In follow up to the previous post, let’s take a closer look at the pope’s La Vanguardia interview.
Asked about the Church’s role in reducing the growing inequality between the rich and the poor…
POPE FRANCIS: At the center of all economic systems must be man, man and woman, and everything else must be in service of this man. But we have put money at the center, the god of money. We have fallen into a sin of idolatry, the idolatry of money.
Pope Leo XIII pondered that very same question in the Encyclical Rerum Novarum:
Neither must it be supposed that the solicitude of the Church is so preoccupied with the spiritual concerns of her children as to neglect their temporal and earthly interests. Her desire is that the poor, for example, should rise above poverty and wretchedness, and better their condition in life; and for this she makes a strong endeavor. By the fact that she calls men to virtue and forms them to its practice she promotes this in no slight degree. Christian morality, when adequately and completely practiced, leads of itself to temporal prosperity, for it merits the blessing of that God who is the source of all blessings… (Rerum Novarum 28)
For Pope Leo XIII and his contemporaries, placing Christ at the center of all human activity, including that which is economic, is the answer to man’s needs; in this case, his temporal needs, even unto prosperity.
For Pope Francis and his post-conciliar counterparts, by contrast, placing man himself at the center of all things is the preferred approach; taking the place that properly belongs to Christ and supplanting the worship that is due to Him first and foremost with an almost singular focus on human dignity.
The anthropomorphizing mission of the Council is running full throttle now, and its captains no longer even bother to pretend otherwise. Either they will succeed in ushering in the final persecution, or we are witnessing the death throes of this dreadful episode in the life of the Church.
Moving on, the Holy Father was asked to comment on the popular perception that faith and science are mutually exclusive…
POPE FRANCIS: The clash between science and faith peaked in the Enlightenment, but that is not so fashionable today, thank God, because we have all realized the closeness between one thing and the other. Pope Benedict XVI has a good teaching about the relation between science and faith. In general lines, the most recent is that the scientists are very respectful with the faith and the agnostic or atheist scientist says, “I don’t dare to enter that field.”
Perhaps something was lost in translation here (God please!), but the notion that today’s “scientists are very respectful with the faith” is perplexing. With reports that an encyclical on the environment is forthcoming, this doesn’t bode well. (Not that it did beforehand, mind you.)
Speaking of the legacy of Benedict the Abdicator…
POPE FRANCIS: Pope Benedict has made a very significant act. He has opened the door, has created an institution, that of the of the eventual popes emeritus.
Imagine, multiple popes emeritus. It’s not clear if Pope Francis envisions there being more than one at any given time, but I can imagine a day when several of them may appear together for a photo-op, perhaps at a ribbon cutting ceremony of some kind, or the funeral of some pro-abortion politician, or the canonization of a future recipient of the newchurch “Santo Subito Lifetime Achievement Award,” at which point the remaking of the papacy in the image of mere politicians will be nearly complete.
Finally, having been asked how he would you like to be remembered…
POPE FRANCIS: I have not thought about it, but I like it when someone remembers someone and says: “He was a good guy, he did what he could. He wasn’t so bad.” I’m OK with that.
Understanding that this is something of a “no win” question, I don’t find this sort of homespun, front porch rockin’, down on the farm, regular Joe kind of answer very edifying. This is the pope speaking, for crying out loud!
Is it too much to hope that he would have aimed a little higher than an epitaph that says, “Here lies a good guy.”
I mean, he could have spoken of things like sanctity, holiness, and dare I say sainthood. (Although given the change in definition, that doesn’t mean what it used to mean.)
In any case, I think even non-Catholics realize that the pope is here to lead us to something greater than “not so bad.”
It seems that Pope Francis the Groovy is either an evil genius or a genuine idiot. I can’t quite make up my mind which.
A third, more charitable option is that he’s reasonably intelligent but poorly catechized, like so many others processed by the Judas Council Revolution.
Off topic, but here is an update on the blasphemous invocation by infidels in the Vatican asking Allah to, “grant victory over unbelievers”.
How about just a theological and intellectual lightweight, and the perfect prop for the internal enemies of the Church who elected him? Yes, “Prop Francis” has a certain dull ring to it…
“He did his best to lead souls to Heaven”…how about that for an epitaph? Then again, he wouldnt have been able to say that while keeping a straight face and I’m sure he knows it.
I really dont think that any of the great heretics were poorly catechized…im much more inclined to go with evil genius (the genius part may be a bit of a stretch, but the man isnt stupid either).
Why doesn’t he just shut up? Or, why can’t an interviewer ask him what he thinks of “Pascendi” and “The Syllabus?”
(Wouldn’t that be “popes emeriti?” I’d chip in for a nice villa on Capri if he’s serious.)
