Fratelli Tutti- I interview Pedro Gabriel of WherePeterIs.com in response to recent criticism of the Encyclical

[Lilllabettt]

19 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

do you agree that ambiguity is a subjective judgement, in the context of Church teaching?

• NB: I do not deny that objective ambiguity can exist

 

The word I would like to use here is confusing. I think it is more accurate to what I am trying to say. Ambiguity is not the same thing as confusion. For example, the Gospel truth re: embryo adoption is ambiguous. Wise and holy people continue to debate both sides and the Church has not come down definitively either way. However the Church is crystal clear that the situation is in fact ambiguous. There is no confusion about whether the debate is still open.

19 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

are you proposing the majority of Catholics globally share in your opinion of this ambiguity?

• NB: I agree- in the West (particularly in America), there is confusion abound particularly amongst Traditionals

 

I said "many." It is a fact, as you yourself say, that many find PF's teaching ambiguous (sub confusing.) But as for the majority of Catholics - the majority of Catholics do not believe in the Eucharist. So, sure. The majority of Catholics are confused about the very fundamental elements of the Gospel, and we can include PFs teaching (whatever it is) in that soup of confusion. For the majority of Catholics to understand PFs teaching is more hopeless even than the Eucharist, as the "experts" (who, as @BarbaraTherese suggests should know best) cannot agree what the teaching is.

19 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

taking forward your logic in any case, does the fact that some students do not understand the teacher mean that the teaching is incorrect?

The fact that MANY students do not understand means the teaching is confusing. As a teacher I did not teach anything "incorrect" to my students.  I did not give them false information, e.g. tell them 2+2=5 or tell them things like "the moon landing was a hoax."  I taught the truth, always. But, if many of my students did not "get" the correct information I was trying to teach them (it happened more than once), the fault I knew, was mine. I did not get the truth out clearly. It was my responsibility to go back and correct my mistake.

I will give you an example. We know that the death penalty is "inadmissable." What does this mean?  In the past, I would say, the death penalty is not disallowed in principle but, in today's world the conditions where it is permitted are practically speaking non-existent. With PF's teaching I could update this to say, the conditions where it is permitted are, in today's world, actually non-existent. OR I could say, Catholic teaching has developed in its understanding of the death penalty and it is now unacceptable in principle, even if the traditional reasons for allowing it are present in some future scenario the current Church does foresee (e.g., a possible future where society cannot be kept safe from a murderer except by executing him.)  I have read pro PF conservative experts say the first, pro PF liberals say the 2nd, and anti PF conservatives agree with the liberals and add that PF is wrong and we don't have to listen to prudential judgments like this one. I have read it myself and all these interpretations are plausible. What will I teach my children, idk. Probably  "The death penalty is bad" and leave out "why." I formerly loved Catholicism because it seemed there was always a reason, a why, for everything we believed, but it is not possible at this time to speak of the whys.

Another example is just war theory. Is it no longer permissible to hold this?  Is this no longer the measuring stick we use to guide decisions on whether to use force? Or is it just that the measuring stick has so often been misapplied that it is functionally useless? Or is war now intrinsically evil? I have heard experts make all types of claims about this issue and this document, similar to the death penalty question. I know experts who study St. Augustine argue among themselves, what one of the footnotes means. The footnote seems to be an error, ascribing to St Augustine something he did not do. Did PF mean to refer to Aquinas? Is it a type-o? This question weighs on me daily and it will be much harder when children are older, as all the men in my family, including my husband, are in the military.

These are just 2 examples.

Circling back to legalism:  If you listen to some of these interpretations, PF is the one making laws! What were once clearly ambiguous matters, clearly open to prudential judgment in theory if not practically speaking (death penalty, war) are now, if you accept some interpretations of his teaching, intrinsically evil. There is now (possibly) a law against them, no thinking and discernment required. So it seems PF is the one making laws and tying up bundles? If you listen to the interpretation of some of his biggest fans, that is ...

(aside: Please do not try to clarify for me what PFs teaching is on war or the death penalty, or anything else confusing he has said -  if you think you know what it is. You are just one person and there are others holier and wiser than you who may disagree. None of you really know the truth. I am not making the effort to understand anymore as it is not a priority for PF that I do understand. I accept that is how he is, and no amount of begging will make him change.  I will wait for a teaching Pope to get in office and clarify the Gospel for me.)

[HumilityAndPatience]

21 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Best of luck and God's blessings on your decision re spiritual director and on any journey to unfold.

Thank you (:

21 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

On the subject of The Imitation of Christ, it was given to me when I was in religious life in my teens.  It scared the wits out of me! I have never picked it up since.

Yes- do pick it up again. It is one of the greatest works ever written.

14 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

It seems to be something held in the mind of the poster (a presuming about the other projected onto that other as their thoughts or words etc.)

@Anastasia I have also thought the above to be true. The problem may well indeed be me but I often struggled to connect your points to the discussion (strawmanning, in other words). However, I will reflect in case I am missing anything. 

 

13 hours ago, Anastasia said:

here for example, said by you

You have not quoted @BarbaraTherese but actually @Lilllabettt here, I am not sure if you are aware of this?

13 hours ago, Anastasia said:

If that arguments claims "but PF behaved just like Christ" then, well it is legitimate to analyze that claim I think. It is not my idea that PF behaves like Christ; if I thought so I would not criticize PF. 

THis may well be the argument of some- but not of mine, so I cannot comment here.

 

13 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I also said that I have zero problem if anyone in his private live plays the games of silence but I have a huge problem if that person does it while holding a Monstrance (a metaphor) i.e. while he is doing a pastor's duty of being responsible for the flock, in the presence of Christ.

I think we may have digressed a bit here if we are now talking about Barros/Macarrick and PF's response. Or are you connecting that to the more general topic of defending Pope Francis' actions in response to condemnations?

[HumilityAndPatience]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

But, if many of my students did not "get" the correct information I was trying to teach them (it happened more than once), the fault I knew, was mine. I did not get the truth out clearly. It was my responsibility to go back and correct my mistake.

I do not dispute the above. What I am asking is whether you will concede the possibility that a (generic) student is at any particular stage simply unable to understand. 

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

I will give you an example. We know that the death penalty is "inadmissable." What does this mean?

May I ask if you have read PF's letter on this, which quotes extensively from JP2? I find it very clear. This is then the basis he carries forward in FT. THe letter is here

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

why, for everything we believed, but it is not possible at this time to speak of the whys.

The "why" is there. There is just a lot more chaff (faulty interpreters) obscuring the wheat.

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

Another example is just war theory. Is it no longer permissible to hold this?

Pedro Gabriel answers this q very well in the interview (if I may refer to it). I have timestamped it so you can click right to the q.

 

2 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

PF is the one making laws!

If you are referring to Just War and the Death Penalty, I would point you to his predecessors writings to understand the context for these organic developments.

 

2 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

aside: Please do not try to clarify for me what PFs teaching is on war or the death penalty, or anything else confusing he has said -  if you think you know what it is. You are just one person and there are others holier and wiser than you who may disagree. None of you really know the truth.

I will respect your request @Lilllabetttbut would also ask that you allow me to rebut any further responses to the above, should you have further discussion.

I do appreciate the discussion and insight. Praise and glory be to God. 

[Anastasia]

4 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

You have not quoted @BarbaraTherese but actually @Lilllabettt here, I am not sure if you are aware of this?

Of course I am aware of it; it says "Lilllabettt" at the top of each quote )). 

That I did to answer the question of BarbaraTherese:

20 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Where is it stated in this thread  “PF behaves like Christ” ?" 

The discussion was about a common phenomenon that emerge from time to time, on this forum and outside it, of "backing up" some behavior of PF by actions of Christ.

