Vatican City, Feb 15, 2017 / 12:01 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Hopes are on the rise for an agreement between the Vatican and China on the appointment of bishops, with Cardinal John Tong Hon, Archbishop of Hong Kong again making the case for a possible proposal.
He made his case in a Feb. 11 article for the Hong Kong’s Sunday Examiner newspaper, and follows up on his previous article from August 2016. His latest article is filled with a certain optimism.
Cardinal Tong wrote that a Vatican-China agreement on appointing bishops will be “the crux of the problem and a milestone in the process of normalizing the relationship between the two parties,” but it is “by no means the end of the issue.” It would be “unrealistic, if not impossible” to expect disagreements to be cleared up overnight.
To summarize, Cardinal Tong maintained that Chinese government will finally recognize the Pope as the supreme authority of the Church, and the Pope will be given the power to veto any candidate to the episcopacy he does not deem fit for the post. The cardinal also explained that the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, that is the state-controlled church, will turn into a voluntary body with which bishops can freely affiliate. He voiced optimism for the eventual reconciliation of the seven illicit bishops appointed without the Pope’s consent. The cardinal also hoped for the future recognition of the bishops of the “underground Church.”
Despite the general optimism seen in Cardinal Tong’s words, the final agreement is yet to come, a source with knowledge of the Vatican-China talks told CNA under condition of anonymity.
The source explained the agreement this way: “The Chinese government wants to keep control of the appointment of bishops, and Rome cannot diminish the supreme authority of the pontiff. So, we meet in the middle.”
One possible plan for agreement is that “the Holy See may accept the election of candidate for the episcopate, though it knows that these elections take place under state control and that bishops of China’s bishops’ conference all belong to the government-controlled patriotic association.”
On the other hand, the source added, the Chinese government would “accept that any ‘election’ needs to be approved by the Pope, even though no elections should take place to appoint a bishop.”
The source compared this situation of mutual agreement to a famous image of three monkeys: “I don’t see, I don’t hear, I don’t speak.” He added that “although the Holy See is conscious that elections are not free, they are fake,” Vatican negotiators prefer to “silently accept this, in order to have bishops faithful to Rome and in communion with the Pope since the beginning.”
Cardinal Tong, in his latest article, noted that Catholic doctrine places the Pope as “the last and highest authority in appointing bishops.” This means that “if the Pope has the final word about the worthiness and suitability of an episcopal candidate, the elections of local churches and the recommendations of the bishops’ conference of the Catholic Church in China will simply be a way to express recommendations.”
Cardinal Tong thus aimed to respond to the concerns of Cardinal Joseph Zen, his predecessor as Archbishop of Hong Kong. In speeches, letters and articles, Cardinal Zen took a strong position against the agreement, saying that it undermined the authority of the Holy See. Cardinal Zen asked the Holy See not to make any agreement before China guarantees full religious freedom.
According to Cardinal Tong, there are three issues at stake: how to tackle the issue of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association; how to deal with the seven illicitly ordained bishops, who are excommunicated latae sententiae for having violated canon law; and how to handle the issue of more than 30 bishops from the underground Church, whom the Chinese government does not recognize.
The cardinal said a relationship between the patriotic association’s concept of an “independent, autonomous and self-run Church” and the self-nominating and self-ordination of bishops is “a relationship between theory and practice.” Both practices “are in fact the product of a distinctive political environment and pressure.”
The Archbishop of Hong Kong said that under the possible agreement the Pope will “now play a role in the nomination and ordination of Chinese bishops” and that “Beijing will also recognize the Pope’s right of veto and that the Pope is the highest and final authority in deciding on candidates for bishop in China.”
According to Cardinal Tong, this way the Vatican-China agreement would turn the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association into “a patriotic association in its strict, literal sense,” that is: “a voluntary, non-profit, patriotic and Church-loving organization composed of clergy and faithful from all around the country.”
The situation is far more complex than this, since de facto every “official” bishop recognized by Beijing is required to be a member of the patriotic association. Critics of the possible agreement noted the case of Shanghai auxiliary Bishop Taddeus Ma Daqin, who dared to resign from the association at his ordination Mass in 2012 and was immediately placed under house arrest. Though he appeared to renounce his stand against the Catholic Patriotic Association in mid-2016, he is still living in isolation in Shanghai’s Sheshan seminary, with no episcopal dignity.
