Skip to comments.Are Catholics now too dazzled by the Pope? Can Popes be criticized?
Posted on 05/09/2014 10:49:58 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
Do you remember the scene in Evelyn Waughs Brideshead Revisited when Rex Mottram is being given his catechism lessons before he can marry Julia? The priest and Rex have this exchange: Yesterday I asked [Mottram] whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: Just as many as you say, Father. Then again I asked him: Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said Its going to rain, would that be bound to happen? Oh, yes, Father. But supposing it didnt? He thought a moment and said, I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.
This scene figures in a piece written by Michael Brendon Dougherty for The Week: Catholics must learn to resist their popes even Pope Francis Too many are becoming party apparatchiks.
(Excerpt) Read more at wdtprs.com ...
Yes, but the next time you see him coming you better run.
Of course popes can be criticized. After all, they’re not saints. Whoops, oh yes they are.
Yes, popes can be criticized.
No, I have never been much dazzled by the current pontiff.
Liked his predecessor much better.
Meanwhile, I wonder if his feelings of wealth accumulation related to the accumulations by the Vatican during the middle ages. I don't recall any commentary about wealth concentrations at that time.
Those two tests eliminate about 99% of Francis' critics.
**Can Popes be criticized?**
Who are we to judge. We don’t know everything that the Pope knows as to why it might make any single statement.
Fixing this for you so you know and will repeat only the truth.
**When the Pope shows me in church literature that the Pope is infallible on matters of
economics faith and morals,**
I would agree. Most criticism I have heard has been stylistic and not matters of faith. Additionally, the secular reporting, as always, is terrible.
Alternatively, whether a person likes the Pope or not, always remember the promise of Our Lord, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (the Church).
Sure. Run out in the street or all over the interwebs and yell, "I think Pope Francis is wrong about a bunch of stuff!!!" Who's going to stop you?
However, what good is it going to do? Will criticizing the present or a past Pope bring you closer to God? Will it help you to love your family, your neighbors, and your enemies more sincerely and efficaciously?
Will it help you get the floors mopped? Will it lead to your getting a better grade in algebra?
"Cui bono?" as they say in mystery novels.
If He was NOT preaching a Catholic Doctrine relating to faith or morals then he is fallible just like any other human. The headline we all saw, by the way, was not what he had implied. It was what the NYT wanted it to be.
Is he one to something or is he off the rails? This is clearly something that many über-trads have bandied about in the last few decades of their defiance of authority.
I think the papolatry began with JPII, the first mega-media pope. I don’t think it’s a good thing, but, that said, the interesting aspect to me is the media coverage that promotes this. BXVI was a wonderful, orthodox pope, a great theologian and very photogenic, oddly enough, since these things don’t usually go together! But he got far less ecstatic coverage than JPII.
This was because he was very direct and didn’t say the things the media wanted to hear, so he got nowhere near the popular coverage. In other words, it’s not just that modern communications and travel have made the Pope more visible and more of a focus, but that now the media has the ability to select the Pope of its choice and focus on him.
They like Francis because he has been very unwary. There’s been a lot of publicity about his UN talk today, but it was actually very orthodox. He told them to respect life from conception to natural death, that the “culture of death” (actually, a JPII phrase) had taken over society, and that people - individuals - had a responsibility to help the poor and make sure that the riches were distributed widely.
His big error, unfortunately, was to use a word that was translated into English as “redistributed,” even though he was referring not to capital but to the “benefits” brought by wealth. “Share” would also have been a good and less political translation. And, of course, being a European-influenced Argentinian, he had to bring the State into it. But countries where the State predominates are usually the poorest and most dysfunctional in the world. Look at Cuba and Venezuela; heck, even his native Argentina isn’t doing well.
Share the wealth is a good concept, and I think that’s what he meant, based on his recounting of the story of Zacchaeus. But the media is taking this one phrase and running with it.
I’’d like him to comment on the corrupt socialist s***holes that make upb most of the world!
Orthodoxy is inversely related to fawning left-wing media hype and knee-jerk papolatry.
Yes but the you'll be accused of engaging in Popism and forever carry the stigma of being a Popist and join the other outcasts of society, the racists engaged in racism..................
Yes, I wish he’d say something about state corruption. But he’s an Argentinian and they, despite all logic and experience, have a touching and misplaced trust in the State.
May we also assume you refuse to judge Obama?
On a purely secular level, if you're going to criticize someone you should probably (1) know exactly what his position is on a given matter and (2) be reasonably certain that you are more qualified to opine than he is about that subject.
Those two tests eliminate about 99% of Francis' critics.
Even if this is true, and I am not entirely convinced to be honest, isn't that in itself a point worthy of criticism? Doesn't it trouble you that in 99% of cases you cannot with any real certainty quantify the position of the Holy Father on issues upon which he has chosen to opine? What does that say about his teaching authority? I will grant that it is worse if the pope proclaims obvious heresy, but if the only response is that we cannot be absolutely certain that the heretical things attributed to him were really what me meant to say at that time then I am lost as to why that is really that much better.