A Few Thoughts on Francis' Recent Interview

Ember Wednesday in Advent

 From The Vatican Insider

While most of the world may concern itself more with the temporary canonization of Francis by Time and The Advocate, we would like to draw your attention to his recent interview conducted by Andrea Tornielli (author of "Pope Francis: Pope of a New World").

CHRISTMAS

[Christmas] speaks of tenderness and hope. When God meets us he tells us two things. The first thing he says is: have hope. God always opens doors, he never closes them. He is the father who opens doors for us. The second thing he says is: don’t be afraid of tenderness. When Christians forget about hope and tenderness they become a cold Church, that loses its sense of direction and is held back by ideologies and worldly attitudes, whereas God’s simplicity tells you: go forward, I am a Father who caresses you.

God certainly gives hope, yes; and charity is God's love, loving one's neighbor as God loves them, and for the sake of God.  Often this is done with "tenderness" if we are to think in terms of emulating Our Lord, and being meek and humble of heart.  However, Francis' priorities are obvious: he sees the Church as a social organization, and that the worst (or at least, one of the most undesirable) things it could become is "cold."  In the first place, the Church is the Spotless Bride of Christ, and She does not "become" anything other than what He has willed Her to be-- Francis identifies the nature of the Church according to the dispositions of Her members.  If this was true, the Church would not only be cold, She would be a murderer, an adulteress, a thief, an ingrate, etc.  But this is not true, because Her nature is not defined by Her members.

Additionally, when God "meets us" (a regrettably modernist and protestant expression), He does not always tell us to "go forward."  In fact, in many cases, God "meets us" as He met St Paul, or as He met St Peter fleeing Rome.  He will purify us and chastise us so that we see the evil in the direction we were headed prior to "meeting" Him.  He has already said " If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mat. XII). 

There is also the unsettling emanation of Arianism.  We touched on this in an earlier post.  In Francis' interview with La Repubblica he over-distinguished between the Father and the Son, stating "...there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being."  The contrarian tone of "...but God, the Father... is the light and the Creator.  This is my Being," is enough of an equivocation enough to warrant a double take.  In this recent interview, Francis says: 

 The Greek Fathers called [the Incarnation] syncatabasis, divine condescension that is: God coming down to be with us. It is one of God’s mysteries.  John Paul II said God became a child who was entirely dependent on the care of a father and mother. This is why Christmas gives us so much joy. We don’t feel alone any more; God has come down to be with us. Jesus became one of us and suffered the worst death for us, that of a criminal on the Cross.” 

For any practicing Catholic who has written an academic paper on a subject which is filled with "experts" who predicate all of their theories on a denial of religion, there is an elusive way in which we can write about such topics without drawing too much attention to the fact that we disagree with and disdain what we are supposed to believe according to secular professors.  This is a very simple method which simply requires a sentence to begin "Scientists/doctors/philosophers believe/say/theorize X."  It is a very "unbiased" and distanced way of telling someone what they want to hear without actually saying that you share the belief.  Francis cites what the Greeks call the incarnation, and what JPII said about the incarnation but all that he says is that "God came down to be with us.  Jesus became one of us..."  Again with the distinction.  God "coming down to us" could mean anything.  Jesus becoming one of us isn't necessarily the same thing.  Especially when the words are coming out of the mouth of a modernist!  Who knows?  Maybe it's a translation error, or maybe it's not and we're just nuts.  But the suspicious way in which Bergoglio continues to distinguish between God and Jesus continues...

The entire second page of the interview is filled with the obligatory shout-out to the poor.

ECUMENISM

Over the course of these first nine months, I have received visits from many Orthodox brothers: Bartholomew, Hilarion, the theologian Zizioulas, the Copt Tawadros... They have the apostolic succession; I received them as brother bishops. It is painful that we are not yet able to celebrate the Eucharist together, but there is friendship. I believe that the way forward is this: friendship, common work and prayer for unity. We blessed each other; one brother blesses the other, one brother is called Peter and the other Andrew, Mark, Thomas…

There isn't really much to comment on here.  The work is done for us.  An heretic receiving heretics... you know what they say about birds of a feather.  The heretics retain material apostolic succession, but it's clear that Francis means that they are formal successors (with both power of order and jurisdiction) by the way he refers to them as equals.  Notice how "the way forward" doesn't include conversion?  It will be interesting to see how God caresses them.

Yes, for me ecumenism is a priority (You don't say?). Today there is an ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before they kill them they do not ask them whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Their blood is mixed... I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism.  After him, in the list of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: “I will continue to deal with the cause, but both of their causes, not just the Catholic priest’s.” This is what ecumenism of blood is. It still exists today. Those who kill Christians don’t ask for your identity card to see which Church you were baptised in. We need to take these facts into consideration.

Well, this is just filthy.  Many commentators have already chimed in with comments on this passage, and we can only echo their not-so-surprised shock at the absolute scandal of this "ecumenism of blood." Does Bergoglio not realize that in the past, the Church would have done exactly what the Nazis did to those who spread heresy?  That's a rhetorical question, of course; he must know and has likely already "apologized" for it publicly, or plans to.  There are no greater crimes than those against the Faith, because such crimes are direct assaults on God.  The spreading of heresy was dealt with so severely because the death of the soul is infinitely worse than the death of the body.  Naturally, we can't expect someone so preoccupied with materialism and the corporal works to appreciate that-- in fact, it's apparent he abhors it.  

Then there is the idea that how others regard "Christians" must be "taken into consideration."  Again we have the faith in flux.  While the Church is defined by what Her members are feeling at the time, a Christian is defined by what his enemies think he is.  The entire quoted paragraph accurately reflects the wicked indifferentism of the modern world towards religion.



MISCELLANIOUS 

Questions posed by Tornielli in bold.

Some of the passages in the "Evangelii Gaudium" attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a "Marxist"?

"The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended."


Three guesses as to whether we actually believe he thinks Marxism is wrong (and the first two don't count), although we certainly didn't expect him to say that it is.  But Marxists are good people, so it probably doesn't matter.  They must be playing checkers with all the other atheists in Heaven.


In the Apostolic Exhortation you called for prudent and bold pastoral choices regarding the sacraments. What were you referring to?

When I speak of prudence I do not think of it in terms of an attitude that paralyses but as the virtue of a leader. Prudence is a virtue of government. So is boldness.  One must govern with boldness and prudence. I spoke about baptism and communion as spiritual food that helps one to go on; it is to be considered a remedy not a prize. Some immediately thought about  the sacraments for remarried divorcees, but I did not refer to any specific cases; I simply wanted to point out a principle. We must try to facilitate people’s faith, rather than control it. Last year in Argentina I condemned the attitude of some priests who did not baptise the children of unmarried mothers. This is a sick mentality.

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.  Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep" (I Cor, XI).

St Paul teaches us not to profane the Holy Sacrament, and attributes the Corinthians doing so as a cause for their ills.  Of course, to a man like Bergoglio who believes that all Christians are united in blood, there is no true distinction between a non-Catholic "Christian" and a Catholic, or a person in sanctifying grace or one in mortal sin.  

And what about remarried divorcees?
 
"The exclusion of divorced people who contract a second marriage from communion is not a sanction. It is important to remember this. But I didn’t talk about this in the Exhortation."

Certainly he wouldn't condemn the practice of withholding Holy Communion from public sinners.  I suppose we expected a bit of a more of an artful dodge, though. 


May I ask you if the Church will have women cardinals in the future?

"I don’t know where this idea sprang from. Women in the Church must be valued not 'clericalised.' Whoever thinks of women as cardinals suffers a bit from clericalism." 

It sprang from the perpetually-flapping hole under your nose, sir.  This is a remarkable statement.  In telling the conservatives what they want to hear (something along the lines of "no women cardinals") he simultaneously slaps them in the face by saying they suffer from clericalism, which is NO-speak for telling someone they need to get with the times and realize that clerics don't have anything John Q. Layman the accountant doesn't have, nor do they enjoy any special privileges or rights.  


Could you have imagined a year ago that you would be celebrating Christmas 2013 in St. Peter’s?

"Absolutely not." 

If only...