Encyclicals Have a New Format: The Interview
#1
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/art...0619?eng=y

Quote:No one is exempt, in daily and private conversation among a few, from approximations and distortions, But there is no person who has responsibility in regard to many - who teaches, for example - who will not adopt another register in public and seek to avoid improvisation.

Now, instead, we have a pope who exclaims: “Who am I to judge?" as one can emphatically say at the table or even in preaching spiritual exercises. But before the press and the world a “who am I to judge?” spoken by a pope objectively jars with the entire history and profound nature of the Petrine function, moreover giving the distasteful sensation of an uncontrolled outburst. Because of his function as a vicar with respect to Christ, not as an individual, the pope judges. Since Pope Francis demonstrates, when he wishes, the awareness of his powers as pope, this is a matter - whatever he might want to say - of a true error of communication.

We then read in the interview with “La Civiltà Cattolica" the phrase: “Spiritual interference in personal life is not possible,” which seems to group together under the liberal-libertarian figure of "interference" both theological-moral judgment, and the public evaluation of the Church, when necessary, and even the care of a confessor or spiritual director in indicating, preventing, sanctioning intrinsically evil conduct. Pope Bergoglio Involuntarily adopts here a commonplace typical of postmodernity, according to which the individual decision is, as such, always good or at least always endowed with value, in being personal and free as one naïvely thinks it may be, and therefore incontestable.

This relativistic slippage, no longer rare in general pastoral practice, is covered up, not only in Bergoglio, by references to sincerity and to the repentance of the individual, almost as if sincerity and repentance canceled the nature of sin and prohibited the Church from calling it by its name. Moreover, it is doubtful that it is merciful to be silent about and respect that which each one does because he is free and sincere in doing it: we have always known that clarifying, not hiding, the nature of sinful conduct is an eminently merciful act, because it permits the sinner to discern about himself and his state, according to the law and the love of God. That even a pope should seem to confuse the primacy of conscience with a sort of unjudgeability, or even as immunity from the judgment of the Church, is a risk for the authoritativeness of the pope and for the ordinary magisterium that cannot be underestimated.

Supports what I and at least a few others have been saying.  Public statements by a public figure have enormous power to confuse, mislead, and scandalize -- as well (of course), as quite the opposite.  Being on the public stage brings with it a moral responsibility to exercise some level of self-control in the interest of charity (conscientious care of souls), if nothing else.


Reply
#2
My only issue (and it's my issue) is that I would prefer bluntness over off the cuff mystery. That's why I LOVE Cardinal Burke. I love the man and I love when he "lays the smack down" on beasts like Pelosi.  :grin:
Reply
#3
Let's pray that this dust storm will help to teach Pope Francis that he can't just do whatever he wants.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)