Vatican City, Sep 18, 2017 / 01:57 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Nearly four years after the Pope established his Council of Cardinal advisers to help him in the task of reforming the Roman Curia, one member of the group said their work is wrapping up, and that it could take only a few more meetings to finish what they set out to do.
The ongoing process of reform “is being done at various stages of development, and I hope we’ll come to an end in all of these matters soon,” Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay told CNA Sept. 14.
“It will take two or three more meetings more,” he said, adding that “by June perhaps we’ll be seeing the end of the tunnel.”
Cardinal Gracias is also President of the Asian Bishops Conference and in 2013 was chosen by the Pope along with eight other prelates from around the world to advise him in matters of Church governance and reform.
He spoke to CNA in a lengthy, sit-down interview after the council – also called the “C9” – concluded their latest round of meetings last week.
As far as the reform goes, Cardinal Gracias said “there won’t be very major changes; it’s the governance of the Church, we can’t just turn everything upside down.” Rather, it will be “a gradual change, a change of mentality, a change of approach, restructuring a bit of the departments so that they are more logically suited to the needs of today.”
He said a key goal of the C9 is to implement the vision of the Second Vatican Council, specifically when it comes to the importance of the role of the laity and women, and incorporating greater synodality and collegiality into the Church’s structures.
From the beginning Pope Francis “had very clear what he wanted this group to do,” the cardinal said. “He had no hesitation, he’s a good leader. He had a clear vision.”
Cardinal Gracias admitted that in the beginning he had doubts as to whether or not they were going in the right direction, and had started to worry what people on the outside might say, since many fruits of the meetings weren’t and likely won’t be immediately visible. He said he also struggled with doubts about the pace at which they were moving, and believed that things were going “too slow.”
“I will confess that once at the beginning I was wondering, ‘are we going in the right direction?’ I asked myself. But now I can see it is,” he said, explaining that Pope Francis’ Christmas speech to the Roman Curia last year was a “tipping point” for him.
More than anything, there is a change in mentality that’s needed, which will take longer than simply reforming the Vatican’s structures, he said, but said the group is “rather confident that it will happen because the Pope is giving very effective leadership.”
In addition to the ongoing curial reform, Cardinal Gracias also spoke about the recent release of Indian priest Fr. Tom Uzhunnalil 18 months after he was abducted in Yemen. He also spoke about the Pope’s upcoming trip to Myanmar and Bangladesh, and when a possible papal trip to India might take place.
Below are excerpts from CNA’s interview with Cardinal Gracias:
You’ve seen Fr. Tom and you were at his meeting with Pope Francis. How is he doing?
I was pleasantly surprised with calmness with which he came out, because he did not know, to my knowledge, that he was being released. But he said I know people have prayed for me, I’m grateful for the people who were praying for me, but he kept on saying ‘Jesus is great, Jesus is great.’ And then he told the Holy Father. It was a very moving moment. As soon as the Holy Father came he prostrated in front of the Holy Father and kissed his feet, and he said, ‘thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you Holy Father, but just one message I want to give you: Jesus Christ is great. Jesus was with me right through, I could sense the presence of God with me’…And once I thought the Holy Father had tears in his eyes. When Tom kept on speaking about Jesus, this is what he told the Holy Father: please tell the people that Jesus is great! I would say that he’s come out of it with an experience of the presence of the Lord, and I think at that moment the Holy Father had tears in his eyes…I met the Holy Father later that afternoon, and he was telling me how impressed he was. He was also surprised with the calmness of the man, with Tom…He was a man who is perhaps strengthened in the faith after this experience, and not bitter about anything. Particularly about his captors, he was very understanding. It was a special experience, very edifying. He needs rest, certainly, he’ll have a medical exam and he’ll be with his superiors, but eventually he’ll go back (to India). So thank God really. It was an anxious moment for the whole Church in India. We didn’t know what was happening, but we understood that putting more pressure, in the perspective of the government, could make things more difficult for him. (But) he’s not really stressed in any way you can make out. Physically weak, but spiritually strong. When he met the Holy Father, he was weeping right through it. And the Holy Father was very touched, he kissed his hand and blessed him…He felt the comfort and strength of the entire Church. As he said, there was never a moment when he felt abandoned, either by the Church or by God. He kept saying, ‘Jesus is great.’ So he came out spiritually strengthened in that sense. It was a big relief, a big blessing, and the Holy Father was overjoyed. I think the government of Oman did a very splendid job of helping out…they even brought a Salesian to accompany him on the last plane. It was very human of them, so had the comfort of a spiritual companion.
What role did the Holy See play in working out his release?
They only offered help, they kept the issue open and kept sharing. The Holy See was told he was alive, and the Holy See communicated with the Indian government. In Yemen, the political situation is very fragile, and one doesn’t know who is in charge. There are bombardments and all sorts of groups are taking over, so there was always a risk I suppose, that if you tried to liberate him you could have harmed him. But they were always interested, they kept it alive. Every time I came to Rome somebody from the Secretariat of State updated me. The Vatican made sure there was interest. Any information the Holy See had, they shared it with the Indian government, the Omani government, so that was good.
It’s interesting that there is still no word on who is responsible…
It’s not a terrorist attack, it’s a kidnapping. They wouldn’t glory in taking him. That has not come out. I spent about half an hour with him before the Holy Father, and he was speaking continuously. I did not at any point attempt to ask him questions, because I think that would be a stress for him. He has got to share…he wants to share it and then I imagine you feel lighter. He’s probably just got to rest, and rest and rest, physically and then mentally too, he’s got to get it out of his mind. He’s not come out of it a broken man at all. I was afraid of that, that he would come out a broken man, but no…It’s a moment of grace, a moment of faith, a special experience. The high point was when he told the Holy Father, ‘just tell everybody that Jesus is great, Jesus is great.’ Just three simple words. That was like the sum of his whole experience, what he meant and why he meant it…he felt not abandoned, I suppose. I hope recovers. I imagine he needs a couple of months really, or maybe more than a couple of months, to really rest. He needs time with the family also, natural circumstances…I’m not sure about this, but I have a feeling that the Omani government decided to bring him to Rome, because they (wanted) to hand him over to the Vatican. I think it was better for him, because I think if he had gone to India he would have been mobbed by everybody. He just needs space to recover, and for doctors to examine him. Physically to see if he’s alright, and psychologically also, to be investigated. I think it was a wise decision, but I think it was a decision more of the Omani government.
I don’t want to exploit your time, but I wanted to ask a few questions about the process of reform and the C9. You just finished your latest round of meetings…
Yes, we just finished the latest round, the 21st meeting. I can’t imagine we’ve had 21. I didn’t realize it’s 21 already. I think we are working hard. What’s nice is that we’re a cohesive group now. In the beginning we were all (gestures). Now we know each other so well and we work together, and of course trying to implement the Holy Father’s vision of the Church. Also, one of the things we always say, and it’s very clear, before the conclave the cardinals had spoken a lot of their vision of the Church, and we have the texts of what all of the cardinals said, and all the cardinals gave their vision. We picked up from that, the Holy Father picked up from that, his own vision. We’ve focused so far … it’s for a dual purpose that the group was formed: one is to help him help him in the governance of the universal Church, and the second is to revise Pastor bonus, the papal document of St. John Paul II for establishing the Curia and giving the job descriptions and the vision of each dicastery. It’s to revitalize, I suppose that’s what Pope Francis wants us to do, and to have a new mentality which is applying Vatican II also; how to make the Roman Curia at the service of the Holy Father more effectively, but the Churches at the local level, the Churches in the dioceses, how to make the Roman Curia assist the local Churches to be more effective pastorally, so they can be more vibrant in that sense. So I think the holy Father is satisfied with what’s happening. I’m satisfied too with the way we are going ahead. We come for three days and work intensely, we work from 9:00 on the first day to 7:00 (pm) on the last day trying to wrap things up, but lots of work has been done. But it’s coming to the end. I think it will take maybe two or three more meetings until we wrap up our conclusions about the dicasteries. Then of course the Holy Father will study the thing and decide. So we’re going well. The feedback we receive is the Holy Father is happy, he is satisfied, and he has been using the Christmas messages sometimes to give an indication, a little progress report, so this year’s Christmas message (2016). I didn’t realize it, but when I read it I realized it’s practically giving a progress report of what this group has been doing. I hope that it will make an impact. There won’t be very major changes; it’s the governance of the Church, we can’t just turn everything upside down. But a gradual change, a change of mentality, a change of approach, restructuring a bit of the departments so that they are more logically suited to the needs of today, and also of answering the vision of the Second Vatican Council: the importance of lay people, synodality, collegiality, then concern about women, getting more women involved, then giving importance to the local Churches. Then reflecting on the role of episcopal conferences in all this, because that’s another big issue. So all of this is being done at various stages of development, and I hope we’ll come to an end in all of these matters soon. It will take two or three more meetings more, I foresee at least February, June…by June perhaps we’ll be seeing the end of the tunnel.
It’s been a long process…
It’s been a really long process, really, but it’s good. I’ve been in other committees of this sort, in which at the beginning we don’t what we’re doing, where to begin, and they you find your way and you find your vision. But here it was very clear, the Holy Father had very clear what he wanted this group to do…we were not clear in why we were called and what he wanted to do, but gradually we understood his mind. He had no hesitation, he’s a good leader. He had a clear vision and he had his people with him. He’s there with us, he genuinely doesn’t take any other appointments. He’s there except the general audience. There are emergencies of course, this time there were lots of things happening, but he participates and he listens to discussion, and every now and then he raises his hand when he wants to speak. It’s very odd, but now we’re accustomed to it, the Pope raising his hand (laughs) … it’s very valuable, he’s part of the discussion all the way through, completely inserted right in the thick of it. Certainly he doesn’t speak that much, because I think we would feel inhibited and want to go in his direction. So it’s just the right amount and at the right time.
Well he’s very much about the process, isn’t he? He doesn’t want to interrupt the process that’s happening…
Yes, absolutely. And he’s happy. And everybody speaks their mind. We know each other so well, and we know that the Holy Father wants us to speak our minds, so no one is at any stage (overly) conscious that the Pope is there with us, no…but it’s going well, I think it’s going well. I will confess that once at the beginning I was wondering, ‘are we going in the right direction?’ I asked myself. But now I can see it is. He’s a man of deep faith, the Pope. I remember having spoken to him once about the synod, I was sharing him my anxieties on whether the synods were going well, and he told me, ‘Cardinal, I am not worried.’ He told me that. I told him I was worried, I don’t know what direction we’re taking, whether we’ll be able in two synods to give your vision. (He said) ‘I’m not worried. It’ll work out.’ He knows what he wants, he’s a good Jesuit, and the Jesuits know exactly what they want.
At what point were you convinced that things were going in the right direction?
After about seven or eight or nine meetings, I was beginning to wonder. My worry was what will the world say? Everybody knows we’re meeting over here, but we are very limited in what we say are the fruits. What are these eight men – nine, we became nine after the Secretary (of State) joined – the nine cardinals are coming and discussing here, what’s happening? They’re not just coming here for debate. I was worried about the fruits not being seen, and the process being too slow. But then, especially after I heard the Holy Father’s speech (at Christmas 2016), for me that was it. I was like, wow, there has been a lot done. That was absolutely…this past Christmas, it was like a progress report of this group. I’m in the group, right, but I never realized the number of things we had really discussed. Besides modifying the document, the protection of minors, the economy, updates on these things, general principles of collegiality, synodality, we’re thinking about these things. Care of the Curia personnel. It’s everything that the Holy Father…he isn’t like us, who when we go back home we’re fully in the diocese, he has this in mind and he keeps working on this fully afterwards. We go back to our dioceses and are concerned about the local Church, but he certainly follows up with what we say. I’ve seen it several times. He takes the group very seriously. Every now and then he would ask us to take up some point on the agenda to discuss it a bit, which he wants advice on. I think it’s a new system he has started in which he gets feedback from all over the world, and he gets it from the grassroots. I think, anyway, I hope. We come from different continents and we bring in our own experiences. But it is going well. In fact I really, really think there has been a contribution to the Holy Father, and then the Holy Father takes decisions. I have a feeling this is shared by all now. I have no doubt, this would be the general feeling of all about it. The tipping point was really his speech, but already before that, say about six or seven months before that, we began to see really when we reflected that…perhaps the Holy Father knew that that was in our minds. It was in my mind, and maybe I expressed it indirectly. And the Holy Father once commented also, he said ‘we have done this much, so don’t get discouraged.’ So at one stage he sort of answered that doubt in my mind.
You mentioned that there’s also a change of mentality needed. Other than the structural shifts, it seems that the change of mentality will be the more challenging task…
That will take longer. But we hope it will percolate down, because once you have a certain mentality you generally don’t change unless the circumstances change, the ambiance changes. And in a certain sense not changing dramatically. That will I think take longer. But I’m positive that it will happen. We’re very, very hopeful. We’re rather confident that it will happen because the Pope is giving very effective leadership, and every now and then there is a clear message from him. But it will come about and suddenly we’ll realize, oh there has been a change! That’s how it will happen. It won’t come overnight, but at a certain point we’ll realize things have changed. He knows what he wants. And he’s happy. Certainly the indication I can see is this way; the relationship he has with the group and the joy he has in being with the group. He says he feels that it has helped him. Thank God. We do what we can. I don’t know how or why he chose us, but he’s happy. I was very surprised when I got a call from him. I said ‘why me? What have I done?’ I suppose he knows. I don’t know why. I did not know the Holy Father before, we’ve never been in any other committee before. Only at the conclave. I don’t even remember having chatted with him at the conclave, or before the conclave. After the conclave it was true that I was with him. It’s true that after I was with the Pope at Santa Marta for a few days. Then we were having meals together – breakfast, lunch and dinner for four or five days. That’s the time we came to know each other. So we were thrown together for about a week. It struck me that after his election I was at Santa Marta, because there were five or six cardinals. All the American cardinals were there, the European cardinals, all the ones from close by left and came back (for the installation). I stayed for the installation and then went back to India. And then you share, when you speak. He was very comfortable with us, very comfortable with me. But still, he had to make a choice.
Has he mentioned anything about when a visit to India might take place?
He’s very interested. We’re working it out, and I’m very hopeful. He would like to come and we would like to have him, and the government would like to have him. But now we must see his program, the government’s program, but I’m certain he will come. There are no details at all for the moment. I’m rather certainly positive that we will be able to get the Holy Father, he’s interested and I think he’s getting more interested. And the people will be excited…we are looking forward. In the beginning, as soon as he was elected, I asked him, ‘when are you coming to India?’ And he was sort of (disinterested), but gradually he began to like the idea. He’s never been to India before. As a Jesuit I think he was supposed to go to Japan, that’s what he was telling me. He’s going now to Bangladesh and Myanmar. It will be very sensitive. Bangladesh has it’s own problems, I believe they have elections next year, and Myanmar has problems to solve, also the refugee problem at the moment. Of late it is continuously on, I believe yesterday or this morning I saw it on CNN, and BBC is reporting on it. It’s an issue for the world. I’ve been there (Bangladesh) a few times. It’s a nice Church, concentrated mostly in Dhaka, a living faith. I’ve been to Myanmar also, I went as a papal legate there some years back, and I found the Church very vibrant. A simple faith, but I’m happy. I think it will mean a lot to the people. It will also strengthen the people. I think the Church is also very vibrant, it’s not have any specific difficulty, in my impression as a papal legate about two or three years back, but I was very impressed by the faith and the organization. It was vibrant. The Church was small, but strong and alive. It will make a difference for the Churches, and for the governments I expect.
Will you be there?
