Daily Archives: March 8, 2014
“Corriere” Interview: The Highlights
The new interview to the Corriere della Sera is far less stupid than the old one to Repubblica. But this does not mean that it is deprived of disquieting statements; both in what it says and in what it chooses not to say. Statements, mind, which would have been less disquieting if said from a different Pope, but appear in a different light as they have been pronounced by this one.
As I write, I have side by side the Italian text of the Corriere and an English translation from Zenit. I have noticed no particular blunders, but I am not always satisfied with the translation (my bad, no doubt), so I have tweaked it very slightly here and there.
Below, the points on which I would like to comment. Underlined words are mine.
La tenerezza e la misericordia sono l’essenza del suo messaggio pastorale…
«E del Vangelo. È il centro del Vangelo. Altrimenti non si capisce Gesù Cristo, la tenerezza del Padre che lo manda ad ascoltarci, a guarirci, a salvarci».
Tenderness and mercy are the essence of your pastoral message…
“And of the Gospel. They are the heart of the Gospel. Otherwise, one doesn’t understand Jesus Christ, or the tenderness of the Father who sends Him to listen to us, to cure us, to save us”.
I wonder what one understands of Jesus Christ if one does not know that he will well be damned if he refuses to accept Him and His Church. You read Francis and you think he is reminding you that “Jesus saves” as he would remind you that dinner will be served at 8 pm.
Ma è stato compreso questo messaggio? Lei ha detto che la francescomania non durerà a lungo. C’è qualcosa nella sua immagine pubblica che non le piace?
«Mi piace stare tra la gente, insieme a chi soffre, andare nelle parrocchie. Non mi piacciono le interpretazioni ideologiche, una certa mitologia di papa Francesco. Quando si dice per esempio che esce di notte dal Vaticano per andare a dar da mangiare ai barboni in via Ottaviano. Non mi è mai venuto in mente. Sigmund Freud diceva, se non sbaglio, che in ogni idealizzazione c’è un’aggressione. Dipingere il Papa come una sorta di superman, una specie di star, mi pare offensivo. Il Papa è un uomo che ride, piange, dorme tranquillo e ha amici come tutti. Una persona normale».
But was this message understood? You said that the “Francis mania” wouldn’t last long. Is there something of your public image that you don’t like?
“I like to be among the people, with those who suffer, and to go to the parishes. I don’t like ideological interpretations, a certain mythology of Pope Francis. When it is said, for instance, that I go out from the Vatican at night to feed beggars on Via Ottaviano – I never even thought of it. Sigmund Freud said, if I’m not mistaken, that in all idealization there is an aggression. To paint the Pope as if he is a sort of Superman, a sort of star, I find offensive. The Pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps peacefully and has friends like everyone else. He is a normal person”.
Not many messages of indignation when he received the journalist of Rolling Stone who then gave him the cover; or when a fag magazine did the same; or when Time made him “man/woman/transgender being of the year”. Or when an abortionist organisation thanked him in public.
No. he only has a problem when people think he goes out at night among the beggars. Thank God he doesn’t. At least that.
Le sono dispiaciute quelle accuse di marxismo, soprattutto americane, dopo la pubblicazione dell’Evangelii Gaudium?
«Per nulla. Non ho mai condiviso l’ideologia marxista, perché non è vera, ma ho conosciuto tante brave persone che professavano il marxismo».
Were you annoyed that they accused you of being Marxist, especially in the United States, after the publication of “Evangelii Gaudium”?
Were you annoyed that they accused you of being Marxist, especially in the United States, after the publication of “Evangelii Gaudium”?
“Not at all. I never shared the Marxist ideology because it’s false, but I knew many good persons who professed Marxism.”
Substitute “marxist” for Nazist, and see how it looks: “Not at all. I never shared the Nazist ideology because it’s false, but I knew many good persons who professed Nazism”.
If it sounds creepy and stupid, it’s because the original answer is.
Gli scandali che hanno turbato la vita della Chiesa sono fortunatamente alle spalle. Le è stato rivolto, sul delicato tema degli abusi sui minori, un appello pubblicato dal Foglio e firmato tra gli altri dai filosofi Besançon e Scruton perché lei faccia sentire alta la sua voce contro i fanatismi e la cattiva coscienza del mondo secolarizzato che rispetta poco l’infanzia.
The scandals that perturbed the life of the Church fortunately are now in the past. On the delicate topic of the abuse of minors, philosophers Besancon and Scruton among others, asked you to raise your voice against fanaticism and the bad faith of the secularized world that doesn’t respect childhood much.
Damn journalists. The petition of Il Foglio was in order for Francis to make his voice heard against the attacks on the Church from the UN and other secular organisations. The Corriere conveniently ignores this. Congratulations.
Francis’ answer is the usual fluff, not worthy of a comment.
Lei ha indicato nella globalizzazione, soprattutto finanziaria, alcuni dei mali che aggrediscono l’umanità. Ma la globalizzazione ha strappato dall’indigenza milioni di persone. Ha dato speranza, un sentimento raro da non confondere con l’ottimismo.