I quoted the messages of Lilllabettt addressed to BarbaraTherese because it is quite clear that the former was responding to the latter's comparison of the behavior/words of PF with the behavior/words of Christ. Here:

On 11/24/2020 at 2:55 AM, Lilllabettt said:

By comparing PFs words to Jesus' use of parables, you are suggesting that PF is also deliberately trying to conceal the truth of his meaning and cause confusion so that some will not understand.  

and here:

On 11/24/2020 at 5:20 AM, Lilllabettt said:

But, you explained PFs behavior by pointing out that Jesus Himself did not always clarify, rather he spoke in parables, which, he says explicitly, he did for the reason that some of his listeners would be confused.

So it is "the proof" that a matter is being discussed - although I am not sure why the proof was needed but I did it anyway. PF himself has backed his behavior by one of Jesus on a number of occasions, his proponents do the same and, since that phenomenon persists, there is nothing wrong with addressing it and that was done by me - I showed on examples that "backing up" PF with Jesus is possible only if one looks on the surface, takes an action and throws away its content and context, living a kind of an empty shell. However, I will not repeat my argument here because those who are interested can read it on a previous page.

4 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Or are you connecting that to the more general topic of defending Pope Francis' actions in response to condemnations?

I do not know what "condemnations" you are speaking about. Personally, I am not interested in evaluating every move of PF which I find problematic. I am interested in identifying a pattern of behavior so I would understand what is behind that, what to expect and, most importantly in this case, what not to expect.

An example may clarify my point: let take a family; a father is very charming, very nice with the outsiders but quite different inside the family. He acts as he wills, he makes decisions which affect everyone without even notifying the involved; one day he says one thing and the next another cancelling the previous; when his children say "dad, but you promised to come to our football play of the year!" he says "no I did not - it is you who failed to notify me" while the children notified him and he promised indeed. Or he promises his wife to go to holidays with her and cancels last sec because his school mate suddenly resurfaced after twenty years and proposed to spend ta week with him fishing and the father of the family could not say "no" to him so he left his wife to make a decision whether to cancel her holiday or go on her own. If his wife says "but we agreed first" he tells her she is selfish and "non-accommodating", rigid. And so it goes.

The members of the family have a choice: #1 to continue to trust that father/husband will do what he promises and have no peace because the peace depends not on the acceptable rules of a normal conduct (like sticking to own promise, consideration of those the promise was made to, their real emotional needs) or #2 to allow themselves to see a certain disturbing pattern of behavior of the head of the family. It a case if the husband/father refuses to see his behavior and blames others for that the family has a harder choice: #1 to recognize the negative qualities of the father and that fact that he can neither be trusted nor negotiated with and modify their lives according to that hard truth or #2 they may refuse to see the truth and continue their total dependence of the whims of the head of family. That means they will have to identify themselves with the head of the family totally and throw away the objective rule of what is good and what is bad. The head of the family becomes one who determines what is good and what is bad.

You may now say that I again "divert from discussion" because it has nothing to do with PF. It is of course not so. There is a pattern in the behavior of PF which is, in my opinion, is highly distractive for the Church. I mentioned an example of that behavior before. When the recent scandal broke in the Internet was flooded with desperate messages of highly distressed Roman Catholics. They demanded a clarification form the Pope because only he can clarify himself. The Pore remained silent. Leaving aside the subject that caused a distress of human beings, leaving human beings in acute distress (in some to the point of the crisis of faith) while having the means to stop that distress is an emotional abuse. It is so-called "silent treatment" and it destroys the psyche. Such a behaviour clashes with the image of "a good Shepherd" totally. I felt pain of that people and I am not a Roman Pope. Anyone who has empathy would feel pain; if that anyone was a Christian he would instantly know hoe it detrimental for spiritual life. It is not the first time when PF shoed an indifference to the needs of his faithful while being "nice" to those outside of the Church so there is a clear pattern here. It is important to see it - for those who want to see because being clear about the pattern allows a person to stop hoping for a difference, for clarification and ultimately to stop trying to understand "blur". Such a resolution preserves a peace within a soul.

[Lilllabettt]

4 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

I do not dispute the above. What I am asking is whether you will concede the possibility that a (generic) student is at any particular stage simply unable to understand. 

