Posted on 10/24/2014 5:08:18 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Not unsurprisingly, Pat Buchanan has teed off on Pope Francis, and he has done so dishonestly. His latest column will stand for many others of the same sort that mix distortion, assertion, misleading rhetorical questions, dishonest extrapolations, and selective quotation to attack the pope. These writers want to hit him and they don’t seem concerned to hit fairly. People who complained of how the media misrepresented Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI have no problem using the same methods on Francis. And sadly, many conservative Catholics revel in watching the Holy Father get hit.
I’ll give two examples from the column. First, Buchanan writes:
In his remarks at the synod’s close, Pope Francis mocked “so-called traditionalists” for their “hostile rigidity.”
That is one way of putting it. Another is that traditionalists believe moral truth does not change, nor can Catholic doctrines be altered.
What did Francis say? He spoke, early in his address, of “moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations,” the Synod fathers had faced, and then gave some examples:
♦ One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, [the Spirit]; within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today — “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.
♦ The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”
♦ The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).
♦ The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.
♦ The temptation to neglect the depositum fidei [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things . . . .
What Buchanan presents as an attack on faithful Catholics by a liberal pope was part of a description of the temptations different types of Catholic faces. Most of us will find ourselves in one category, if not two or three. The one Buchanan selects refers not just to “traditionalists” but to “the zealous, the scrupulous, the solicitous” and “the intellectuals.” It is not in any way the kind of targeted side-taking rejection of those who “believe moral truth does not change” that Buchanan’s use of it conveys.
Second, Buchanan writes:
In his beatification of Paul VI on Sunday, Pope Francis celebrated change. “God is not afraid of new things,” he said, “we are making every effort to adapt ways and methods . . . to the changing conditions of society.”
But among the social changes since Vatican II and Paul VI have been the West’s embrace of no-fault divorce, limitless promiscuity, abortion on demand and same-sex marriage.
Should the church “adapt” to these changes in society?
Should the church accommodate itself to a culture as decadent as ours? Or should the church stand against it and speak moral truth to cultural and political power, as the early martyrs did to Rome?
Again, what did Francis say? He said in his homily at the Synod’s closing Mass:
Certainly Jesus puts the stress on the second part of the phrase: “and [render] to God the things that are God’s”. This calls for acknowledging and professing – in the face of any sort of power – that God alone is the Lord of mankind, that there is no other. This is the perennial newness to be discovered each day, and it requires mastering the fear which we often feel at God’s surprises.
God is not afraid of new things! That is why he is continually surprising us, opening our hearts and guiding us in unexpected ways. He renews us: he constantly makes us “new”. A Christian who lives the Gospel is “God’s newness” in the Church and in the world. How much God loves this “newness”!
“Rendering to God the things that are God’s” means being docile to his will, devoting our lives to him and working for his kingdom of mercy, love and peace.
. . . On this day of the Beatification of Pope Paul VI, I think of the words with which he established the Synod of Bishops: “by carefully surveying the signs of the times, we are making every effort to adapt ways and methods… to the growing needs of our time and the changing conditions of society” (Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Apostolica Sollicitudo).
Buchanan’s misuse of this passage is even more dishonest than his misuse of the first one. (You will notice he conflates two statements as if they were one, usefully for his purposes, though the second one is a quote from Paul VI — a man Buchanan presumably approves.) With those rhetorical questions, Buchanan suggests Francis is either naive or foolish or perhaps actively in favor of these changes.
But what is Francis saying here? He is describing an openness to God that is a staple of preaching and devotional writing, and has been pretty much since the beginning of the Church. He’s not even thinking of the sort of changes Buchanan goes on to list.
This column, like the others it represents, is a hit job, its writer, like the other writers, unconcerned to tell the truth about what Francis said. They couldn’t hit him, or hit him so hard and so often, were they honest about what he has said. It is not a good thing for the Church or the world when the supposed defenders of Catholic orthodoxy so eagerly and with so little concern for truth smack down the pope.
Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidmills/2014/10/pat-buchanans-dishonesty/#ixzz3H3xh7PLY
I especially appreciate Mills' inclusion of longer quotes from the Pope's end-of-synod homily. It really irks me when people use their tiniest manicure scissors to extract a one-liner quote embedded in a rich context,and then, with a tweezers, insert it into their own imaginative extrapolations in order to explain said quote, when really it is only justly interpreted within its own paragraph (or even couple of paragraphs.)
This manicure-scissors-and-tweezers operation is the hallmark of eisegesis.
I think Mills takes it down nicely.
***These writers want to hit him and they don’t seem concerned to hit fairly.***
This article, for example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3217428/posts
What does “not unsurprisingly” mean?
Oh man, you guys NEVER, EVER give up, do you? The Pope could be doing something completely heinous and some of you will not admit that he is in error. This is really starting to look like a cult. Wow.
Mills fails to support his initial claim that Buchanan’s over the top rhetoric is ‘dishonest’.
He is guilty of doing the same thing he accuses Buchanan of.
Typical totalitarian thinking. Buchanan simply cannot have an opinion, he has to be dishonest. How does the author know he is dishonest. Did he talk to Buchanan before hand, and Buchanan told him he thought otherwise than what he wrote. Totalitarians cannot stand others whose opinion deviates from their own. Anybody who dissents is dishonest, evil you might say.
From what I’ve seen, this pope seems very eager to throw thousands of years of church teaching out the window, and was hoping this synod would give him cover to do so.
I’ll just say it straight. I was a Catholic. No more. Been gone long before this new ‘pope’.
I believe the Catholic Church has many ‘dregs’ left over who are taking advantage of people who are die-hard traditional. Pearls-to-the-swine.
This “taken out if context”. “Failure of translation “ excusing is wearing thin. Francis seems to be governing by nuance and misdirection and there are a lot of people who respect the church who are uneasy. I doubt the erudite and sophisticated staffs at the Vatican are incapable if communicating.
tagline. read.
Suprisingly. Kinda.
I think much of this is because of the way the Pope communicates. He speaks almost entirely in vague, ambiguous platitudes which often appear contradictory. His pronouncements are like a verbal Rorschach test - you can project any meaning on him you want.
It would be too bold for me to put words in Mills' mouth, but if we're thinking along the same lines, then what we want is for Pope Francis and other prelates to be criticized clearly and fairly, because there are plenty of critical judgments to be made which are both true and urgent. What doesn't help, though, is getting quotes twisty-tailed around in the way Buchanan did in his article.
There's plenty of true dangerous synod-shenanigans out there that need to be opposed, plain as day. One doesn't need to misstate the end-of-synod homily, which was, if anything, too unexceptional, too bland.
Pat Buchanan knows as well as anybody --- or should know --- that on a topic as important as the defense of Doctrine, you've got to be accurate. Mills carefully explains why.
"Carefully explaining why" is not a totalitarian tactic.
See:
Buchanan was right on the money with his criticism of Francis. Study Francis’ time in Argentina and it all makes sense what he trying to do with the Church. Francis is liberal, who cares not one iota about Church tradition and Church doctrine. Kuddos to the great Pat Buchanan for pointing that out. It is also un-Catholic not to criticise the pope if you feel he is leading the church astray.
It really irks me when self-appointed papal interpreters pretend to possess mind-reading powers. Mills: "But what is Francis saying here? He is describing an openness to God that is a staple of preaching and devotional writing, and has been pretty much since the beginning of the Church. He’s not even thinking of the sort of changes Buchanan goes on to list."
Mill's interpretation of "what the Pope really meant" is dependent upon an enthusiastic application of the "manicure-scissors-and-tweezers" approach in regard to the Pope's ACTIONS, his bizarre interpretations of Scripture and Church teachings, and his release of the scandalous preliminary relatio post disceptationem.
Mills has concocted this hatchet job on Buchanan with a liberal application of the "scissors-and-tweezers" approach. He has plucked a few lines from Buchanan's column, conveniently ignored the quotes from primary sources such as Cardinal Raymond Burke included therein, and in their place inserted his personal spin.
Buchanan's column:
http://buchanan.org/blog/price-papal-popularity-7042
Normally a synod of Catholic bishops does not provide fireworks rivaling the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where Mayor Richard Daley’s boys in blue ran up the score on the radicals in Grant Park.
But, on Oct. 13, there emanated from the Synod on the Family in Rome a 12-page report from a committee picked by Pope Francis himself — and the secondary explosions have not ceased. The report recognized the “positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation” and said “homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” As for Catholics who divorce and remarry without an annulment, we must avoid “any language or behavior that might make them feel discriminated against.”
Hailed by gay rights groups, the document stunned traditionalists.
“Undignified. Shameful. Completely Wrong,” said Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and guardian of Catholic orthodoxy.
He was echoed by Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. “The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium,” said Cardinal Burke. “It gives the impression of inventing … what one Synod Father called ‘revolutionary’ teaching on marriage and the family.”
Cardinal Burke called on the pope for a restatement of Catholic teaching on marriage and morality, saying, “It is long overdue.” The pope has relieved Cardinal Burke of his post.
Voice of the Family, a coalition of international pro-life groups, calls the document a “betrayal.”
