Posted on 03/13/2015 12:57:50 PM PDT by NRx
The latest cover of the new New Republic features Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig taking on conservative anxieties about Pope Franciss possible radicalism. The essay isnt just about the pope; it offers a larger critique of the way that conservatives, Catholic and otherwise, relate to and interpret the human/Western/Christian past. I have a few disagreements with this depiction, and a few critical generalizations Id make about the liberal tendency in Catholic thinking and debate right now. But Ill save those for another post; for now I think it would be helpful for the discussion of Catholicism in the Francis era to spend some time distinguishing between the different groups who have doubts, or flirt with having doubts, about this pontificate, because in Bruenigs account they run together a bit and I think the distinctions are actually enormously important.
(Excerpt) Read more at douthat.blogs.nytimes.com ...
You may be right. Who am I to judge?
If I had to guess, this is what I would think you'd find among the Orthodox.
????
“If I had to guess, this is what I would think you’d find among the Orthodox.”
Not among the ones I know. Perhaps among some of the more extreme Old Calendar types or the more “enthusiastic” American converts; the average, theologically/liturgically educated Greek, Ethiopian or Arab I go to Liturgy with or communicate with like and respect him very much. But as I said, we also all respect and like +BXVI. It is worth noting that the same could not be said regarding +JPII.
Could you explain why the orthodox, in your opinion, think very highly of Francis and Benedict XVI and not JPII This seems like an odd combination to me.
Who Are Pope Franciss Friends?
- socialists
- climate change hucksters and their radical environmentalist useful idiots
- homosexual change agents
- pro-aborts
- non-Catholics
- “seamless garment” promoters
- church marms
- adulterers
- globalists
- cafeteria Catholics
- lukewarm and/or generally uninformed Catholics
And that should have been a capitalized O and there should have been a question mark. Arrrgh.
That’s OK, we’re both! :)
The divorce-and-remarriage situation is another good example of tunnel vision compassion. Yes, those in this situation are suffering. They are barred from the Eucharist, unless they repudiate their invalid marriage. The Pope can see that suffering. Apparently, though, he can't see anything else, including the damage that would be done by opening the Eucharist to those in this irregular situation. Instead of those in this situation repudiating their invalid marriage, the Pope appears to want to repudiate Church teaching.
It's going to be an "interesting" Pontificate.
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.