[Mrs. Don-o]

Where did I declare that ebb tide judged the moral fault of Francis?

This thread is becoming too weird. Just a few posts back Mamzelle said I implied she was going to hell (what the???) --- and here's the common factor: I'm cautioning about moral hazards, near occasions of sin, and these cautions are being taken as personal accusations.

I know that some Catholics are distressed and concerned about Pope Francis, so that every initiative of his inspires prefatory worry. The worry itself is not a fault, but the constant, public "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" applied to the Roman Pontiff's intentions, words,and deeds is unfair and unedifying.

"Hermeneutic of Suspicion" should be left to the sadoevangelicals --- or the LCWR.

There are plenty of actual, documented faults that can be dissected (e.g. the cringe-worthy La Repubbblica pseudo-interview). Dissect that with pliers and a sawzall, if you need to. But please leave off the preemptive public keening over imagined future papal offenses.

As Our Lord said, "Sufficient to the day are the evils hereof."

(Now I have a time-sensitive need to practice my Latin Propers. I'm outta here!)

[piusv]

You accused him of rash judgment and the correct definition of that includes judging someone’s moral fault. If he did not do that, then you can not accuse him of rash judgment.

[piusv]

There are plenty of actual, documented faults that can be dissected (e.g. the cringe-worthy La Repubbblica pseudo-interview). Dissect that with pliers and a sawzall, if you need to. But please leave off the preemptive public keening over imagined future papal offenses.

This is exactly why people question Francis. His own words and actions make people suspect his future words and actions.

[ebb tide]

Both suspicion and fear are both fully justified concerning the temporal reign of Pope Francis:

Is Pope Francis a Modernist?