Dear sitetest,
I assure you that I wasn’t judging your motives. And well I know that I am not permitted to judge anyone (as the Lord Jesus told us) not even myself (as St. Paul says).
I just told you that I don’t agree that it’s OK to make a “casual approach” in calling the Pope “Franky”.
We differ about that and that is not a judgment call on your character.
But....is it a judgment call on the Pope’s character?
Just asking.
In that you quoted 1 Peter about giving honor, it seems to suggest that you thought I was not giving honor to Pope Frank. Far be it! I'm merely trying to emulate his breezy, informal, spontaneous style that isn't all hung up in trying to hew to actual doctrine, etc., etc.
When it comes to picking bishops, folks who are supposed to govern their dioceses and to enforce discipline therein, let's get rid of the cardinal who says mean things about bishops letting pro-aborts receive communion, and let's promote the cardinal who punishes priests who aren't inclined to give the Blessed Sacrament to lesbian Buddhists.
Let's criticize all those nasty (priests? bishops? layfolks? I'm not sure who ACTUALLY does this) folks who talk too much about contraception, abortion, and homosexuality (oh, dear, I mean, “gay” issues).
Let's criticize all those mean pro-lifers who spend all their time screeching about laws, but no time helping women in crisis pregnancies (Again, about whom is he speaking? Every serious pro-lifer I know spends much more time working to mitigate the circumstances of women in crisis pregnancies than they do playing abortion politics. It's been this way for at least the last 20 years.).
Let's give interviews that require multiple translations and re-translations and interpretations, and finally statements not to take the pope's words too literally, because, after all, he was just speaking informally.
I do that sort of thing, too. With my buddies at the bowling alley. We solve all the world's problems every Wednesday night. And then we forget everything we said by the following Wednesday. Which is pretty much what our conversations deserve. But none of us think our words should be printed in 12 Jesuit periodicals around the world simultaneously, with press embargoes & everything.
Although we're not going to judge “gay” people, let's judge priests based on what CARS they drive, and let's CHECK THE VATICAN PARKING LOT to see who is driving an evil, decadent FANCY-SCHMANCY car! Because, after all, we CAN judge someone’s soul by seeing what car they drive!
Let's say mean things about a form of capitalism that doesn't actually exist in the real world in the current era, when really, what we're describing is actually corporatism - the collusion of big business and government - which is actually the antithesis of free markets. Let's take the No. 1 economic insult from the 1980s - “trickle down” - and apply it , without understanding, in ways that are entirely inappropriate, showing a basic lack of understanding of the fundamentals of economics.
I'm sorry, Running On Empty, but for me, I see this pope as either malicious, or unserious, and/or stupid and ignorant of the real world in which I live. I believe it is most charitable to think that he is not malicious.
I think he's unserious, and I also think that he is the ultimate exemplar of the Peter Principle (pun intended). So, to show that I don't think he's evil, and I don't think he's a formal heretic, I honor him by pointing out his love of informality and spontaneity.
The Church needs popes, but the Church always manages to survive bad popes. My faith in the Jesus Christ and His Bride, the Catholic Church, are not especially tied up in whether a particular pope is a brilliant saint (Blessed John Paul II or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), or a dull mediocrity.
The great popes don't do much to prove the divine institution of the Church. The not-so-great ones do. Only divine institution and continued divine providence explain the survival by the Church of her papal (and other hierarchical) not-so-greats.
sitetest