I plan to go to both places yes. In all of these trips in Asian I’ve come along: Sri Lanka, Korea, the Philippines. At the moment I’m president of the Asian Bishops Conference, so I suppose in that capacity I’ll have to go.
[…]
That the Pontiff finds it necessary to criticize doctrinally traditional American Catholics as ideologues who look backwards, and in doing so divest themselves of Church membership is quite startling. Plainly speaking, he judges that Catholics who hold on to Apostolic tradition ‘replace’ the faith. Are we, then, the apostates the Apostle Paul warned of? That Christ is expected to crown with glory those who repudiate what he commanded?
How is it possible to hold that Christ’s words, If you love me you will keep my commandments – is an error? Clearly there’s a contradiction. If I’m in error to teach parishioners that breaking the commandments is serious sin, that it requires repentance, then Christ who spoke those words is in error, and that he, the Pontiff, is correct.
This should shake the foundations of the world’s episcopate and oblige them to challenge what is said, that he either correct or disavow. Clergy, all of us who have faith in Christ are obliged, by their invested office, especially bishops who are ordained as defenders of the faith to correct such an outstanding error.
Amen.
Amen, Father.
But who is he to judge? Hypocrite.
Arn’t you doing the same? 😇
God bless you, Father Peter Morello; defending our faith and the truth of Christ Jesus our Lord and God.
Those d*** American backwardists.
I sort of like the sound of backwardist.
🙂
This word is an irony to amuse homosexualism camps. We have to be careful when we really don’t know what is being said and advanced or who’s involved.
And as I mentioned earlier, irony is a sin.
‘ My grandmother, who was a wise old woman, told us one day, “In life you have to progress, buy land, bricks, a house…” Clear words, they came from the experience of an immigrant. Dad was an immigrant, too. “But don’t confuse progressing,” Grandma added, “with climbing. In fact, he who climbs goes up, up, up, and instead of having a house, setting up a business, working or getting a position, when he is at the top the only thing he shows is his butt.” This is wisdom. ‘
https://www.laciviltacattolica.com/the-water-has-been-agitated/
Some changes are indeed happening and they are not occurring together nor are they transparent right away for what they contain and how they could relate.
2014
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/09/19/report-bishop-cupich-of-spokane-to-succeed-cardinal-george-in-chicago-updated/
2023
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/08/28/opus-dei-does-not-want-to-be-an-exception-in-the-church-prelate-says/
Pope Francis once again is saying layered wrong things.
1. Homosexual inclusion means they are not bound by the morality they way the rest are because the rest have faults too and shouldn’t be bound that way either.
2. This can be discovered by looking at your own faults and seeing that your own faults shouldn’t exclude you.
3. Therefore no-one actually is ever bound by the morality in such a way that anyone is excluded. We are all to be included via the lowest denominator morality to be devised.
4. Development necessarily means that the morality must yield. Development can not mean deepening in the moral prohibitions.
5. These approaches are never spiritual worldliness.
6. Doctrine does not assist you from collapsing into “inner refuges”; and at the same time it stands in the way of homosexuals becoming truly free.
Fact is these are not new positions. Anyone who was around in the Seventies and Eighties would immediately recognize them, i.e., how the Devil was attacking in those days too.
What you learn from faith is precisely that the rejection of faith is devastating and there is no disconnection between faith and joy except sin.
Here is the seduction – here:
‘ Francis said the effects on this backwardness on morality “are devastating.” ‘
A mess indeed. Here he goes again with his long-standing grievance with USA Backwardists do not accept the evolution of doctrine. Ideology replaces faith (um..;)
Since slavery and capital punishment were accepted in the past but are now condemned, sodomy, concubinage, etc. can sometimes be good and God’s will, if I listen to my conscience. (Ah…)
My nerves. The upcoming Synods are being run on the ideas of discredited 70’s theologians like, Curran, Häring, Küng and assorted octogenarian Latin American marxists in wheelchairs. All of this ancient hippy sociology is backwardist ideology seeking to replace the Deposit of Faith/Truth. I’ll take Christ! He is alive and has a future.
