Skip to comments.Iím Still Not Going Back to the Catholic Church: Pope Francis only confirms my decision to leave
Posted on 09/30/2013 9:37:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFindEdited on 09/30/2013 9:38:32 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
click here to read article
Read the article? Oh, come on. He makes his living writing and has a bit of minor celebrity to boot.
Either one of those things means he’s an idiot and probably evil, too, so I can dismiss anything he writes without even skimming it.
Rod converted to Catholicism around the time when the homosexual abuse scandals broke. It was just too much for him and he moved on to Orthodoxy.
At one time I was on a small private email list with him and several others (which included several FReepers) and he really struggled. Rod is a good man and is truly faithful but his roots were not deep enough in Catholicism to keep him in Rome. I don't blame him for moving on but I don't agree with his decision. If the Orthodox had not caved on barrier methods in the 1970s and divorce and remarriage, there was a time in my own life where I could easily have swum the Bosporus.
The author’s experience is not unique, people attend a church looking for they know not what, only that they don’t find what they seek. They don’t know how to recognize their hoped for destination, Christ’s church, so how can they know what to look for?
There is an intense piece by Rod Dreher over at TIME. The whole thing is worth a close look, but here are some longish samples.
NB: While I disagree with Drehers decision to leave the Catholic Church, I sure understand how he got to that point and I have to agree with a great deal of what he says about the squishy, formless pabulum Catholics have been fed for decades. Dreher, offering a salutary warning, also makes a connection between the destructive spirit of Vatican II and its potential replacement, a spirit of Francis.
There has been both lavish (nearly irrational) praise of Pope Francis and there has been harsh (nearly irrational) criticism of Pope Francis. I dont agree with everything that Dreher wrote here (of course I usually only agree entirely with myself), but I havent seen the points he makes put so eloquently.
While Drehers look at The Francis Effect may make you squirm a little, will any of you be willing to disagree with his vivisection of the American Church? When he talks about the effects of the spirit of Vatican II, doesnt he hit the nail square on?
We need this kind of hard-nosed, cool introspection. ...
When I want a cafeteria I drive to the nearest Luby’s.
I don’t recall reading anything “hard-nosed and cool” by Rod Dreher, ever. I compared him to Peggy Noonan because his great sweeps of emotion as if they were researched and reasoned, rather than felt and projected.
This has nothing to do with how he feels about Pope Francis. It’s my opinion, as a reader, on everything I have read from Rod Dreher, from the early 1990s to today.
That is, “... he presents his great sweeps of emotion ...”. A child distracted me while I was being critical.
Yep. I came to traditionalism reluctantly...especially since I grew up in fairly good parishes.
Now our family drives 1 hour to get to a Latin Mass parish, and 1 hour back. Because of illnesses, I have in the last month or so had to fulfill my Sunday obligation at the local parish.
I seriously cannot stand going to the latter anymore. It makes me want to pull my hair out. Squishy formless pabulum is right...and what makes it all the more infuriating is that the average Catholic doesn’t even have any idea what we have lost.
Actually the author’s point is not what Francis is saying but what those with sinister motives will “interpret” him to say. The “Spirit of Francis” will come to replace the Spirit of Vatican 2 as a rationale to “open the windows” and let in some fresh air.
He talks about the still incomplete work of JPII and BXVI being undone not by Francis but by those who think that only they know what he means.
I actually agree with many of this points.
They have been Osteened...
The church is to preach the gospel of course, but one of its primary roles is to hold members accountable, encouraging them to move closer every day to sanctification.
Give the article a read before you dump on Dreher.
His example of the tolerance of homosexual pedophiles in the priesthood, rather than condemnation and punishment, has a parallel in the bishops’ push for amnesty.
These bishops rant on with “God is love” drivel about illegals. When did you ever hear these bishops condemn the illegals’ violations of the legitimate and just laws on immigration? When did you hear these bishops condemn the illegals’ theft of other innocents’ identities and jobs? Those are “sins”, and the bishops should be condemning them.
No, it’s just “God is love” drivel about illegal immigrants being children of God. No, your Excellencies, they are invaders and criminals, violating the laws and homes and possessions of innocent people. Wait till a million illegal muslims take squatters’ possession of the Vatican and tell me about God is love to them.
Read the article. He states that he never accepted what the faith demanded, yet faulted his teachers (sounds like Northeastern feel good university Catholics) for not pointing out forcifully what was demanded.
So, if by his own admission, he never accepted the requirements of Catholicism, how can he talk about returning to Catholicism?
As for myself, I consider myself to be a “faithful” Catholic which means I follow the traditional Christian precepts and the church Magisterium.
Re: Pope Francis: Almost weekly I look at the internet for news of the day and I read something or other that Pope Francis has said that literally knocks me off of my comfort zone. Then I read what PF actually said in its entirety, and I realize that: 1)he is not stating anything more than what is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and 2) if he is making me a bit uncomfortable, then maybe I need to reorganize my beliefs a bit. Maybe I am too proud, or too aloof from the poor, or not penitent and humble enough. So, I think Pope Francis is doing OK, so far.
All good Christians need to be humble and generous at heart. The Sermon on the Mount comes to mind about the “poor in spirit”.
>>Did anyone read the actual article? <<
LOL I come to FR for the comments of course. And it’s priceless to see the writer of the article get bashed for something he didn’t say/mean. The writer seems like he was lamenting the problems in the Church. I don’t get the sense he’s hating on them. So why are you guys hating on this guy? Do you not agree with him that the topic of sin and repentance is being whitewashed? Do you prefer a church that just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy? Or did you just not read the whole article? I’m just asking!
This guy is full of himself. If he wanted to find a Catholic Church he could feel good about attending he needed to look a little harder. The Church I attend has one parish priest and THREE deacons and all preach the sanctity of life, the sacrament of marriage and loving your neighbor. Two of the deacons give better homilies than the priest. One was ordained 32 years ago and is a conservative they come. He is a fellow Knight of Columbus, as are the other two deacons and the priest, who supports the Knights 1000%, and we are 150 man strong, and it’s not a big parish, only consisting of one Church.
Well, you're a better man than me since you still go (or maybe just have a higher threshold for induced insanity?). I can't observe an "obligation" to attend what I sincerely believe to be a demonically-inspired change in liturgy. Fortunately for my soul, I'm excused on the basis of N.O. attendance being a danger to my faith. Even more fortunately there is a Tridentine Mass offered on alternate weekends nearby.
God has also admonished us to fear Him.
RE: how can he talk about returning to Catholicism?
Was he baptized Catholic? If so, he is talking about returning ( or in his case, not returning ) in THAT sense.