02 September 2018


I tweeted something yesterday that I feel needs a bit of unpacking. I tweeted:

My point is that people of a wide range of different ecclesiologies can separate their views of different Popes from their iews of the rightness or wrongness of their actions, or at least some of their actions.

In the current crisis, it is possible to be critical of the actions of each of Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis for seeming to put the need to avoid public scandal above the need for justice to be seen to be done.  Was John Paul II too concerned to portray the Church as an indivisible sign of contradiction to modern times? Was Benedict XVI too meek and mild to be able to take on powerful cardinals? Is Francis too keen on cronyism? None of these criticisms necessarily affects my view of the three men as Popes. They are men: sinful, fallible men, as I am sinful and fallible.

What interest me is the papolatry of those who seem to view the world with a hermeneutic that starts with "Everything Pope Francis done is the best possible thing to do". What could impel otherwise intelligent and experienced commentators to defend an indefensible proposition.  Defending Francis as probably the last chance to implement a Church desired by many as the implementation of the spirit of Vatican II is at least a coherent point of view, but papolatry is wrong, and dangerous too.


Mike Cliffson said...

You are likely right about
these profrancis bots...are they also pushing what I see in Spain from the present holy father? : a greater emphasis on confession with published daily schedules reopened confessionals, theincreased respectabity of de votion to the rosary , or the spread of his devotion to our lady untyer of knots? Or is their proFrancis stoffig limited to a certain agenda? long run only one of the twelve our lord chose was, without pentecost, at the foot of his cross with Mary.And yet plus the holy spirit here we still are doing the reruns in this world and the numbers of the church triumphant rooting for the church militant grows exponentially, Praise the Lord (and yes I am scared with so many hundreds of thousands id modern martyrs. ) .Short run except that the devil's got wide and high and networked and theres more to come out including on the cash side cf judas , i m far from sure about whats afoot and to a great degree I don't know that knowing the details is too Important if we end up in the west with more disciplined seminaries , holier priedts , shepherdlier bishops which I think means inter alia gungerho manlier with a more evident faith and with a pair, sins warts and all - and it may well be that this evident flthiness of the network pricks (npi) the bubble of much following for the budding schism you usually get after councils I'm told.It 'll be plain enough what the enemy's cozening tones lead to. ..... Or maybe we are nearly into the end times which the prayers of the church avert for a while yet agai n .....or this time not. The theology of all this sort of thing gives me huddicks.(Confession and rosaries dont.)

Mike Cliffson said...

For comfort if needed re state of the church see today Wednesday's second reading in the office of readings

Mike Cliffson said...

BTW I wonder .Maybe youre righter on the emphasis than I.Silence is Golden ? Maybe sostenella y no emiendella WILL win out after all.... for the moment .... I tried a search of bbc news connecting all this to homosexuality ( as in network as in masonry and even I suppose mafia) and didnt seem to be getting anywhere .... maybe these attack poodles ARE important in a sort of way.

Mike Cliffson said...

This is seeming bigger and biggeR.Yet Good Spanish priests praise the pope for this and that.
I m anguished about China.A vibrant clandestine church in thexworlds oldest cotinuos civilization.

Would more English souls have been saved if Tudor bishops had been handed the church in England on a plate -by a disgraced and highly dodgy cardinal?
Somthing is wronger than it looks.