Pope Francis's defense of doctrine sends the Associated Press spinning

http://www.getreligion.org ^ | November 18, 2014 | Dawn Eden

[NKP_Vet]

A colleague offers the following capsule summary of Associated Press reporter Nicole Winfield's latest report on Pope Francis, in which the pontiff's defense of traditional church teaching seems to baffle the Vatican correspondent:

Francis is a RADICAL – no, no, sorry about that–he is now a conservative who sounds just like Benedict -- NO, WAIT -- he really is a liberal at heart, but he is being FORCED by those evil, evil right-wing conservatives to cave--he is at WAR with his own CDF chief (you know, the one he re-confirmed -- but never mind) -- AT WAR, I TELL YOU!

I thought he was exaggerating – until I read the actual story. "Pope Reinforces Traditional Family Values" is a classic example of the kind of story that makes us at GetReligion ask, "What is this?" Is it meant to be hard-news journalism, or is it meant to be advocacy or commentary? And if it's commentary, or analysis, why is it not labeled as such? Why is the AP selling it to news outlets as straight reporting?

Here's the lede:

VATICAN CITY – Pope Francis is seeking to reassure the church's right-wing base that he's not a renegade bent on changing church doctrine on family issues – weeks after a Vatican meeting of bishops initially proposed a radical welcome for gays and divorced Catholics.

Give the AP credit at least for not beating around the bush. Winfield, or her editor, is telling us upfront that, in the AP's eyes, Catholics who uphold church doctrine are "right-wing." The AP well knows that "right-wing" is a loaded political term. As I wrote in this space when USA Today labeled the late Rev. Benedict Groeschel "conservative,"

Basically, is someone a conservative for defending church doctrines? So moderates are for changing doctrine and liberals are for changing doctrine really fast? What do these words mean, in debates about doctrine?

The AP story continues:

Francis on Monday opened an interreligious conference on the "complementarity" of men and women in marriage and sex. He said marriage between a man and woman is a "fundamental pillar" of society and that children have the right to grow up with a mother and father.

It was the second papal speech emphasizing church doctrine in as many days: On Saturday, Francis pronounced some of his strongest words yet against abortion, euthanasia and in vitro fertilization, sounding more like his predecessor, Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, than the Argentine Jesuit who famously said "Who am I to judge?" about gays.

It really does sound as though Winfield is trying to wrap her head around the fact that the pope is Catholic. I have written in this space before about the befuddlement that takes place among mainstream news reporters when Francis doesn't fit the "progressive" image that they have carved out for him. We see that clearly as the AP fumbles to explain the pope's straying off his supposed liberal talking points:

Vatican officials concurred that the interventions could be read as a response to the conservative backlash that erupted after the recent meeting of the world's bishops on family issues.

What officials? The AP doesn't say. I haven't seen any other news outlet report a similar comment from "Vatican officials." And why is the AP characterizing Francis's statements as "interventions," as though the pope violently inserted them into his own papal discourse, like some bizarre right-wing version of Tourette syndrome?

The rest of the story includes the bizarre reference to the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that was noted by my colleague:

The conference is being organized by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose conservative prefect, Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, helped lead opposition to Francis' radical agenda at the synod.

So the AP is now pitting the "conservative" prefect of the CDF against the pope's "radical agenda." Seriously, what is this? Pope Francis himself confirmed Muller in his job. To claim that the pope's own doctrinal head is locked in an ideological battle with him is a serious charge. And how can Pope Francis have a "radical agenda," if he speaks in favor of traditional Catholic doctrine on marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and IVF? If this story is truly intended as reporting, and not analysis, then the AP's spin machine has officially gone off the rails.

[BlatherNaut]

If we don''t make it a personal thing about Pope Francis, --- if we keep it on the level of doctrine, discipline, and policy, as Cardinal Burke does --- we will be doing well.

