One has to ask the obvious question. "Why does this Bishop of Rome feel it necessary to engage secular media in this way?" The real story here is not the pope's interview but rather the reaction to it. The first thing that should be noted is that the pope has used an alternate and very unorthodox channel for disseminating this information. The fact that he has used Eugenio Scalfari repeatedly means that he is at least satisfied that he was not badly served the last time he gave him an interview. By using a secular journalist rather than going through official channels means that this communication does not have the stature that an announcement from the balcony of St. Peter's would. Moreover, a speech from the balcony could not be made without alerting much of the curia to what was going to be said. The Pope wants this to be attributable to him without it being an official pronouncement.
What does the Pope get out of this? The answer is in the flurry of reaction to the Scalfari interview. As he watches the curial functionaries running about reacting to this leak he gains some very critical intelligence. The Pope is usually surrounded by a coterie of careerists and sycophants whose job it is to mediate the Pope's relations with the world at large. Essentially they are to make sure there are no surprises. By carefully gauging the reaction to the Scalfari leaks he can determine which of those he can trust.
The Pope is in a very precarious position right now. The honeymoon is over and some real work needs to be done on those things that most plague the curia right now. I do not believe for one moment that the Pope is either stupid or foolish. By becoming the Vatican's chief source of leaked information he is preempting anyone else who might be tempted to fill that role and he is finding out who he can really trust on the inside. As for the rest of us, we can learn much by watching the reaction of media pundits in our own backyard.
By watching the curia "in action" and "reaction", the Pope is smoking these men out....
I think he is a fool and is taking us for fools. He has no strategy. He is careless in his words and actions. He is careless with the faithful and the papacy has now become a cult of personality greater than anything that could have been called that under the, at least Saintly, Karol Wotyla and the truly humble Joseph Ratzinger.
I regret the day Benedict resigned, I regret the day that this man was elected. I wanted to vomit when he walked out on the balcony and that feeling kept up for hours. I dislike him; I cannot stomach to read him. I don't trust him and as a Catholic, I could never imagine thinking this let alone writing it.
Confusion and chaos reign and the fish rots from the head first.
Anon in Toronto by necessity.
I totally agree with Anon. God help us!
Medical marijuana? Is that the cause of this column?
It is quite shocking to realise how many hundreds and thousands of Catholics (and non-Catholics!!) share Anonymous' feelings. One could at first think it was only "rigid" Traditionalists who expressed their doubt about this pope, but the plain fact is that ordinary mainstream Catholics with an IQ of more than 80 realised very soon that something is very much wrong. Pure stubborn loyalty to the Church kept them "quiet" for a long time. For how much longer? That is the question.
By the way, I am a convert - by the grace of God and his brilliant and HUMBLE SERVANT, Benedict XVI, and within two seconds or less of Cardinal Bergoglio's appearance on that balcony I had a feeling of anxiety, and FEAR! I instinctively knew something is very wrong. but shook it off because I have experienced this feeling only once before - when I was a child of 11 when I smelt danger when meeting a man. That instinct proved to be 100% correct. He nearly wrecked our happy family. I had the exact same physical and intuitive reaction when Bergoglio appeared on that balcony - and I did not know him from Adam, never even heard his name before.
I pray that my intuition was absolutely wrong in this case. But I deep down know that it was as right as the first time.
Don´t fool yourself and don´t get fooled by Bergoglio.
He is using Scalfari, right, but to say what he really thinks, knowing what he thinks is very far from being catholic.
I know how it works, as an argentine catholic I have been suffering him for too many years. He destroyed our local Church, now its universal.
Anon in Toronto is right. This "Bishop of Rome," as he insists on calling himself, is possibly the worst pope we have ever had. He shows no sense of or respect for Catholic teaching; he speaks like an illiterate; his false humility is hypocrisy worthy of the worst Jesuits; most of what he says, when any sense can be made of it, is close to or clearly heretical. This man is a disaster, the clear fruit of fifty years of "the spirit of Vatican II."
Mundabor has this to say about your post.
I concur. Take your head out of you ass and open your eyes, man. If it pains you too much to tell the truth, then for God's sake, remain silent.
Anon 9:54. Given your vulgarity I am not surprised that you agree with the equally vulgar, and paganized "Mundabar" writer. Ir is pathetic to see those who claim the Catholic Faith, yet act and speak like the heathen.
The hatred and vitriol poured out since the election of Pope Francis is disturbing to say the least. If you want an eye opener just google "hatred of Pope Francis" as I just did. I am a simple man and when it comes to the faith if it is contained in the catechism I believe it unreservedly. Pope Francis has done nothing to contradict anything in the catechism. On the contrary, he has caused much furor by pointing out those aspects of our faith that some of us would just as soon ignore. Like it or not, this is Christ's Church and the Holy Spirit is very much involved in steering the barque of Peter. As for me, this is Peter and I stand with him. If Pope Francis chooses to behave like St. Paul going from place to place talking to whoever will listen, who am I to judge.
"...going from place to place talking to whoever will listen..."
More like he's going from place to place and telling them what they want to hear.
Freyr's comment at 11:51 PM strikes me as something that old Boxer from Orwell's Animal Farm might say if Napoleon the pig were being criticized.
@Barona 9:54 PM. Who are you to judge?
I read this entry before Mundabor linked to it, but just shook my head and moved on. There seems to be no limit to the wilful self-deception some faithful Catholics are willing to practice to deny the plain, commonsense implications of the Holy Father's actions.
It reminds me of reading conservative blogs during George W. Bush's second term when he was suffering a variety of misfortunes both foreign and domestic, whether malicious or self-inflicted. These bloggers argued that the apparent disarray and confusion was all intentional, and that Bush was really playing a highly complicated, super-smart "long game" strategy that would leave his opponents defeated, with egg on their faces. Needless to say, the reality was more or less as it appeared at the time: a mediocre Administration had lost control of events.
Now, you may be correct. Perhaps, all appearances to the contrary, Francis is really playing a highly complicated, super-smart "long game" strategy that will leave his opponents with egg on their faces. But this is vanishingly improbable.
Consider: The Holy Father has said similarly allusive things about (say) priestly celibacy directly to the press, without bothering to go through intermediaries. He has told all and sundry about his complete lack of interest in converting non-Catholics, even seeming to endorse two-covenant theory in Evangelii Gaudium. Neither he nor his spokesmen have ever denied that he told the Argentinian remarried divorcee she could receive Communion. He made Cdl. Kasper the keynote speaker of the February consistory, and lauded his proposals as "theology done on the knees." He has repeatedly, in his homilies and interviews, put forward a theological viewpoint that puts man at the center. In another homily, he conjectured something quite strange about Our Blessed Mother which, if formally endorsed, would be very difficult to reconcile with the Immaculate Conception.
Now as I say, it's possible that all this is a highly complicated, super-smart "long game" strategy that will etc. But it is vanishingly unlikely. In the end, things are usually what they seem.
Anon 9:54 obviously stands by vulgarity and obscenity - and therefore sin. Obfuscation will not help. Likewise the filthy, dirty, profane post implying that our Holy Father is excrement which an anonymous recommended we read (and indeed we should to but determine the depth of evil present) would even make a rabid protestant blush.
One wonders if 9:54 is a perverted homosexual, given his obsession with the anal cavity. To all those readers - especially to ladies, we apologize for permitting such filth in our combox, but we do so to only allow these deviants to provide enough rope to hang themselves. They are doing a masterly job.
I too had anxious feelings when the new "Bishop of Rome" stepped out that day. Had no idea who he even was, but I was bothered for days afterwards. He scares me. Especially when he started with the "I don't want to convert you" non sense. This quote sums it up for me:
"“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?
“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”
atheist Penn Jillette
I should clarify the quote above is from Penn Jillette, not me.
Also, I just wanted to ask why the Pope would need to flush out anyone, when there's supposedly a 300 page dossier sitting somewhere with likely much of the information that would help in starting the clean up of the mess in which we find ourselves. What ever happened to that? Nothing makes any sense anymore, at least not to me. I have every respect for the Papal Office, but the current occupant of that office appears to be causing more division in the Church than VII ever did. Again, only my opinion.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion on the matter.
Anonymous July 19, 2014 at 8:49 AM
This post is bang on except that left out the fact that Francis is enlisting the help of the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy to carry out his plan. My source is Batman. Who is yours, Freyr?
"Let tyrants fear" said Elizabeth Tudor by grace of god defender of the faith head of the church and state , but then she had a dedicated court of those who loved her . Does this pope if he lets loose into the world his views to an atheist ? Some trusted Elizabeth calling her good Queen Bess avoiding idolatrous statues as repugnant does this modern Roman bishop ?
If that Roman bishop says he will begin a hunt for the hunters of children through the used vehicle of an athiest ..... do only simple minded Catholics hear
"Let tyrants fear"
thought you would like to know that face book has donated 992 million dollars to planned parenthood. I googled it.
Post a Comment