FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bergoglio, the General Who Wants to Win without Fighting
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3


Oh boy.. Prepare to be both inspired and worried. Mostly worried. From chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/




Bergoglio, the General Who Wants to Win without Fighting

"I have never understood the expression 'nonnegotiable values,'” he said in his latest interview. And in a book, his closest collaborator explains why Pope Francis is carefully avoiding a head-on collision with the dominant culture

by Sandro Magister
March 10, 2014



ROME, March 10, 2014 – Víctor Manuel Fernández is the first Argentine to be made a bishop by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, two months after his election as pope.

He was and continues to be the rector of the Universidad Católica Argentina, a role he took on after the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires overcame the hostility of a formidable group of opponents outside and inside the Church.

But for years he has also been Bergoglio's most trusted collaborator in the writing of his major texts, from the Aparecida document in 2007 to the 2013 "Evangelii Gaudium," the action plan of the current pontificate.

The book-interview "Il progetto di Francesco. Dove vuole portare la Chiesa" - recently released in Italy - in which Fernández explains and comments on the papal program is therefore a good guide for understanding it more thoroughly.

*

There is a passage in the book in which Fernández refers to the metamorphosis that Bergoglio went through before and after his election as pope:

"When he was archbishop he was gradually withdrawing and preferred not to appear in public very much. Moreover, there were too many campaigns of persecution orchestrated by some very conservative sectors of the Church, and I believe that this worried him a great deal. Now that he has become pope, with the new gift that the Holy Spirit has bestowed upon him, he has abandoned those fears and has allowed his best features to emerge. This has renewed his enthusiasm and his energy.”

In another passage Fernández explains the reserve of the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires:

"There were sectors that were putting a strong emphasis on doctrinal certainty, on the honor of the Church and its self-preservation, and that felt that they were represented by a few ecclesial authorities. The sectors that had a plan even slightly different from these latter, like Cardinal Bergoglio and many others, were very respectful of these choices, or at the very least met them with silence.”

Fernández does not say any more. But to find out more about that tormented period of Bergoglio's life there is another book, released a few months ago in Argentina and Italy, written by the vaticanista Elisabetta Piqué, who is the best informed and most reliable biographer of the current pope: "Francesco, vita e rivoluzione".

On the side opposed to Bergoglio were the prominent Vatican cardinals Angelo Sodano and Leonardo Sandri, the latter being of Argentine nationality. While in Buenos Aires the ranks of the opposition were led by the nuncio Adriano Bernardini, in office from 2003 to 2011, with the many bishops he managed to get appointed, almost always in contrast with the guidelines and expectations of the then-cardinal of Buenos Aires.

On February 22, 2011, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter, Bernardini delivered a homily that was interpreted by almost everyone as a harangue in defense of Benedict XVI but in reality was a concerted attack on Bergoglio.

The nuncio placed under accusation those priests, religious, and above all those bishops who were keeping a “low profile” and leaving the pope alone in the public battle in defense of the truth.

Vox Wrote:Oh, how I miss Benedict!

[html]"We have to acknowledge," he said, “that there has increased year after year, among theologians and religious, among sisters and bishops, the group of those who are convinced that belonging to the Church does not entail the recognition of and adherence to an objective doctrine.”

Because this was exactly the fault charged against Bergoglio: that of not opposing the secularist offensive, of not defending Church teaching on “nonnegotiable” principles.

And to some extent this was the case.[/html] The then-archbishop of Buenos Aires could not bear the “obsessive rigidity” of certain churchmen on questions of sexual morality. “He was convinced,” writes Elisabetta Piqué, " that the worst thing would be to insist and seek out conflict on these issues.”

There was one episode that exemplifies Bergoglio's approach:

"In 2010, at the height of the episcopate's battle of to block the legalization of marriage between persons of the same sex in Argentina, there emerged the idea of holding a prayer vigil [in front of parliament]. Esteban Pittaro, of the 'Università Australe of Opus Dei, sent an e-mail to the chancery of Buenos Aires, telling them about the event. The following day he saw that he had missed a phone call and realized that it was a number of the archdiocese. Esteban called back and Bergoglio answered in person. 'It seems like a wonderful thing to me that you should pray. But the fact that you want to spend all night in the plaza . . . It will be cold, go home, pray at home, as a family!” the cardinal told him. 'He supported the march, but he was right to discourage the vigil, because the following day there were demonstrations in fa for of homosexual marriage. And he wanted to avoid the contrast,' Pittaro recounts.”

Vox Wrote:Odds are, the contrast would've looked quite good for Catholics -- assuming the media reported it accurately. The Catholics likely would've been solemn, in prayer, etc., while the other side would likely have been yelling, screaming, and throwing tomatoes. Then again, as I intimated, it'd likely not look like that in the evening news, where the other side would be illustrated by close-ups of the most attractive faces, and the Catholic side shown at its worst moments -- like some guy with a shocked, angry expression on his face, before collecting himself as he's just getting back on his feet after escaping a flying tomato. That's how the media roll.

*

If these are the precedents, it comes as no surprise that Bergoglio, as pope, should dictate this same line of conduct  for the whole Church.

It is the line of conduct that “Evangelii Gaudium" has laid bare to the world. and that the book-interview of Bishop Fernández makes even more explicit, with the showy confidence of one who demonstrates that he thoroughly understands the pope's thinking.

For example, on the following points.


"NONNEGOTIABLE” PRINCIPLES

Pope Francis is not naive. He is asking us to immerse ourselves in the context of today's culture in a very realistic way. He is inviting us to recognize that the rapidity of communication and the selection of content proposed by the media present a new challenge for us. [. . .] When the Church talks too much about philosophical questions or about the natural law, it is presumably doing so in order to be able to dialogue on moral issues with the nonbelieving world. Nonetheless, in doing this, on the one hand we do not convince anyone with the philosophical arguments of other times, and on the other we lose the opportunity to proclaim the beauty of Jesus Christ, to “make hearts burn.” So those philosophical arguments do not change anyone's life. Instead, if it can be managed to make hearts burn, or at least to show what there is that is attractive in the Gospel, then persons will be more willing to converse and to reflect also with regard to a response concerning morality. [. . .]

Vox Wrote:I think he most definitely has a point in emphasizing Christ and His Love and Mercy, wanting for us Catholics to exemplify to the utmost -- but philosophical arguments are still necessary, and they CAN change people's lives. Stressing only Love and Mercy will leave those interested in Catholicism with -- what? Finding out only later that the Church preaches against gay "marriage"? Never coming to know that? We believe what we believe and shouldn't run from it or be ashamed of it. But we do, IMO, need to teach people in a very balanced way, neither emphasizing His Love at the expense of His Justice, and vice versa.

Even Mormons claim to feel a "burning in the bosom," for crying out loud. One can get that sort of "high" at a decent metal concert. I'm very, very strong on dealing with matters of the heart, on being kind, on stressing God's Love, etc. -- but without the intellect, informed by what the Church has always taught, it's no better than a Benny Hinn rally.

For example, it does not do much good to speak out against sexual marriage, because people tend to see us as if we were resentful, cruel, persons who have little sympathy or even exaggerate. It is another matter when we speak of the beauty of marriage and of the harmony that is created in the difference resulting from the covenant between a man and a woman, and in this positive context it emerges, almost without having to point it out, how inadequate it is to use the same term and to call “marriage” the union of two homosexual persons. [. . .]

Vox Wrote:If people do see us that way, it's sort of no wonder to me, given what I've seen from some (the loudest) in the trad world. But that sort of thing is NOT intrinsic to Tradition -- and, in fact, goes against it. There is no room whatsoever for cruelty, a lack of sympathy, name-calling, etc. in a well-lived Christian life.  I want for the Truth to be spoken AND for people to go out of their way to love homosexuals -- even those who egregiously and wrongfully think gay "marriage" is just a peachy idea. There are good arguments against gay "marriage," and they should be made known to the world -- coupled with boatloads of love and sympathy, without a trace of hatred or animosity, with no name-calling, etc.

There are two factors that are driving the pope to ask us not to speak “always” and “only” about certain moral principles: in order not to wear others out, overloading them and obtaining an effect of rejection, and above all in order not to destroy the harmony of our message.

Vox Wrote:Too bad that some people take that "not always" and "not only" and turn it into "never." Witness that "Profiles in Cowardice: Sister Jane Thrown Under the Bus" thread, and how some of those responding to her talk.


CLERICAL CELIBACY

We insist on the fact that many married persons are pedophiles. Nonetheless, as much as we seek to explain this, society does not believe it. There is a generalized conviction that obligatory celibacy and priestly surroundings made up only of men facilitate not only the development of homosexual inclinations, but even of abuse. So even if this reasoning should not be convincing, I believe that we should listen more to the people of God, and as much is possible open a great discussion on obligatory celibacy. [. . .]

In reality I think that customs have the greatest influence on convictions, because celibacy is not inseparable from the priesthood and there are Catholic priests in the East who are happily married. With respect to all of this, the pope has nonetheless said some very interesting and destabilizing things that it is worthwhile to recall: "In her ongoing discernment, the Church can also come to see that certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some which have deep historical roots, are no longer properly understood and appreciated. Some of these customs may be beautiful, but they no longer serve as means of communicating the Gospel. We should not be afraid to re-examine them." [. . .] It must therefore be asked if the reasons for accepting married priests in the East do not also apply today in the West.

Vox Wrote:So, the East caved, giving up the apostolic way of perfection, and people  are stupid, so let's just throw that discipline out? Chyeah. How's about TEACHING people? Write an Encyclical laying it alllllllllllllllllll out and let the pieces fall where they may.


COMMUNION FOR THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

This will be an issue that will be discussed at the upcoming synods, and the pope will listen to the different opinions. [. . .] Certainly in “Evangelii Gaudium" he has provided us with an important orientation for our reflection, which we cannot neglect to take into consideration. He comes to the point of saying that “the doors of the sacraments [should not] be closed for simply any reason" and that the Eucharist "is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak." He urges that we never cease to read the words of St. Ambrose and St. Cyril, cited in footnote 51, who invite us not to be rigid in the administration of the Eucharist. Nor can we ignore his call for prudence but also for audacity in facing these issues, and his solicitude that we not behave as “arbiters of grace."

_________


In footnote 51 of “Evangelii gaudium," these are the passages from the two Fathers of the Church that Francis applies to communion for the divorced and remarried:

Saint Ambrose, from "De Sacramentis": "I must receive it always, so that it may always forgive my sins. If I sin continually, I must always have a remedy." And again: "Those who ate manna died; those who eat this body will obtain the forgiveness of their sins."

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, from the commentary on the Gospel of John: "I examined myself and I found myself unworthy. To those who speak thus I say: when will you be worthy? When at last you present yourself before Christ? And if your sins prevent you from drawing nigh, and you never cease to fall – for, as the Psalm says, ‘what man knows his faults?’ – will you remain without partaking of the sanctification that gives life for eternity?"

I am a firm believer that it is a rare Pope indeed that "has it all".  The established Greats did.  Others like Pope Saint Pius V and Pope Saint Pius X had it too.  I would say Pope Leo XIII did as well.  But the majority of Popes throughout our history have been given to the Church because God has seen a task that He deems is of immediate concern.  So we had Blessed Pope John Paul II to fight communism.  We had Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to fight down the forces of relativism and provide us an anchor in the form of the hermeneutic of continuity.  There is a lot I do not like about Pope Francis and I am sure there is a lot more than I wont like in the future.  But he holds his bishopric by the will of God.  God will use him to accomplish some good, some measure to contribute to His Greater Glory.  I believe from what we have observed so far that Pope Francis is going to strike hard in defense of the poor against the materalist and capitalistic state of human society.  That does not lessen the need to reform the liturgy, the need to expel dangerously false theologians and their warped beliefs, etc.  But God works in mysterious ways.

All we can do is hunker down, stand firm in the winds, and wait for our day.
(04-04-2014, 04:40 AM)Prie dieu Wrote: [ -> ]I am a firm believer that it is a rare Pope indeed that "has it all".  The established Greats did.  Others like Pope Saint Pius V and Pope Saint Pius X had it too.  I would say Pope Leo XIII did as well.  But the majority of Popes throughout our history have been given to the Church because God has seen a task that He deems is of immediate concern.  So we had Blessed Pope John Paul II to fight communism.  We had Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI to fight down the forces of relativism and provide us an anchor in the form of the hermeneutic of continuity.  There is a lot I do not like about Pope Francis and I am sure there is a lot more than I wont like in the future.  But he holds his bishopric by the will of God.  God will use him to accomplish some good, some measure to contribute to His Greater Glory.  I believe from what we have observed so far that Pope Francis is going to strike hard in defense of the poor against the materalist and capitalistic state of human society.  That does not lessen the need to reform the liturgy, the need to expel dangerously false theologians and their warped beliefs, etc.  But God works in mysterious ways.

All we can do is hunker down, stand firm in the winds, and wait for our day.

I think this is a sensible attitude for more radical (I use the word advisedly) trads to take. The Bishop of Rome holds his office by the will of God, and in this moment of dire poverty (material and spiritual) across the world, his ministry is invaluable.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that quote has been isolated and taken out of context, adn truncated to be used as some kind of headline.

This is what Pope Francis said IN FULL

I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values,” responded the Pope. “ Values are values, and that is it.I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest. Whereby I do not understand in what sense there may be negotiable values.”

He doesn't understand non-negotiable values, because NO value is to be negotiated

And all Values are equally valuable: A finger is a finger is a finger. If it;s not a finger it wouldn't be called a finger; if it;s not a value it wouldn't be called a value. You can't negotiate whether or not  something is called a finger.

Therefore the Pope doesn't understand how SOME values can be non-negotiable.

All values are non-negotiable.

What I get from the tone of the article is that the Pope thinks all values are negotiable.

Add the basic tenet that ALL values are equally valuable, and non are negotiable, to the whole church as "field hospital" image and i think it all becomes clear.

(but I'll have to work on this later since I'm at work Wink)
(04-04-2014, 12:35 PM)triumphguy Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that quote has been isolated and taken out of context, adn truncated to be used as some kind of headline.

This is what Pope Francis said IN FULL

I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values,” responded the Pope. “ Values are values, and that is it.I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest. Whereby I do not understand in what sense there may be negotiable values.”

He doesn't understand non-negotiable values, because NO value is to be negotiated.

Yeah, that was pretty bad to take that quote, crop it, and infer it means the opposite of what was said. 

Anyway, see this homily for the Pope's take on "negotiating:"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/france...od_en.html
(04-04-2014, 01:08 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-04-2014, 12:35 PM)triumphguy Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that quote has been isolated and taken out of context, adn truncated to be used as some kind of headline.

This is what Pope Francis said IN FULL

I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values,” responded the Pope. “ Values are values, and that is it.I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest. Whereby I do not understand in what sense there may be negotiable values.”

He doesn't understand non-negotiable values, because NO value is to be negotiated.

Yeah, that was pretty bad to take that quote, crop it, and infer it means the opposite of what was said. 

Anyway, see this homily for the Pope's take on "negotiating:"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/france...od_en.html

Ohhh, praise GOD the article got that wrong! -- and shame on them for doing so!

My alarm bells go off when the article is titled Bergoglio, rather than Pope Francis.

I think with this Pope we need to just actually listen to the words IN the context of what he says. He seems to set up the scene before he speaks.

He says: I'm going to talk this way because;

then he talks in that way.

If we get quotes from the later part without the set-up what he says comes out skewed.

I'm a teacher - lots of what I say, if taken out of context, well. it would not be pretty.

But I'm trying to shock, excite, entertain and even anger my students to get some kind of reaction, response, or argument from them... they are so happy just sitting there like sheep. they want to be spoon fed rather than engage.
Criticism of Cardinal Dolan, the Church, the Pope, or any suggestion that Sedevacantism or groups like the SSPX that are outside full communion with the Church are appropriate to be involved in was inappropriate on my part as a mere laymen.

I retract and apologize for my post(s), and for any act of Gossip, Detraction, Calumny, Slander, or any sins such as promotion of Heresy, that I committed or anyone viewing these post(s) may have fallen into.
(04-04-2014, 09:14 PM)Drover Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-04-2014, 06:59 PM)triumphguy Wrote: [ -> ]My alarm bells go off when the article is titled Bergoglio, rather than Pope Francis.

I think with this Pope we need to just actually listen to the words IN the context of what he says. He seems to set up the scene before he speaks.

He says: I'm going to talk this way because;

then he talks in that way.

If we get quotes from the later part without the set-up what he says comes out skewed.

I'm a teacher - lots of what I say, if taken out of context, well. it would not be pretty.

But I'm trying to shock, excite, entertain and even anger my students to get some kind of reaction, response, or argument from them... they are so happy just sitting there like sheep. they want to be spoon fed rather than engage.

The article is describing his time as Bishop. I think your reading Sedeism to easily into that.

If your wondering what the problem with the quote is. Go google non-negotiable values and find articles parsing out this quote.

You have people arguing from it that he's advocating "seamless garment" social justice and saying "See you neandrathal triumphalist wingers, the POPE says we are right!"

That's the problem. Again, these quotes are instances where the type of "Strong" leadership the Church needs is lacking.

Pope Francis, as the article author is arguing, is approaching the Faith from a almost Cardinal Dolan perspective "be a happy warrior and the heathens will eventually come to your side."

We have seen in regards to Cardinal Dolan that this approach is faulty.

No- the write of this article took a portion of Pop[e Franics's quote and cherry picked from the Pope's time in Argentina to make his own thesis.

I actually just went by what the Pope actually said, in the full context of what he said.
Speculation against the Pope was unwarranted on my part, I apologize for any sins of Gossip, Detraction, Calumny, and/or Slander caused by this post, as well as any other sins committed, and any sins others fell or will fall into by reading it as a result.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen.
Pages: 1 2 3