Catholic World Report endorses Dr. Ralph Martins book

This is a mirror for a post from Rorate Caeli on a Positive review of Ralph Martins Book


Vatican II and the “Bad News” of the Gospel

Ralph Martin’s new book clarifies what the Council actually taught about salvation outside the Church

David Paul Deavel
April 01, 2013

Ruefully observing statistics showing that only 6 percent of American Catholic parishes considered evangelism a priority, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles once lamented, “The Council has often been interpreted as if it had discouraged evangelization.” Ralph Martin’s new book, Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization, aims to explain why this interpretation has taken root despite the fact that the Council documents, particularly the keystone document Lumen Gentium (LG), are brimming with talk about evangelization as the Church’s main job. In fact, Paul VI’s encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi stated that the objectives of the Council were summed up in one statement: “to make the Church of the 20th century ever better fitted for proclaiming the Gospel.” Yet the opposite happened.

Martin thinks, and with reason, that the loss of impetus to evangelize is based upon the widespread notion after the Council that almost everybody will be saved—except maybe really evil people like Hitler and Judas. Having the sacraments or an explicit faith in Christ is seen as a nice add-on. But essentially the theology of salvation could be summed up by the 1989 cartoon movie All Dogs Go to Heaven.

Of course this theology had backing from big names. Karl Rahner declared that the Council had a “theological optimism…concerning salvation.” Richard McBrien’s commentary on LG claimed that the Church now considered the human race as “an essentially saved community from whom a few may, by the exercise of their own free will, be lost.” Even the Jesuit scholar Francis Sullivan, author of a very careful study of the teaching on salvation outside the Church, tended in his more popular writings to throw caution to the wind and claim a “general presumption of innocence which is now the official attitude of the Catholic Church.” These claims were never undergirded by any actual citations or close readings from the Council, which marked a doctrinal development indeed, but not one of automatic salvation or “presumed innocence.”

While the question of the salvation of those who have never heard the Gospel has been bubbling up in a new way since the 16th-century discovery of peoples in the New World, it had been coming to a steady boil over more than 100 years before Vatican II. The categories of invincible ignorance (whereby one could not be held accountable for not knowing about Christ and the Christian message) and implicit faith (whereby the invincibly ignorant might embrace as much truth as God has allowed one to receive and thus embrace Christ implicitly) have been around for a while. That arch-traditional pope Pius IX had already given assent to the possibility of salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Church in encyclicals in 1854 and 1863. This view was even included in a draft document of the First Vatican Council (which was never finished because of the Franco-Prussian war’s interruption). The Second Vatican Council’s teaching of this possibility of salvation outside the sacraments and explicit faith, then, was the culmination of a long doctrinal development that had already been given expression by the papal Magisterium a century before Vatican II.

Martin affirms this development, noting that LG 16 very clearly indicates the possibility of salvation outside of the visible Church and explicit faith. That key passages states:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life. (LG 16)

Notice, however, that simple ignorance, even ignorance that could not be helped, is not a sufficient condition for salvation—sincere seeking of God, a real attempt to follow the dictates of conscience, and an embrace of whatever truth is given are all necessary. To such people “divine assistance” will be given. But notice also that the Council Fathers said that such people “may” achieve eternal salvation. But what is so striking is that even when this passage is quoted, the final lines which warn of the dangers to those outside of the faith are rarely quoted and even more rarely commented on at length:

But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all of these, the Church, mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature,” fosters the missions with care and attention. (LG 16)

Far from a human race that is presumed innocent or essentially saved, the Council Fathers see a world in which salvation is neither assured nor easy. It is a world in which, “very often,” rejection of Christ has been a reality, is still possible, and is a main reason for Christian missions. Indeed, the Council also warned about the severe judgment falling on Catholics who do not persist in charity and faithfulness.