Irish representative Patrick Buckley said it “represents an attack on marriage and the family” by “in effect giving tacit approval of adulterous relationships.” The report, he adds, “fails to recognize that homosexual inclination is objectively disordered.”
Cardinal Walter Kasper has been the prime mover of the liberalization of Catholic teaching on sexual morality. When an African bishop objected to the report, Kasper retorted, “You can’t speak about this with Africans. … It’s not possible. … It’s a taboo.”
Hearing this insult, Burke went upside the head of his brother cardinal:
“It is profoundly sad and scandalous that such remarks were made by a cardinal of the church. They are a further indication of the determination … to advance Cardinal Kasper’s false positions, even by means of racist remarks about a significant and highly respected part of the Synod membership.”
In the report voted on by the full synod and released this weekend, the language most offensive to orthodox Catholics was gone.
But the synod meets again next year, and the stakes could scarcely be higher for the church and pope.
In his remarks at the synod’s close, Pope Francis mocked “so-called traditionalists” for their “hostile rigidity.”
That is one way of putting it. Another is that traditionalists believe moral truth does not change, nor can Catholic doctrines be altered.
Even a pope cannot do that.
Should such be attempted, the pope would be speaking heresy. And as it is Catholic doctrine that the pope is infallible, that he cannot err when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals, this would imply that Francis was not a valid pope and the chair of Peter is empty.
We would then be reading about schismatics and sedevacantists.
The Catholic Church is not the Democratic Party of Obama, Hillary and Joe, where principled positions on abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage “evolve.” And when did flexibility in matters of moral principle become a virtue for Catholics?
Indeed, it was in defense of the indissolubility of marriage that Pope Clement VII excommunicated Henry VIII who held the title “Defender of the Faith” for refuting the heresies of Luther.
When Henry wished to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn, Pope Clement said this was not possible. His stand for marriage caused the Catholic Church to lose England.
One wonders what this pope thinks of Pope Clement’s “rigidity.”
While Francis I has neither denied nor sought to change any doctrine, Cardinal Burke is correct. The pope has “done a lot of harm.” He has created confusion among the faithful and is soon going to have to speak with clarity on the unchanging truths of Catholicism.
In his beatification of Paul VI on Sunday, Pope Francis celebrated change. “God is not afraid of new things,” he said, “we are making every effort to adapt ways and methods … to the changing conditions of society.”
But among the social changes since Vatican II and Paul VI have been the West’s embrace of no-fault divorce, limitless promiscuity, abortion on demand and same-sex marriage.
Should the church “adapt” to these changes in society?
Should the church accommodate itself to a culture as decadent as ours? Or should the church stand against it and speak moral truth to cultural and political power, as the early martyrs did to Rome?
Pope Francis is hugely popular. But his worldly popularity has not come without cost to the church he leads and the truths he is sworn to uphold.
“Who am I to judge?” says the pope. But wasn’t that always part of the job description? And if not thee, Your Holiness, who?
Great post. My mother, a good, faithful Catholic of long-standing, really admired this Pope because of his humble ways. Now, she’s not so sure. Buchanan was right on the money, and anyone trying to make light of this arrogant Pope’s ways is either seriously naive or misguided in their devotion to the Papacy. This Pope does not merit defense from good Catholics.
“My mother, a good, faithful Catholic of long-standing, really admired this Pope because of his humble ways”
Same way with my wife, a cradle Catholic. She thought he was really humble and would be good for the church, especially after paying his own hotel bill. She just thought he was down to earth. Then he starts giving all those strange interviews and ended up saying “who am I to judge”, and never clarified what he means. It drives her nuts. Seems like every day I show her the latest ramblings by him and she just shakes her head. So today I told her what he said about doing away with life sentences! She says we never had this problem with JP2 or B16 and you always knew exactly where they stood. She was particularly disappointed when Cardinal Burke was demoted. Her question to me was “why, he only speaks the truth”, then she goes on to say that all bishops should be as holy as Cardinal Burke.
My mother respected Pope John Paul and Benedict for their traditionalist ways. The Latin media made a huge deal out of Francis because he was Argentine and I think that made quite a few Latin American Catholics excited about this new Pope (my mother was born in D.R.).
The Latin media still makes a big deal about him, because of his focus on poverty, but I think to many, like my mother, the gloss has lost its luster as they hear his liberal social views.
The one positive aspect about this is that my Mother has been referring more and more to the red words in the New Testament and seeing a bit of inconsistency in those passages to Francis’s words. God accepts all those who come to him in earnest, but they have “To go and sin no more,” as Christ said. She hasn’t heard Francis focusing overmuch on that aspect, and it’s troubling.
Very public humility indeed.
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.