Posted on 07/14/2015 6:03:49 PM PDT by markomalley
Alex, there is a big difference. JPII did a lot of good. in the balance there is really no comparison between a couple of missteps and the overall good he did. Francis on the other hand has done nothing but make missteps and . enough missteps and misstatements where you wonder whether they are missteps and miss statements.
Just to clarify, you believe that the Koran incident was a misstep, and not simply misunderstood?
Alex, I really don’t know 100%. If I listen to the apologists, it was am Arabic language Bible. If I listen to the critics, it was a Koran.
I look at his big inter-religious prayer thing at Assisi and I think it could be either (I don’t care so much for his emphasis on “inter-religious dialogue”)
Regardless, I put it in context with the good he did, deconstructing much of the flaky interpretations of Vatican 2 and the excesses that happened in its wake, tolerated by his predecessor, and I am willing to cut him some slack.
Just because I am Catholic and believe in papal infallibility, that doesn’t mean that any pope is impeccable (devoid of any possible error).
Reported from http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=10415
“At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu’ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam.”
Definitely not a Bible. And definitely not a “misstep”. JPII believed in the false ecumenism taught by Vatican II. He knew exactly what he was doing. And he isn’t the only post Vatican II pope who has done similar things.
Popes are a bit more like the king of Spain or Sweden or the queen of England than like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.
They are expected to be gracious and polite and to put hosts or guests at ease, rather than doggedly combative and scrapping for a fight, so unwillingness to display strong negative emotions shouldn't be taken as a sign of approval of whatever provocation the are presented with.
What they really feel comes out in carefully coordinated actions, rather than in spontaneous responses.
So what are you trying to say with respect to the OP? Are you defending Francis or not? And no, popes are not supposed to make everyone feeeeeeel good. They are supposed to the teach the Truth. You're just too used to the popes post 1960.
Correct ecumenism: https://archive.org/details/theinvitationhex00stonuoft
(reprint of Pio Nono: Iam Vos Omnes)
Pre-1960 popes didn't get out much. They weren't traveling to other continents and meeting people from very different backgrounds.
But read the history. The 1930s, the 1940s. Even back then, popes had trouble forcefully confronting tyrants.
Whatever power and freedom popes when it comes to Catholic theology they can't match the power of secular rulers and have had to tread lightly, lest rulers persecute believers.
Forcefully confronting and making them feel good/ not “offending” are two totally different things.
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.