The Council’s “optimism,” Martin rightly notes, is about the possibility of salvation outside of the Church, not the probability that everybody inside or outside it will be saved. The Council doesn’t give odds on this question or tell us whether hell is densely populated or not, nor does Martin attempt to do so. But he notes that the “very often” is attached to the negative possibility. In a chapter examining the scriptural references in LG 16 he demonstrates that this “bad news” is indeed biblical. Where, then, did the All Dogs view of the Council come from? Mostly from two sources: Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar.

While Martin is clear that he respects both theologians and acknowledges their own pastoral desires, what is demonstrated in the two chapters covering their thoughts is how little backing they had in their own theories. Rahner, while occasionally acknowledging that the Council did not actually say anything new doctrinally on this topic, used the tactic that would later characterize the Bologna school: in Ratzinger’s words, the Council’s texts were interpreted as “a mere prelude to a still unattained conciliar spirit…” Thus, Rahner’s foundations for hope in universal or near-universal salvation were founded upon his own particular theological vision—a vision that gave little attention to the whole witness of either Scripture or Tradition on this point and (as he later acknowledged) underestimated the reality of sin.

While Rahner may have ignored Tradition and Scripture, Balthasar professed to be a man who paid attention to it all. Martin’s brief against him shows, however, that on his professed “theological hope” for universal salvation (best glimpsed in his book Dare We Hope That All Be Saved?), Balthasar has a tendency to ignore and occasionally mischaracterize his sources. Martin offers devastating critiques of Balthasar’s use of Scripture, the Fathers, and indeed logic. Balthasar quotes scriptural passages without even their immediate context, adduces witnesses who do not say what they purportedly say (e.g., Maximus the Confessor’s supposed embrace of universalism), and claims that one cannot love people sincerely if one believes that anyone could possibly reject God—the last a strange claim indeed given his view that the saints stand high as theological authorities. Finally, he seems to back up his positions with rather extravagant extra-biblical speculations about conversions in hell.

Balthasar and Rahner and many of their followers believed that the Church’s missions would be successful only if we could stop telling people the bad news. Whether or not they actually agreed with the speculative views of the theologians, many bishops and pastors embraced the idea that the Church would be better off if it stopped talking about sin and hell and accentuated the positive. As one theologian in 1973 wrote, with this strategy, “men will storm her doors seeking admission.” The result has been less than spectacular. Rare are the people who will spread the faith merely because the Church says so if there is no point to it other than drawing new members into “our community.” To paraphrase Flannery O’Connor, if the Church isn’t a place of salvation, it is simply an Elks Club. And the Elks aren’t doing that well these days either. It was Rahner, after all, whose talk about the “optimism of the Council” yielded at the end of his life to essays on the “winter of the Church.”

Martin does not spare bishops or popes in his criticism of this strategy of talking only about the positives. Paul VI’s and John Paul II’s encyclicals on evangelization, Evangelii Nuntiandi and Redemptoris Missio, are scored for omitting “the traditional focus on the eternal consequences that rest on accepting or rejecting the gospel that motivated almost two thousand years of mission.” Martin calls for an end to this “unwise silence” about a significant part of the Christian message. It is a particularly heartening sign that his book is blurbed by seven US bishops. Perhaps these endorsements are a sign that what Russell Shaw once called the US bishops’ “Potemkin Village” is now being torn down.

Martin’s one misstep is that he too quickly passes by the question of the danger to non-Catholic Christians. While Vatican II’s recognition of the power of salvation at work among other Christians separated from the Catholic Church is accurate, it is perhaps a little too pat. Martin does not mention the dangers to Christians whose baptisms are valid but who do not have the fullness of the sacraments or the guidance of the Magisterium to help them in a world in which, as he notes, the culture’s morality moves further from Christian teaching every day. The bad news is for all of us—Catholics, other Christians, and non-believers. We all need to hear it if the good news is to make sense. And we all need to hear it because it’s true.

About the Author: associate editor of Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture and adjunct professor of Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota).

On Priestly Celibacy and trying to Reinvent the Faith for Popularitys Sake

So we're at it again with the modernists.  

Tear down anything that even has a pinch of Catholicity for the sake of connecting better with the culture and with the times. 

The one thing that always pops up that is a discipline and therefore can be changed is the commitment to priestly celibacy.  In todays hyper sexualized world we are constantly told that people cannot control their sexual desires and priests should not be expected to do so either.  We are also told that the celibate lifestyle is the true cause of the sex abuse trial.  Furthermore it is stated that if we just loosed the discipline we would not have the priestly shortage that will plague the church now and going on into the future. 

I cannot tell you how much the celibate life is so despised by people in today’s world.  It’s like today’s world is still staring at Christ up on the cross and telling him to come down.  This attitude is not limited to celibacy it also relates as to how Catholics view the sacred liturgy.

As a side note I want to quick hit the attitude toward the liturgy by even orthodox Catholics.  During the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the Holy Father attempted to restore some of the traditions of liturgy which developed organically over the last 2000 of sacred history.  He was often maligned by the “progressives” and even at points he was condemned by the orthodox faithful for being pompous in bringing back the beautiful aspects often referred to as the trapping of his office.  Things like the fanon, the walking cross, historical vestments and miters were shunned by many as monarchial and not focused on the people enough, that they can’t connect with that life style.  Now enter Pope Francis who is a simple Jesuit.  Referred to as humble for not wanting all the supposed “trappings” of the office like the mozetta, the papal apartments, the golden pectoral cross and the liturgical laws of the church.  Immediately Francis can do no wrong in his thoughts and actions and whatever he does it must be defended as De Fide.  Many of us who are often referred to as rad-trads or even accept and use the term were also out and critical of certain aspects of Benedict’s papacy, including Assisi III and his less than enthusiastic use of the Tridentine Mass.  So now that we challenge this supposed notion of humility that people have tagged as relating to his simplicity.  Yet many of us so called trads don’t accept this connection on its face like the happy clappy orthodox crowd do.  His choice in celebrating the Sacred Liturgy towards the people to begin his pontificate was somewhat concerning because Benedict had made it a point to offer the sacrifice Ad Orientem in the Sistine Chapel.  Now my view on this is that he is more comfortable doing it one way and since that first couple days his probably a confusing and often threatening time a little comfort for his Holiness should be afforded.  There is an old Jesuit joke that as long as no one is hurt during a Jesuit liturgy things went well!  It is a funny joke but quite frankly just a modern thing to pass up the lack of reverence and commitment to proper offering of the liturgy which was no problem for Jesuits prior to the 1800’s at the very least.  Simplicity doesn’t mean that we are able to identify with a person any better than if an action was complex. Living in a Vatican suite is no more humble than living in the papal apartments, sure it might be less square feet but the apartments don’t drop into Earth they are still there and still will need to be maintained.  I personally don’t care where he lives or whether he wears a silver pectoral cross but too many people are back handing Benedict by pretending that his love for the sacred aspects of the office can’t be reconciled with the poor of the church.  Its like during the whole Benedictine papacy all he did was mock the poor, treating them as dirt.  But anyone with half a brain knows this to be utter bafoonery.  Even some prelates which don’t deserve their names

mentioned here have proclaimed the Francisican Papacy as a glorious return to low churching.  I don’t know about anyone else but if there is anything I hate it’s the idea that being lite Catholic is a good thing.  We should not shun our history, we should not shun the things that developed in the church organically.  We should applaud such things and treat them with the due reverence and help people that don’t understand them to have such.  So too when something isn’t organic but pieced together in a hodge podge way like the New Mass was we don’t condemn it as invalid, since its validity is a matter of discipline for form, but we need to ask whether the idea that many point to as sacred simplicity has been taken to a point which it should never have become.  So to finish up this note humility and simplicity are different aspects.  It is humble for one to accept the office and all the things that go with it, and in doing so not use it and laud it over others, yet to stand by its importance and the so called trappings don’t make it somehow less respectable for such things are timeless and often times stand against a culture that is that is against us in the first place, not to mention against Peters authority.

