Light On Dark Water

Three Observations on the Pope’s Interview

My wife's typically brief and accurate take: "He's sort of loosey-goosey when he talks, isn't he?"

Someone else, whom I'll refrain from identifying but who can speak up if he or she sees this and wishes to: "We've got Paul VI again."

It was a brief conversation, but what I took the Paul VI comparison to mean, among other things, is that Francis, like Paul, sometimes does not seem to grasp accurately the way his words and actions will be perceived, and the effect they'll have.

And finally, from me: I have read all but the last few paragraphs of the interview, and most of it by far is somewhere between good and wonderful. It's unfortunate that certain remarks have been so subject to incomprehension and distortion. But that phenomenon mustn't blind us to things like this:

I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in
everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even
if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else—God is in this
person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life.
Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there
is always a space in which the good seed can grow. You have to trust
God.”

Maclin Horton
, ,

26 responses to “Three Observations on the Pope’s Interview”

  1. Louise

    That last quote there is great!

    Reply
  2. Marianne

    “Loosey-goosey” is very good, and that paragraph you quote is beautiful.
    He talks quite a bit about “discernment” in that interview and how it’s moved him in recent days to come to his present position, which seems to be summed up in the John XXIII quote he uses: “See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.”
    I wish he hadn’t used “obsessed” with regard to abortion, etc. Particularly unfortunate because it carries a strong connotation of unreasonableness and, for many, even mental illness.

    Reply
  3. Jack

    Perhaps you would be interested in this observation:
    http://catholicmoraltheology.com/919-pope-says-stop-advocating-against-abortion-920-pope-advocates-against-abortion/

    Reply
  4. Robert Gotcher

    You can’t argue with your quote, Mac. It is clearly crucial and central to any Christian approach. So many otherwise good and dedicated people miss it.
    I agree with you, marianne.

    Reply
  5. Mac

    Robert, am I detecting in your response some reservation about other aspects of the interview?
    I think “obsessed” pretty much always implies something unreasonable. Sometimes it’s admiring, e.g. if a writer is described as being obsessed with getting every word right. But even if it’s admiring, the connotation of unreasonableness is there.

    Reply
  6. Mac

    Jack, the spam catcher snagged your comment for a while. I agree with that piece. There is one very small thing I disagree with–the parenthetical “less well.” I think JPII, at least, did it just as well. Offhand I can’t even remember Benedict discussing abortion, though I’m sure he must have. (So much for “obsession.”) And I’m proud of the fact that I’ve been discussing this without using the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” 🙂

    Reply
  7. Louise

    I wish he hadn’t used “obsessed” with regard to abortion, etc. Particularly unfortunate because it carries a strong connotation of unreasonableness and, for many, even mental illness.
    I agree altogether.
    Although that’s a translation, right? What was the Spanish/Italian/Latin word he used?
    I’m glad so many people have been “obsessed” with battling abortion. Thanks to their efforts, the pro-life movement is beginning to gain the upper hand in the US at least and babies are being saved.

    Reply
  8. Louise

    A friend of mine just emailed this to me:
    “The pope speaks out against the danger of allowing “our faith to be drained by too many discussions of multiple, minor details” such as “ordination of women, contraception, abortion and other such constantly recurring problems.”
    The pope in question? Benedict XVI, speaking to the Swiss Bishops on 11/9/2006:
    “We should not allow our faith to be drained by too many discussions of multiple, minor details, but rather, should always keep our eyes in the first place on the greatness of Christianity.
    I remember, when I used go to Germany in the 1980s and ’90s, that I was asked to give interviews and I always knew the questions in advance. They concerned the ordination of women, contraception, abortion and other such constantly recurring problems.
    If we let ourselves be drawn into these discussions, the Church is then identified with certain commandments or prohibitions; we give the impression that we are moralists with a few somewhat antiquated convictions, and not even a hint of the true greatness of the faith appears. I therefore consider it essential always to highlight the greatness of our faith – a commitment from which we must not allow such situations to divert us.””
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061109_concl-swiss-bishops_en.html

    Reply
  9. Mac

    I guess that could be a less-than-perfect translation. The interview was in Italian.
    That passage from Benedict seems to be making the rounds, as someone posted it on Facebook, too. Anyway, it’s a good instance of the non-discontinuousness of the teaching.

    Reply
  10. Marianne

    I thought the same thing, that maybe there was a translation problem. But here’s the Italian text: “Una pastorale missionaria non è ossessionata dalla trasmissione disarticolata di una moltitudine di dottrine da imporre con insistenza.”
    And Google translates it as: “A missionary ministry is not obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.”
    ossessionata = obsessed
    And both come from the Latin “obsessi”.

    Reply
  11. Jack

    I just think we have to be very careful not to get caught up in the media’s tendency to see everything through the “culture wars” prism. The news wants to present this in the most controversial way possible to sell papers. Thus the narrative of the liberal pope putting the smack-down on the conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth. As that great quote from Benedict clearly shows.

    Reply
  12. Art Deco

    Re: Paul VI. You have to hold him responsible for the work of the liturgical commissions; they should have been dismissed and sent home. That aside, though, the Oecumenical Council set off a tsunami and local ordinaries failed to contain the trouble and lead. I think there were places they did which have been in satisfactory condition since (Latvia, the Great Plains dioceses in the United States).

    Reply
  13. Mac

    I quite agree, Jack, and that’s a big part of my concern: quite inadvertently, certain of the pope’s remarks served to fan culture war flames by appearing to dismiss pro-life and related concerns. I suppose that part of it will blow over fairly quickly, but NARAL reportedly posted a big “thank you” to Pope Francis on Facebook. I keep thinking it must surely be a hoax.