Sure. Some students are not developmentally ready - finding a way to reach these students, and "scaffold" them to my instruction is still my responsibility as teacher. If I suspect this is the issue, these students should receive the greater portion of my attention and care. I must meet them at their level and work with them, one-on-one if necessary, until they can understand. I certainly do not ignore them, insult them or leave them twisting in the wind. Instead they are the focus of my instructional efforts.

Some students may lack the mental capacity - they are intellectually stunted in some way - and no amount of scaffolding will help them understand. As a teacher I have never assumed and would never assume this about any of my struggling students, except for the profoundly disabled. 

Basically if any "level" within my class fails to grasp my lesson, I know I have failed to properly differentiate instruction. The saying goes "If a child can't learn the way we teach, maybe we should teach the way they learn."

If the majority of Catholics understand PF (I do not believe this, but for the sake of argument let us say it is true) then perhaps it is well past time for him to go out to the peripheries of the minority experience. but, I digress.

Although I appreciate that you have done extensive research to come to your opinion of what PF means, I no longer participate in this activity, as I believe it is a vain exercise and God does not require it of faithful Catholics. Many people both low and high have written for clarification on different matters; PF in general sees no obligation to explain himself to underlings, on moral questions or sex abuse or whatever. It seems like it is interpreted as an insult to even ask. I think this is a bad fault for a teacher, or a Pope to have. But, I am done wringing my hands about it. I cannot control others, only myself. I am now in my 30s and have seen 3 popes, God willing I will see many other Popes.

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

(who, as @BarbaraTherese suggests should know best) cannot agree what the teaching is.

Could you quote the post where I have said the above  please.

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

one day he says one thing and the next another cancelling the previous; when his children say "dad, but you promised to come to our football play of the year!" he says "no I did not - it is you who failed to notify me" while the children notified him and he promised indeed. Or he promises his wife to go to holidays with her and cancels last sec because his school mate suddenly resurfaced after twenty years and proposed to spend ta week with him fishing and the father of the family could not say "no" to him so he left his wife to make a decision whether to cancel her holiday or go on her own. If his wife says "but we agreed first" he tells her she is selfish and "non-accommodating", rigid

This is called "gas-lighting" - when an authoritarian person tries to make you doubt your own sense of reality.  They repeat up is down, up is down, until you finally begin to wonder, is up really down?  I do not say whether PF does this, but some of his fans do this, for sure. Like, when someone explains PF by saying:  Jesus did not always explain either, He wanted those who were in rebellion against Him to be confused! I begin to wonder, am I perhaps in rebellion against God?  Does He want me to be confused? Or is that why I am confused?  In this way, asking for clarification / admitting you are confused becomes a sign you are not of the elect, you are of the damned! A good tactic for authoritarian personalities to exert control.

 

 

 

On 11/22/2020 at 11:34 PM, BarbaraTherese said:

On 11/22/2020 at 10:51 PM, Lilllabettt said:

ambiguity about what she is teaching is totally upside down of her identity

Yet we have Canon Lawyers, for example, to unravel complexities, which can and do exist.  If one has problems with e.g. Church laws or some matter, one can ring diocesan offices and be directed to someone with expertise in the matter(s).  There are also experts in a Catholic University or in a seminary.

I think too that that is why we have a concordance for Scripture for example.

The problem can be the lack of docility re expert advice re moral and/or spiritual matters, understanding The Gospel etc.

Above, @BarbaraTherese is where you suggested we can turn to experts to resolve ambiguities and confusion. Unfortunately that is not possible for the confusion re: PF's teaching, as many experts disagree strongly about his meaning, and PF declines to clarify which of them is correct.  It is different then, for just one example, the question of women priests. Even experts who disagree with the Church on women priests must still admit that the Church does clearly teach against women priests.  They think the Church is wrong or should change, yes. But what the teaching is, is clear.

 

[Anastasia]

19 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

This is called "gas-lighting" - when an authoritarian person tries to make you doubt your own sense of reality.  They repeat up is down, up is down, until you finally begin to wonder, is up really down?  I do not say whether PF does this, but some of his fans do this, for sure.