Now back to celibacy.  First the argument that celibacy leads to pedophile predators is on its face false in the nicest matter and straight libel and calumny in its sternest understanding.  Not partaking in the marital embrace is no reason to then go out and rape a child.  You cant even say that they are exploding on the inside and therefore are only acting out because they are suppressed because there are many faithful Catholics (a majority by far) who are single and chaste, and don’t molest children.  The John Jay report which was done to find the causes of the sex abuse crisis showed to those without an agenda that the crisis is a result of homosexuals who found their way into the clerical state and used their position of authority to perpetrate their hideous deeds.   This homosexual culture that has penetrated the Church has been documented by many sources including the book “Good Bye, Good Men” which I highly recommend, and even the recent report by a Polish Priest who did a study on behalf of concerned prelates.  It must be pointed out that this is the primary cause of the abuse crisis and not whether someone is celibate.

Second no one forces anyone to become a priest and therefore accept the discipline, so to say that they are forced into this unnatural situation is a sham on its face.  No one is guaranteed the priesthood, and when a person chooses to enter into the state they do so knowing the rules of the life.  So to make the point that they are trapped in this unnatural state leading to them acting out on their sexuality is a faulty notion.  Can you imagine trying to justify a married man whose wife is abstaining from the marital embrace, goes out and commits adultery then they come back and say well its her fault I couldn't help myself.  There is a certain thing called self-control that should be expected of all people.  I, being chaste, am often tempted by the culture to get all of my desires fulfilled at the time they pop up.  Yet somehow I am able to control my desires by his grace.  No its not easy to be faithful, but those that wish to follow him, firstly the clergy, are called to take up the cross and follow him.  We forego the things of the world.  We sacrifice and die to self-daily in our pursuit of his will.  And one of those things that priests are asked to sacrifice is the possibility of marriage which is primarily for the purpose of children and mutual bonding.  It should be no surprise that people in modernity object to celibacy because as its constantly stated the thing they most think about is the marital embrace.  Yet God wants more for us.  That’s not to say that the marriage is bad, for it is a great thing but it has a purpose just as the priesthood has a purpose, and in the west we generally prefer that distinctions are made and that a priest is not tied to a family (unless otherwise allowed) for reasons that are I think reasonable.  Modern man does not understand this, they think their life is about pleasure and the more the better, and if you are not getting any you just aren’t living so it must be changed.

Finally saying that loosening the celibacy requirement will somehow stop the shortage is a joke.  Just look at the other Christian faiths and they don’t have the requirement, yet they are in even dire straits then we can imagine.  Ask yourself will loosing this requirement really make Catholics in modernity really think about becoming priests?  I mean think about the lifestyle that’s expected of a priest, always on call, little compensation, treated like dogs by the media, shamed for teaching what is Catholic, and completely dedicated first and foremost to God.  How many of us can even begin to accept this as what we are called to.  Paul tells us why being celibate is helpful and quite frankly it makes sense. 

If we are really interested in solving the problems that face us we need to ask what is at the core of the priest shortage and the call for priestly celibacy to be removed?  It is fundamentally a crisis of faith, people don’t know the faith and quite frankly even if they are sacramentalized they don’t care.  Catholics contracept and abort their children out of existence destroying generations of future Catholics including clergy not only prompting a shortage of prelates but destroying the Catholic family and even the catholic education system has come under great pressure because there are so few kids and the modernists have used their positions of influence to secularize the schools.

So for those of you that think that we must rid the church of her beautiful traditions and therefore are shouting at Christ on the Cross telling him to come down from it, to be more in line with what they want I say to you, You opinion on the matter is foolish and is nothing more than surface fodder for modern man who lacks the ability to reason to truth in the first place.