Actually, concubinage was tolerated by the Church around the time of Augustine. The Council of Toledo, held in 400, in its seventeenth canon legislates as follows for laymen: after pronouncing sentence of excommunication against any who in addition to a wife keeps a concubine, says: “But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine”
So are you advocating for fornication? Is sex with someone you’re not married to a virtue to be admired and emulated? If this Council of Toledo taught the same, the Council was in error.
There were as many as 30 or more Councils of Toledo in the early Church from the 5th through the 7th centuries, depending upon how they were counted. It sounds like the unidentified Council of Toledo you cite was an early exercise in synodal robber-council confusion and heresy. Please indicate whether its 17th canon that you cite was accepted and approved by the Roman Pontiff. Surely you are aware that “a council apart from the pope is but a lifeless trunk”.
The Council of Toledo in 400. 😂 Yes, Frank, and as any Jesuit will tell you, Toledo synods went on to approve slavery. Please read the Pope about not being such a backwardist! Fornication hasn’t been talked about since the 50’s. Replacing the Apostolic Faith with sociology is more on trend. Spanish concubinage is too Luis Rubiales.
Fear not Frank. For a more a more au courant heterodox gathering look no further than present day Germany. The German synodalers simply assume that everyone who wants Communion is already fornicating. Get with the times!
What was the definition of a concubine at that point in time?
The “theologians” you cite remind me of the dumbest aspect of their thought inspiring my three questions for Francis.
Looking “backward,” why was God so stupid and evil to the peoples of the past to deprive them of an adequate understanding of right and wrong necessary to be decent human beings? And where exactly is this magical land of forward, and what will utopia be like when we finally get there?
Oh, I forgot. He did answer these questions almost ten years ago when he expressed his agreement with the theology of Walter Kasper, and others from the 70s, who promoted process theology that describes God essentially as being as much of a nincompoop as the rest of us and in the process of “learning” how to be a good God through history like His creatures. No one seems willing to point out how atheistic it is for the emperor to so clothe himself.
More derisive and divisive remarks by Pontiff Francis toward faithful orthodox American Catholics made to assembled Jesuits. You know the Vatican is off the rails when you begin to sympathize with Daniel Ortega.
Deacon:
I love your second sentence.
Touché
What an astonishing and scandalous exhibition of ignorance that is matched and exceeded only by his arrogance. It is impossible to accept, or even imagine, that this is the way a Catholic pope speaks and thinks: the acidic contempt, the narcissistic derision, the vulgar mockery, the vile epithets. And all directed to whom? Those whom he has pushed to the margins of his counterfeit Church for the crime of professing the apostolic Catholic Faith in harmony with 2,000 years of infallible dogma and doctrine.
How ironic — and how infuriating.
Like all leftists, Bergoglio projects his tactics on his perceived opponents.
For him to accuse American ‘backwardists’ of losing the true tradition and turning to ideologies for support is nothing short of appalling.
Keep in mind that he’s saying this to an audience of Jesuiticals whose organization is responsible for the travesty of ‘liberation theology’ which has been leading Latin Americans into atheism for more than a generation.
CWR will need to stand strong. This Synod on Synodolatry is going to unleash the hounds of hell on the faithful.
Of Vincent of Lerins, we read: “In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands, and consolidates with time and becomes firmer but is always progressing.”