It is another reason why I wrote quite bluntly in the very beginning of this thread that to listen to the endless "explanations" is the waste of a time and also damaging (the possible damage concerns me most). Gaslighting can be done almost unconsciously or better to say the distortion of the reality can be unconscious. To a hardcore fan of PF the belief in his absolute goodness is a pillar of their reality; this is the prism he sees the world through hence his "explanations" of PF inevitably distort the objective reality. "No one is good but God".

I am quite stunned to observe that the defense of PF's not speaking to the faithful re: his resent words because to defend his silence one must deny or be numb to the distress of many people. The conviction that PF cannot be wrong, he has his own, good reasons for being silent demand the denial of the suffering caused by him. I understand the dynamics behind such a numbness (including an identification of the fans with PF) but it still stuns me.

All this boils down to having PF as a measure of what is good and bad, not Christ (the only objective measure). 

Anyone who does not have Christ as a measure is doomed to have a somewhat distorted reality but a Christian who pushed Christ aside and uses a human as a measure of good and bad is in a far worse position because he inevitably has to place someone else (or himself) in that empty space vacated by the Lord.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Anastasia

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

On 11/24/2020 at 2:25 AM, Lilllabettt said:

By comparing PFs words to Jesus' use of parables, you are suggesting that PF is also deliberately trying to conceal the truth of his meaning and cause confusion so that some will not understand.  

and here:

On 11/24/2020 at 4:50 AM, Lilllabettt said:

But, you explained PFs behavior by pointing out that Jesus Himself did not always clarify, rather he spoke in parables, which, he says explicitly, he did for the reason that some of his listeners would be confused.

I have responded to the above before.  The reason I quoted (go back and see) that Jesus did not always speak clearly, was that either Anastasia or yourself (I cannot remember which) said that Jesus had always spoken clearly.  At no point did I make any connection at any time between PF and the actions of Jesus.  It is YOU THAT ARE MAKING THE CONNECTION. 

You are making a connection that does not exist!  This is the second time that I have had to address the fact that I did not make any connection to PF.  It is in your mind only,  This is what I mean by speaking to concepts or presumptions etc. that are in your own mind, not in mine nor in this thread other than accusations made about me.  It is your own argument with a concept existing only in your own mind.  I clearly have not made any connection to Pope Francis.

I am not going back to find the posts where I am referring to "Jesus spoke clearly".  It is taking far too much time and effort when I weigh things up.

I am thinking about not coming back to this thread.   It seems to me obvious that it is a case of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.  There is no resolution or hope of one that I can in any way anticipate.  This is especially so when false accusatory concepts re some imaginary statements just appear out of nowhere.

 

31 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Jesus did not always explain either,

 

33 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Like, when someone explains PF by saying:  Jesus did not always explain either, He wanted those who were in rebellion against Him to be confused! I begin to wonder, am I perhaps in rebellion against God?  Does He want me to be confused? Or is that why I am confused?  In this way, asking for clarification / admitting you are confused becomes a sign you are not of the elect, you are of the damned! A good tactic for authoritarian personalities to exert control.

Here we go again, including calling a member nasty names.  " Jesus did not always explain either"  That is not what I stated~!!!  I did not state that Jesus did not always explain either.   You have added the either, giving an opportunity to state that I made a connection to Pope Francis and Jesus.  I CLEARLY DID NOT!

Calling another poster by a nasty sort of noun "authoritarian personalities" Projection possibly.  Something in yourself you can not accept projected on me?

24 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

All this boils down to having PF as a measure of what is good and bad, not Christ (the only objective measure). 

Anyone who does not have Christ as a measure is doomed to have a somewhat distorted reality but a Christian who pushed Christ aside and uses a human as a measure of good and bad is in a far worse position because he inevitably has to place someone else (or himself) in that empty space vacated by the Lord.

Now I have to laugh.  You are arguing with something which exists only in your own mind, dear lady.

[Guest]

What on earth are you on about !!!  It is amazing, truly amazing that concepts suddenly appear in this thread coming from nowhere at all except the poster's own head.  Then that poster has an argument with the concepts... meaning he or she is merely talking to himself or herself, arguing with herself or himself.

 

 

At no point have I or anyone else in this thread stated that PF is acting like Jesus.  It is in your own head, your own mind.  If you want to argue with it?  Well, ok, free speech and all that.  It is the fact that you do not seem to recognize the reality of what you are doing, which could be a concern.

Edited November 25, 2020 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Not only arguing with concepts or assumptions made only in your own mind

Calling another member nasty names

Assigning a motivation(s) that does not exist, implying/stating that it does exist - and then sitting in judgement

Misquoting members

The problem I have with this thread is that if I leave it, nonsense could be spread abroad as truth.  I am well aware we might have members only reading or even lurkers reading.

This thread really is weird, very weird.  Some things I have thought about possibly operating within a posting member.  I did not state my thoughts as thoughts can be incorrect.  However, those same thoughts are being stated in a thread by that same posting member- but accusing another member of it.  I can't help but wonder if projection is occurring.

I very much doubt I will come back here.  There is little to no hope of resolution that I can see.

 

[Anastasia]

 

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

The reason I quoted (go back and see) that Jesus did not always speak clearly, was that either Anastasia or yourself (I cannot remember which)

I am not sure whom you are addressing but I will answer. The discussion in this thread was about “blur” of PF and the need (and futility as some think) to interpret this "blur". It was also discussed how during the previous papacy the authority responded to the questions of the faithful clearly and timely – unlike the "blur" of PF and his lack of response. The respectful and clear mode of conduct was defined as "normal" unlike the "blur".

So, we have been comparing the normality and PF’s blur. At some point I said how Our Lord treated people and spoke – with clarity, always focusing on a person before him. Obviously, via saying that I meant “Look, Our Lord does that and PF does not that”; the thread is about PF and his “blur” so other things and people mentioned here serve to compare his behaviour with; we were not discussing Christ's clarity as such. You reacted to this saying that the Lord has not been always clear. It was quite natural to assume that you said it in the context of the discussion that compared PF's conduct with the conduct of others. It is an entirely logical and natural assumption.

I am saying "Christ is clear but PF is not", you are saying "No, Christ is not always clear". It is entirely logical to conclude then that you are stating "well, Christ is not always clear so it is OK for PF to be unclear".

But even if you did not mean it you seem to ignore (twice already) my response to you:

22 hours ago, Anastasia said:

However, I was analyzing a well-known argument (present not just on this phorum) which backs up PF's "blur" and his refusal to clarify his words to the members of the Church. If that arguments claims "but PF behaved just like Christ" then, well it is legitimate to analyze that claim I think. It is not my idea that PF behaves like Christ; if I thought so I would not criticize PF. 

and

3 hours ago, Anastasia said:

PF himself has backed his behavior by one of Jesus on a number of occasions, his proponents do the same and, since that phenomenon persists, there is nothing wrong with addressing it

Meaning, that I am discussing the phenomenon which is not confined just to your words (whether you meant it or not); the Pope himself compared his actions with Christ's and his fans followed that trend and I am addressing that.

Speaking bluntly - and I have been trying to refrain from it for some time despite your somewhat offensive messages - is not all about you although your latest message sound very much like it is. 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Anastasia

[Lilllabettt]

54 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Not only arguing with concepts or assumptions made only in your own mind

Calling another member nasty names

Assigning a motivation(s) that does not exist, implying/stating that it does exist - and then sitting in judgement

Misquoting members

The problem I have with this thread is that if I leave it, nonsense could be spread abroad as truth.  I am well aware we might have members only reading or even lurkers reading.

This thread really is weird, very weird.  Some things I have thought about possibly operating within a posting member.  I did not state my thoughts as thoughts can be incorrect.  However, those same thoughts are being stated in a thread by that same posting member- but accusing another member of it.  I can't help but wonder if projection is occurring.

I very much doubt I will come back here.  There is little to no hope of resolution that I can see.

 

BarbaraTherese i did not mean you when I refer to authoritarian personalities.  You explained earlier that you did not bring up Jesus and the parables to explain PF. I accept your explanation and I apologized for misunderstanding.   When I refer to authoritarian personalities, I am referring to some of PFs fans who DO use the story of Jesus and the parables to explain PF. I do not mean you, as you did not do this, as you said.

I should have been clearer... in fact I thought to make a note that I did not mean to refer to anyone in this discussion by saying "authoritarian personalities." But my edit function was lost.

You are the furthest thing from an authoritarian my dear

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

All this boils down to having PF as a measure of what is good and bad, not Christ (the only objective measure). 

What you cannot understand and therefore admit, is in the above statement you are making a comparison between Pope Francis and Jesus - the very thing of which you accuse others in this thread of doing when they clearly have not.

No one has said that PF is their (or anyone else's) measure of good and bad.  It is in your mind in your imagination.   And to accuse others of not having Jesus as one's "objective measure" could be a serious accusation in Catholic terms.  And again, that others do not have Jesus as "objective measure" is in your mind.  It is a conclusion, apparently, drawn from facts existing in your mind only and therefore factual only insofar as one owns it as in his/her mind alone.  Otherwise false.

Just a general sort of reminder of what Jesus has said and a reminder to myself as well:  "Judge not that you be not judged For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?" (Matthew Ch7)

 

Anastasia's Post

Mental gymnastics.

 

[Anastasia]

40 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

What you cannot understand and therefore admit, is in the above statement you are making a comparison between Pope Francis and Jesus - the very thing of which you accuse others in this thread of doing when they clearly have not.

I am not "accusing" anyone (including you) in making a comparison between the actions of PF and the actions of Christ - in this thread or somewhere else. I myself did it so it would not be logical, as you pointed out. There is a difference between comparing actions and superficial backing up someone's action with the actions of Jesus. Like "Pope is silent because Jesus was silent" - an example discussed on this phorum a few times. Again, I am not "accusing" - I am simply saying that to be able "to back up" the behavior of PF with the behavior of Christ the whole picture must be examined: with whom Christ speaks, with whom PF speaks and so on. I would like to assure you that by no means I was accusing you in "comparing PF with Christ".

40 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

No one has said that PF is their (or anyone else's) measure of good and bad.  It is in your mind in your imagination.  

No, it is actually not my imagination. Obviously, I am speaking metaphorically. However, when the hardcore followers have a "blind spot" i.e. they are unable to see and to admit the truly bad conduct of PF and instead attack those who point it out - not because the latter are nasty or "judgmental" but because they wish to be seen and treated as human persons with dignity - it appears that the PF's fans measure the situation by PF, in a sense. Because, objectively speaking, it is quiet callous of PF not to answer the distressed Catholics. Objectively speaking, it is bad, irresponsible. But the hardcore followers of PF deny it because they maintain that PF cannot do callous things. 

40 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

And to accuse others of not having Jesus as one's "objective measure" could be a serious accusation in Catholic terms.

I know that but it right to say that those who deny the objective truth do not have Christ as their measure (see above). We all fail, in some areas, to have Him as a measure. Again, one who has Him as an objective measure would not say "it is right for PF to be silent despite the pleas of his flock". So it is not me who "imagining things", my conclusion comes from the maxima "one who fails to feel to see the wrongness of causing a pain to other via ignoring them evidently does not have Christ as their measure here". 

40 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

"Judge not that you be not judged For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; 

We are called not to judge a person but we are called to discern = to judge his actions. Otherwise we would not be able to function (for example we should be very content with covering sexually abusive priests). I did not condemn PF but I discern/evaluate/judge some of his actions. 

40 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

It is a conclusion, apparently, drawn from facts existing in your mind only and therefore factual only insofar as one owns it as in his/her mind alone. 

Note that you did not provide any facts contrary to my discourse to back up your statement. I use facts to back my opinion, you do not. So it is legitimate to settle on "you think that it is all in my mind". Or "it is in your mind that it is in my mind". 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Anastasia