Posted on 12/07/2014 11:51:16 AM PST by BlatherNaut
The full article, with comments and circumstances, is available at La Nación, Argentina's oldest daily. Below, just the excerpt containing the published portion of the interview itself: ... -The first Latin American Pope, that is a great honour for all Latin America. What do you expect from Latin America? -Latin America has been walking a path for some time now, since the first CELAM meeting. Monsignor Larraín, the first CELAM President, gave it great momentum. First came the Río conference, then Medellín, and then Puebla, Santo Domingo and Aparecida. The Latin American Episcopate paved the way with these milestones. It did so as a collective body, with different methodologies. At first it went about it shyly. Now this 50-year path can certainly not be ignored because it means building awareness in the Latin American Church and maturing in faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at rorate-caeli.blogspot.com ...
In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration - Afraid of following this trail, the road of the synod. I am not afraid because it is the road that God has asked us to follow. More so, the Pope is the ultimate guarantor, the Pope is there to care for the process. We must move forward. In my last address I said something interesting, I pointed out that we had not addressed any part of the doctrine of the Church concerning marriage. In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! Thus, let us open the doors a bit more. Why cant they be godfathers and godmothers? "No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?". The testimony of a man and a woman saying "my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on". Anything more Christian than that? And what if one of the political crooks among us, corrupt people, ate chosen to be somebody´s godfather. If they are properly wedded by the Church, would we accept them? What kind of testimony will they give to their godson? A testimony of corruption? Things need to change, our standards need to change.
- What do you think about the solution put forward by the German cardinal Walter Kasper?
- Kasper´s address to the cardinals last February included five chapters, four of them are a jewel, about the purpose of marriage, open, in depth. The fifth is the question of what do we do with divorcees who have remarried; they are part of our congregation after all. Kasper´s hypothesis is not his own. Let´s look into that. What happened? Some theologians feared such assumptions and that is keeping our heads down. Kasper urged us to seek hypothesis, i.e., he made the first move. And some panicked. And went as far as to say: Communion, never. Only spiritual Communion. And tell me, don´t we need the grace of God to receive spiritual communion? That´s why spiritual communion obtained the fewest votes in the relatio synodi, because nobody was in agreement. Those for it, because there´s not much to it, voted against it; and those who are not for it and would rather go for the other one, because it´s not worth it."
In the mind of Pope Francis, relativism apparently trumps doctrine.
Pope Francis strikes again. I am fluent in Spanish, and I read the whole interview this morning. He has, of course, the routine excuse for getting rid of Cdl Burke, making it sound like he was really being nice to Burke and the meanies just didn’t understand it, and then at one point he is asked if he is bothered by the resistance his ideas have met. He says no, there are some good people and some stick in the muds, but he hopes that the “Spirit” will bring that latter group into harmony.
The stick in the muds are the orthodox Catholics who actually want to abide by doctrine and even deepen and enrich it.
The Pope is, IMHO, a very shallow thinker and always goes for the superficial answer or reaction. When asked, he said that he liked being “inconsciente” (thoughtless or unaware, not responsible).
Interestingly, this Pope is not very popular with Spanish speakers outside of Argentina (except for the many elderly, raving leftist LatAm bishops). He’s extremely unpopular with many in Spain, which loved BXVI.
“The Church doesn´t want to engage in proselytism because the Church does not grow on proselytism, it grows on attraction, as Benedict said”
The above is from the interview. Which leads me to a few questions.
Is “proselytism” translated with the same connotation in Spanish as it is in English? If not how does it differ?
If the answer is yes is the Pope spurning the Gospel’s call to “Preach the Gospel to all nations”?
I find it hard to believe that Pope Emeritus Benedict set up proselytism and pastoral care as an either or proposition.
Is Pope Francis saying the Church should compromise on Truth in order that people who need healing from sin will be more attracted to her and therefore hear the message of Salvation? This bothers me, if that is the conclusion we can draw from his words.
This statement was posed by the interviewer,
“As a Pope you are different because you speak with utmost clarity, you are completely straightforward, you don´t use euphemisms and don´t beat about the bush, the course of your papacy is extremely clear.”