«È vero, la globalizzazione ha salvato dalla povertà molte persone, ma ne ha condannate tante altre a morire di fame, perché con questo sistema economico diventa selettiva. La globalizzazione a cui pensa la Chiesa assomiglia non a una sfera, nella quale ogni punto è equidistante dal centro e in cui quindi si perde la peculiarità dei popoli, ma a un poliedro, con le sue diverse facce, per cui ogni popolo conserva la propria cultura, lingua, religione, identità. L’attuale globalizzazione “sferica” economica , e soprattutto finanziaria, produce un pensiero unico, un pensiero debole. Al centro non vi è più la persona umana, solo il denaro».
You identify in globalization, especially financial, some of the evils that humanity suffers. However, globalization brought millions of people out of poverty. It brought hope, a rare sentiment that must not be confused with optimism.
Holy Father: It’s true, globalization saved many people from misery, but it condemned many others to die of hunger, because with this economic system it becomes selective. The globalization that the Church thinks of does not look like a sphere in which every point is equidistant from the center and in which, therefore, the particularity of peoples is lost. It is, rather, a polyhedron, with its different facets, in which each nation keeps its own culture, language, religion, identity. The present “spherical” economic globalization, especially the financial, produces one thought, a weak thought. And the human person is no longer at its center but only money.
I am trying very hard to remember when I have read something as stupid as “globalisation condemned many people to die of hunger”. No idea. Must have been something concerning global warming, though. The rest of the statement exposes the appalling ignorance of this man in terms of economics, a discipline he must have learnt from trannies in the favela. And I am no friend of globalisation, either.
A mezzo secolo dall’Humanae Vitae di Paolo VI, la Chiesa può riprendere il tema del controllo delle nascite? Il cardinale Martini, suo confratello, riteneva che fosse ormai venuto il momento.
«Tutto dipende da come viene interpretata l’Humanae Vitae. Lo stesso Paolo VI, alla fine, raccomandava ai confessori molta misericordia, attenzione alle situazioni concrete. Ma la sua genialità fu profetica, ebbe il coraggio di schierarsi contro la maggioranza, di difendere la disciplina morale, di esercitare un freno culturale, di opporsi al neo-malthusianesimo presente e futuro. La questione non è quella di cambiare la dottrina, ma di andare in profondità e far sì che la pastorale tenga conto delle situazioni e di ciò che per le persone è possibile fare. Anche di questo si parlerà nel cammino del Sinodo».
Half a century after Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” can the Church take up again the topic of birth control? Your confrere, Cardinal [Carlo Maria] Martini [the late Archbishop of Milan] believed it was now time.
“It all depends on how the text of “Humanae Vitae”is interpreted. Paul VI himself, towards the end, recommended to confessors much mercy and attention to concrete situations. But his genius was prophetic, as he had the courage to go against the majority, to defend moral discipline, to apply a cultural brake, to oppose present and future neo-Malthusianism. The object is not to change the doctrine, but it is a matter of going into the issue in depth and to ensure that the pastoral ministry takes into account the situations of each person and what that person can do. This will also be discussed on the path to the Synod”.
These are extremely disquieting words. Francis is saying that you don’t need to do what Martini advocated through a new encyclical, you merely need to read the existing one in a “pastoral” way! “Going into the issue in depth” seems to be the way this disgraceful man will try to sabotage every aspect of Catholicism that stays in the way of his V II on steroids.
Molti Paesi regolano le unioni civili. È una strada che la Chiesa può comprendere? Ma fino a che punto?
«Il matrimonio è fra un uomo e una donna. Gli Stati laici vogliono giustificare le unioni civili per regolare diverse situazioni di convivenza, spinti dall’esigenza di regolare aspetti economici fra le persone, come ad esempio assicurare l’assistenza sanitaria. Si tratta di patti di convivenza di varia natura, di cui non saprei elencare le diverse forme. Bisogna vedere i diversi casi e valutarli nella loro varietà».
Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
“Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity”.
Loaded question. “But” implies that the Church “can understand”, which is poppycock. But this is not the worst.
The worst is that we have a Pope that does not know jack about Christian morality. Faced with people who give scandal and live in mortal sin, he says we must look at the economic aspects of their living in sin instead of saying they must not live in sin. To him, it’s important that people go to hell with adequate medical insurance cover. He wants to look at this case by case, you know. It should not be said the Pope agrees with concubines not getting the economic aspects of their lives properly regulated. Has he no idea why these rules are there in the first place?
Come verrà promosso il ruolo della donna nella Chiesa?
