FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope signs "Fratelli Tutti"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
The Holy Father signed his latest encyclical "Fratelli Tutti" ("All are Brothers") in Assisi today.  I skimmed the full text of the document, and read the article about it on the Catholic News Agency site.

As with all Pope Francis documents, there are a few good points and many weak points.  There are no major surprises, if one is already used to reading his writings.  However, it is a typical Pope Francis document:  while on the one hand lamenting the fact that everyone in the world seems to hate each other and can't get along, instead of calling for an ultimate unity in Christ he instead calls upon the intangible "global leaders" or "global governance" to work together to help everyone, e.g. calling on the need for a "global governance" for how to handle migration.

There are also confusing points as usual, or passages where the Pope shines light on the naivete of the current Church hierarchy.  In particular, parag. 7 of the document states how devastating Covid-19 has been on the world, but parag. 15 begins with "The best way to dominate and gain control over people is to spread despair and discouragement."  Obviously the overreaching government actions in the name of Covid do not even register as a form of dominance or control to him.

Other unnecessary or harmful points include:  he ponders aloud why the Church took so long to condemn slavery; he doubles down on the "inadmissibility" of the death penalty; and extremely heavy-handed calls for "globalization," "an open world," and recurring mentions of Covid as some kind of unprecedented human tragedy.  Again, in short, Francis points to governments, rather than Christ, as the solution to the world's problems.  Indeed, he does express hope for unity through belief, but it comes across more so as a generic belief in a higher power, not the God of the Christian faith.

Also, aside from a couple of quotes from Sts. Augustine and Francis, the vast majority of his citations are from the 20th century, with a heavy emphasis on post-V2 documents and a large number of circular references to previous Pope Francis documents.

There are a few decent points, such as the condemnation of abortion and euthanasia, the horrors of human trafficking, the over-reliance on "the market" as some invisible force that will solve every problem, the misapplication of the Just War Theory to legitimize every act of belligerent aggression, and the need to follow the way of the Good Samaritan.  However, none of these are new revelations, and are just standard Catholic fare.

Ultimately, I am not sure what the purpose of the document is other than a vehicle for the Pope to set down his meandering thoughts on how he believes the "common good" should be achieved.  I like to give him the benefit of the doubt when possible, but this document, while not really revealing any new thoughts of his, seems to be a massive lost opportunity.  Here could have been the one time, amidst the "pandemic" and "unrest" in many places, where Francis could have called for true unity through Christ and the Church.  Instead, he hands off the responsibility of salvation to government structures.  In this regard, the document is an utter failure, in my opinion.

Will this encyclical result in any new teachings or any new ways of doing things?  I'm not sure, but probably not.  It just seems to be a cobbled together collection of Francis's last 7 1/2 years of stream-of-consciousness musings about how everyone can just get along if governments can unite into a single entity.  It's kind of just a "best of Pope Francis's thoughts on getting along through government" codified in a single work of uselessness.

The CNA article:  https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/...ical-19783

Fratelli Tutti full text:  http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/...tutti.html
I also posted this on CAF, with some edits.
I've skimmed through it this morning.  There are a few parts that stand out to me, for different reasons.

Quote:13. As a result, there is a growing loss of the sense of history, which leads to even further breakup. A kind of “deconstructionism”, whereby human freedom claims to create everything starting from zero, is making headway in today’s culture. The one thing it leaves in its wake is the drive to limitless consumption and expressions of empty individualism. Concern about this led me to offer the young some advice. “If someone tells young people to ignore their history, to reject the experiences of their elders, to look down on the past and to look forward to a future that he himself holds out, doesn’t it then become easy to draw them along so that they only do what he tells them? He needs the young to be shallow, uprooted and distrustful, so that they can trust only in his promises and act according to his plans. That is how various ideologies operate: they destroy (or deconstruct) all differences so that they can reign unopposed. To do so, however, they need young people who have no use for history, who spurn the spiritual and human riches inherited from past generations, and are ignorant of everything that came before them”.[10]

14. These are the new forms of cultural colonization. Let us not forget that “peoples that abandon their tradition and, either from a craze to mimic others or to foment violence, or from unpardonable negligence or apathy, allow others to rob their very soul, end up losing not only their spiritual identity but also their moral consistency and, in the end, their intellectual, economic and political independence”.[11] One effective way to weaken historical consciousness, critical thinking, the struggle for justice and the processes of integration is to empty great words of their meaning or to manipulate them. Nowadays, what do certain words like democracy, freedom, justice or unity really mean? They have been bent and shaped to serve as tools for domination, as meaningless tags that can be used to justify any action.

These two paragraphs seem (mostly) to make sense to me.  We witness the radical Left in the United States attempting to rewrite our history, to smash monuments and statues, to misuse concepts of social justice and unity to force some kind of Marxist revolution on our society, etc.  They seem especially adept at teaching this to our youth in colleges.  Yet, I don't think this is what Francis really has in mind, since he's praised bishops like Mark Seitz of El Paso when they bend the knee to these Marxist revolutionaries.  I don't know who he actually has in mind but the only groups to fit this description in American society are the far leftists like Antifa, BLM, etc., as they riot, loot, murder, and so forth, with minimal condemnation from the mainstream media and leftist politicians.

Quote:268. “The arguments against the death penalty are numerous and well-known. The Church has rightly called attention to several of these, such as the possibility of judicial error and the use made of such punishment by totalitarian and dictatorial regimes as a means of suppressing political dissidence or persecuting religious and cultural minorities, all victims whom the legislation of those regimes consider ‘delinquents’. All Christians and people of good will are today called to work not only for the abolition of the death penalty, legal or illegal, in all its forms, but also to work for the improvement of prison conditions, out of respect for the human dignity of persons deprived of their freedom. I would link this to life imprisonment… A life sentence is a secret death penalty”.[257]

One of the (many) objections raised to Francis's recent revision to the Catechism on the question of the death penalty is that he's also made arguments against life imprisonment.  Here, he cites his prior address to a penal law association, to the effect that a life sentence is also a death sentence.  Presumably, Francis is adding some extra weight to this by putting it in his encyclical.  So, will liberal Catholics now insist we must also abolish life sentences?  Must the Green River Killer or BTK be given a chance to reintegrate into society or else we're denying their dignity and the Gospel?  David Berkowitz, aka the Son of Sam killer, has become an Evangelical Christian in prison and does ministry there.  Is he now reformed and ready to be released from his "secret death sentence"?

Quote:271. The different religions, based on their respect for each human person as a creature called to be a child of God, contribute significantly to building fraternity and defending justice in society. Dialogue between the followers of different religions does not take place simply for the sake of diplomacy, consideration or tolerance. In the words of the Bishops of India, “the goal of dialogue is to establish friendship, peace and harmony, and to share spiritual and moral values and experiences in a spirit of truth and love”.[259]

I thought, per some Vatican II apologists, that all this ecumenism and dialogue was to remove barriers to non-Catholics and non-Christians to entering the one true Church founded by Christ?  How can we share "spiritual and moral values" with "truth and love" when our "dialogue" doesn't convert the heathen and the heretic to the fold of Jesus Christ and to eternal salvation?  What kind of "friendship, peace, and harmony" leaves the Hindu and the Baptist on a path to eternal damnation?  This encyclical reads like a secular program for social, economic, and political progress that is rooted in Liberalism, with a thin coating of Christianity thrown on top.  Parts of it, maybe even the bulk, could have been written by Joe Biden (minus the condemnation of abortion and trendy leftist social issues).
(10-04-2020, 09:47 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]I've skimmed through it this morning.  There are a few parts that stand out to me, for different reasons.

I agree with your comments about paragraphs 13 & 14.  They are perhaps the most direct commentary by the Pope on the current trend of shredding apart history, tearing down statues, and rewriting morals.  Here, I agree with him.  I have also always agreed with his warnings about "ideological colonization," or here, "cultural colonization."  This issue has been brought up by him since the early days of his Pontificate.

Your comment about Francis's condemnation of life sentences is also very true, and is concerning.  In my opinion, comments like these reveal the Pope to hold many social Marxist leanings.  Regarding prisoners, Francis sees their plight through the lens of Marxism; that is, due to class warfare within societies, many people are severely oppressed by an upper class.  They are not given a fair chance to succeed, and thus, are left with no other option than crime and violence to survive in that society.  Therefore, according to Francis, the very society that drove these people to commit crimes in the first place has no right to keep them in prison for llife, or to execute them.  Francis sees impoverished people, migrants, etc. as kinds of untouchable groups who are not beholden to the Commandments like people from wealthier areas.  It seems that they are excused from wrongdoing because it was someone else's fault that they sinned.  Completely corrupt countries who have evil rulers are never pinpointed by Francis as the cause of so many people leaving those countries and trying to escape to another by any means possible, including illegal immigration.  He just goes along with the nebulous far-left secular narrative that somehow the wealthy West is to blame for the failure of these countries.  So once again, since according to him the West is the cause of these dysfunctional places, they have no right to complain when migrants try entering their countries illegally.  

And finally, the ecumenical statements you mentioned might just as well have been written by some Episcopalian bishop or the religion commentator for HuffPo.  They're such generic, overly simplified "can't we all just get along" statements with nothing Catholic about them, not even a hint that true "brotherly unity" comes through Holy Mother Church.
More incessant and unending blabbering by a worse-than-useless man in a white cassock.

At this point I don't know what is more absurd, the garbage that this man spews, or the defense of it.  So capital punishment is now declared immoral, and "just war" is no longer applicable anymore.  How much longer before abortionists can be admitted to Communion?

I know some want to try and find diamonds among sewage, but cmon...this is absurd!
(10-04-2020, 01:42 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]How much longer before abortionists can be admitted to Communion? 

I'm sure it has been allowed de facto, so maybe some kind of de jure policy allowing them to receive Communion, as part of their comprehensive pastoral accompaniment to Hell plan, is in the works.

Quote:I know some want to try and find diamonds among sewage, but cmon...this is absurd!

I skimmed through it mostly as a mild curiosity.  There's very little in the way of reconciling Francis's teachings to the Catholic Faith.  What is there that happens to agree with Catholic teaching (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, etc.) is overshadowed both by Francis's errors (capital punishment, life sentences) and his pastoral practices (readmitting unrepentant adulterers to Communion, standing idly by while "Catholics" bow down to the Pachamama idol).
(10-04-2020, 01:52 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]I skimmed through it mostly as a mild curiosity.  There's very little in the way of reconciling Francis's teachings to the Catholic Faith.  What is there that happens to agree with Catholic teaching (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, etc.) is overshadowed both by Francis's errors (capital punishment, life sentences) and his pastoral practices (readmitting unrepentant adulterers to Communion, standing idly by while "Catholics" bow down to the Pachamama idol).

I did too out of morbid curiosity and it reeks of utter crap

Funny I couldn't find 1 mention of abortion, but abortion seems to have been mentioned twice in a document over 42,000 words long!

Seriously though if I wanted to read the writings of a heretic, Luther and Calvin are far more engaging than Jorge.
(10-04-2020, 01:42 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]More incessant and unending blabbering by a worse-than-useless man in a white cassock.

At this point I don't know what is more absurd, the garbage that this man spews, or the defense of it.  So capital punishment is now declared immoral, and "just war" is no longer applicable anymore.  How much longer before abortionists can be admitted to Communion?

I know some want to try and find diamonds among sewage, but cmon...this is absurd!

A little leaven ruins the whole loaf. At this point we're digging for any scraps of bread inside of a pile of cow dung.
(10-04-2020, 01:54 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]I did too out of morbid curiosity and it reeks of utter crap

Funny I couldn't find 1 mention of abortion, but abortion seems to have been mentioned twice in a document over 42,000 words long!

Seriously though if I wanted to read the writings of a heretic, Luther and Calvin are far more engaging than Jorge.

I got to paragraph 17 before deciding to just do a little skimming.  At least Luther and Calvin would have more spiritual depth (and honesty about rejecting Catholicism).
Regarding the death penalty and life imprisonment: I think that the death penalty is more human that life imprisonment. I don't know why more people don't see it that way.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15