In addition to this situation, UCA News has reported that China’s State Administration of Religious Affairs on Jan. 26 posted a decision to “enhance government legal powers over religious work” through an amended regulation in order to “maintain accountability via the strict management of Communist Party members.”
The Chinese administration also stressed that the Chinese administration said it would “steadily push forward” to the Catholic Church “to elect and ordain bishops on its own.” This is a positive sign for Sino-Vatican relations, observers said.
If the problem of the appointment of bishops would finally find a solution, a solution would still be needed for the seven bishops who were illicitly ordained and thus de facto excommunicated.
Beyond the illicit ordination, some of these bishops are also accused of moral misconduct that needs to be assessed.
The difficulty, as Cardinal Tong says, is that given the unstable relationship between China and the Holy See, the Holy See cannot investigate directly. Thus the Chinese official institutions would need to investigate, a process that would take time.
The Pope is the only one who can lift such an excommunication. Participants in the illicit consecration can secure a papal pardon but they “need to show repentance,” the cardinal said. He added that all of the bishops illicitly ordained are willing to pay their obedience to the Pope.
According to CNA’s Vatican source, the Holy See is looking for a “midway point” for the election of bishops and an agreement between “the practice of choosing candidates by a diocesan patriotic commission” and finding candidates that “can be also appreciated and accepted by the underground community.”
The source also added that “it is undeniable that the agreement does not fulfill all the requirements, we are not satisfied with that.”
“Anytime there is an agreement, it means that you lose some freedom. That is a problem for us. But we do understand that at the moment we cannot do anything better,” the source said.
The agreement could be a solution that would allow the appointment of bishops in still-vacant dioceses. The Chinese administration abolished some dioceses, and the Holy See could dissolve some dioceses too to address the current situation.
“Once, some dioceses were entrusted to missionary congregations, and nowadays these congregations are no more, and there are no more foreign missionaries in continental China,” the source said.
The possibility of a “Vietnam solution” for the appointment of bishops was even put on the table.
The agreement will likely be based on Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s model implemented in Vietnam back in 1996: the Holy See proposes a set of three bishops to the Hanoi government, and Hanoi makes its choice.
However, CNA’s source maintained, “China always dismissed a Vietnam solution.” For him, the situation in Vietnam is “completely different.”
Despite the initial difficulties like Hanoi’s delayed responses that left dioceses vacant for a long period, the Vietnam situation has worked out decently and there is a relationship of significant trust between the parties.
The Holy See has appointed a non-resident envoy to Hanoi, a first step toward the possible establishment of diplomatic ties.
The Chinese situation is even more complex, and also implies the necessity that the Chinese administration will recognize the 30 underground bishops.
According to Cardinal Tong, this problem is “not deadlocked.” In his view, the underground Church results from a special political and historic period when “there was no mutual trust between the Holy See and Beijing, and this indirectly led to a lack of trust between the government and the unofficial community bishops.”
However, the cardinal notes, “should there be an agreement between the Holy See and China that will imply considerable mutual trust between the parties. The bishops of the unofficial community would no longer be regarded as the opposition for insisting on religious principles.”
This means the government’s view of them would improve.
Cardinal Tong also underscored several times that the underground bishops in China are in fact “examples of patriotic citizens.”
He said the government attitude towards these unofficial communities has “changed a lot in recent years.” As mutual trust develops between Rome and Beijing, so too will stability and strength.
The talks for an agreement do not include the establishment of diplomatic ties. That will come later, according to CNA’s source knowledgeable of the Sino-Vatican dialogue.
At the moment, the Holy See’s nunciature to China is established in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan. The country is seen by the People’s Republic of China as no more than a rebel province.
The Holy See relationship with Taiwan is one of the biggest hurdles to the establishment of any diplomatic tie with China.
In recent decades, the nunciature has no longer been headed by a nuncio, but by a lower ranked diplomat, a chargé d’affairs. Msgr. Paul Fitzpatrick Russell, the most recent chargé d’affairs, was appointed apostolic nuncio to Turkey in March 2016, thus leaving a vacancy in the post.
It was thought that the vacancy was intended to ease relations between the Holy See and mainland China. The post in fact did not stay vacant. The new chargé d’affairs is Msgr. Sladan Cosic. The nomination was not publicly announced, and this has also a meaning.
According to CNA’s Vatican source, the Holy See would be ready to drop its diplomatic presence in Taiwan, but this would not harm relations there. The Holy See could even strengthen its presence on the Taiwanese territory, with a more specific focus on pastoral concerns.
[…]
Denies calling Cardinal Burke his enemy.
But not treating him as one.
What a tiny, tiny man.
He’s not treating him as his enemy. That’s slander. You, on the other hand, are treating the pope as your enemy.
Tell us, o brave “anon,” how exactly is he treating Cardinal Burke?
As Scripture instructs us, if you enter a town and the inhabitants reject the Word of God, kick off the dust from your feet and go out from that place.
I believe that Christ is calling Cardinal Burke to kick off the dust from the Bergoglian Debacle and remove himself from that place of iniquity and faithlessness. Move on, Cardinal Burke; God has plans for you elsewhere.
Now that Ivereigh has invoked the specter of Abp. Lefebvre, I would not be surprised to learn that the revocation of Cardinal Burke’s apartment and salary proves to be a precursor to his excommunication. Jesus sought for a return of His love, not the cultivation of servile fear among the faithful. Persecution outside the Church is multiplying red martyrs, and within the white sort. God help us!
Why on earth would Francis excommunicate Burke? There is no evidence to suggest he would.
There is a Mt. Everest of evidence he is a man without ethics.
Who?
The man who initiated the first action. Francis obviously.
Because Francis panders in uncharity.
Why not excommunicate Burke? Our current pontiff does many things that have no theological justification, but do have a political purpose. Bergoglio is not a spiritual man, he is a political actor, through and through.
WPI and the spokesman of Pontiff Francis Austen Ivereigh, are the public relations arm of their emergent “paradigm-shift-apostasy-church,” men who shove Christ aside, and assert that a mere steward, a pontiff, is their law-giver.
They promote the pathology identified by Fr. Robert Imbelli, an apostate establishment called “the Decapitated Body of Christ.”
The Pope denies that he called Cardinal Burke his “enemy.” What of it? How childish. Anyone can see that Francis abuses Burke every way he knows how, and even smirks when the “poor man” is intubated. Pope Francis should give up the Christian pretense. Even the NYT reports that Francis is enemies with Burke…
At least we have forever the authentic Catholic witness and Word of God from the first Pope: “Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.” (1 Peter 1:22)
So much for “Who am I to judge?” as “his enemies” appearto be the closest “friends of God”
good point
Exactly. Evidently the call to listen and accompany applies only to those who willfully defy and reject church teaching. Otherwise, it seems to be open season on the faithful.
My thoughts exactly.
Imagine a kingdom where a friend of God is denied entry to his castle.
Imagine Jesus at Matthew 7:21-23 – “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.”
Matthew 7:13-14 has Jesus pointing to the narrow way. As Francis constricts Burke’s path, so Burke’s eternal kingdom is now more apparent, clear, and bright. God is blessing Cardinal Burke. Francis is a mere instrument. As was Judas, as was Herod, as was Pilate, etc.
The dastardly act is confirmed. How can anyone be so cruel, to evict old men in mid winter [Dec 21 is a technicality, it’s cold outside].
Well, Ivereigh as is his wont has the answer. One cannot claim, as does Card Burke, to be fruit upon the true branch while the tree itself is in disagreement with Burke’s criticisms of Synodality.
If Burke’s eviction is true it can be interpreted as a clear message to the other cardinals.
No magnanimity. No dialogue. Cdl.Burke is a martyr.
I thought that the whole “enemy” bit was unbelievable coming from the Pope; it sounded cartoonish. Glad to hear it didn’t happen.
What is cartoonish is while the pope believes Cdl Burke is acting against the Church all these years he has refused to meet with him even once. Cartoonish and childlike.
How do you know it didn’t happen? A denial from the same source who blatantly lied about McCarrick and blatantly lied about Rupnik?
Having read Julie Meloni’a book The Saint Galen Mafia the way this papacy has developed is no suprise. Vatican II was loaded with Modernists,clergy,laity,biblcal scholars and theologians who were very influential in influencing the Church with their modernist understanding of reality. One example is Father Raymond Brown, whose 20 or more books on the Gospels that denied the divinity of Jesus, denied that Gospels were written by the authors, and underminded confidence in Dei Verbum. I think this what Pope Saint Paul VI meant when he said ‘the smoke of Satan has entered the temple.’
For months I have read many comments on many different posts. I had been educated by them and they have given me food for thought. I feel the criticisms are healthy and necessary. This helps dissipate the clericalism that exists in the Church But, what I have repeatedly read is the comment that one must follow Jesus and not the Pope’s actions, thoughts, pronouncements, etc. This is interesting and enlightening. What I have been taught is that the pope is the successor to Peter and that one of the strengths of our Church is that we obey and respect the pope as the Head of the Church. Myself and others on rare occasions did not agree with the great Saint John Paul II or Benedict XVI, but, we obeyed. Now, I am enlightened to find through commentators in the many posts, that I have read, that if I do not agree with the next pope who may indeed be more conservative, then I simply ignore him and follow my conscience? It is hard to obey but is one of the strengths of our Church. By the way, I am appalled at the Latin Mass bans, the blessing of certain lifestyle, etc.
If some authentic magisterial document teaches this, please tell me the source: “I have been taught… that…we obey and respect the pope as the Head of the Church.” It has been my understanding that we respect the truth and true teachings of the CHURCH. The pope is not equal to the Church.
Thanks.
As I have commented to others This was what I and others were taught in the Catholic school system years ago. I thank you for your comments. I have formed a more enlightened view of the role of the pope on these many months by reading the commentators.
It has several times occurred to me, perhaps not wholly frivolously,that the election of Cardinal Bergoglio might have been permitted so that the faithful (and not just professional theologians) might develop a more considered view of the papacy. In the past I have been an enthusiastic and wholly uncritical supporter of the reigning Pope. But I had then only just become a teenager. And the Pope was Pius XII.
meiron,
Here’s a (portion of a) Vatican I document you might be interested in:
“First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ
Session 4 – 18 July 1870” otherwise known as “Pastor Aeternus”
From Chapter 3:
“We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possesses primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, and THE HEAD OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, and Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him, in Blessed Peter, by Jesus Christ our Lord, to pasture, to rule, and to govern the Universal Church; as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils and in the Sacred Canons.
“Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical SUBORDINATION AND TRUE OBEDIENCE, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
“And since, by the Divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
“If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.”
http://catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Pastor-Aeternus.ht
JML, The Pope is NOT the head of the Catholic Church. Where did you get this idea? I refer you to One, Jesus Christ, Who IS the Head of the Church.
This was what was taught in the Catholic school system I was in at both the elementary level and high school level. This was many years ago. I am not the only one who still believes this. I thank you for your comments to me. It helps shape my views.
In response to your question. This is what I was taught and many others in the Catholic school system where I was educated many years ago. I agree with your comment and thank you for reminding me of the fact that you stated.
Rather than fault your education, have you considered that you were not a very good student? The pope’s job is to protect the Church not destroy it. When he is busy doing damage, we are obliged to disobey. Not complicated.
JML, God bless you. We have faith in Christ who in the Spirit shows us the Father. We make the Sign of the Cross and always without any mention of any Pope. He is Christ’s vicar and only that.
Deacon Edward, with all due respect,
JML did not say anything about the Sign of the Cross.
What JML was saying was respect and obedience to the Pope as head of the Church, as taught in Catholic schools a long time ago.
Not to take away the true and divine authority from Our Lord Jesus Christ over His Church, the “Pastor Aeternus” document of Vatican One does say the Supreme Pontiff is HEAD of the Church and to him is due our respect and obedience.
“Session 4 – 18 July 1870” otherwise known as “Pastor Aeternus.”
From Chapter 3:
“…we renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possesses primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, and THE HEAD OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, and Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him, in Blessed Peter, by Jesus Christ our Lord, to pasture, to rule, and to govern the Universal Church; as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils and in the Sacred Canons.
“Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their DUTY of hierarchical SUBORDINATION AND TRUE OBEDIENCE, to SUBMIT, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals’ but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world…”
“And since, by the Divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the SUPREME JUDGE of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.”
JML, you are right – just not enough. The Pope is the head of the Church on earth, i.e., Christ’s representative on earth, and as such, must protect and teach what Christ and His Church teach and do.
If the Pope announced it was ok to shoplift if you need the stuff, would it be ok just because he’s the Pope?? No. Because stealing is wrong and you know it. Jesus walked on water but Popes do NOT. In the past we have had many who had mistresses, children out of wedlock, etc. WE had a point in church history, during the Avignon Residency, where we had TWO claimants to being Pope, who each ran their own bureaucracy.So, who was telling the truth and who to listen to?? They have faults and foibles just like the rest of us. Does not Frances claim that he frequents confession?
When a Pope speaks officially on faith and morals, catholics are supposed to obey. I dont think we need to agree when he calls Joe Biden a “good catholic”. Unfortunately, this Pope has gone off the rails many times making vague unofficial comments regarding sexuality in particular, which has sewn confusion among the faithful. Catholics follow what has been Church teaching, and most informed catholics are aware when a priest, bishop or pope is going off the rails.
As I have replied to other commentator, this is what I and others were taught in the Catholic school system that we attended years ago. Your comments, like the others that I have replied to as well as past commentators I have read over these many months, have helped shaped my more enlightened view. Thank you for your comments. I do believe that we have many bishops who have gone off the rails as well as priests.
JML, you were correct all along. No further explanation is needed. God bless you.
LJ, that’s why Popes should speak rarely so that when they do the faithful sitbup and listen carefully. This Pope suffers from terminal logorrhea.
… but denied that he referred to the American prelate as his “enemy,” according to a web post by papal biographer Austen Ivereigh.
You really can’t make up this stuff. It’s a bit like saying, ‘I heard someone say you like to eat worms on toast, but I corrected him saying you love toast.’
He’s taking away what is essentially the PENSION of a old man who has dedicated his life in service to the Church and his apartment… but “I’m not his ‘enemy.'”
Jesuitical rationalization.
With “friends” like this, please don’t accompany me ….
A truly reprehensible but not surprising action from this petty and misguided tyrant. The war against the faithful continues on.
Really?? Has the Pope heard the old saying ” actions speak louder than words”??
Ivereigh: “It was conveniently in line with the traditionalist narrative of a merciless, vindictive pope who recklessly and unreasonably ‘punishes’ those who disagree with him.”
Yes. It is, isn’t it?
Does anyone believe anything Bergoglio says anymore?
Yes: Austen Ivereigh.
Bergoglio has simply adopted the Carl Olson approach to faithful Catholic writers. A bully’s Bolshevist blackguardism.
I’m sure that Mr. Olson would likewise deny that he considers faithful Catholic writers to be his “enemies.” He has certainly failed to utter one syllable, private or public, which even attempts to explain (since he cannot excuse) his unprovoked malice towards us.
Mr. Stove: I truly don’t know what I’ve done to elicit such a comment. But it’s a rather entertaining remark, so here it is. And, next time, don’t forget to ask me if I’ve stopped beating my wife. Sigh.
Mr. Olsen, Mr. Stove’s “ironometer” needs adjustment.
He also forgot to insert something snide about Trump.
BINGO on Ivereigh. For the stove, the heat was possibly turned a tad too high upon its intemperate mind, and the fire alarm failed. Pity that. Did you once reject a piece he judged as brilliant? Maybe in a sad old age he’s facing homelessness. I don’t believe you beat your wife nor are you unfair to anyone here. The stove needs a new thermometer.
Are you sure you are on the right web page? Your description of Mr. Olson and his work – with which I have disagreed from time to time – is bizarre in the extreme. If he was anything like what you maintain, you would not be commenting here.
Malice? There are plenty of comments here that set my blood boiling, and I know I can be headstrong, but I try to utter a quick prayer and say to myself how would the kind, even temperament of Carl Olson handle it.
