“Marriage is between a man and a woman”. “Unborn life is as precious and unique as any life”. “Euthanasia is an unwarranted abuse of human freedom”. “Adoptive children have the right to have a father and a mother”. These are standard Roman Catholic positions on various hotly debated moral issues of our generation. So what’s the fuss about it? They were spoken and argued for by Pope Francis in two different speeches over the last few weeks. After months of confusing messages sent by him about homosexuality (“Who am I to judge?”), the good in every “loving relationship” be it married or not, the need for the Church to stay away from the heat of present-day ethical debates, his uneasiness towards anything “non-negotiable”, Pope Francis has finally said things “Catholic”…
Where does the Pope really stand on these issues? How do we account for this apparent U-turn? Who is able to grapple with what he has in mind? And, more generally, do we really know where he stands on a number of key doctrinal and pastoral points? … He appears to be close to everyone. The evidence, however, is more complex. He is certainly capable of getting close to all, calling anyone “brother” and “sister”, but how many people know what lies in his heart? He is certainly able to combine evangelical language, Marian devotions, and “politically correct” concerns, while retaining a fully orbed Roman Catholic outlook. Do we really know Pope Francis? How much of this complexity is the result of him being a Jesuit? How much do we know about the depth of his theology and the all-embracing nature of his agenda?
The Bible wants our communication not to be trapped in a “yes” and “no” type of language at the same time (2 Corinthians 1:18-20) but to speak plainly about what we have in our hearts. Pope Francis’ language tends to say “Yes, yes” and “No, no” with the same breadth. The Word of God also urges us “to speak truthfully” (Ephesians 4:25) and to avoid “twisted words” (Proverbs 4:24)...
I’m willing to say, this “complexity” is almost completely the result of his being a Jesuit. As I’ve written in the past, what Rome gives with one fork of its tongue, it takes away with the other.
Here is Roman Catholicism, with its non-existent, self-serving heart and soul, all rolled up into one man.
He reminds me of JP2. There was always an orthodox way and unorthodox way of taking what he said. Like JP2, he seems to delight in this fact.
ReplyDelete-SJ
It's the Jesuit thing.
DeleteI don't know how Jesuitical it is. I reminds me of (Catholic) supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy. He's pretty conservative expect abortion and "gays." So he probably loves the New York Times approval.
ReplyDeleteRoman Catholicism as a whole has a tendency toward "and-and". It is exemplified by Ratzinger's statement (linked in the OP) to the effect that "for every statement advanced in one direction the text offers one supporting the other side, and this restores the balance, leaving interpretations open in both directions".
DeleteThis may or may not be Jesuitical, but it certainly was the Jesuits who worked out ways, post-Reformation, of making two seemingly contradictory statements to be able to agree with each other.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/casuistry.aspx
So Barth was a Jesuit??
DeleteNobody said anything about Barth. With respect to "Pope Francis", he must certainly be schooled in the art of jesuitical doublespeak. If Barth picked that up along the way, that's his problem.
DeleteI was halfway joking because of Barth and his dialectical theology reconciling contradictory positions.
DeleteBarth is a Hegelian. But with that, the thesis and antithesis look for a synthesis. With the RCC today and its "and-and" theory, both contradictory opposites are retained.
DeleteI think it's just the human, all too human, trait to want to be more sophisticated than they rest of the black/white folks. To be honest, Pope Francis doesn't seem to be bright enough to create some sophisticated neo-Jesutical approach to things.
ReplyDelete