Posted on 05/12/2014 2:20:09 AM PDT by markomalley
Pope Francis, rightly or wrongly (wrongly I would argue), is the darling of self-styled “progressives” who like to see him as a model of the “change” they have been waiting for. The secular media in particular style him as moving the Church dramatically in the directions that please them. But in order to do this, they must apply a filter that ignores a great deal of what he actually says and does. As a Catholic and as Pope, Francis is not going to fit into the media’s (or anyone’s) neat little categories. He is more complex than such convenient little boxes permit.
Pope Benedict too, despite the label of “conservative,” disappointed many conservatives with his views on the economy (as expressed in his last encyclical) and with some of his notions regarding Hell and whether anyone really went there (Benedict tended to be in the camp of Von Balthasar who “dared” to hope that most would be saved). And for all his generosity toward the Traditional Latin Mass, for the record, he never said one publicly as Pope.
Pope Francis, for all the talk of his being ”liberal” or “progressive,” has some pretty tough things to say about sin, Hell, and the devil. In his daily homilies, which are not widely published (since they are not per se part of his “official” teaching), the Pope can be quite blunt:
Allow these examples to suffice to show that Pope Francis can speak in very pointed and decidedly “un-modern” ways. But many in the wider culture and media prefer to have him filtered, so as to make him fit their label of the “change” Pope. The real Francis cannot be so easily pigeon-holed. A scanning of the summaries from the Vatican on the Pope’s daily homilies is a good place to start in order to discover “Francis Unplugged” i.e., the real Pope Francis, who while stylistically different than Benedict, cannot be so easily categorized theologically.
In Sunday’s Washington Post however comes a column that describes Pope Francis as no “modern” when it comes to the Devil. He is clear to state that the Devil is no allegory. He is very real and he is after you and your children and ought to be taken seriously. In this matter, Pope Francis has the “old time religion.” Note what the Post reports. (My comments are in plain red text.)
A darling of liberal Catholics and an advocate of inclusion and forgiveness, Pope Francis is hardly known for fire and brimstone. [Note how the filter is described. As seen above and as any true perusal of Francis' sermons shows, to say that Francis is hardly known for fire and brimstone is a filtered perception and not the fuller reality. He does speak a good bit about sin, using strong terms like apostasy and pride, and also speaks freely of Satan and Hell. The article now goes on to describe the truer reality of "Francis Unplugged" on the subject of Satan.]
[Yet] after his little more than a year atop the Throne of St. Peter, Francis’s teachings on Satan are already regarded as the most old school of any pope since at least Paul VI. …Francis has not only dwelled far more on Satan in sermons and speeches than his recent predecessors have, but also sought to rekindle the Devil’s image as a supernatural entity with the forces of evil at his beck and call. …
A few months later, he praised a group long viewed by some as the crazy uncles of the Roman Catholic Church — the International Association of Exorcists — for “helping people who suffer and are in need of liberation.”…
Since its foundation, the Church has taught the existence of the Devil. But in recent decades, progressive priests and bishops, particularly in the United States and Western Europe, have tended to couch Satan in more allegorical terms. [Sadly, this is true. Many of the same generation of clerics were too ready to consign every possible case of diabolical obsession and possession to the psychiatric community. To be sure, there are times when the real issues are psychiatric. But other times this is not the case, and many times there is overlap. Too easily have we, for over a generation, dismissed diabolical incursion and reneged on our duty to pray for the deliverance of people in crisis and to do our part, in partnership with the psychiatric community.] Evil became less the wicked plan of the master of hell than the nasty byproduct of humanity’s free will.
Even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, a lofty German theologian, often painted evil with a broad brush. [I'm not so sure about this. To some extent it is true that Pope Benedict had highly refined and scholarly ways of speaking, lots of distinctions, etc., but at the end of the day, I never doubted he knew the devil was real.]
“Pope Francis never stops talking about the Devil; it’s constant,” said one senior bishop in Vatican City who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely. “Had Pope Benedict done this, the media would have clobbered him.”
Some progressive theologians complain, the pope is undermining his reputation as a leader who in so many other ways appears to be more in step with modern society than his predecessor. “He is opening the door to superstition,” said Vito Mancuso, a Catholic theologian and writer. [Again, filter alert! Pay attention, "progressive" theologians, Francis does not fit your little mold and is not a shill in your program. Pope Francis, like any good Catholic, doesn't fit into worldly boxes and categories.]
[These are excerpts from the Post article. The full article is here: Modern Pope, Old School on the Devil.]
It’s good to get a little of this bigger picture out there. I have not said a lot about Pope Francis directly on this blog because I am afraid that too many bring polarized notions about him to the discussion, notions driven not by the real “unplugged” Francis, but rather by a “spun” Francis, a “filtered” Francis.
Debates can surely continue about whether and how Pope Francis’ tendency to speak off the cuff is helpful or not, whether he is being played by the media, etc. I will leave these prudential notions to others. But for our purposes here, it probably helps to see at least some evidence that the real Pope Francis, unfiltered and unplugged, is a bit more complex than the categorizers understand. Those of us who strive to be loyal Catholics do well to look a little past the headlines, a little deeper, and listen and pray more than we react. After all he is the vicar of Christ. And Jesus doesn’t fit into secular boxes or categories either.
I would value your contributions, especially about things that Pope Francis has said that don’t fit the mold, sayings that surprise and cut across secular categories.
By the way, who is in the photo at the upper right? Yup, that’s Pope Francis saying Mass Ad Orientem.
"Salvation", you're such a boot-licker for the organization that you are now twisting subsidiarity - a wonderful and forgotten concept in Catholicism - into something it NEVER was - forced redistribution by government.
People like you are EXACTLY why I'm no longer Catholic.
Because for where I sit, cutting taxes, lessening or eliminating government regulation, and limiting the size and scope of federal government itself are all examples of "redistributing economic benefit", not money or wealth, which is not what he said, but "benefit". And also the goals of subsidiarity.
That's a perfectly acceptable way to describe what lowering taxes and regulations are: when done by the state when the state lowers taxes and regulations, the state is redistributing the economic benefits high taxes and many regulations denied the people at large.
What is wrong there?
.
By any reasonable and rational measure, the Catholic Church, headed up by the modernist popes since John XXIII, has not borne good fruit.
Monsignor Pope’s view is the voice of the neo-Catholics. Until the bishops and the popes recognize that they must return to teaching the true faith, rather than depend upon favorable media to tout their successes, those who seek a holy Church will search in vain.
If he had, Christian conservatives - who understand the true meaning of subsidiarity - would be dancing in the streets. Yes, it first starts with people who EARN the money having the freedom to KEEP that money (so they can best use it to do God's will). That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what Pope Fluffy is calling for.
yep. several of the articles. And what the pope is calling for is ANTI-subsidiarity. Using the force of the state to redistribute wealth is theft no matter what nice name you label it with.
The moment you involve the state, it becomes theft. If he wants to preach to the rich that they should share more, I'd be in total agreement. But that is not what he did. He called for the state to come in and FORCE them to share more.
Yossarian is right on in his comments.
It was the huffpost quoting an AP article. Are you saying that the quote was incorrect? Someone posted the entire speech on another thread and what he said in that speech is what was reported by huffpo and AP
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.