I really don’t think it would be helpful to Faithful Catholic for him to “shut up” as you suggest, if he then began orchestrating his desired changes behind the scenes. I for one, want to know what he’s thinking, so I can prepare to defend the Faith to those he scandalizes. Since he took office we’ve learned more about many aspects of the Faith than we have in a long time.
Every time he slaughters a teaching off the cuff, we learn what it really says and how to express it properly. I’m not suggesting it’s a good thing for the world to witness this, but if he stops talking, we’ll get more surprises.
I think John was just having a bit of a rant. I’m of the opinion that most of us have reached the point where we wished he would just ‘shut-up’, especially when dismissing abortion and sodomy as nothing to obsess about which had a direct impact on people’s acceptance of the latter and implementation of the former for which he will have to make account before God. In that instance, he should just have ‘shut-up’.
“Christian morality, when adequately and completely practiced, leads of itself to temporal prosperity, for it merits the blessing of that God who is the source of all blessings…” What crystal-clear Catholic teaching this is.
But as we all know, it is a not so secret sin for a post-58 papal claimant to reference the Popes of the pre-aggiornamento.
p.s. I think the “Santo Subito Lifetime Achievement Award” blue-prints are probably already waiting somewhere in a Vatican desk drawer for the ‘right time’.
And yet if one raises this with people they ‘see nothing wrong’ with it (in typical Vatican II newspeask, apparently this ‘victory over the infidels’ means not victory over the infidels.) When one points out that the Catholic Faith is not a matter of opinion about what we prefer to think is right or wrong, it has no impact because the Novus Ordo teaches catholics to be utterly committed to the new-charity of simply not caring about souls, and only caring about defending indefensible papal claimants – as if this is all that being catholic really means.
From what I have read what we have seen so far are only excerpts from the interview. There are more explosive parts that do not appear in La Vanguardia. Once again I point you to the post at “Call me Jorge” which has the more background:
Also, I would call your attention to the person conducting the interview, Henrique Cymerman. You can learn more about him if you know Spanish at this Wikipedia page:
More on Henrique Cymerman. “Call me Jorge” links to this article in Spanish from an Argentine newspaper:
Francisco mantuvo una conversación privada con Skorka y Cymerman en la que inquirió: “¿Qué puedo hacer por Israel?”. “Venir: que este sea su primer viaje decidido por usted, porque tendrá un impacto mundial enorme. Ahora, tendrá que ir también a Jordania y a la Autoridad Palestina”, le dijo el periodista. “El tema es que tengo invitación de Israel pero no de los palestinos”, intercedió Francisco. Acto seguido, Cymerman movió sus contactos y llamó por teléfono a Mahmud Abbas. Quince minutos después, la invitación de esa parte ya estaba formalizada.
BTW, in case you haven’t figured it out by now… Bergoglio will be the next Nobel Peace Prize winner.
The world loves Bergoglio. I’m just waiting for him to appear as host of Saturday Night Live and to show up as a guest on David Letterman. Or maybe that will have to wait for the next pope… Bergoglio will be a tough act to follow.
This from the Cymerman interview: “The link between Francis and Cymerman began last year, when they met through a rabbi. Since then their friendship has grown, so much so, that, in the Israeli’s first interview that the Israeli with the Pope, he proposed a visit to the Middle East as a contribution to peace. He even helped Francis prepare for the trip [which concluded at] the Vatican, where the three leaders performed an interreligious ceremony for peace. That day, the Israeli, who travelled on the papal plane, was coined, the ‘angel of peace’, by the Francis, as a thank you for his efforts.” The article continues explaining how Cymerman, a Portuguese Jew who moved to Israel was, ‘discriminated against at a Catholic school’ – apparently a ‘priest’ wouldn’t let him play football?!? At 54 he met Bergoglio who encouraged him to fight against this discrimination – i.e. organise Papal events in the Middle East: quote: “The unexpected meeting [between Cymerman and Bergoglio], which would have important consequences for millions of people, began to take shape in April 2013 at the Alvear Hotel Buenos Aires. After Cymerman had given a lecture, Rabbi Abraham Skorka suggested he should meet the Pope. That meeting took place on June 13. There, Francis agreed to give the first television interview expressing his concern about the situation in Israel and Palestine.” Cymerman continues, “The reality, as pope Francis said, is that the Catholic Church persecuted the Jewish people systematically in different periods of history. I said [to Francis] “I can not understand the Inquisition…You can not attack a Jew if you’re a good Christian, because it is the root of your faith,” said Cymerman. Then Cymerman recounts a papal joke in order to illustrate ‘the philosophy of the Pope.’ “He [Francis] repeated a joke he told in Rome, “In the Vatican, there are ways to cure people who do not like Jews. I say to those people, “Once there was a group of priests who cursed the Jews in front of a painting of Jesus and Mary. When they were saying these things, Jesus went out of the painting and said to Mary: Mom, come on, they don’t want us here.”
Yep folks, that’s how the occupiers of the Church run things these days; according to the whims of Rabbis and dissappointed soccer players.
Ah, hahahahahahahaha -ha,
very good !
dear Michael Leon
one wonders, and it boggles the mind, what more highly nuanced orchestrated photo opps will accompany the playing out of same.
heh, heh, —
“Santo Subito Lifetime Achievement Award”
I love it.
This link was provided on Mudabor’s latest post:
The Church teaches, or at least used to teach, that “Christ is the Head of the Church; Christ is the Supreme High Priest; Christ is the Principal Offerer of every Mass.” Take a look at the photos and see what a mockery these novus ordo priests make of the King of Kings – the High Priests. What is one supposed to conclude when a so-called ‘alter Christus’ makes of himself an ‘alter luciferus’? Is this diabolical disorientation? or simply diabolical?
p.s. that should be, ‘the High Priest’.
Bergoglio says: “In general lines, the most recent is that the scientists are very respectful with the faith and the agnostic or atheist scientist says, ‘I don’t dare to enter that field'”.
Any Catholic who has seen it will never forget when Richard Dawkins “dared” to do exactly that in a TV debate with Bergoglio’s “Cardinal Adviser”, George Pell. The following extract is taken from the transcript.
GEORGE PELL: Well, Adam and Eve are terms – what do they mean: life and earth. It’s like every man. That’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science but it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and the universe. Secondly, that the key to the whole of universe, the really significant thing, are humans and, thirdly, it is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world.
[MODERATOR]: But it isn’t a literal truth. You shouldn’t see it in any way as being an historical or literal truth?
GEORGE PELL: It’s certainly not a scientific truth and it’s a religious story told for religious purposes….
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I’m curious to know if Adam and Eve never existed where did original sin come from?
Compare what Pope Pius XII writes on this subject in Humani Generis:
“37. [T]he faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
38…. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament…. [T]he first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes”.
Credit is due to Dawkins for knowing the implications of Pell’s statement, and of course even more credit is due to Pope Pius, not for resolving the hugely complex scientific questions regarding man’s origins, but for being a firm and logical guardian of the Faith who clearly has the back of those Catholics who ought to be so engaged.
Francisco had a private onversation with [Rabbi] Skorka and Cymerman [the interviewer] in which he asked, “What can I do for Israel?” [The reply was] “Come to Israel. Let this be the first [papal] trip which you [yourself] decide to make because this would have an enormous worldwide impact. Now, you would also have to go to Jordan and the ‘Palestine territories’, said the journalist [Cymerman]. Francis replied, “The problem is that I have an invitation from Israel but I don’t have an invitation from the Palestinians.” As a consequence Cymerman immediately got to work through his [political] connections and called Mahmoud Abbas [President of the Palestinians] on the phone. Fifteen minutes later a formal invitation from Abbas [to Bergoglio] was finalized.
Cymerman is no ordinary “journalist”. In this scenario he is clearly functioning as an “agent” of the Israeli government who proposes a papal trip to Israel and then also negotiates with the Palestinians to make the final arrangements. (I’m reminded slightly of the role of Kissinger — except Cymerman [adapted from Zimmerman] is not even a government official… or so he claims.)
NOTE: I’m not trying to stir up anti-Jewish sentiments here on Louie’s blog, but neither should we remain completely blind to the facts. Needless to say that the secular press (and the ‘Catholic’ press???) would prefer us to remain blind and will not report on these type of facts that do not fit their worldview.
I remember seeing this debate on youtube a few years back…..and I remember thinking how Pell basically negated the entire Catholic Faith with this one assinine response. In the same debate Pell said he wasnt sure that anyone was in Hell and that atheists can surely get to heaven (with the implication being made that they didnt have to convert).
I started a thread about this in the forum here (under the title “On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture”) which gives a brief overview of the history of the advance of modernism in the field of biblical exegesis and how this, more than anything else, is the very “crack” through which the smoke of Satan entered the Church. The thread was ignored – wrong audience, I suppose – but I think this remains the central feature of the real crisis in the Church today. For one thing, every action undertaken by the post-Conciliar Church becomes perfectly transparent once one realizes what has happened in the field of biblical exegesis over the last 100 years.
When you put it that way, we cannot but agree.
The saddest thing about that punchline, is how true it is that Jesus and Mary are being made to feel that way, by His Vicar, and how blind the Pope is to it -when he tells people to receive Him in Mortal sin, and buddies up with people who reject Him.