Are you unaware that Cardinal Burke has directly criticized Francis, and has urged Catholics to make their opinions known? Catholics are not obligated to quietly acquiesce to heresy. In fact, we are OBLIGATED to publicly resist it, no matter the source. A Pope who is telling people that "religion is not the way" is a Pope who is running amok.

[piusv]

So he didn’t say what you said he said.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Pope Francis is seeking to reassure the church's right-wing base that he's not a renegade bent on changing church doctrine on family issues – weeks after a Vatican meeting of bishops initially proposed a radical welcome for gays and divorced Catholics.

It's possible, just ever so slightly possible, that the media has an agenda.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Why does ANY non-Catholic CARE about our Pope, what he says, what he does, where he goes or to whom he speaks?

Libertines hate to be reminded of the natural law, because it awakens their conscience. They especially despise moral authority.

[cloudmountain]

Libertines hate to be reminded of the natural law, because it awakens their conscience. They especially despise moral authority.

The sad part is that those people were TAUGHT to be the way they were. Their "teachers" were possibly their parents.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Perhaps I should have clarified, Burke has said repeatedly and emphatically that he would never speak against POpe Francis , and I think Burke, a habitual truth-teller, is telling the truth here:

Burke: "I don't ever put myself in opposition to the Successor of St. Peter"

Strong Affirmation of Pope Francis by Cardinal Raymond Burke Shatters the Narrative of Division

Cardinal Burke Praises Pope Francis’ Efforts to Re-Christianize the West

That's not to say he doesn't advise, correct, and even criticize. But it is not in such a way that it undermines the Holy Father, as so many do ("Francis is the Church's Obama," "Frankie Finochio," "He's trying to tear down Catholicism," etc. etc.): rather, Burke builds up Francis in his role of "feeding Christ's sheep" and "confirming the brethren":

Cardinal urges Pope Francis to take hot-button issues off table for next family synod.

What you read here throughout is a genuine, respectful, filial attitude. It is not slavish or flattering eccleasiastical bafflegab; neither is it insulting, a slashing put-down, or in any way subversive of the Pope's paternal authority.

Burke remains the thoughtful and honest: respectful, measured, and to the point. That's what makes him so admirable; and his pope-scorning "defenders" so terribly off the mark.

[BlatherNaut]

Cardinal Burke has made it clear that he is unhappy with the Pope's leadership (e.g. “a ship without a rudder”). His remarks do constitute criticism, are widely perceived as such, and are an indication of his grave concerns regarding the direction of this papacy. In speaking out (his efforts at diplomacy notwithstanding), he risks further retaliation against himself and others. The laity, not bound by the same constraints as members of the clergy, have more freedom to object.

Mocking appellations (generally tossed out by non-Catholics) contribute nothing useful.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Cardinal Burke has made it clear that he is unhappy with the Pope's leadership (e.g. “a ship without a rudder”). His remarks do constitute criticism, are widely perceived as such..."

Nothing wrong with this. I don't think, however, you should attribute Burke's respectful, filial tone to some notion that he's cowed by fear of retaliation against himself or others. He is not, as far as I know, afraid of anyone. I respect Burke enough to assume hes saying exactly what he's called to say, in exactly the way he would say it if he were Fr. Ray at the Parish of St. Mary of the Back-of-the-Woods.

His criticisms are exact and objective, he's careful not top give scandal, he does not impute evil motive to the Pope, and he is not conniving in terms preserving "position" for himself or others. He's just one who understands the respect that any man deserves even in the midst of conflict,and the special veneration owed to the Successor of Peter.

And like Paul, I believe he would confront Peter "to his face".

[BlatherNaut]

I don't think, however, you should attribute Burke's respectful, filial tone to some notion that he's cowed by fear of retaliation against himself or others.

I don't. I believe he exercises prudence.

the special veneration owed to the Successor of Peter.

We "venerate" the Blessed Mother, the Saints, and sacred relics, not popes (unless they are also saints).

[Mrs. Don-o]

Not so. The Church venerates people, places and things of all sorts which are connected with or dedicated in some special way to God. The Church shows outward signs of veneration by bowing, kissing, genuflecting, giving special clothing or adornment, giving special titles, incensing, etc.

You know very well that you have been incensed at church: you have been venerated. The altar itself is venerated. The Shroud of Turn is venerated, even though it has never been declared de fide to have been the authentic burial shroud of Our Lord.

When you die the priest will drape your coffin with a cloth representing your Baptismal garment and light the Paschal Candle to signify that in Baptism you were enlightened with the Light of Christ and we pray you have been mercifully gathered to Himself. Thus will even your corpse be venerated. And mine too, though I am a sinner.

So yes, we Catholics venerate the Pope. This is not latria and not hyperdulia, but such dulia as we give to any consecrated person, place, or object.

Venerate: not adore. There's an INFINITE distinction of kind (not just of degree) between veneration and adoration; and within veneration, there a very wide spectrum of degrees.

[BlatherNaut]

So yes, we Catholics venerate the Pope. This is not latria and not hyperdulia, but such dulia as we give to any consecrated person, place, or object.

No we don't. You appear to be confusing "veneration" with "reverence".

Veneration: The admiration of, and prayer to the Saints, which is given to them by men because of their great sanctity, their supernatural excellence as the friends and familiars of God (Cf. Dulia) - "The Concise Catholic Dictionary", Imprimatur Moses E. Kiley, Archbishop of Milwaukee, Oct. 16, 1943.

Reverence: The virtue that inclines a person to show honor and respect for persons who possess some dignity. There are four forms of reverence, corresponding to four forms of dignity: 1. familial reverence toward one's parents or those who take the place of parents; 2. civil reverence toward persons holding civil authority; 3. ecclesiastical reverence toward the Pope, bishops, priests, and others in the service of the Church; 4. religious reverence toward any person, place, or object related to God.

Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

-------------------

(Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Augustine (City of God X.2) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God". St. Thomas (II-II:103:3) bases the distinction on the difference between God's supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic theologians insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz, though a Protestant, recognizes the "discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour which is due to God and that which is shown to the saints, the one being called by theologians, after Augustine's example, latria, the other dulia"; and he further declares that this difference should "not only be inculcated in the minds of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs" (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons, and dulia in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics. With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner's advantage. More detailed explanation of dulia and the reasons for which it is shown to persons or things will be found in the articles IMAGES, RELICS, SAINTS. See also ADORATION and WORSHIP.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm

[Mrs. Don-o]

A detailed distinction might be made between dulia and reverence, bu I was speaking of "dulia in the relative sense."

Merriam-Webster puts it this way:

Venerate:

1: to regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference

2: to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion Mother Teresa was venerated for her work with the poor, even before she died (first sense); after she died and was named a "Blessed" she as venerated in the second sense, e.g. by ritual act.

In common parlance, we can be said to "venerate" loyalty, or courage, or literature. Philologically, "to venerate" derives from the Latin verb, venerare, meaning to regard with reverence and respect.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) decreed that iconoclasm, i.e. forbidding icons and their veneration, is a heresy that amounts to a denial of the incarnation of Jesus.

There was certainly veneration before there was canonization!

If a theological distinction is made between "venerate" and "reverence," I don't think it would be absolute, but we might want to use a more general term term like proskynesis to cover the overall respect shown to saints and priests and relics and Pope and icons and sanctuaries and consecrated ground.

[BlatherNaut]

Neither Webster's nor "common parlance" adequately convey the specifically Catholic meaning.

If a theological distinction is made between "venerate" and "reverence," I don't think it would be absolute

The Church makes a clear theological distinction between the terms. Again, see post #71.

[ebb tide]

Living persons, places and objects are not given dulia.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Dulia: (Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK, it's a valid distinction, and you do well by pointing that out. We (I) ought to employ a more exact vocabulary about the various gradations of honor recognized in the Church.

Back to an earlier point: I was admiring Cardinal Burke for recognizing the special honor and reverence owed to the Successor of Peter.