Skip to comments.WDTPRS: What Did The Pope Really Say? 1 – UPDATES [here we go again...]
Posted on 10/01/2013 6:06:28 PM PDT by markomalley
I finally got the glacial site of the vile Italian daily La Repubblica to cough up the latest Franciscan interview in Italian.
When I read in the English version that Pope allegedly said,
The Son of God became incarnate in the souls of men to instill the feeling of brotherhood,
I said to myself, That cant be right. Swap out brotherhood with something like sisterhood and he sounds like an LCWR nun, and he is no fan of theirs or of their female machismo! No! Allow me to amend. None of them would have said that. Theyve grown beyond Jesus and words like son. But you get my drift. The Second Person of the Trinity did not incarnate in the souls of men.
So What Did The Pope Really Say? My emphasis.
Il Figlio di Dio si è incarnato per infondere nellanima degli uomini il sentimento della fratellanza .
The Son of God was incarnate in order to instill in soul of men the feeling of brotherhood.
Perhaps better awareness sense of brotherhood?
I would like to take that sentimento in the Italian sense of awareness, but since Pope Francis is fundamentally a Spanish speaker, I dont know what he meant by it here. I suspect we have to hear sentimento/sentimiento as feeling. Honestly, my Spanish isnt quite strong enough yet to hear that possible nuance behind the Italian. In Italian I would have said something like, consapevolezza or, now that I think of it, senso.
We have to be careful with the reports about what Francis said. We have to check the English version of the interview against the Italian.
I am sure there will be other examples.
In the meantime, the vile La Repubblica has this as a headline right now, filtered to you from a twit on Twitter:
Questo Papa è il Rohani del Vaticano This Pope is the Rohani of the Vatican.
Yah thats right. Talk about not getting this at all.
From a reader:
Pope FrancisEveryone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them.
Here, man conceives what is good or evil. Conceiving what is good or evil on an individual level is Moral Relativism.
Catholic Church in GS 16
16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects [Latin detegit] a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.
Here, man detects a law in his conscience he must be obedient to. Conscience reveals that law, not conceived by each according to ones liking.
How do we reconcile these things that seem to be in direct opposition?
It think you may be over analyzing this on the basis of the English alone.
What Did The Pope Really Say?
Ciascuno ha una sua idea del Bene e del Male e deve scegliere di seguire il Bene e combattere il Male come lui li concepisce .
Each person has his idea of Good and of Evil and he must choose to follow Good and combat Evil as he perceives / understands them
In this case, Italian concepire is clear understood in the sense of understand, believe, perceive, maybe even grasp and not English conceive in the sense of making something up on ones own, as in devise.
In English we can say that he conceived a plan, which is something that he comes up with. Otherwise, we can say that he couldnt conceive what she was rattling on about, which means that he didnt understand, couldnt workout out what she was saying. Be careful of false friends in translation. Sometimes similar words do not have the same meaning or the same impact.
Lets turn back to your citation of GS16 with that detects. Latin detego, detexi, detectum (compound of tego to cover, hide) is, in the first place, to un-cover, lay bare and also to dis-cover, dis-close, de-tect.
From Vatican website: In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that.
Latin (doesnt hack up the sentence): In imo conscientiae legem homo detegit, quam ipse sibi non dat, sed cui obedire debet, et cuius vox, semper ad bonum amandum et faciendum ac malum vitandum eum advocans, ubi oportet auribus cordis sonat: fac hoc, illud devita.
Fr. Z: In the depths of conscience man discovers the law which he does not give to himself, but which he is obliged to obey, and whose voice, always summoning him to do good and to avoid evil, whenever it is necessary rings in the ears of the heart: do this, shun that.
There is juridical language: lex, advoco. However, the Holy Spirit is referred to in language both juridical and moral: Advocate, Counselor. Advoco can also mean console and the Holy Spirit is called Consoler.
I love the image GS16 invokes: the laws voice summons us to obligations, to obedience, to action. It is as if we are, in the moment of discovery of the previously hidden evidence in the case, then placed before the bar in a moment of truth, when we are called to act justly and truthly in the face of the evidence that has been uncovered.
I dont see much daylight between Francis concepisce, rightly understood, and the GS 16 detegit.
The reason this time is Pope Francis interview with Eugenio Scalfari, the atheist editor of the vile Italian daily La Repubblica.
BTW in Rome some wags are now referring to La Repubblica as LOsservatore Romano.
I have not read the new interview in Italian yet (La Repubblicas site loads at tectonic plate speed), but I have read it over twice in English.
A sense of the tone of many of the Holy Fathers comments in this interview I repeat interview, can be gleaned from one of his observations about Augustine:
Someone who is not touched by grace may be a person without blemish and without fear, as they say, but he will never be like a person who has touched grace. This is Augustines insight.
Let that sink in for a while, keeping in mind that everything the Pope said to Scalfari is off the cuff and well off the cuff.
In the meantime, some of you may be having a little melt-down regarding his comments on proselytism, the Curia, conscience, etc.
You know what I think about this? Heads of the Church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers. The court is the leprosy of the papacy.
The leprosy of the papacy, those were his exact words. But what is the court? Perhaps he is alluding to the curia?
No, there are sometimes courtiers in the curia, but the curia as a whole is another thing. It is what in an army is called the quartermasters office, it manages the services that serve the Holy See. But it has one defect: it is Vatican-centric. It sees and looks after the interests of the Vatican, which are still, for the most part, temporal interests. This Vatican-centric view neglects the world around us. I do not share this view and Ill do everything I can to change it.
Of COURSE the Vatican is the problem! This is news?