    Reply
  14. Mac

    Marianne, I meant to say last night, that even if “obsessed” wasn’t quite the right word, in the context pretty much any term meaning “strongly focused” would have come across as negative.
    That’s a strikingly intelligible Google translation. They are not always so.

    Reply
  15. Mac

    I suspect, Art, though I don’t know the history in any sort of detail, that the liturgical missteps are connected to the same flaw: when he said “reform” he didn’t mean what many of liturgists et.al. heard, and he didn’t ride herd on them to the extent that would have been required. Though no doubt the greatest fault lay with the local bishops.

    Reply
  16. Louise

    Thanks, Marianne – I was too lazy to even google it. 😛

    Reply
  17. Louise

    Where’s Grumpy? And I think Janet is on a bit of a break?

    Reply
  18. Mac

    Yes, Janet’s taking an internet hiatus. And when I posted the first excerpt from The Tyranny of Liberalism, Grumpy said something about not reading the blog for a month and hasn’t been heard from since. I didn’t know what to make of that.

    Reply
  19. Marianne

    Amy Welborn has some interesting things to say on this, like:

    My armchair take on Francis is that when I hear him or read him , what I hear is a fellow who has been in the hierarchy for a long time. This hit me early on. His concerns are those of a bishop, and they seem to come out of a bishop’s experience of dealing with interest groups vying for his ear, careerist or pastorally indifferent clerics, and a structure, on the parish and diocesan level, which, despite the best of intentions, so often seems to lose focus and evolve into a self-perpetuating, self-serving club blind to the needy and broken souls right at the doorstep. It seems to me that much of what he says is an attempted and almost explosive corrective to all of that.

    and

    To be honest, what doesn’t thrill me about Pope Francis is that his context and reference seems rather…narrow. His words do not come across as thoughtfully, carefully and appreciatively situated in the experience – past and present – of the whole Church. Or even an awareness of all the different sorts of people who might be experiencing exclusion and alienation from Christ or his Church at any given time for a host of reasons, some of which might even surprise him. This puzzles me because, as the interview indicates, he is a deeply cultured person, but his homilies, speeches and exhortations reflect Jesus, Pope Francis and not a whole lot in between. One could ask, well, what more is there? Answer…a lot. That’s what “Catholic” is. A lot. That is a tall order, of course, to be able to do that, but that deep and broad vision is, I would think, part of what being Pope is all about. Unity.

    More here.

    Reply
  20. Mac

    I’ll have to read that whole thing. I got out of the habit of reading her when she cut way back on her blogging after her husband died.
    This: “Or even an awareness of all the different sorts of people who might be experiencing exclusion and alienation from Christ or his Church at any given time for a host of reasons, some of which might even surprise him.”
    makes me think of one of the little things in that interview that seemed to be rather…tin-eared, or something. In reference to the Latin Mass, he warned of turning it into an ideology. Well, my goodness, what does he think was done with the Novus Ordo?! As a newcomer in the early 1980s, I was greatly puzzled by the scorn and hatred directed at those who had been deeply hurt by the liturgical changes. Frankly it still puzzles me a little, though I know a lot more now about what was going on.
    (I deleted your duplicate, btw.)

    Reply
  21. Louise

    Well, my goodness, what does he think was done with the Novus Ordo?!
    Indeed!

    Reply
  22. Louise

    Amy puts her finger on something else that was bugging me:
    There’s a lot of rather patronizing commentary out there. Is this patronizing? Hmmm…. By that I mean commentary that pats worried people on the head and accuses the concerned of not trusting the Holy Spirit or being fearful reactionaries or some such. Ascribing emotional motivations to those with theological, intellectual and spiritual questions, and therefore dismissing said concerns. Not very merciful or compassionate, if you ask me.
    I agree. I get the impression that “compassion” is for some and not others. In particular it seems not to exist for the orthodox, especially when we voice concerns.
    When I’m upset by things, I’m “irrational” etc but when others are upset, it’s because they are the victims of injustice. Now, I can cope with that, because I can cope with my emotions, but it’s a double standard.
    A classic case is in debating the topic of divorce. People in favour of it (or of easy annulments in the Church) are allowed to control the debate with their feelings, but if the people who oppose it become emotional we are told to “get over it” or informed that we are “uncivil” etc. Never mind that in many cases, the people in favour of divorce are more uncivil, by being more personal in their attack.

    Reply
  23. Mac

    “My sacred emotions trump your facts and logic.” Yeah, a familiar tactic.
    Or “Your resort to facts and logic reveals you to be heartless.”

    Reply
  24. Rob G

    Unrelated, but the original entry was closed:
    Amazon has the new Flannery O’Connor book, the prayer journal, available for pre-order at 40% off. It comes out Nov. 12

    Reply
  25. Art Deco

    A classic case is in debating the topic of divorce. People in favour of it (or of easy annulments in the Church) are allowed to control the debate with their feelings, but if the people who oppose it become emotional we are told to “get over it” or informed that we are “uncivil” etc.
    Thomas Sowell remarked on the same pattern in the discussion of purely secular matters. When the ‘anointed’ favor something, it is ‘a matter of principle’. When the ‘benighted’ favor something, it is ‘an emotional issue’.

    Reply
  26. Mac

    Thanks for the reminder about the Flannery book, Rob.
    “When the ‘anointed’ favor something, it is ‘a matter of principle’….” Related: it’s striking how much like old-school law-n-order right-wingers liberals sound when discussing Roe v Wade, Obamacare, gay marriage, etc.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Marianne Cancel reply

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress