Pope Francis (can We Have A Sensible Discussion?)

[Noel's angel]

I thought this was a really great blog posting.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barefootandpregnant/2013/03/when-catholics-play-tug-of-war-the-church-loses.html

 

We had Benedict because we needed him. We have Francis now, I think, because we also need him. We need beauty in the liturgy. We also need to help the poor. These two forces seem so ludicrously opposed to each other in American Catholicism. Either you’re a conservative, rad-trad, pro-Liturgy Catholic or you’re a liberal, social-justice, pro-guitars-and-holding-hands-during-the-Our-Father-Catholic. And anyone who takes the blogosphere as an example probably thinks we Catholics spend all our time hunkered down in our trenches, lobbing carefully-worded-blog-post-bombs at each other, waiting for the other side to go over the top so we can mow them down and cleanse the Church of that croutons for once and for all.

 

We’re waging a pointless and counterproductive war on each other. Both sides are defending deposits of the faith. Good, beautiful, true things that we have learned through our mutual faith, things which our faith needs equally in order to flourish. Can you imagine what might happen if we stopped haunting each other’s comboxes, accusing each other of heresy, and instead spent that energy working together to make the Church better? Maybe we could even *deep breath* try and see what’s true, good, and beautiful about the other. Like, maybe I could go to a Tridentine Mass and viciously repress my inner Jan Hus and really, really try to see the beauty in that ancient liturgy that bequeathed to me the faith I hold so dear today. And maybe whoever runs Rorate Caeli could go to a Novus Ordo Mass in Spanish in Immokalee, the town down the street from me, and instead of being horrified at the abuses in the liturgy really, really try to see the beauty in these migrant workers shuffling into the pews after a day of back-breaking work in the Florida sun, sweaty and dirty and wearing jeans, but resisting the urge to go home and collapse until they’ve seen Jesus.

 

Our faith is so multi-faceted. That’s why we have a gazillion saints. They’re all doing something different, giving us different examples to follow. Not everyone can be Francis of Assisi, living in blissful poverty, fasting and praying. Someone had to be St. Thomas Aquinas, puzzling out the finest points of theology while remaining very very well-fed. And our Church would be infinitely poorer if Francis and Thomas Aquinas had spent all their time arguing over whose way was better instead of just doing the work God had set before them. We all have different work to do in the Church, and God wants all of us to help make his Church complete. But we we can’t very well do that if we’re busy tearing each other to shreds.

 

That is precisely what I am trying to avoid in this discussion - 'tearing each other to shreds.' I just want a normal, respectful discussion, without 'taking sides'. 

[Noel's angel]

Is that any more shocking than that words of Christ when he confronted the traditions of the pharisees?

 

 

"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, `If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'

[17] You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 
[18] And you say, `If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.' 
[19] You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 
[20] So he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; 
[21] and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; 
[22] and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. 
[23]

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

[24] You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! 
[25]

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity.

[26] You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean. 
[27]

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

[28] So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 
[29]

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,

[30] saying, `If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 
[31] Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 
[32] Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 
[33] You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 
[34] Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 
[35] that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 
[36] Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation. 
[37]

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

[38] Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. 
[39] For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

 

--Matthew 23:16-39

 

So Pope Benedict was no better than the Pharisees because he was fond of, and maintained tradition? 

 

I'm not saying that wearing black shoes is a hangable offence, but that certain actions Pope Francis has taken appear to be making more of his personality than is necessary.

[Nihil Obstat]

In that case, why not just wear the red ones?

 

The BBC reported the following (with regards to the 'carnival' quote):

 

 

Minutes after the election result was declared in the Sistine Chapel, a Vatican official called the Master of Ceremonies offered to the new Pope the traditional papal red cape trimmed with ermine that his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI gladly wore on ceremonial occasions.

"No thank you, Monsignore," Pope Francis is reported to have replied. "You put it on instead. Carnival time is over!"

I suppose it depends on how much you trust the BBC.

Yes, I saw that source. Frankly I think it is invented. Msgr. Guido Marini is a very discreet man, so if they somehow got that quote, they did not get it from him.

[Lil Red]

The Anchoress has a nice piece:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/03/16/all-in-the-deep-evangelization-of-pope-francis/

 

This is what I am not quite sure I understand:

How I would like a Church which is poor and for the poor.

I trust that as we get to know Francis better he will make this clearer. That he has a preferential option for the poor is already clear and admirable and inspiring, but I thought we already are for the poor and always have been, although — of course — there is always more to do. But by “a Church which is poor” does he means humble? Poor in spirit? Is he talking about dispensing with what is beautiful in the church, because it is somehow insulting for the poor? I have a hard time believing this because we have heard that Pope Francis’ favorite author is Dostoyevsky and he therefore must have some appreciation of “the world will be saved by beauty” and the transcendent beauty — both material and interior — that the church offers the world. Shared and instructive, it is all meant to better access the different routes to knowing God.

 

Moreover, we should not be ashamed of the beauty of the Bride of Christ and his Mystical Body. I have a cousin who is a Capuchin, like Cardinal O’Malley, and he has worked with very poor people living in destitute and often violent areas. He’s told me more than once that the poor feel condescended to when they are served the Holy Eucharist from ceramic chalices and straw baskets. “The want the beautiful things,” he says, “because God should have beautiful things and they should be able to share in that.” Beauty is evangelical.

 

...

 

Sometimes our desire to do good, and to do it as efficiently as possible, makes us forget that honoring the dignity of the human person means being less constrictively efficacious, so the simple freedom to chart one’s own course is respected.

 

So, I’m not sure what our Holy Father means about having a poor church, for the poor. Seems to me we can’t do much for the poor if we are poor ourselves. Unless, of course, we are poor in spirit, which might bear astonishing fruit.\

 

This is getting long, sorry, but I’m trying to take Francis’ advice and break things down “through the dimension of faith”,(and yes, I wander as I wonder) so here’s what left me wondering via John Thavis:

The pope’s blessing to journalists was unusual, to say the least. Saying that he realized there were non-Catholics and non-believers present in the hall, he would “give this blessing in silence, from my heart, to each of you, respecting the conscience of each person, but knowing that each one of you is a child of God.”

Then, instead of the usual formal blessing – standard practice at papal audiences – he said quietly, “God bless you,” and walked off the stage.

That left some immensely pleased at the pope’s sensitivity, and others complaining loudly: “What kind of a blessing was that?”

Well, it was the kind of blessing Pope Francis wanted to give. And more and more, I’m getting the impression that this is a man who is not simply “getting used to being pope,” but who is coming into the office with clear, and very different, ideas.

 

Those remarks came as a kind of clarification of previous words Thavis left out, and which are both interesting and sweet:

I love all of you very much, I thank you for everything you have done. I pray that your work will always be serene and fruitful, and that you will come to know ever better the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the rich reality of the Church’s life. I commend you to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Star of Evangelization, and with cordial good wishes for you and your families, each of your families. I cordially impart to all of you my blessing.

That’s a straightforward, evangelical move — he’s saying he hoped every person in the room would grow in knowledge of Christ, and in appreciation for Our Lady as well. That’s as Catholic as it gets, and perhaps Pope Francis realized it and thought to clarify that in so wishing he meant no disrespect to non-Catholics. And I can get on board with that. I mean, it’s a thoughtful, sensitive move, and kind of lovely.

 

Apart from clarification, perhaps this was Francis’ way of demonstrating that the press, and the world, needs to be equally as respectful to the Catholic conscience as well, and if that’s the case, hey, I’m all for it — it’s a brilliant slyness!

 

But I don’t think Francis is about “slyness”. I think he is open and authentic. Here is what bothers me, though: if he was not simply clarifying or trying to make a point about respect and reciprocation, then why deny those Catholics present the usual Tridentine formula of blessing which typically ends such audiences? My first impression was that it seemed like overkill, mostly because media folk covering popes — whether they believe or not — expect to see pope-y stuff and hear pope-y blessings, and because they are there to simply do their jobs, they’re not supposed to grouse about the Catholicity of it all. And in fact, I’ve never heard a press person grouse about it.

 

So you know…why not give the Catholics there a little Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

 

...

 

MORE: On my twitter feed some people are reading all of this and saying, “I’m worried.” Honestly, I’m not. I think we just have to get to know this pope, who is as different from our last pope as the brain is from the body. They still function together to create a wholeness.

 

Stop being afraid or “worried” and start wondering. Remember your Gregory of Nyssa: “ideas lead to idols, but only wonder leads to knowing.” I think if we let ourselves wonder a little about Francis, instead of letting all sorts of “ideas” run rampant between him and us (which the devil would just love) we may find that we’re on a breathtaking new journey.

 

And thanks be to Benedict for understanding that another speech and another encyclical would not have changed the unhealthy trajectory of the church. Something is being made new. In the gambit for the souls of the human race, we’re going all-in because nothing less will do.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Lil Red

[Noel's angel]

maybe he doesn't like red? maybe he thinks it clashes? how in the hell am i supposed to know? once again, they're just shoes. why get upset over it?

 

and I really don't trust anything the media says, even the BBC.

 

I'm not upset, I was simply asking a question. They are just shoes, so he could just wear them. If he chooses not to wear them, it's bound to raise questions as to why he choose to do so.

 

You do seem up set ("how the hell am I supposed to know?"). I will reiterate that I wish this to be a straightforward discussion in which we can share our hopes and fears. I don't want two 'camps' to emerge.

[Noel's angel]

The 'poor church' quote threw me a little, but as you say, as time goes on I'm sure he will clarify what he meant.

As for the blessing, why would anyone go to the Vatican to meet the Pope and NOT expect him to bless them and make the sign of the cross? If you are nervous about insulting people on your 'home turf', that could be a problem.

[Lil Red]

I'm not upset, I was simply asking a question. They are just shoes, so he could just wear them. If he chooses not to wear them, it's bound to raise questions as to why he choose to do so.

 

You do seem up set ("how the hell am I supposed to know?"). I will reiterate that I wish this to be a straightforward discussion in which we can share our hopes and fears. I don't want two 'camps' to emerge.

 

i quite assure you that i am not upset. i am not assigning motives to this thread of yours, or your posts, so kindly do not assign motives to my posts that are not there.

 

the "why get upset over it" was a general question and not directed at any one person. and the "how in the hell am i supposed to know" was supposed to be a flippant, tongue-in-cheek response. are we clear now?

[EmilyAnn]

There are a million other really important things we could be asking about what Pope Francis will do in his papacy, and we are discussing what colour shoes he is going to wear? 

Really? 

Perspective. Get some. 

[Era Might]

So Pope Benedict was no better than the Pharisees because he was fond of, and maintained tradition? 

 

I'm not saying that wearing black shoes is a hangable offence, but that certain actions Pope Francis has taken appear to be making more of his personality than is necessary.

 

Benedict and Francis are two different men. As I said, I disagree with the dualism between person and office. Benedict had his 8 years to give a witness, now Francis has his time. Both men will have to give account for their lives. I don't think we have to try and reconcile everyone's lives. People are different, with different view, different perspectives. The same is true of leaders, even within the church. I don't view the role of St. Peter as preserving worldly traditions and accretions, but rather witnessing to Christ.

 

I don't think the question is whether Pope Francis is expressing his personality, but whether his personality is formed in the Gospel...and if it is, then his role as a leader is to lead as he feels will best make the Gospel shine.

[Nihil Obstat]

There are a million other really important things we could be asking about what Pope Francis will do in his papacy, and we are discussing what colour shoes he is going to wear? 

Really? 

Perspective. Get some. 

Noel asked quite simply if we can have an unemotional discussion about things that might be troubling us. Such is well within his right as a Catholic. Perhaps this is not the right thread for you.

[Lil Red]

The Crescat has an interesting perspective on one of the videos that has been bandied about:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2013/03/shallow-definitions-of-beauty-the-pope-is-not-impressed.html

 

Even in this crazy video…

(Lil Red's note, I'm not linking the video)

which I watched three times, as an act of penance. Pope Francis retains a reverent demeanor and respect for the holy Eucharist. I mean seriously… watch it. No, watch him. Not the balloons and the clapping and the giant puppets- tune all that out – and just watch him. What do you see? Be honest with yourself, put your cultural & liturgical preferences aside for a moment and just focus on Pope Francis and his demeanor. He’s not participating in the kook buggery around him. He’s focused on one thing and one thing only. The mass.

 

People have been looking to this video and his preference for liturgical simplicity as proof of the pope’s heterodoxy… as if no one in all the history of the church every mutter a heresy in Latin and Catholicism remained without scandal until 1960.

 

When I watch this video I see a man who looks like he got ambushed by the liturgy committee or whatever you call the people responsible for organizing those types of large youth masses. Do you really think he picked out the music and crafted those puppets himself? He showed up to celebrate mass and did a fantastically solemn job, given the circumstances, and exhibited patience and respect. But by all means… just see ugly.

========

and from the comments on that article:

In defense of the Pope during that Liturgy....I know very well that bishops have to go to some terrible liturgies that they would rather not do. I mean, Cardinal Burke, CARDINAL BURKE, has had to celebrate at terrible liturgies, believe me, not of his own choice! But out of humility (Cardinal Burke is a good example of how a man can wear a Cappa Magna and still be humble, of using externals not to aggrandize himself, but the liturgy itself) and pastoral care Cardinal Burke still celebrated the Mass, even though it was terrible on a human level.

[Lil Red]

Noel asked quite simply if we can have an unemotional discussion about things that might be troubling us. Such is well within his right as a Catholic. Perhaps this is not the right thread for you.

 

Noel's angel is a girl :secret:

[EmilyAnn]

Noel asked quite simply if we can have an unemotional discussion about things that might be troubling us. Such is well within his right as a Catholic. Perhaps this is not the right thread for you.

Uh, excuse me? I was being no more "emotional" than anyone else in this thread.

 

Of course now I'm annoyed because it seems like her opinion is allowed but mine isn't. 

[Lil Red]

this comment on the Anchoress' piece really struck me:

"“I think we just have to get to know this pope, who is as different as can be from our last pope as the brain is from the body.”

This struck me the most in this piece. And I think you’re right. I adore Pope Emeritus Benedict. His quiet genius is right up my alley. But it seems to me, as a lowly convert of only two years, that the Church has spent a lot of time thinking about what it is since VII and Pope Emeritus spent the last eight years being our “brain,” articulating in his brilliant way the *reason* behind our faith. And maybe now we’re ready to have a Pope who can show us how to apply all that knowledge and reason and how to truly *live* that faith in the radical way that the Gospel requires of us. And Pope Francis, who I like quite a bit already, seems like just the man to do it."

 

i dunno, i'm a bit in agreement with this quote.

[KnightofChrist]

I don't know if it is has been said, but the red shoes are symbolic of the Pontiff's following in the bloody footsteps of our Lord. There is probably a way to both respect humility and the symbolism of the tradition. Modestly priced red dress shoes could be found probably.

It would help the Pope distinguish himself from the Pope emeritus, who has also chosen to wear brown shoes as an act of humility and to distinguish himself from the Pope. Difficulties could arise if both the Pope and the Pope emeritus dress exactly the same.