I am reminded of candidates who make Washington the enemy. They become President in Washington and they make Washington the enemy. John Paul II had problems with the Vatican, but he became the Vatican eventually. Benedict was betrayed again and again within the Vatican. Francis is going to have his own Sisyphus moments with the Vatican. Good luck.
That said, I think the Francis has a pretty good BS detector. Hell need it.
Your Holiness you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think thats one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.
And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.
Is there more to say about conscience? You bet. Can it be said in an interview this interview in this moment? Nope.
But lets see if what Francis said has foundation in what the Church teaches:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1800: A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.
1790: A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1782: Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters. (Dignitatis humanae 3 § 2.)
2106 Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits. (DH 2 § 1) This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it. (DH 2 § 2)
I will add believers and Catholics are obliged to follow their FORMED consciences, and those consciences are enlightened by Divine Revelation, by apostolic tradition and by the Magisterium. Once again, His Holiness is right, but within the context that he had in mind, which context is only implicitly evident in the interview because of the nature of that genre.
Could Francis be faulted for not talking about defective conscience or lack of formation of conscience? I suppose. But the Church teaches that people cannot be coerced in matters of conscience. This is a natural right as well. But the context here is non-believers. When the LCWR nuns try to cite Dignitatis humanae as an excuse to not obey, they err and err gravely. But the Pope was talking with a non-believing journalist, not LCWR nuns.
Context, friends, context.
It's like having a garrulous uncle who's a sweetheart, a mensch, but who often has to be "explained".
Couldn't he give us a couple of weeks off?
This interview is very interesting. It amuses me to think that we have a pope who sincerely believes that the most serious evil afflicting the Church is that old people are lonely. Don’t get me wrong, it is not like I think we shouldn’t be concerned about that, but really? The most serious evil afflicting the Church? Is this for real?
More depressing, I would say, is the statement that we have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good. So, it doesn’t matter that we KNOW what is Good, but rather we should actually actively encourage people in error because they have their own ideas? People who think that sodomy is good should not be tolerated, or even ignored, but rather encouraged by Catholics to embrace evil and sin because they mistakenly believe it to be good? What kind of thinking is this? And then the whole thing about how the Church has not been open enough to modern culture and that, unlike his predecessors, this pope has “the humility and ambition to want to do something” is just plain frightening. The Church is absolutely infected with modernism, and this pope is decrying that we have failed to do enough in that area? Holy crap; literally. We are in trouble, though I am thankful that the pope is humble enough to brag about how humble he is.
After reading this interview I can only say that now I absolutely know that lonely old people is not the most serious evil afflicting the Church.
So the Pope needs somone to interpret what he is saying.
Oh the irony!
This is starting to remind me of what Iran does with its current puppet President. The fellow goes out and gives interviews in the western media, and the ministry of propaganda has to keep walking back or explaining every embarrassing thing he says.
Sounds like an awful lot of damage control going on with this pope.
I’ve been saying this since day one. I started out afraid just because he was Jesuit. Then the controversies started. One after another. I’ve tried to remain neutral and look at the explanations that come afterward, but why are so many explanations needed? IMO, The Church is about to go through some upheavals. Probably not good ones. The knee jerk defenders need to stop and listen closer to what he is saying. I won’t stay in an apostate church. We need leaders in leadership, not some new leftist teachings. I’m not versed enough on church history to know how you deal with a mistake this size.
Just went back to re read the article and got this idea. No more interviews,.....Write everything down in one language,.....Have team proofread it and make sure it meets Catholic dogma before releasing. Problem solved.
It’s a great idea.
However, someone needs to actually DO it.
No more interviews,.....Write everything down in one language,.....Have team proofread it and make sure it meets Catholic dogma before releasing. Problem solved.
But, that presumes that the pope would want to be careful and not release statements that contradict Catholic dogma. I see no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, and all these interviews actually indicate the opposite to me. After the last one all the Franciscan apologists came out to nuance many of his more egregious comments and show how they could, if you squinted just right, and interpreted this word with an archaic meaning from the Middle Ages, make something almost, but not quite, exactly unlike Catholicism with them. And then what does the pope do? He doubles down on it and gives another whopper of an interview for them to try to dance around. Does that sound like somebody who is just being misinterpreted, or is misspeaking? Not to me. I think he means just what he is saying, and all of the apologists are just fooling themselves and all of us.
I thought that it was impossible for a pope to contradict Catholic dogma?
I don’t think the Pope actually is contradicting dogma. I was having debates with a bunch of the Papists right here on FR, and they were insisting that there is salvation outside of Jesus Christ based on the very same premises here in this interview.
I don’t really understand why they are trying to walk back anything at all.
Well, that is the unfortunate affect of the ultramontanism which we have been afflicted with for many years now. There have been popes condemned by ecumenical councils for heresy, and just as people are now refusing to accept that this pope means just what he says, they also have long refused to believe that the councils meant what they said. There is nothing in Catholic dogma which suggests that popes cannot be wrong, and horribly wrong just as IMHO we are now seeing.
Not entirely sure what you may actually mean by “Papist” but it is not a Catholic who has ever said that there is “salvation outside of Jesus Christ.” That, unlike anything in this interview, actually is dogma.
Actually, it's worse.
It doesn't really matter what he says. The media is going to say he says whatever they want to say he says.
Thank you, Mark, for posting the combined threads of Fr. Z. Ping!
Pope Francis is certainly getting Catholicism some attention. :)
The main stream press is wondering what the coded message is in the following words by Pope Francis: “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Some think that the pope is expousing that he has a father and a son and that he believes in ghosts that haunt buildings. Others aren’t sure, as they’ve said they have never heard such a strange utterance.
(sarcasm for the lighter side)
Thank you ... sometimes we need to remind ourselves that the majority of journalists are ignorant of any faith; hence they review such articles through a political lens.