But, the Church did move “progress”, under the greater and coherent elucidation of some saint named John Henry Cardinal Newman, and his “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.” Not much room there for Muslim-like “abrogation” or with Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigm shifts” in the natural sciences:
In the Essay, Newman appeals, in part, to a biological analogy whereby growth (“development”) is one thing, while corruption and mutation another:
“I venture to set down seven notes of varying cogency, independence, and applicability to discriminate healthy developments of an idea from its state of corruption and decay, as follows: “There is no corruption if it retains:
(1) One and the same TYPE [doctrine/ natural law vs a disconnected degree of pastoral “accompaniment/accommodation”?],
(2) The same PRINCIPLES [sound philosophy v. neo-Hegelianism],
(3) The same ORGANIZATION [the Barque of Peter v. all religions equivalently (?) “the will of God”?];
(4) If its beginnings ANTICIPATE its subsequent phases [the moral absolutes of the Catechism/Veritatis Splendor (VS) vs normalization of homosexual activity, etc.?],
(5) Its later phenomena PROTECT and subserve its earlier [VS and Familiarus Consortio vs fluid social-science and the “arc of history”?];
(6) If it has a power of assimilation and REVIVAL [Evangelization vs Amazonia/Germania and a Synod on Synodality?], and
(7) A vigorous ACTION from first to last…” [steadfastness (!) while also engaging fully our new challenges vs double-speak in need of a spinal implant?].
Personally I stopped listening to the Pope, as in taking him seriously, some time ago.
He wants to abolish the Latin Mass, he gives a public audience to Fr. James Martin and Nancy Pelosi, and now it emerges that he thinks of us as reactionaries and – this is a new one – ‘backwardists’.
And the beat goes on.
When are we going to get a Catholic Babylon Bee??
Such a great question, Gilberta!
Comments like this are why you’re my favorite CWR poster.
Try The Eye of the Tiber
http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/
I am in Italy now and ran into a priest friend of mine who has worked for various cardinals at the Vatican. I will say nothing more about him for fear of revealing his identity. After exchanging cordialities we spoke briefly about the Pope’s recent derisive remarks about Catholics in America. This priest has had contact with Francis and commented that he has always treated him kindly and cannot explain his frequent nasty remarks. He ended by saying that Francis seems to always make trouble for himself. He said the future will not augur much change as Francis has stacked the deck with cardinals he’s appointed. We both pointed to the need to rely on the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
“What the pope [Francis] is doing – [is] forcing us to choose between himself and Jesus Christ.”
https://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2018/04/05/more-merciful-than-jesus/
The Pope complains that Catholics such as I look backwards. Doesn’t he see how rotten the present is and the prospects for the future?
Always this trash talk against American Catholics but never a harsh word for the Germans. That tells us all we need to know.
True barometer.
Given his shallow mind, I suspect his narcissism leads Francis to think much like an American celebrity. Just say something outrageous to prove you’re a misunderstood genius instead of just plain stupid.
Some 40 years ago, during a summer school event, I came face to face with divorce for the first time.
One of the most popular boys, certainly the cutest, moderately athletic (he was short but scrappy), and very smart (was in both the accelerated reading and math class), was shattered.
Never had I seen him with that kind of look on his face. He told me and my friend his parents had divorced (we were all just going into the 7th grade).
I have despised divorce ever since.
I’ve seen the damage it does play out among adult friends and their own children.
I don’t consider myself too hard core on this issue. Abuse, alcohol, abandonment, addiction–I think there can be a reason why a couple may part ways and a Declaration of Nullity might be warranted.
But those are rare cases. Ironically, I know two cases–one alcoholism and one drug addiction–were the couple overcame the issues and are still together. The other cases of divorce around me seem to be the so-called “no fault” variety with which I have no sympathy.
So no thanks. I’ll keep my “ideology” on contraception (not warranted ever), abortion (ditto), divorce (well, Jesus said no, so I guess no) and that man can keep his “development” and “progress.”
Prayer, meditation, examination of conscience, discernment, and constructive action are known to be part and parcel of every genuine pilgrim’s toolkit.
Prayer in Christ, meditation on Christ, examination of conscience when I sinned against Christ and others, discernment regarding the will of Christ, and constructive action as the charity of Christ are known to be part and parcel of every genuine Christian pilgrim’s toolkit.
Paul in Toronto: I am not American but rather your closest neighbor and friend from up north. I am appalled that the Pope refers to the American Church as ‘backward’. He’s very adept at ‘naming and insulting’, a lower version of Trump. First, it must be said that the present Holy Father doesn’t speak any English at all, very unusual for an international leader today, to not know the ‘lingua franca’, but has plenty to say about that culture. We know he knows nothing about American life and the Church. He’s using the old anti-American slogans from the seventies, much coming from Latin America. Does “backward” mean all Americans!>? How absurd! The Pope should get on his knees and thank the great many wonderful American Catholics.. the Church would be bleak without the Americans. As it is, the Pope is following the ‘evolutionary’, relativistic approach to some sort of theology, which most Catholics want nothing to do with… he seems more drenched in the culture that he seems aware of. “Backward”, to PF, means ‘those who disagree with me”. For those who remember, PF emerged as Pope from the balcony not wearing the traditional ‘ mozetta’. That was a sign he’d become as Pope as he has: scornful of traditional and traditional people, all issues being ‘equal’, he does nothing about the rampant gay network, which is for sure, the number one animus against the faith today. No sympathy for the tens of thousands of abused men and the heartbreak of their families. I suppose ‘forward’ means just walking past them, as they /he has done. No ‘Fratelli tutti’ there. He shunned the great Dubbia Cardinals when the points they were making were extremely relevant. Worst, he has shunned Cardinal Zen…never asked for his release. No accompaniment there and lots of ‘throwing away’. Who would have believed it? I have felt opposed to most of what he does. He has had such ‘experts’ to visit him though: Bernie Sanders, Chelsea Clinton, Deepak Choprah.. but not the Dubbia Cardinals, nor the 65 theologians who wrote a magnificent request for clarification from PF: snubbed also. I am amazed that PF doesn’t see his own hypocrisy. In the meantime, I will follow the Church I love; I teach the Bible and RCIA and no Pope can remove me. But I’m Canadian, so I guess that makes me ‘backward” too. No one can take those words very seriously. Let’s move on, to love and live our faith. One thing is for sure, in one hundred years, the Church will be up and running in a new and beautiful way. It will be the same and forever the Catholic Church. No need for us to get ruffled about these ‘simple’ attacks.
Will the next Pope be called
Pope Francis II ?
There are many ideological terms being thrown around on this “thread about ideology”. Perhaps I might “look backwards” aways to get a different perspective on matters. My father once ran a construction business building houses and selling them. His stories told to me about another time were endlessly fascinating. One thing he explained was about how the law regarded workers wages and pensions. When a company went bankrupt the employees had prior claim on its assets ahead of anybody else. That includes the claims of banks, bond holders, stock holders, anybody period. They worked to support their families, educate children, pay medical bills and prepare for their old age –In other words just to live. They had priority over anyone’s money changing or speculation. Dad was no radical he had been not only a businessman But a conservative Republican which was very uncommon in the South of that day. Then many of the big companies were caught with unfunded pension liabilities during the late seventies. Then came the Reagan Revolution. Most people do not know this but the Constitution only allows limited jurisdiction to the federal courts; any extension of this jurisdiction must be granted by congress. The new Republican congress removed the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear cases regarding worker pensions and wages due. This destroyed the pensions of an entire generation but it made big business a lot richer. The Republicans assured the prolifers that if they kept getting elected they would eventually appoint enough judges to overturn Roe vs Wade. For some reason the now liberal controlled Democratic party did not wise the people up and many millions of babies died. Then along came a very eccentric fast talking businessman who actually got elected (to his own utter surprise I think). He then kept his promise to make the necessary appointments. Biden then proclaimed he would “codify Rowe vs Wade” which meant that congress would deny the court’s jurisdiction to stop abortion. This ended the matter when he could not get enough votes. Now those of us old enough to have read old catechisms might remember about the four Sins That Cry to Heaven For Vengeance. Two of them are (1) shedding innocent blood and (2) defrauding a worker of his wages. Please note that both supposed political and moral opposites are guilty in these vast crimes. Each is guilty of a crime of commission and also omission. The Republicans for example committed a crime by in effect making pensions due not a property right and situationally pretending that they had no power to limit the court’s jurisdiction in the case of child murder. The same was the case with the Democrats. Both parties actually cooperated in deceiving the public about the power congress has over the courts.