Bwahhhhhh Haaaaaa, Snork, Giggle, Pshaw, Snicker, Guffaw.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Proselitismo is the same. I don’t know where Pope Francis got this supposed “quote” from BXVI, who may have said it referring to a particularly limited circumstance, but the current Pope has taken to selectively quoting BXVI - a fragment here, a fragment there, and often from obscure early works which were less precise - in order to confuse his critics.
Kasper did that by citing an early 1970’s text by Ratzinger where he considered the possibility of admitting remarried divorced people to communion, a position that he abandoned once he thought more about it and certainly rejected as mature theologian and Pope. That’s why when he recently republished his early writings, BXVI removed this section and in his introduction specifically discussed the reasons for doing so.
In other words, the current Pope is also being less than honest.
So who's hypothesis is it, Francis? And why did you allow Kasper to first float it and then to later present it for a vote?
Thank you, that was very helpful.
I knew we Catholics could expect chastisement but I did not suspect our Pope would be one of the main sources of it.
I don’t think many - or possibly even any - of us realized that, and while there have been many legitimate and accepted prophecies about this from various saints over the centuries, I certainly didn’t expect to be one of those who woulid have to live through it.
Maybe he’ll change, but I doubt it. I do recall that BXVI once said that the Church might be reduced to a tiny handful, and of course I thought he was either speaking metaphorically or speaking about some time in the really distant future. I guess not.
Thanks for those insights.
Interesting insights to me also.
What do you think is the true scoop behind BXVI’s departure/resignation?
Prayer never hurts.
Prayer is always a good idea! Many genuinely saintly people have had to live through difficult bishops and popes, and they did it by praying. I’m not saintly, unfortunately, but prayer helps anyone, even me.
As for BXVI, I don’t think we’ll ever know, or not in this lifetime, at least. He asked in his first address that we pray that the wolves not devour him, but I guess they did.
There’s a book out in Europe that says that Bergoglio and the Gang of Four (Kasper, Danneels, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and one other that I don’t remember) had their knives out for Ratzinger from the start, because they had wanted to get Bergoglio elected the first time around but failed in that conclave. The 4 cardinals in question are elderly, “progressive,” have participated in the destruction of the Church in their countries, and in at least two cases have been implicated in criminal protection of pedophiles.
That said, I don’t know what they could have done to force BXVI out. Personally, I don’t think he would have left because of a threat against him or his reputation, but he would have done just about anything to protect JPII, feeling that respect for JPII was so great that the faith of many would have been devastated had some negligence been revealed on his part.
The only thing I can think of is JPII’s unaccountable protection of Fr Maciel, who was removed by BXVI as soon as he took office, since I think that JPII was morally unimpeachable but it is very possible that he tolerated or possibly even protected, through some misguided impulse, people who were not good for the Church. JPII was very Slavic and very inclined to the magnanimous gesture, but that’s not necessarily good for the Church and it could be that he trusted the wrong person (the way Cdl O’Connor trusted Fr Bruce Ritter when the Cardinal announced to the press that the charges were all a lie because Fr. Ritter had affirmed to the Cardinal that he had done nothing wrong...the day before the incriminating recordings were released).
So I don’t know, that’s just a random supposition, but I think if BXVI was forced out, it was because he thought he was protecting someone else and protecting the faith of the simple people (us!).
That scenario does make sense. I have faith in Jesus’ promise but I never forget that though He said the gates would not prevail he never said there would never be weak spots where hostile forces could slip through. Or more to the case a side door where they would walk in very boldly. There can be a lot of skirmishes not all of which the good ones win even when the final victory is known.
Yes, I agree. We don’t know and we won’t know until the end.
And it’s not the Church of St Peter, it’s the Church of Christ, and St Peter was just supposed to be the Rock (the protector of the foundation) of the Church and wasn’t supposed to be out developing his own version. A clash may come at some point, and then again, maybe not; maybe something will happen and the Pope will realize that he is just the custodian and guard and not the new CEO.
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.