Rorate Caeli has a good series on Pope Leo. You can read the latest installment HERE.
I have a tendency, taught to me by my liberal arts education, to be critical when I read and hear what people have to write and say.
Pope Leo’s interview with Elise Allen of Crux demands critical reading and listening skills and reading between the lines. I have already pointed out his “American” or perhaps more specific, “Chicagoan” English ticks, like “I think”, “for now”, “later on.” I suggested that as pope, no longer Chicagoan Robert Prevost” that he not speak in anyway about Catholicism by prefacing it with “I think.” He simply needs to clean that up and immediately.
As for “for now” that too needs to be eliminated unless his agenda, clearly articulated, means he intends some kind a change in the future. For example, for now, Traditionis Custodis and Fiducia Supplicans remain in place but I am open to adjusting or eliminating these two polarizing documents and make statements that are more pastoral, less confusing and won’t lead to a hetero-praxis.
“Later on” is something parents say to their demanding children, “later on” means never but without being so dogmatic about it.
But back to the Rorate Caeli article; while Pope Leo is now pope and no longer Robert Prevost, he certainly is still Robert Prevost at the core, but trying not to alienate those who adored Pope Francis like Pope Francis alienated those who adored Pope Benedict XVI. That is hard to do, but he is doing it and admirably so.
But this is what he was like as Robert Prevost, bishop, in Peru as described by the Rorate Caeli commentary:
“…His period as bishop of Chiclayo might be most informative. It is a diocese with more middle class Catholics and relatively less poverty than in other parts of the Peruvian church; less affected by social upheaval and the lure of Liberation Theology, its Opus Dei presence is less radically hardline, though still very much "conservative." While conservative clergy feared that Prevost, having been installed by Francis, would engage in a purge, this did not happen. He put his trust in the local conservative clergy, was supportive of Opus Dei and its university, and did not bring in his own Augustinians.
He did not implement Amoris Laetitia to allow communion for the divorced remarried, made zero controversial personnel or seminary decisions, spoke out against gender ideology, tweeted against abortion and gay families, all while refraining from supporting partisan social justice causes. In liturgy he was described as strict, ‘say the black do the red’ being his approach. Fr. Bernardino Gil, former vicar general of Chiclayo told The Pillar: “He is a very smart, well-rounded man, and he always gave care to all aspects of the liturgy.”
The Pillar received similar reports regarding doctrinal orthodoxy. Fr. José Luis Zamora, former rector of the Chiclayo seminary, said about Prevost:
“He always showed great respect for doctrine, for Catholic moral teachings, and for the social doctrine of the Church. I never saw anything that stood out negatively, he was never ambiguous at all… In doctrinal matters he was always characterized by a great charity and a great clarity.”
The rector of the Chiclayo Cathedral, Fr. Jorge Millan Cotrina, who lived in the residence of the bishop together with other priests, also spoke to The Pillar regarding bishop Prevost: “He was very open, talked with everyone, received everyone, but was very clear on doctrinal matters. I spoke often with him about these issues and he was very clear.”
“He arrived in the diocese to build upon what had been done before, he did not make any radical changes. He came and wanted to know the work we had been doing, and little-by-little gave everything his own touch, but he never came with prejudices because we’re ‘conservatives,’ on the contrary, he always trusted us.”
He also told Argentinian news outlet Radio Con Vos about how Prevost dealt with homosexuality:
He knows very well what is the teaching of Christ," [on such matters]; "he showed it to us in his homilies; I never heard from him one sentence in favor of all these novelties. Rather, he was always a man who tried to put realities in the proper place."
Érika Valdivieso, who led the Institute of the Family in the Catholic University Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo in Chiclayo likewise told The Pillar:
“He was always very interested in the work we did, he always encouraged us to work in public policies in favor of the family and to promote a pastoral and academic message defending the family… As a bishop he was always very faithful to the Church’s social doctrine, he called us to protect and care for the family, but always with charity. I never heard him use hurtful words, even if he was very clear with the doctrine of the Church. He saw everyone as a child of God but always spoke very clearly in doctrinal matters.”…”
No comments:
Post a Comment