Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Catholic Caucus] A Revealing Conversation, Francisís Latest With the Jesuits... I
L'Espresso ^ | June 17, 2019 | Sandro Magister

Posted on 06/17/2019 11:54:09 AM PDT by ebb tide

A Revealing Conversation, Francis’s Latest With the Jesuits. In Its Contradictions, Too

When Pope Francis is traveling outside of Italy, there are not only the press conferences on the plane, for questioning him and listening to his answers on the spot. There are also his meetings with the local Jesuits, which take place behind closed doors but the complete transcription of which Fr. Antonio Spadaro publishes on a routine basis a few days later in “La Civiltà Cattolica.”

The account of the conversation between Francis and the Jesuits of Romania, which took place on the evening of May 31 at the nunciature in Bucharest, contains three passages on three topics that are particularly revealing of the pope’s thought.

*

The first has to do with the public accusations against Francis that he protected and promoted figures in spite of knowing about their sexual offenses, in particular former American cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Argentine bishop Gustavo Óscar Zanchetta.

With the Jesuits of Romania the pope did not revert to repeating that he had never known anything about the offenses of the one and the other. But he confirmed that he did not want to respond to these accusations, mustering in support of his silence two examples taken from the history of the Society of Jesus.

The first example is the meekness of the Jesuit Saint Peter Faber (1506-1547), which Francis contrasts with the combative temperament of his fellow Jesuit Saint Peter Canisius (1521-1597):

“You have to carry the burden of life and its tensions on your shoulders. […] You have to be patient and sweet. This is what Peter Faber did, the man of dialogue, of listening, of closeness, of the journey. Today is a time more for Faber than for Canisius, who was the man of the dispute. In times of criticism and tension we must do as Faber did, working with the help of the angels: he begged his angel to speak to the angels of others so that they might do with them what we cannot do. […] This is not the time to convince, to have discussions. If someone has a sincere doubt, yes, one can dialogue, clarify. But don’t respond to the attacks.”

The second example is given by the letters - collected in a volume edited by the Jesuits of “La Civiltà Cattolica” - of the fathers general of the Society of Jesus during the period of the suppression of the order, in the second half of the eighteenth century:

“If you read that book, you will see that it says what should be done in moments of tribulation in the light of the Society’s tradition. What did Jesus do in the moment of tribulation and fury? He didn’t argue with the Pharisees and the Sadducees as he had done before when they tried to set traps. Jesus remained silent. There’s no talking at the moment of fierce fury. When persecution is taking place, […] you embrace the cross.”

*

The second revealing passage concerns the idea dear to Francis of the wisdom and innocence innate in the “people.” An idea that substantiates both his theological vision of the Church as the “santo pueblo fiel de Dios” and his typically “populist” political vision:

“Where can I find the greatest consolation? […] I find them with God’s people. […] God’s people understand things better than we do. God’s people have an understanding, the ‘sensus fidei,’ that corrects your line and puts you on the right path.”

In support of this vision of his Francis presented two anecdotes.

In the first he recounted that one day he had met an elderly woman with “precious, bright eyes,” who after a bit of small talk had told him that she prayed for him every day. And he retorted: “Tell me the truth: Do you pray for me or against me?” And the elderly woman: “Of course, I pray for you! Many others inside the Church pray against you!” Moral of the story: “True resistance [against the pope]  is not in the people of God who really feel they are the people.”

The other anecdote goes back instead to when Jorge Mario Bergoglio was an ordinary priest and went every year to the shrine of Nuestra Señora del Milagro in northern Argentina:

“There are always a lot of people there. One day after Mass, while I was leaving with another priest, a simple woman of the people approached. She was not a member of the ‘cultured elite.’ She had holy cards and crucifixes with her. She asked the other priest, ‘Father, bless me?’ And he – a good theologian – replied: ‘But you were in the Mass?’ And she says, ‘Yes, Father.’ And then he asks, ‘Do you know that the final blessing blesses everything?’ And the lady said, ‘Yes, Father.’ […] At that moment another priest was coming out, and my companion turned around to greet him. At that moment, the lady looked to me and said, ‘Father, will you bless me?’ There. You see? The lady accepted all the theology, of course, but she wanted that blessing! The wisdom of God’s people! The concrete! You may say, but it could be superstition. Yes, sometimes someone can be superstitious. But what matters is that God’s people are concrete. In the people of God we find the concreteness of life, of the true questions, of the apostolate, of the things we must do. The people love and hate and know how to love and hate.”

*

The third revealing passage, in the conversation with the Jesuits of Romania, concerns the question of communion for the divorced and remarried, a question still unresolved as long as the “dubia” presented by four cardinals go unanswered:

“We’re always at risk of falling into casuistry. When the synod on the family began, some said: ‘See, the pope summons a synod to give communion to the divorced.’ And they’re still saying so today! In reality, the synod took a step on the path in matrimonial morals, passing from the casuistry of decadent scholasticism to the true morals of St. Thomas Aquinas. That point at which ‘Amoris Laetitia’ speaks of the integration of divorcees, eventually opening up to the possibility of the sacraments, was developed according to the most classical morals of St. Thomas, the most orthodox, not the decadent casuistry of ‘one can or one cannot.’”

*

The argument brought in here by Francis in justification of “Amoris Laetitia” is the same one that he had already presented, almost in the same words, to the Jesuits of Chile and Peru, with whom he met on January 16 2018 in Santiago, Chile during his journey to those countries.

Just like the reference to Saint Peter Faber contrasted with Saint Peter Canisius, complete with an invocation to the angels, the exact same thing is found in the conversation between Francis and the Jesuits of Lithuania and Latvia, with whom he met in Vilnius on September 23 2018.

It happens quite frequently that Francis repeats himself, especially when he speaks off the cuff. But it also sometimes happens that he brings out into the open intimate aspects of his personality.

For example, with the Jesuits of Chile and Peru he went so far as to say that it is “for my own mental health” that he refuses to read the writings of his opponents:

“For my own good I do not read the content of internet sites of this so-called ‘resistance.’ I know who they are, I know the groups, but I do not read them for my own mental health. […] Some resistance comes from people who believe they possess the true doctrine and accuse you of being a heretic. When I cannot see spiritual goodness in what these people say or write, I simply pray for them. I find it sad, but I won’t settle on this sentiment for the sake of my own mental well-being.”

On other occasions Bergoglio has given other glimpses into his inner anxieties and moments “of desolation” in his life.

But it should suffice here to note a very recent fall into contradiction with his stated refusal to read “the internet sites” of his opponents.

On Thursday June 13, in the speech he gave to the apostolic nuncios gathered in Rome, Francis at a certain point ordered them as well to break off any sort of contact with the websites and blogs of “groups hostile to the pope, to the curia, and to the Church of Rome.”

So then, how did Francis conclude this speech of his? With the “Litany of humility” of the servant of God Rafael Merry del Val (1865-1930), secretary of state under Saint Pius X.

A footnote in the official text of the speech refers to the source from which this prayer was taken.

And this source is a post from the website “Corrispondenza Romana,” with the byline of its founder and director Roberto de Mattei, a Church historian and one of the most radical critics of the current pontificate.

A sign that Francis not only reads but even fills up, when it suits him, at these websites that “for my own mental health” he says he shuns?


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: adultery; francischurch; heresy
“We’re always at risk of falling into casuistry. When the synod on the family began, some said: ‘See, the pope summons a synod to give communion to the divorced.’ And they’re still saying so today! In reality, the synod took a step on the path in matrimonial morals, passing from the casuistry of decadent scholasticism to the true morals of St. Thomas Aquinas. That point at which ‘Amoris Laetitia’ speaks of the integration of divorcees, eventually opening up to the possibility of the sacraments, was developed according to the most classical morals of St. Thomas, the most orthodox, not the decadent casuistry of ‘one can or one cannot.’”

Heresy!

1 posted on 06/17/2019 11:54:09 AM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dp0622; terycarl; FourtySeven; Al Hitan; Coleus; DuncanWaring; ebb tide; Fedora; Hieronymus; ...

Ping


2 posted on 06/17/2019 11:55:51 AM PDT by ebb tide (We have a rogue curia in Rome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
Canisius College in Buffalo is a Jesuit college, obviously named for St. Peter Canisius.

I had never thought about Faber College, featured in the movie Animal House, but it must be named for St. Peter Faber. Somehow I don't recall anything about it being a Jesuit college in the movie. Yes, they did have toga parties, but the Romans had quit wearing togas long before the Jesuit order was started.

3 posted on 06/17/2019 6:56:27 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Animal House was about one of the co-writers college years at Dartmouth. Nothing to suggest that he was going for Jesuit in the script. The fictional Faber was supposedly located in Pennsylvania. The film was shot on the campus of the University of Oregon, the only school that would agree to give permission.


4 posted on 06/18/2019 9:39:34 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog (Patrick Henry would have been an anti-vaxxer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
I didn't really think there was any connection between the name Faber College and the Jesuit saint.

The movie is set in 1962. I don't know anything in particular about Jesuit higher education in 1962 but my guess is that it was still very traditional and rigorous...not the kind of place the Animal House denizens would have chosen to attend.

5 posted on 06/18/2019 9:58:12 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson