In writing my articles comparing the Catholics who attack Pope Francis with the founders of Protestantism and anti-Catholics, I inevitably get comments from those Catholics. The language varies, but the gist of it is, we do respect the Papacy or we have read what Pope Francis wrote/said. They claim that the real problem is Pope Francis and his “errors.” To which, I can only say, “Doubtful.” The reason I say this is the actual transcripts and documents don’t allow for the interpretation these critics give. They can only come about by focusing entirely on one quote or footnote, combined with the assumption that Pope Francis is morally or intellectually bad in saying it. Actually reading with discernment shows that in context, what the Pope said is different from what he’s portrayed as saying.
For example, take the calumny that will not die… that the Pope is going to “approve” same sex activity. This goes back to the mantra of who am I to judge. While those misguided Catholics who want “same sex marriage” supported by the Church have by now conceded that the Pope didn’t say what they hoped it meant, his critics repeat it as a charge of “heresy.” But when we actually READ THE FREAKING TRANSCRIPTS§, we can see that the context excludes that interpretation. What the Pope said, in context was
But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we confess our sins and we truly say, “I have sinned in this”, the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins. That is a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. Many times I think of Saint Peter. He committed one of the worst sins, that is he denied Christ, and even with this sin they made him Pope. We have to think a great deal about that. But, returning to your question more concretely. In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying ... wait a moment, how does it say it ... it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one.
The Pope was speaking of a priest accused of having a notorious past. Everyone was wondering if the Pope would fire him from his position. But, since the priest repented, the Pope would not.
The Pope’s position on “same sex marriage” was reinforced in the same interview by the following exchange with a reporter:
Patricia Zorzan:
Speaking on behalf of the Brazilians: society has changed, young people have changed, and in Brazil we have seen a great many young people. You did not speak about abortion, about same-sex marriage. In Brazil a law has been approved which widens the right to abortion and permits marriage between people of the same sex. Why did you not speak about this?
Pope Francis:
The Church has already spoken quite clearly on this. It was unnecessary to return to it, just as I didn’t speak about cheating, lying, or other matters on which the Church has a clear teaching!
Patricia Zorzan:
But the young are interested in this ...
Pope Francis:
Yes, though it wasn’t necessary to speak of it, but rather of the positive things that open up the path to young people. Isn’t that right! Besides, young people know perfectly well what the Church’s position is.
Patricia Zorzan:
What is Your Holiness’ position, if we may ask?
Pope Francis:
The position of the Church. I am a son of the Church.
The Pope’s accusers were committing an argument from silence fallacy, assuming that the Pope not mentioning abortion and same sex “marriage” at the World Youth Day meant he supported these things. But his point was that he doesn’t need to keep invoking them for them to remain valid teachings.
This misrepresentation of the Pope set the template for how his pontificate was viewed. No, the Pope didn’t condemn large families. He spoke of a woman under the error of “providentialism.*” No, the Pope didn’t say that civil marriages were no different from sacramental marriages. He said that some people seeking a marriage in the Church are so grossly misinformed that they have less of an understanding of what marriage is than those in civil marriages. No, he didn’t say that the divorced and remarried could receive the Eucharist. He said that those individuals lacking might receive sacraments if some of the conditions of mortal sin were absent and the person was trying to live properly. He didn’t say that the existence of different religions was God’s will. He said that the divisions were part of God’s permissive will and we needed to approach ecumenism and interreligious dialogue# with that understanding.
I could go on and on. And these Catholics undoubtedly will. But in each case, certain Catholics have assumed the false interpretation as the Pope’s actual intent. They base their opposition to the Pope on misinterpretation@. That misinterpretation comes from either failing to seek what the Pope means, or from the assumption that the Pope is morally bad (“a heretic”) or intellectually bad (“doesn’t know Church teaching.”)
So, if I seem skeptical about the claims by the critics of the Pope, this is why. Actually reading what he has to say shows he does not seek to attack or undermine Church teachings.
__________________
(§) After dealing with this one for close to 7 years, you might detect I’m getting a mite bit testy over it.
(*) Providentialism is essentially putting God to the test, living imprudently and relying on God to protect us from the consequences.
(#) While people use the terms interchangeably, they’re not the same thing. Ecumenism is dialogue between Christians of different denominations. Interreligious Dialogue is discussion with non-Christian religions.
(@) To be clear, “misinterpretation” is wrongly understanding something, thinking that error is correct. The person may or may not be culpable. “Misrepresentation” is a deliberate attempt to portray something as different than intended.
No comments:
Post a Comment