«Anche qui la casistica non aiuta. È vero che la donna può e deve essere più presente nei luoghi di decisione della Chiesa. Ma questa io la chiamerei una promozione di tipo funzionale. Solo così non si fa tanta strada. Bisogna piuttosto pensare che la Chiesa ha l’articolo femminile “la”: è femminile dalle origini. Il grande teologo Urs von Balthasar lavorò molto su questo tema: il principio mariano guida la Chiesa accanto a quello petrino. La Vergine Maria è più importante di qualsiasi vescovo e di qualsiasi apostolo. L’approfondimento teologale è in corso. Il cardinale Rylko, con il Consiglio dei Laici, sta lavorando in questa direzione con molte donne esperte di varie materie».
How will the role of women be promoted within the Church?
“Casuistry doesn’t help in this case either. It’s true that women can and must be more present in decision-making posts of the Church. But I would call this a promotion of a functional type. And with that alone, one doesn’t advance much. Rather, we must think that the Church has the feminine article, “la”: it is feminine by origin. Theologian Urs von Balthasar worked a lot on this topic: the Marian principle guides the Church by the hand of the Petrine principle. The Virgin is more important than any Bishop and any of the Apostles. The theological reflection is already underway. Cardinal [Stanislaw] Rylko [president of the Pontifical Council for the Laity], together with the Council of the Laity, is working in this direction with many expert women”.
Another loaded question. Why would the “role of women” need to be promoted? Was the Blessed Virgin “underpromoted”? Did St Theresa of Avila ask that women be “more present in decision making-posts of the Church”? Francis says some smart things in the answer (cue the reference to the Blessed Virgin), but for the rest takes refuge in the usual fluffy rhetoric.
In cauda venenum: the very worst of this interview is possibly not in what the Not-So-Holy Father said, but in what he did not say. I read some days ago he purposely chose to avoid the issue of so-called same-sex relationships.
Heavens! One is Pope, decides to give an interview and says “but please let us not talk about the issues that will make me unpopular!”.
This man is fully bent on destroying as much as he can of traditional Catholicism, whilst avoiding everything that can damage his own reputation in what he will not be able to destroy.
“If it can be demolished, let’s do it in a “pastoral” way. If it can’t, please let’s avoid the issue”. This is Francis’ platform in one line.
Lord, have mercy.
Cool Kids And Unsung Heroes.
Pray for us now, and in the hour of our death.
It seems fashionable nowadays to show so much understanding for those who have willingly decided to put themselves outside of the Church, and in opposition to Our Lord and Saviour. If one is an atheist, it seems he is considered the spearhead of modern thinking, and even Popes – though not those who call themselves such – will make extraordinary (and actually heretical) contortions to show them how very cool they are in their atheism, because hey, they follow their conscience. Oh, how much better the world would be if there were more cool atheists following their own conscience…
In all this official and unofficial pandering to the ideology of our time, there are some situations that, I think, are never called to our attention. Therefore, I will do it myself.
Here, a good mother lovingly raises her children…
View original post 1,047 more words
The Age Of Aquarius
The recent utterances of Francis The Destroyer are, if you ask me, potentially far more dangerous than the translation blunder about the “ascetic” priests. And this time, it cannot be a problem of translation.
There is in Francis’ observation an insisted reference to a “new time”, the “time of mercy”. The man truly thinks that times go on in blocks. We had the time of, say, justice, where the church cared about the rules. Now we are in the time of mercy; a time which will obviously require new rules and a new attitude, otherwise it would not make any sense to say that we are in a “new time” anyway.
This is first class, quality-certified, prize-winning New Age bollocks. And it profoundly undermines and seeks to destroy – like all talk of “new times” – Christianity.
If we live in new times of mercy, we must deduct that we are stuck with the Jesus of the old times. If we live in a new time, there’s no way of saying what should be preserved – and what, necessarily, discarded – of the rules given to us in, and for, the “old times”.
I have never seen anyone talking of “new times” without linking to it the aspiration to, or the demand of, profound changes. It is not clear to me why Francis, of all people, should not entertain such ideas.
And this is exactly what he is doing. As more and more Catholics understand this Pope is genuinely subversive, he must gradually explain to them why this is so. Enter the “new time”, conveniently used every time the doctrine flies out of the window. And notice that he tries to hide behind his finger and say that the “new age” actually started with JP II; an alleged fact the planet never noticed, and of which it must now be informed by Francis.
Now don’t get me wrong: it is always easy to pick one word here and one phrase there of some past Pope and say “look, he said it already!” Protestants do it all the time with the Bible! But as always, you must understand what the agenda behind the words is, and there can be no doubt Francis’ agenda is to pump V II with “mercy” steroids like it’s a Russian athlete in the Eighties, until Justice is all but invisible, and Goodness made a mockery of.
I can hear the Pollyannas already, getting all excited about the “new papacy” for the “new times”.
At “Patheos” they will be screaming like little girlies.
I might be wrong, but I think this “mercy” thing – including hostage-taking of soon-to-be-canonised JP II – will be used to justify an awful lot of heresies in the years to come.
The “new time” is coming. Fasten your seat belts, and pray the Lords he gives us back the old times soon.
You must be logged in to post a comment.