DrJoe
22.1K

Phase 2 of the Pope Francis era: The honeymoon is over

by John L. Allen Jr. A kerfuffle broke out last week over a lecture given by Philadelphia’s Archbishop Charles Chaput and sponsored by First Things magazine, generally considered the smartest journal …More
by John L. Allen Jr.
A kerfuffle broke out last week over a lecture given by Philadelphia’s Archbishop Charles Chaput and sponsored by First Things magazine, generally considered the smartest journal of conservative Catholic opinion in America.
In itself it may not loom especially large, but it’s illustrative of something broader. We are entering Phase Two of Francis’ papacy, in which a period of good feelings has given way to an era of edge.
Before moving on, a caveat: This analysis largely applies to the West. People in, say, Ukraine or Nigeria or the Philippines – all with large Catholic populations – aren’t necessarily having the same conversation.
Though Chaput’s speech was not on the 2014 Synod of Bishops in Rome, he took a question about it from the audience. Stressing that he hadn’t been there and wanted to talk to bishops who had before reaching conclusions, Chaput nevertheless said that the “public image” of the event had created confusion, and that “confusion is of the Devil.” …More
Prof. Leonard Wessell
Oops, I mixed up a sentence: Goldman holds that Pope Francis is more interested in saving the world than saving souls. I forgot to remove "doubts" from my sentence.
Prof. Leonard Wessell
There is an old saying that one can catch more flies with honey than with a fly-swater. Just how? Well, if the honey is smeared on paper and the flies land on it, expecting a feast, they cannot free themselves from the "honey-ed smeared" paper of death. A fly-swater can, with luck, take out one fly at a time, whereas honey just collects them with sweet death. The article by Mr. Allen is so sweet in …More
There is an old saying that one can catch more flies with honey than with a fly-swater. Just how? Well, if the honey is smeared on paper and the flies land on it, expecting a feast, they cannot free themselves from the "honey-ed smeared" paper of death. A fly-swater can, with luck, take out one fly at a time, whereas honey just collects them with sweet death. The article by Mr. Allen is so sweet in tone that it lacks precision (see the next entry below on "precision" re "The Church's Essential Mission ...") and inhibits critical discussion as being critical is not "honey".

--Before I fly away from Allen's honey-coated presentation, I must note that First Things is not a conservative Catholic outlet, not even Catholic. One of its founders was the Modern Orthodox Jew, David Goldman (who, by the way, holds Pp Benedict for one of the world's leading thinkers and doubts that Pp Francis is really more interested in saving the world, than saving souls) with the purpose of stimulating discussions, not to abstractly philosophical, about the religious "first things" pertaining toreligion. It seeks in its pages more commonality than division, though in one meeting of Protestants hope was expressrf for the protestantization of Catholicism.--

At this point I will free one or two of my fly-legs from the rhetorical honey. Let me take two "perhaps (= honey word) points", i.e., 1. finding postive aspects in homosexual and other non-marital relationships, e.g., I presume homosexual marriage and 2. "making peace" with homosexuality by finding positive aspects to welcome and praise, viz., marriages. How to make a comment? In logic there is the saying: He who says A, must say B, to which I add C, D, .... G, H, ... etc. Let A be the most abstract, viz., principled formulation and G and H be more concrete situations. I claim that who says something "positive" about G or H (which were previously evaluated as "negative"), will alter A so as to have logical consitency for the positive evvaluation of H. Let me give an example of a possible H, i.e., good features of a police officer.

A police officer, say charged with protecting a detested person, is faced with a hostile crowed wanting to do harm to said person. Some of the crowd even possess guns. The police officier is given a choice of surrendering the unpopular person (which means harm, even lethal harm, to said person) or fighting the crowd, even though failure and death of the police person are the possible outcome. The officer fights bravely, even using his gun lethally against the crowd. In the end, well some of the crowed are killed and the unpopular person is saved. Are there NOT an abundant positive features to praise and to celebrate? Certainly thetr are, formally speaking. Now, we learn materially that the officer is a Gestapo policeman in charge of protecting a Nazi mass murderer from an infurtiated crowed of just freed inmates of Auschwitz who have revolted and are seeking justice. Should the Church, of any moral person, praise and celebrate the positive features of a murderous Gestapo officer protecting a murderous Nazi being attacked by formerlly tortured inmates? In other words, should as moralist make peace with Nazi practices because the practitioners evince all so many positive features living out their lifestyle? Maybe the Pope that condemned Nazism in the 1930s should have been silent and, instead have "welcomed" the Gestapo to the Vatican and "celebrated"in a homily the positive features of a mass-murding LIFESTYE?

I have already taken up much too much space. I must let the reader draw further conclusions. But I remind readers of my bitter-coated words 1. that we Americans have "mass murdered" since 1973 more unborn humans in the US than the total number of people who died in WW 2. We have replaced the Nazi murderer of post-partem humans with the subvented abortion-murderers of ante-partem humans. Peace be with you! = poisonious words, yet many Catholic prelates (including the Pope) play down opposition to abortion. 2. If homosexual marriage is allowed than legal marriage will be defined as: Two persons in a sexual union, leaving children as a secondary accident to the essence of marriage. Two consequences. 1. This definition will effect Catholic believers to view marriage per se as so defined. 2. Homosexual marriage is structurally without even the possiblity of children (unless unnaturally generated) >> marriage is per se a relationship without children >>> contraceptions per se is needed or acceptable for merital relationships >>> therefore premarital cohabitation is acceptible (many positive features) >>> marriage is a "joke". >> Last word, the kindly, humous Kasper (and I note that Göring was the "friendly" face of Nazism) will have exercise his humor, i.e., turning Catholic morality into a JOKE.