Who has thoroughly discredited himself in the eyes of the faithful. No one of merit listens to him any more than they do Francis. The Vatican has become an echo chamber with a cross affixed.
Touché!
Unlike others on this site, I try to apply Hanlon’s razor when the pope does something questionable. “Never attribute malice to something explained by neglect, ignorance, or incompetence”. I try to tell myself that he is coming from a spirit of humility and that he genuinely believes his actions will benefit the church. Like he genuinely wants to help same sex attracted people conquer their fleshly desires by being more welcoming. Or that he actually believes suppressing the tlm will bring more unity. I don’t necessarily agree with those ideas but I try to believe that he is acting in good faith. Only wish more people could be like me.
“Only wish more people could be like me.”
So, you’ll be confessing the sin of pride soon?
Douay-Rheims Bible Luke 18:11
The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.
Critical thinking is evidence based, ultimately, and rests on the facts. I don’t mean to be disrespectful here, but there is simply no empirical evidence whatsoever to support your belief that Francis is acting in good faith. In fact, the cold hard facts point in the opposite direction, and it is more appropriate to assume the worst than to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point. His actions have spoken clearly and consistently, and actions reveal the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Are you suggesting that he’s just plain stupid?
So you desire to see nothing narcissistic in blatant cold-blooded cynical manipulation? We went through many years of Catholic nihilism in the post VII era where moral theologians made the entire enterprise of moral theology a sophist exercise of a war on God given guilt. The infantile hippie culture of the sixties that said feeling guilty was the primary evil dominated what passed for a moral theology that revived proportionalism and consequentialism to rationalize immorality until JPII largely discredited such thought with his masterful book length encyclical, The Splendor of Truth. Now we have a moral sophist like Francis abusing the concept of “discernment” as a catchword for moral subjectivity. In Amoris Laetitia he tells us a man can “discern” that in his concrete circumstances, God just might be asking him to be happy with his new wife. No mention is made about an absence of mercy towards the abandoned family. This is the essence of his narcissistic thought. A desire to be celebrated by sinners in love with their sins at the expense of the tragic consequences to the victims of sin, immorality which any Christian should understand as his “obligation to judge”. Self-aggrandizement in thought and deed is not the Christian life.
To write “Ivereigh is the author of two hagiographic biographies of Pope Francis” is both inaccurate and clearly uniformed. Both biographies are the most thorough accounts of this pope’s life, formation and subsequent theological perspectives that he has brought to his leadership of the church, however one agrees or disagrees with it. Such ad hominem attacks are not only unwarranted but betray a lack of balance in a matter that one expects informed judgement and fair presentation.
Whom do you believe you are fooling? The Ivereigh “biographies” are comically written, breathless, fanboy treatises that conflict with countless personal testimonies, such as those of fellow Argentinian prelates and ordinary Catholics in Buenos Aires who suffered under Bergoglio’s authoritarian hubris, indifference, and dishonesty. They also clearly conflict with everything that has transpired in Rome over the past decade. Just stop. You sound completely ridiculous.
Maybe, F.X., you’re referring to someone other than Francis.
What’s disturbing is the silence of fellow cardinals , bishops and clergy.
What’s disturbing is the silence from fellow cardinals and clergy
Argentinians – both laity and clergy- know precisely who Bergoglio is. This is why he has never returned to Argentina.
Bingo. He is absolutely hated in Argentina.
Really, I know people in Pennsylvania who despise him.
I recently became aware of a young man who is apostatizing because he finds Francis and his politicization of the Petrine Office to be dispositive proof against Church indefectibility.
I hope you can show him the Church is the truthful word of God that never changes ragardless of corrupt witnesses.
The report came from an anonymous source.
The denial was coursed through Ivereigh.
Such fun!
Just an average garden variety Catholic here……
A) if this account is true I don’t think the Pope thought it through.
B) I am not a fan of his because he has a clear pattern of getting involved in activist politics ( global warming, lgbtqrst, etc etc).
I wish he could find a way to recenter himself and the church to saving souls and lives. He should have long ago been smack dab in the fight for peace in Ukraine. He never stepped foot in Ireland during the abortion battle that legalized abortion. Same for Ireland’s gay marriage referendum.