So cheers to you and all my best,

+JMJ+

Erin Burnett and the promotion of Confusion

A response to Erin Burnett

So I have heard from a friend that the media is out there saying stupid things, big surprise. Here is my line by line take on what was said: [My comments in [Red with brackets]

BURNETT: Our second story, OUTFRONT, breaking the rules. He's only a little more than 24 hours into his papacy, but already Pope Francis is splitting with tradition. [Shes already showing that she paid zero attention to Pope Benedict, her idea of splitting is a hermanutic of rupture, which all libs take in attempting to confuse people] This morning, he did something amazing. He turned away the official Vatican limo when it came to pick him up instead he got in an unmarked sedan to get to the basilica dedicated to the Virgin Mary. [How is taking a limo a tradition?  Seems more like a security thing.  Now if Benedict had been carried on Sedia Gestatoria to every church he went to  them maybe you could draw a reference, but really this is creating a false impression of what is meant by tradition in the first]

That is a significant thing for a pope. Then he had his driver go back to the residence where he had been staying so he can pick up his own luggage and also pick up the tab. Even though it wasn't necessary, according to the Vatican, the newly elected pontiff wanted to set a good example of what priests and bishops should do. [Got it.  When you use something you must pay for it.  Please Erin when Mr. Obama goes on vacation or on another golf outing do us a favor and tell him to pay for it]



OUTFRONT tonight in Rome, our Vatican expert and contributor, Raymond Arroyo [EWTN: World Over Live host], and also the news director of Catholic Television Network. Now Raymond, take me through the rest of Pope Francis' first day. I know we were all learning so much about this man.

RAYMOND ARROYO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: We are, indeed. You know, I spoke to some security officials at the Vatican. They say he has been escaping us all day long. He does his own thing, Erin. I had a friend of mine who is monsignor. He walked into the house where all the cardinals were living and where the pope is now residing while they renovate the papal palace, and he came down the elevator himself. He walked out, no entourage, no secretaries. He greeted the man by name and embraced him.

They talked a little bit. He said it was very easy and so he's kind of setting his own path here. And as pope, he can do that. And let me tell you, in the days ahead, he's going to have to set his own path. It will take that to fix what ails the Vatican at this moment.

BURNETT: And we've heard a lot of amazing things about his generosity, how humble he is [Something about humitity is that most people think humility has to do with material possessions or letting people run over you, if so they need read the magnificat], you know, washing the feet of men who had AIDS. But he also faced some challenges as the leader of the Jesuits in Argentina.

Today we're learning about some serious questions about what he knew and what he did or didn't do when military junta in the 1970s murdered up to 30,000 people. People say he turned away from priests at that time. Is this going to be something that could become a bigger problem, Raymond?

ARROYO: Pope Francis, then Cardinal Bergoglio, he wanted to reform his order, the Jesuits. They were leaning toward liberation theology. He didn't like what was happening. He told some of the Jesuits, look, I separate your politics from your prayer.

Pray more, do less politics, they didn't like that. They fought back. Many of them started this canard, this story and floated it that he was involved in the kidnappings. And he was ostracized and sent to the north of Argentina. He was exiled.

It was only John Paul II that brought him back, named him an archbishop and later a cardinal. Here he is. It's interesting during the homily today, he pointed out in the scriptures there was a line about the stone that the builders rejected have become the corner stone.

That really could be the motto for this man's life. He is now the corner stone of this church. You can see it behind me and it is very interesting. He's been through the blades before, Erin.

And I don't think he's afraid of bringing reform to the fore and following through to the end even if it costs him personally. As you said, he's a simple man of faith. We'll see what happens.

BURNETT: All right, Raymond, thank you very much.

Well, as Raymond mentioned, Pope Francis is already making it clear that his tenure is going to be different from his predecessors. [Heremantic of Rupture is what she means] But will he budge on the sensitive issue of allowing women a bigger role in the church? [Why you no understand no ability to do so!]

David Mattingly talked to one woman who is risking everything to become a [faux] priest knowing that her Catholic Church will disown her when she is ordained [an ordination is not possible without a Bishop to boot, second simulating an ordination is not anything other than playing dress up, mocking Holy Mother Church]. David is OUTFRONT on the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): His first step into public view was greeted by cheers from the faithful. But at that moment, Pope Francis also moved one step closer to a confrontation with this woman. [Cause she’s the center of the world]

(on camera): Did this calling come from God? [Lets see the subjectivism to come]

CHRISTINE HAIDER, STUDENT, PACIFIC COLLEGE OF RELIGION: I believe that it did, yes. [and who is discerning this again, the church or her?  After all Christ says you did not choose me I chose you.  He also says to his Apostoles the bishops of his day, he who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me and the one who sent me.]

MATTINGLY: How did God speak to you? Do you remember? 

HAIDER: I think it was peacefulness and it's not an urgency. [maybe you misunderstood that she should be a nun?  What makes her think Priest?] It's just a peaceful knowing this is what I'm supposed to do. [Relativism on display]

MATTINGLY (voice-over): Christine Haider is part of a small, but rebellious movement [I seem to remember another rebeliious being] risking ex-communication. [Reminder they see this as a political thing, they don’t understand that excommication is meant to lead the soul back because they are doing something wrong in regards to church teaching] She is out to break Roman Catholic Church tradition by becoming an ordained priest. [Again cant be ordained, all they can do is simulate the action, and that in itself is a mortal sin]

(on camera): The church would not see you as a Catholic priest. [wouldn’t it be priestess?  ;-P  ]

HAIDER: I don't believe that clerics are qualified to make that decision on their own. I believe that that is God's decision. [I would like to see her keys, her commission to feed the flock and tend it, and so forth before she makes the comment]

MATTINGLY (voice-over): The Roman Catholic Women Priest Organization says there are nearly 100 women around the world shunned [oh dear] by the hierarchy because they have become priests [but they haven’t] through ceremonies not sanctioned by the Vatican.

The emergence of Pope Francis does signal and era of change in the Catholic Church [Hermanutic of Rupture], the first pope from the Jesuit order [Validity not questioned], the first modern day pope not from Europe [should tell you immediately that its not a rupture]. But he is also known as a conservative voice, embracing the church's traditional values. [Boo, Booer! :-P  ]

(on camera): Is this a moment of encouragement for you?

HAIDER: Yes, I feel it's too soon to say. I do definitely agree that there are a lot of firsts in this appointment and I think that that means that it might be a good time for more firsts. [Misunderstanding that something being a first in ethnic or order terms means the dogma door is open]


MATTINGLY (voice-over): Christine Haider is expecting a lot from the new pope. Not just a woman, she is also married. For now, she is studying for the priesthood but at a Protestant seminary. [thanks for getting their hopes up protestants] She is a few years away from becoming ordained [again faulty idea]. Scholars [why would you ask a scholar, why not a priest in good standing or a Bishop] say such fundamental change seems unlikely when three out of four women priests are in the United States [Not only is it unlikely, but impossible, are these scholars at the protestant college?].

REVEREND TOM RAUSCH, PROFESSOR OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY [Oh hears the supposed response, lets go to the liberal Jesuit university]: I don't think the ordination of women is on the top of the list of the priorities [Father why would you even say its on a list?] that the cardinals are facing right now at the Vatican. It's a very important issue in the United States, but Catholics in the United States constitute 6 percent of global Catholicism. [Got that 6% not even 99% dictate to the church what Christs teaching is]

MATTINGLY (on camera): The church for its part has been very clear on where it stands on this issue. [Rome has spoken, the case is closed, now get down to living the faith]  As recently as 2010, the Vatican declared that women becoming priests is a grave crime against church law. [This sounds conflated for a reason.  Got it its against church law, the law made by man, not God that’s why its ok to go against] Defiance like this doesn't come without a price. [Im thinking of what the price should be….if only ;-P  ]

(voice-over): Ex-communication means Haider would not be allowed to take communion in the Catholic Church, [not just the blessed sacrament, but any sacraments] denied the ritual [person] central to the Christian faith.

HAIDER: And being denied communion at a Catholic Church would break my heart. [Im sure it would that’s why you continue in your error, Right?]

