Skip to comments.Pope Francis stirs debate yet again with interview with an atheist Italian journalist
Posted on 10/02/2013 2:46:20 AM PDT by SkyPilot
Pope Francis cranked up his charm offensive on the world outside the Vatican on Tuesday, saying in the second widely shared media interview in two weeks that each person must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them and calling efforts to convert people to Christianity solemn nonsense.
The Vaticans head seemed intent on distancing himself from its power, saying church leaders have often been narcissists and clericalism should not have anything to do with Christianity.
The interview with atheist Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari set off another round of debate about what the pope meant: Was he saying that people can make up their own minds, even if they disagree with church teachings? Or was this self-described son of the church just using casual language to describe classic church teaching about how people need to come to Catholic doctrine of their free will?
A top official with the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, took the unprecedented step of rebuking Francis, writing that the popes interview was a theological wreck and that Francis was dabbling dangerously in relativism.
What these interviews seem continually to do is what evangelical theologian Carl Henry warned Protestants of in the 20th century, of severing the love of God from the holiness of God, wrote the Rev. Russell Moore, a past dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and head of the conventions Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. We must speak with tenderness and gentleness, but with an authoritative word from God.
Some conservative Catholics were also taken aback by the interview.
My e-mail is filled with notes from people who need to be talked off the ledge, wrote the Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, author of one of the more popular blogs for Catholic conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
First sentence: These reporters either don’t know the difference between “proselytism” and “evangelization,” or they are liars.
Would like to see context.
It’s good to see the comPost is doing its usual, level best to twist and obfuscate all things Catholic.
At least there’s some consistency in the world.
This is how I imagine American journalists ending a call with Obama:
‘I don’t know how to end this call and let myself go, saying: “Can I embrace you by phone?”’
But really, this is much about nothing and does show the ignorance (or I hope all that is all it is!) of the WaPost journalist. PF decries ‘prosyletism’, which as this post explains, has within the Church come to mean a bad, crass form of evangelism:
This pope is turning the Catholic Church on its head. I am sure many Catholics are regretting his election as pope. I wonder if there can be a recall?
HERE is a more openly honest account of the interview:
How the Church Will Change: Evangelical Catholic Pope Francis Gives Another Interview
Reading a Washpost column about the Pope is kinda like reading Dr. Seus on Ham Radio.
Lol... There is no such thing as a recall. We believe that God has chosen him. We love this Pope!
(Oh...and beware of how the press distorts.)
What did the Pope really say? (Here we go again...)
I believe they don’t know anymore.
After generations of liberals changing and altering the meaning and context of everything moral...
Why do people believe anything this idiots re-interpret for their own meaning?
I liked the real Pope who “resigned”
I thought the magisterium was supposed to be infallible in their decision.
I know some Catholics who are thrilled with him. Course, they are also obama supporters.
So, if there was a mistake, does that mean that he's really NOT the vicar of Christ on earth?
So explain the difference and why one is “solemn nonsense” and the other isn’t.
“Proselytism” is disrespectful of people’s intellects.
Recently, I encountered a thread which originated with an article making use of fake quotations of Popes, and other inaccurate statements about Catholicism.
When these were pointed out, the originator of the thread responded by saying that Catholics are sunk in heresy, were going to be damned, are deceived by Satan, etc., etc.
One might say that proselytism is saying: “Hello. I’m representing such-and-such a religion. Let me tell you about it, and explain to you why your religion is false.”
Mother Theresa spent fifty years in Calcutta. And she made converts—around the world. But she did it by living her life, with her sisters, adoring Jesus daily in the Blessed Sacrament. And bringing the mercy of God to people who had absolutely nothing.
The election of a Pope is not an exercise of the Magisterium, which is the Church’s teaching function.
The Cardinals have elected the wrong man many times, even in cases when he wasn’t a bad man.
The notion that the Holy Spirit chooses the Pope, and the Cardinals are infallible, is widespread. And it is a superstition.
It’s time to get Pope Benedict off the bench. Every time Francis opens his mouth, his words need to be clarified. Each person needs to discern what is evil on their own??? Sounds like moral relativism to me.
Let’s use words to mean what they mean. Did not Jesus and his disciples proselytize. that is preach with the goal of converting, changing the hearer’s viewpoint from either pagan religions or from the Jewish religion to another viewpoint, that of Christianity?
How were they disrespectful of their hearer’s intellect? In fact Paul said to Agrippa that conversion of him was Paul’s hope. (Acts 26)
Paul evidently didn’t accept the notion that all roads lead to the good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.