Under New Management!: Do You Agree With The Pope?

[ST BERNARD]

My thoughts, which I also expressed on Open Mic --

 

I believe the pope was reminding people to show respect for religion and what others hold sacred. His wording, expression and rhetoric was very strong -- but I don't think he was advocating censorship. When he was discussing the violent retaliation with the insult of his mother, I didn't feel that he was trying to preach against Jesus teaching about turning the other cheek -- I felt that he was demonstrating the fact that provocation can bring on an angry response. 

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uchJh8Cyx7Y[/media]

 

I found it a lot more helpful to actually see with my own eyes the actual discussion taking place.

 

 

Thanks Ash Wednesday. I actually watched this scene when it was aired on NBC Nightly News after it happened, and that is what made me wonder how I felt about it. I appreciate your post here and also read the one you made in Open Mic.

 

I have always liked and admired Pope Francis so I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and just accept that what he said is what he said without trying to understand what he 'meant' by it. I still feel it was a bit insensitive coming so soon after the Hebdo massacre- because those people had families and loved ones who are still hurting and his statement could come across as 'they got what deserved' kind of thing. It's ironic that he is criticizing others for what they say when what he said seemed to be a little insulting to the families of those who died but then I am confident that this is NOT what he meant by his statement -  it just seems that he wasn't really aware of how his statement would come across to some people. But we are all human and we all say things without fully considering how others might take it. His intentions were good, I am sure.

[Ash Wednesday]

Thanks Ash Wednesday. I actually watched this scene when it was aired on NBC Nightly News after it happened, and that is what made me wonder how I felt about it. I appreciate your post here and also read the one you made in Open Mic.

 

I have always liked and admired Pope Francis so I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and just accept that what he said is what he said without trying to understand what he 'meant' by it. I still feel it was a bit insensitive coming so soon after the Hebdo massacre- because those people had families and loved ones who are still hurting and his statement could come across as 'they got what deserved' kind of thing. It's ironic that he is criticizing others for what they say when what he said seemed to be a little insulting to the families of those who died but then I am confident that this is NOT what he meant by his statement -  it just seems that he wasn't really aware of how his statement would come across to some people. But we are all human and we all say things without fully considering how others might take it. His intentions were good, I am sure.

 

 

Indeed!

 

I think he used very strong wording, almost like a parent scolding a child saying "you can't do that!" That in light of the timing, I can understand why people were upset about it.

 

I guess that's why I didn't wade too much into the "debate" aspect of it as far as others finding the remarks unsettling. I can't really put a measuring stick on someone else's emotional response to Francis expressing a personal opinion and it is subject to respectful disagreement. Plus I can only debate so much with someone else about it, given that I'm not a mind reader of the pope, and the third party -- the pope -- isn't here with us to shed light and discuss it further. Sure would be interesting if he was, though. :)

[Lil Red]

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2015/01/16/pope-retracts-punch-in-the-face-remark-says-he-would-kick-them-in-nuts/ 

 

:P 

[Lil Red]

Okay on a serious note, here is this perspective: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/pursuedbytruth/2015/01/limiting-free-speech-five-reasons-pope-francis-is-right.html

[ST BERNARD]

Okay on a serious note, here is this perspective: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/pursuedbytruth/2015/01/limiting-free-speech-five-reasons-pope-francis-is-right.html

 

 

Thank you - that was an interesting article to read. For me the controversy wasn't about freedom of speech so much as about the physical response to a verbal attack. And that wasn't made clear in the article completely (to me at least) because it said:

 

...

 

5. Pope Francis is Promoting the Gospel Values: When Pope Francis refers to punching someone in defense of one’s mother, I do not think he is saying that violence is an acceptable way to work out one’s differences. This is made clear later in the interview when he responds to a question about the best way to respond to terrorist threats against his own life. His response?

 

     The best way to respond is always with meekness — meek, to be humble. Like bread, no? Without causing aggression.

 

To me, these two statements seem to be in conflict. So is it right to punch someone who insults your mother or faith, but if a terrorist threatens your life, you should turn your cheek? The article seems to have no problem reconciling these statements, but I do. It seems to be a contradiction.

 

Anyway, I think some people might be misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not trying to criticize the Pope, but to better understand him. I know that Jesus often said things that sounded contradictory too, and I accept that I can't understand everything - especially as I don't know the heart of the Pope and what he was really trying to say. I gather that for him it was about freedom of speech not giving people carte blanche to say whatever insulting thing they want to, and I agree with that in principle, but it was his statement about punching someone who makes an insult that seemed contrary to everything he has said or done so far.

 

But it is true - he is a spiritual leader and not a politician, so his words are more directed towards our spiritual well being than our political ideology.

 

I appreciate all the intelligent and thoughtful comments that everyone has made about this topic. Questioning is not a bad thing if it helps someone to come to an understanding. I don't think that blindly accepting everything that any leader says is a healthy thing - whether they are spiritual or political leaders - that way lies extremism. So when the Pope is speaking about his personal opinions and not dogma or doctrine of the Church, I am always trying to understand more clearly what he means and why he is saying it. It is a help to me because my faith is informed by reason.

 

Edited for awkward phrasing.

Edited January 17, 2015 by ST BERNARD

[dUSt]

 

To me, these two statements seem to be in conflict. So is it right to punch someone who insults your mother or faith, but if a terrorist threatens your life, you should turn your cheek? The article seems to have no problem reconciling these statements, but I do. It seems to be a contradiction.

 

Did the pope say it was right to punch someone? No. I'm pretty sure he was simply explaining human emotion to those that don't seem to understand that they can't act any way they want and never expect retaliation.

 

It's easier to reconcile the statements when you don't interpret them incorrectly to begin with.

[Winchester]

He didn't say it was okay. So I'm going to edit your poll question.

[ST BERNARD]

He didn't say it was okay. So I'm going to edit your poll question.

 

 

You are correct, he said, '...expect a punch on the nose' - obviously not the same thing at all - how silly of me.

 

Your poll wording is also incorrect but since this thread has served its purpose (for me at any rate) - do whatever you want with it! :)

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Did the pope say it was right to punch someone? No. I'm pretty sure he was simply explaining human emotion to those that don't seem to understand that they can't act any way they want and never expect retaliation.

 

It's easier to reconcile the statements when you don't interpret them incorrectly to begin with.

 

I agree with this.  From the video Ash provided it looks like the Pope was demonstrating why we should be careful when we say something about another persons faith, since what we say could provoke them to act violently. Especially if what we're saying is done to be rude and hurtful.   We are all susceptible to human weakness and I'm sure all of us have been guilty of acting in an un-Christian manner when someone or something we love has been attacked. 

Edited January 17, 2015 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[Winchester]

 

 

Your poll wording is also incorrect but since this thread has served its purpose (for me at any rate) - do whatever you want with it! :)

[ST BERNARD]

I agree with this.  From the video Ash provided it looks like the Pope was demonstrating why we should be careful when we say something about another persons faith, since what we say could provoke them to act violently. Especially if what we're saying is done to be rude and hurtful.   We are all susceptible to human weakness and I'm sure all of us have been guilty of acting in an un-Christian manner when someone or something we love has been attacked. 

 

 

You and dUSt are most likely right in your interpretation of what he said, but I still think the timing was a little insensitive of him, and left his statement open to misinterpretation in light of the murders and strong feelings of grief by family and friends of the victims. As Catholics, we can be confident that the Pope was not saying that what happened at Charlie Hebdo was ok, as indeed he condemned it, but then he presented himself as almost saying that the victims deserved what they got. Sorry, but that did create confusion and conflict in me, and I am a faithful Catholic. I am certainly glad that I have had the opportunity to discuss this rationally with other Catholics (and those of other faiths too) but I also understand why a lot of people would either take offence or feel confused about his words. To deny that what he said could be misconstrued is simply to ignore the feelings of others, and isn't that what the Pope was condemning too? Just my limited perspective from my side of the bus.

[Maggyie]

How could you expect him to say otherwise. Pope Benedict essentially said the same thing when there were riots over the Danish Islam cartoons.

As usual though with Papa we have to waste a lot of time and energy trying to parse and figure out "what did he really mean" and the press office of the Holy See has to issue clarifying statements that walk it back. I wonder if someone is ever going to take the pope aside and tell him he's bad at this media stuff and to stop.

Pope Benedict frequently stepped in it too. What happened to John Paul II''s media team?

[Maggyie]

I mean prior to his trip I saw a meme on Facebook that said "brace yourselves, the Pope is going on an airplane that also has reporters on it" It was supposed to be funny but in the end the Holy Father and global media did not disappoint and we once again get a ride on this merry go round. It's frustrating.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Maggie

[Winchester]

The statement wasn't bad. The excerpts and headlines are. And some people are intent on misinterpreting.

[PhuturePriest]

Pope Benedict rarely had headlines like this. The only one I can think of is when the media claimed he said it was okay for gay men to have sex as long as they wore a condom, but that was pretty much it. Pope Benedict was a very concise and learned intellectual, and he always knew how to word things carefully but boldly so as to make sure most didn't misinterpret him. Pope Francis is much less gifted at this, which is fine, but he should really consider perhaps not making as many statements with the media as he does.

[Lilllabettt]

 I don't remember Pope Benedict XVI "stepping in it" frequently. There was the thing with the condoms and the Muslims. But he didn't speak spontaneously in public all that much and when he did you could see him choosing his words carefully, trying to find the exactly correct expression to communicate what he wanted to say. Of course I don't think he liked talking to the media- not about pop topics, for sure.  And they didn't like him, either.

 

JP2 was just very media savvy. He was a rock star. He knew how to handle them, how to make them like him in spite of him being crystal clear on everything.

 

My impression is, Pope Francis thinks it doesn't matter that much.  If he steps in it, I mean. If I remember correctly, he encourages church leaders to "make a mess."  Being misinterpreted is not a new experience for him. This series of events has played out many times before. He hasn't seen fit to make any changes in the pattern. 

 

JP2 and Benedict were VERY rarely misinterpreted. They didn't give a lot of wiggle room. Preventing misinterpretation is just not Pope Francis' priority.  I don't really agree with that approach. But I think it is his approach. His words leave room for misinterpretation, and he does not care all that much. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

You and dUSt are most likely right in your interpretation of what he said, but I still think the timing was a little insensitive of him, and left his statement open to misinterpretation in light of the murders and strong feelings of grief by family and friends of the victims. As Catholics, we can be confident that the Pope was not saying that what happened at Charlie Hebdo was ok, as indeed he condemned it, but then he presented himself as almost saying that the victims deserved what they got. Sorry, but that did create confusion and conflict in me, and I am a faithful Catholic. I am certainly glad that I have had the opportunity to discuss this rationally with other Catholics (and those of other faiths too) but I also understand why a lot of people would either take offence or feel confused about his words. To deny that what he said could be misconstrued is simply to ignore the feelings of others, and isn't that what the Pope was condemning too? Just my limited perspective from my side of the bus.

 

I can see how his statement can be shocking, however, when I watched him talking on the plane I can see he is telling others that even he is just a man and not free from human weakness. He was showing  that even a Pope can be provoked to act in a way which is not peaceful when something or someone he holds dear to him is being attacked.   Then on the other hand he I think was stating that we need to look at ourselves and admit that we too are not above acting in such a way when someone attacks something we love.  We all have that "button", and sometimes when others press it we lose our heads.  I believe he was stressing these points because after a violent attack the only thing which can stop the almost never-ending chain reaction of hate are acts of love and forgiveness.  And one of the best ways for us to find the ability to forgive others is by realizing that we too are just as weak and can act in ways which are unkind and wrong. 

[BarbTherese]

Initially I was quite shocked at what Pope Francis said about 'THE punch"............but later reading on, I thought that again the media has completely tripped many of us up leading us astray, me included, by taking something Pope Francis has said out of context.  The key phrase in what Pope Francis said about THE punch is in connection with freedom of speech i.e.  - "FOR THE COMMON GOOD".

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSV-GD9gA-U

 

What Pope Francis was illustrating with his punch in the nose statement was the likely human reaction to an insulting statement to someone that a person holds dear and in esteem.

 

Insult is what Charlie Hebdo as publication has done with the Islamic religion and what it holds dear and the response of the terrorists was murder.  Clearly both were evils though the latter far more serious than the former.

 

 

 

 

[Luigi]

Here's a link to a talk from the abbot of St. Anselm's (Washington, DC) to the monks about "Respect," with specific reference to Paris, and various responses. 

 

http://www.stanselms.org/homilies/2015/2015January.php#3

 

It's a little longish (for this board), but it's balanced and nuanced. Some details relate specifically to the monastery, but you can skim through those parts.