't an opinion anymore.
ByzRus said..."MT, In all honesty, you are a significant contributing factor to me taking my leave."
That is your decision. Okay.
But I am unable to relate to your above comment. Other than Father McDonald banning me from his blog, I do not envision my taking leave from Father's blog. I would never permit any commenter here to drive me for any amount of time from Father's blog.
ByzRus, you were/are among my critics here. But I would never reach the point where I determined that I, on your account, needed to absent myself from Father's blog.
I would consider myself pathetic if I ever reached that point.
But ByzRus, do as you please. That is your business, not mine.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
ByzRus,
So glad you responded. You are a fine gentleman.
If the Latin Rite continues to be plagued by Popes the likes of the current, unhinged ogre in Rome, I may look to the Eastern Rite.
Wishing you all the best,
Tom
I am a teacher. I've spent years watching the moral atmosphere of various campuses degenerate and decline. Fights are increasing in number. Stupid arguments escalate faster than ever. I shake my head in disgust, because most of these students are immune to good advice. They enjoy their aggression.
Likewise, this site has become an occasion of sin for me. There is no conversation or discussion. It's either empty virtue-signaling, back-and-forth "gotcha's" or cringy attempts of people who disagree attempting to define their opponents. I should know, because I did it all. I'm embarrassed for myself and for the others here who seem incapable of any kind of self-reflection. I don't want any part of it any more. I'm finished. "Contributing" to this non-conversation doesn't enhance my life in any way and it does no good for anyone else here.
Father McDonald is a good man. But this blog has run its course.
Amen!
I have always been puzzled by the lack of discipline so many who comment here have. If you don’t like the comments of this, that or the other person, don’t read the comment. But apart from that, I am saddened by the attacks that so-called righteous Catholics make against other Catholics and in the most uncharitable way. That’s not the blogger’s fault but each sinner’s fault/responsibility. Being uncharitable is always a serious matter. Most here know that. And to commit the sin with full consent of the will makes it a mortal sin which needs repentance and the Sacrament of Penance to be forgiven. The sinner must pledge to avoid the sin in the future.
BTW, many blogs today no longer allow for comments. The NCR, Rorate Caeli and Praytell have all stopped public comment. I am praying about that, but conflicted about doing it. I will await more guidance from the Holy Spirit.
Fr. AJM,
Please know that I greatly respect both you and your ministry. I have always enjoyed reading your news-related posts in addition to generally hearing what you have to say.
I have mostly removed myself for the reasons you mentioned. I know my responsibility. Unfortunately, I, like many, have fallen victim to the tenor of this comments page. Feeling that it was more harmful than helpful to my overall growth and spirituality, I decided to absent myself to avoid that which you mentioned.
Personally, I feel your puzzlement could extend beyond comments that I, or others, personally do not like. I had been ignoring discussions that I felt would be circular, or would devolve into being profoundly uncharitable. Note: I'm not seeking an echo chamber.
That said, I agree with the discernment upon which you have embarked. I too await that guidance so that your blog, which I believe continues to add value, perhaps requires greater controls to stay true to its mission, as well as the behaviors desirable and expected of believer participants.
NCR and Pray Sniff are both notorious for suppressing views not consistent with their own. I recall Father Sniff suppressing comments that were very respectful and devoid of ad hominem. He just did not like his world view and false assumptions about Sacrosanctum Concilium challenged.
TJM I have to agree with you on Praytell, that was/remains an echo chamber.
ByzRus,
Thank you! I was suppressed there when quoting directly from Sacrosanctum Concilium! I was not rejecting the Council, Father Sniff was. Or I guess I could not see the secret coded penumbras he could
Post a Comment