Pope Francis Strikes Again

Knew what he was talking about: Pope Benedict

I do not know you, but I think that the shallowness of this Pope is getting seriously embarrassing. This, if we charitably assume that the Pope is being merely unintentionally shallow rather than wilfully disingenuous. As one tries to be charitable particularly concerning the Holy Father, I suggest we assume the first, but never become blind to the possibility of the second.

“Nessuno deve uccidere in nome di Dio” and “anche soltanto dirlo e’ una bestemmia”, the Pope has declared in one of his rather spontaneous sermons. Now, in Italian “uccidere” is in common parlance used both for killing and for murder, and the context tells you which is which, though if you mean “murder” you may well use unambiguous words like “assassinare”.

Therefore, the words of the Pope can be interpreted in an orthodox way (“no one can commit a murder in the name of God, and even to say so is blasphemy”; I certainly can’t hack a man to pieces with a meat cleaver in the name of God), but can also be understood in the “spirit of V II”, pacifist way of “no one can wage war in the name of God, and even to say so is a blasphemy”; negative implications for the capital punishment can be drawn in exactly the same way.

Now, has the Pope said countless saints of the past (think of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the real engine beside the promotion of the Second Crusade; or even Saint Francis, another great friend of the Crusades, to mention just two) were blasphemous, together with all those men who risked or gave their life in battle for Christ? No, he didn’t say so and, if confronted with the thoughtless shallowness of his own words, he would certainly deny it.

Still, this is the way everyone who so desires will be able to understand the Pope’s words, and there is no denying the constant desire for popularity coming from the Vatican media outlets took care that this is the case.

Now, whenever the Pope makes such affirmations we are not given the full text of the homily, possibly because of the inordinate rambling therein contained; but as the Pope allows this to happen, and allows the Vatican Radio to publish the “convenient” and “savoury” snippets of his sermons, he must be held responsible for the consequences of their posturing and cheap marketing.

Therefore, either the Pope knows better, but wilfully sows these kindergarten banalities in order to become popular among the ignorant and the stupid (we do not want to think that, if we can); or, more probably and more charitably, he is a man of such little depth that whenever he talks in public he utters every thought that comes to his mind without reflecting on the implications, and without any concern for the way his words will be interpreted; what this also tells us about his well-publicised humility, I will leave it for you to decide.

This Pope has been compared to a country priest. Frankly, I think we have the right to expect better than that from a country priest, too; but at least the country priest doesn’t have the Vatican Radio website to divulge urbi et orbi whatever is produced by his “streams of consciousness”.

My suggestion is that the Vatican Radio website either ignores the Pope’s homily or publishes them in their entirety. But the best solution would be that the Holy Father starts to understand what his role entails and to read homilies carefully prepared (possibly not by him, or reviewed by a sound theologian) beforehand, so that both theological nonsense and ambiguities are avoided.

This Papacy is becoming a kindergarten. The Pope seems not displeased.

Mundabor

Advertisements

Posted on May 24, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.

  1. Is he just not very bright, do you think?

    • I think he isn’t as bright as the press wants us to believe.

      Having said that, there are different ways of being intelligent, and at times people intelligent in some areas are rather lacking in others.

      Pope Bergoglio must have known how to navigate the corridors, and for one who condemns careerism and ambition one must say he hasn’t done very badly for himself. But he seems to me to have that kind of dumbness that does not allow him to admit that whilst he may have some “street smarts”, he vastly overstates his intelligence if considered as “profoundness of thinking”.

      Pope’s speeches are highly scrutinised, and being a street smart priest with a knack for the happy imagery is not enough, as he will discover very soon (if he is a bit smart).

      Mind, he might consolidate his reputation among the dumb if he keeps playing the “uncle banal” role; but he will utterly destroy it among those who can recognise quality thinking.

      The intellectual comparison with Pope Ratzinger is, I must say, outright cruel.

      M

    • It is indeed – the Pope Emeritus was one of the most intellectual men ever to occupy the See of St Peter.

  2. Sounds like one of Baldrick’s cunning plans…..

    • Indeed! 😉

      (I wonder how many of my US readers know “Baldrick’s cunning plans…”. I have mentioned him in my posts at times. Delicious).

      M

  3. I do not believe that he is merely shallow. He is a high ranking person and a Jesuit. I do not trust these apparently murky sayings of his. May God have mercy on me, but this is how I feel. It is sad to say but over these past years we have heard many other priests and many other Jesuits take half truths and wrap them around confusing and emotionally distracting phrases in their efforts to get us to swallow their distortions of what the Church teaches. A Jesuit may be formed incorrectly, he may be in error, but I do not think that they can ever be said to be unintelligent. IMHO. Please pray for me.

    • Filia Mariae, there is absolutely nothing wrong or sinful is thinking bad of a Pope if the Pope gives a balanced person reason to think he is bad. Personally I want to think the best (say, the least bad) as long as I can, but this also has to do with the fact that writing a blog read by some hundred people every day I feel that I should be more prudent in my writing, lest my eventual mistake mat lead others in error.

      Having said that, if one talks like a Jesuits and acts like a Jesuits, then he is probably a Jesuit.

      I suggest that you pray for the Pope every day – there are some useful Rosary apps that include the prayer for the Pontiff in the Rosary routine – so that you know you are doing what best you can even if you don’t trust the Pontiff.

      M

  4. The Pope apparently felt positively about the Argentine invasion of the Falklands and so perhaps he did just mean murder. If he can support that event, he can’t consistently condemn all wars including defensive ones. He has already caused confusion with his remarks about the likely fate of atheists who ‘do good’ and now this. As you say, this is becoming embarrassing.

    • I haven’t got on the one about atheists (yet), because the information is confused and this would deserve a good English translation, whereas I only got the Italian version for now (whose text I have used for this post).

      I really think someone should tell the Holy Father he just can’t ramble as he pleases.

      And you are fully right about the Falklands. As always, Jesuitical talk.

      M

  5. I’ll go with your first assumption. We have the first Pope of the Church of Nice. He should have our prayers, especially those to the Holy Spirit..

  6. This story is a perfect example of the error into which I have fallen which Archbishop Lefebvre described as ‘disobedience through obedience’ or diabolical disorientation. We don’t criticise heretic Cardinals or Modernist Popes because of respect for office. That is nonsense. I ought, and we ought all to remember ‘we resist you to your face!.Modernism and heresy should never be accepted, no compromise or understanding.

    I distinctly wonder if this is not perhaps better than the cunning Balthasar-and-Lubac modernism of Cardinal Ratzinger. There’s a big split and clarity. Modernism’s in plain view.

    I retract all my cowardly vaccilating and excusing Modernist heresy. Archbishop Lefebvre ought to be our example.
    PG

  7. Thank you! Praying the rosary for the Holy Father 🙂

%d bloggers like this: