Interview With Pope Francis In America Magazine

[arfink]

The problem I see with a lot of Pope Francis' off-the-cuff comments, his personal letter to a newspaper editor, and his interviews with magazines, is that his answers to questions can be taken in many different ways. It seems that his answers to questions really only produce more questions, and often troubling questions.

 

Every pope has been misquoted and misunderstood. Benedict XVI got the Evil Emperor Palpatine treatment for statements at least as carefully considered as Pope Francis'. Get used to it. The world must misunderstand Christians, because it is the world.

[Apotheoun]

I don't think it's about saying dogma and moral teachings are unimportant.  I think the pope is trying to re-emphasize the proper ordering of the goods.  We can't pretend that all Church teachings have the same weight, and we can't pretend that talking about the Church's moral positions is more important than spreading the Gospel.  We have to be focused on Christ, and not make "issues" into an idol.  And I think the pope is saying that if we have that focus on Christ and the Gospel, orthodox catechesis and moral teaching will naturally flow from that.  

 

Did you see the part where he talks about emphasizing synods, and how he hopes it'll help bring the East and West closer together, learning to walk united even with their differences? I thought that was cool. :)

I guess it is just another example of people reading things written by Pope Francis, or listening to what he has to say in interviews, coming away with different impressions as to the content of his message. 

[arfink]

I thought that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict always gave balanced preaching on the Gospel. I never took their teaching to be "overly" focused upon moral questions of the day. But one has to admit that Western society itself is fixated on these moral questions, and if the Church - even in good faith - remains quiet in response, or even gives the appearance of minimizing the importance of these things, it does look like a surrender to the prevailing hedonistic culture. Perception - at least in our times due to the mass media - often is reality.

 

Perception is not reality. Screw what the world thinks. If they want to perceive the truth wrongly, and see exactly what they want to see, that is upon their heads.

[Apotheoun]

Every pope has been misquoted and misunderstood. Benedict XVI got the Evil Emperor Palpatine treatment for statements at least as carefully considered as Pope Francis'. Get used to it. The world must misunderstand Christians, because it is the world.

I always ignored the media's attempts to demonize Pope Benedict. In fact, I was always impressed by what Pope Benedict had to say, and by his keen theological insights into the mystery of Christ. But what we are discussing at the present moment is not a media attack on Pope Francis; instead, it is an interview he gave that I have no doubt is meant to be quite supportive of him. So in this case it is not - at least for me - an example of the media attacking the pope, but rather the pope saying freely what he thinks about various issues.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Perception is not reality. Screw what the world thinks. If they want to perceive the truth wrongly, and see exactly what they want to see, that is upon their heads.

My apologies, because I did not fully convey what I intended in my last sentence of the quoted post. What I meant is that for modern society perception is reality. And that is a scary thought indeed.

[arfink]

I always ignored the media's attempts to demonize Pope Benedict. In fact, I was always impressed by what Pope Benedict had to say, and by his keen theological insights into the mystery of Christ. But what we are discussing at the present moment is not a media attack on Pope Francis; instead, it is an interview he gave that I have no doubt is meant to be quite supportive of him. So in this case it is not - at least for me - an example of the media attacking the pope, but rather the pope saying freely what he thinks about various issues.

 

And yet we know the world can attack in two ways: by directly attacking the person, as in Benedict XVI, and by attacking those who hear the words of the person, as we hear with Pope Francis, when the world suggests that he is saying things he is not. Satan attacked Jesus this way at times, seeing to place him on a pedestal of falsehood, on the parapet of the Temple.

[Apotheoun]

Let me say this, just for the sake of clarity: I do not dislike Pope Francis, and I think he is probably well-intentioned, but he does - as he intimates in his interview - come off as rather naive, and perhaps that is why his media interactions often raise more questions than they answer. 

[Apotheoun]

And yet we know the world can attack in two ways: by directly attacking the person, as in Benedict XVI, and by attacking those who hear the words of the person, as we hear with Pope Francis, when the world suggests that he is saying things he is not. Satan attacked Jesus this way at times, seeing to place him on a pedestal of falsehood, on the parapet of the Temple.

So you think that this present interview is an attack on Pope Francis? It seems to me that it is just the opposite, after all Pope Francis was not forced to say the things he did. I think - even if I may not agree with everything he said - that he is honestly relating in the interview what he truly believes. I have no reason to think that his words in the interview are being twisted for some nefarious purpose.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Apotheoun

[blazeingstar]

What exactly were you disappointed with? I don't remember remarks about co-habitating couples.  

 

You sound a lot like the older brother from last Sunday's Gospel.  I don't say that to be mean - I say that because I often feel the exact same way. I get frustrated, too, when it seems like I'm the only one following the rules but don't get any benefits from it. Something like 98% of Catholic couples use some form of birth control, next to no one remains a virgin until marriage, etc.  But it's our job to try and invite Johnny and Sally back to church, to make the effort to be understanding if they're living together for financial reasons but not having sex, and to do our best to explain to them that having your infant baptized means that you're taking on a serious responsibility to actively raise your child in the faith. 

I do agree with you when you say the leadership has spent too much time on issues and not enough time educating people about Church teaching and ESPECIALLY why Church teaching is great for them. I really wish some of our bishops and priests would spend just as much time and effort supporting married couples as they do denouncing gay marriage. The fact that the divorce rate among Catholics is equal to the national average (50%) is appalling to me. Supporting and encouraging holy married couples would be an incredibly powerful statement of the wonderful goodness and truth of the Church's teaching on marriage.  Maybe people would take us seriously on sexual ethics if we actually had more people walking the talk. 

But the thing is, I think all of that is in line with what the Pope said in the rest of the interview.  He talks about placing the Gospel first, then catechesis flowing through that, and moral teachings flowing through catechesis.  He cautions against making "issues" bigger than the Gospel, and I take that to mean acting like gay marriage is the only marriage issue, for example.  He says that "issues" aren't the whole picture, that there's more to it.  But at the same time, offering support for people who ARE doing things the right way doesn't necessarily mean we stop reaching out to Johnny and Sally.  
 

 

 

The problem is right now is that you have the traditionalists and and then those seen as radicals (the right to life crowd) or the mainstream, which everyone seems to be afraid of telling the truth.

 

I'm burned out on spiritual life.  This is not being the older son, I feel like this is the church running out and comforting the younger son when he's still out with prostitutes.  They are in no way willing to follow the rules, they have not asked for forgiveness, in general they are looking for validation of their sin.

[Basilisa Marie]

Let me say this, just for the sake of clarity: I do not dislike Pope Francis, and I think he is probably well-intentioned, but he does - as he intimates in his interview - come off as rather naive, and perhaps that is why his media interactions often raise more questions than they answer. 

 

Well, in the interview he does admit that he's a bit naive, and says we should be worried if we think we have all the answers nailed down, so the fact that his media interactions raise more questions than answers makes sense. :)  

[blazeingstar]

The more interviews Pope Francis gives, the more concerned I become. I left Protestantism for Catholicism for dogmatic and moral reasons, if these things are going to be de-emphasized, I will have to re-evaluate my own spiritual life and journey.

 

I think he's inviting legalistic people who like simply fighting against things to fight FOR something.  

[Apotheoun]

Well, in the interview he does admit that he's a bit naive, and says we should be worried if we think we have all the answers nailed down, so the fact that his media interactions raise more questions than answers makes sense. :)

Yes, I agree. The confusion that results from his interactions with the media are probably attributable both to his naivete and to his lack of precision in conveying his message, which leaves his comments open to multiple interpretations.

[Apotheoun]

I think he's inviting legalistic people who like simply fighting against things to fight FOR something.  

Eastern Catholics are not really legalistic. But we do like precision in doctrinal formulations as anyone familiar with the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils can surely tell.

[Apotheoun]

I still found the interview interesting, and I will probably re-read it later tonight before bed.  :smile3:

[Basilisa Marie]

Yes, I agree. The confusion that results from his interactions with the media are probably attributable both to his naivete and to his lack of precision in conveying his message, which leaves his comments open to multiple interpretations.

 

Yeah, but Benedict was often interpreted a bunch of different ways, mostly by people who had a different focus (agenda, beliefs, whatever) than he did. We could just write those people off as wrong, but it's the same idea. I think it's more like what the pope talks about with magnanimity.  Broad instead of narrow, and all that.  He may not be speaking specifically, but he's very intentional with what he says. So precisely broad? Something like that. 

[Apotheoun]

Yeah, but Benedict was often interpreted a bunch of different ways, mostly by people who had a different focus (agenda, beliefs, whatever) than he did. We could just write those people off as wrong, but it's the same idea. I think it's more like what the pope talks about with magnanimity.  Broad instead of narrow, and all that.  He may not be speaking specifically, but he's very intentional with what he says. So precisely broad? Something like that. 

Benedict was open to far less "interpretation" than the present pope. On moral questions it was clear, after all he was responsible for the profession of faith required of Fr. Nugent on homosexual issues, and anyone who has read that document knows that it leaves no wiggle room for those who want to equivocate on the issue of homosexuality. Perhaps that is why Fr. Nugent refused to sign the profession.

[Apotheoun]

The only thing in his interview that I found interesting were his brief comments on synodality and the Orthodox. Although like most Roman Catholics he sounds far too optimistic when it comes to the dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, because it is unlikely that the Orthodox will settle merely for changes in the way that the primacy of the bishop of Rome operates. My own studies of Orthodox theologians, and my own interaction at local Orthodox parishes, makes me think that the Orthodox will settle for nothing less than the repudiation of the teaching of Vatican I. 

[Apotheoun]

One other point on the issue of the Orthodox: I noticed that Pope Francis mentioned the Ravenna Document, which was signed by the Joint International Commission on Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and how we must continue on this path. It is interesting to note that the Ravenna Document rejects the ecumenicity of all the later synods of the Roman Church, holding that since the time of the East / West schism the celebration of ecumenical councils became impossible. Maybe Pope Francis is going to do what Pope Benedict would not do, and actually re-affirm that there have only been seven ecumenical councils. That would be interesting.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Apotheoun

[blazeingstar]

Benedict was open to far less "interpretation" than the present pope. On moral questions it was clear, after all he was responsible for the profession of faith required of Fr. Nugent on homosexual issues, and anyone who has read that document knows that it leaves no wiggle room for those who want to equivocate on the issue of homosexuality. Perhaps that is why Fr. Nugent refused to sign the profession.

 

No, I don't think he was far less open to interpretation...I think that the media collectively decided to hate him and they collectively decided to like Pope Francis.  They could do the EXACT same thing to him.  Pope Benedict spoke with a firmness that seemed heartless to those who didn't understand, and Pope Francis speaks with an air of casualness that people don't understand either.  Pope John Paul II spoke with a gravity no one seemed to get when it came to solving problems.

 

But media LIKES this guy for who knows what reason.  I promise you, if they disliked him as much as they disliked Benedict, we'd be hearing criticism of how the Pope said that Catholics were so bad for not preaching the Gospel and how all he does is criticize how we go about things.

[Apotheoun]

Quotation from the Ravenna Document on ecumenical councils:

 

 

Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an Ecumenical Council is not an “institution” whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an “event”, a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of Ecumenical Councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical.

 

 

An interesting use of the past tense in the final sentence.