MATTINGLY: But it's a risk she is willing to take [to place yourself outside the church is to condemn yourself to hell, she must misunderstand this…wait she probably went to “Catholic” school her whole life, so scratch that], a broken heart for the chance of breaking through. [to the pits of eternal perdition] David Mattingly, CNN, Berkeley, California.

+JMJ+

My take on the Good Popes speech today

My take on the Good Popes speech today

Not that it matters but I have a take on todays speech, not particularly important that it is coming from me, nor do I think I have a new great take on anything but here it goes my comments in [Red Brackets]

As you know, there are various reasons why I chose the name of Francis of Assisi, a familiar figure far beyond the borders of Italy and Europe, even among those who do not profess the Catholic faith. One of the first reasons was Francis’ love for the poor. How many poor people there still are in the world! And what great suffering they have to endure! After the example of Francis of Assisi, the Church in every corner of the globe has always tried to care for and look after those who suffer from want, and I think that in many of your countries you can attest to the generous activity of Christians who dedicate themselves to helping the sick, orphans, the homeless and all the marginalized, thus striving to make society more humane and more just.

But there is another form of poverty! [say it aint so! Sr. Campbell would disagree, afterall the only reason to be Catholic is to give the poor free things and blast Congressman Ryan for proposing that government is not the only solution to poverty.  But never mind shes a glorified social worker, with one of those modern habits [?] But then again the US bishops are also complicit in not being able to see their over compensating of programs on the government dole, but w/e]

It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously [this is exactly what I thought he meant when he talked about the need for a poor church]. It is what my much-loved predecessor, Benedict XVI, called the "tyranny of relativism"[h/t Ratzinger  :-)  ], which makes everyone his own criterion and endangers the coexistence of peoples [now if he were a little more confrontational he would trace this to protestantism, but maybe one day he will, I will give him the benefit of the doubt here]. And that brings me to a second reason for my name. Francis of Assisi tells us we should work to build peace. But there is no true peace without truth! [this might be, but it probably is not, a reference to Francis meeting the Sulton to seek peace by his conversion] There cannot be true peace if everyone is his own criterion, if everyone can always claim exclusively his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth. 

One of the titles of the Bishop of Rome is Pontiff [this deserves a thumbs up after all he has only lately been referencing his role as Bishop of Rome, that isnt bad in itself] , that is, a builder of bridges with God and between people. [Another reference to Jacobs ladder, slightly veiled of course] My wish is that the dialogue between us should help to build bridges connecting all people, in such a way that everyone can see in the other not an enemy, not a rival, but a brother or sister to be welcomed and embraced! [Love thy Brother as you love yourself] My own origins impel me to work for the building of bridges. As you know, my family is of Italian origin; and so this dialogue between places and cultures a great distance apart matters greatly to me, this dialogue between one end of the world and the other, which today are growing ever closer, more interdependent, more in need of opportunities to meet and to create real spaces of authentic fraternity. [Of course there is inauthentic fraternity where we build the city of God without him (ie: Babal), we are interdependent now indeed but we should work to be connected in the faith in Christ in communion with Peter.  That is the goal, unity the way Christ wished.  But realize that being united doesnt preclude having different nations with different views, for even under the Holy Roman Empire there was unity but distinctiveness, kind of like the Blessed Trinity]

In this work, the role of religion is fundamental. [Being fundamental it is a conerstone, not just an add on] It is not possible to build bridges between people while forgetting God. [AMEN!] But the converse is also true: it is not possible to establish true links with God, while ignoring other people.  [Matthew 25: 31-46] Hence it is important to intensify dialogue among the various religions, and I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam.  At the Mass marking the beginning of my ministry, I greatly appreciated the presence of so many civil and religious leaders from the Islamic world. And it is also important to intensify outreach to non-believers, so that the differences which divide and hurt us may never prevail, but rather the desire to build true links of friendship between all peoples, despite their diversity. [The court of the gentiles?  This is something Benedict would talk about from time to time as well.  Its not about blurring thing but defining how we can work together and build peace in Christ as he said before]

Fighting poverty, both material and spiritual, building peace and constructing bridges [Pontifex]: these, as it were, are the reference points for a journey that I want to invite each of the countries here represented to take up. But it is a difficult journey, if we do not learn to grow in love for this world of ours. Here too, it helps me to think of the name of Francis, who teaches us profound respect for the whole of creation and the protection of our environment, which all too often, instead of using for the good, we exploit greedily, to one another’s detriment. [Watch the Captialists whine, watch the commies take this to mean the Earth over people!]

Franciscus

Address to the Diplomatic Corps

March 22, 2013

Pope Francis, the leaks and the Mood

Hey,

So there has been much on my mind lately.  And I have been preparing some videos for my YouTube channel lately, but I have unfortunately lost my want to finish up the post from a while back on Pope Pauls talk on the liturgy.  Hopefully one day I will pick this back up, but with everything going on right now its one of the last things on my mind, and there is so much out there that must be hit on before I go back to this that my head is exploding!

First we have a new Pope!  Francis!  Yeah I know I’m a week late but now’s better than never if you have lived under a rock.  I must admit I was absolutely shocked by the choice and was absolutely terrified that the first things I heard were Jesuit and Argentina.  Now for dis-closer purposes I do go to a Jesuit parish during the week and there is usually no problems.  As the joke goes if no one is hurt during a Jesuit liturgy things went well!  I would concur.  But the knowledge that he is a Jesuit scared me some because of the communist infiltration of the Jesuits, especially in the Latin American lands.  Now to be sure Latin America has hot spots for liberation theology, which is nothing more than Marx with a rosary in his hands, but Argentina is not one of those areas.  In fact it was made know that the new Holy Father was one of the few to stand up against liberation theology, thus curbing the idea from spreading among his fellow Jesuits.  He did not go unharmed by this position and was later banished by his fellow Jesuits to the outer Northern provinces to teach math to the youth in Argentina.  Now even having said that we must be restrained in to much of a high opinion of him lets remain objective. 

I do have some fears from what people have noted about him from his time as a Cardinal in Buenos Aires, most noted at traditional minded sites like Rorote and so forth.  I am also concerned with some of the comments and divulging of the goings of on the conclave now occurring.  I want hit on these two specifically.

First some cardinals like his Eminence Cardinal Mahoney have been tweeting or talking to the media about how the new Pope is their guy because he is so simple!  For instance Cardinal Mahoney has been taking backhanded shots at Pope Emeriti Benedict, mocking his use of sacred vestments, and his insistence on maintaining the various papal traditions like red shoes.  Needless to say im still fuming from the cowardice of Mahoney and his kin, I have had to take it to Christ in adoration, and he has calmed me every time, and reminded me that these men need prayers.  As the Good Cure of Ars said, “there is no such thing as a bad Priest, only a priest that has not been prayed for enough.

Second the divulging of what was going on in the conclave is most embarrassing.  Have these cardinals, these princes of the church no integrity in their words and their actions?  Before his abdication Pope Benedict made it clear that such an action incurs automatic excommunication.  Yet we see these things like that Scola was dissed by his Italian peers immediately, who they voted for, and deliberations among themselves.  If they cannot remain true to their oaths of silence that carry with it the salvation severing force of excommunication how can such people even begin to hold themselves out as shepherds of souls guarding against error and feeding the faithful with correct doctrine.  Their actions speak louder than words.  Now don’t get me wrong their offices are separate from their actions, I don’t challenge that and I respect them with all due expectations for such.  But let us be objective and judge them on their actions, not condemning their office but their decisions made.  Cardinals that have violated this seal have done so willingly, without specific appeal to the new Holy Father to do so, this is a huge problem.  I will say some prayers for these princes of Holy Mother Church and I urge you to do likewise.

These are scary times as many of the cardinals admitted before the conclave, but I am reminded of a movie called “The Dark Knight”, having surety that many of you have seen it, the Batman character when things look like everything is going wrong he is reminded that the night is always darkest just before the dawn.”

May God keep us safe and guide our Holy Father in his undertakings due by his Sacred Office,

+JMJ+