Friday, November 22, 2013

More Papal interview fallout

So now the interviewer says that he may have, you know - changed some of what the Pope was saying.

I loved this portion: "“I try to understand the person I am interviewing, and after that, I write his answers with my own words,” Scalfari explained.
He conceded that it is therefore possible that “some of the Pope’s words I reported were not shared by Pope Francis.”"

That's just great.

8 comments:

BenYachov said...

I would like to say to the usual suspects.

See I told you so...

Or as Kryten on RED DWARF would say "Ah!!!!Smug mode!"

Given the environment we live in I suggest it is the the duty of every faithful Catholic to knee-jerk disbelieve media and treat everything they report about the Church as suspect till proven true past a reasonable doubt.

Crude said...

The problem, Ben, is that a whole lot of people went to bat saying that nothing the Pope said was in any way questionable or open to criticism, period. Not 'the pope was misreported' but 'nothing he said could even give the wrong impression'.

BenYachov said...

>The problem, Ben, is that a whole lot of people went to bat saying that nothing the Pope said was in any way questionable or open to criticism, period. Not 'the pope was misreported' but 'nothing he said could even give the wrong impression'.

No doubt because it was ambiguous enough to be given an orthodox interpretation. That is the trouble with the writings of some heretics. They are not clear enough in expounding their own errors.

Case in point. Pseudo-Dionysius is one of the most quoted texts in Aquinas. Yet many scholars believe it was originally written by a 5th century monophysite heretic.

Now how does the writings of a monophysite heretic become the basis of western Catholic orthodoxy and philosophy?

Because St Maximos the Confessor give it an authoritative orthodox interpretation.

We are just doing the same with Pseudo-Francis.

But it is ironic some of the statements I have defended might not have be spoken by the Pope.

But I can live with that. I did my duty as a loyal son.

Deuce said...

Yeah, it turns out some of the quotes that seemed blatantly heretical are almost surely the results of an atheist putting words in Francis' mouth.

But what this shows is that there was a very justified underlying reason that so many people perceived Francis' words as being very "off" and unsettling, and that the attempts of others to explain them away were strained and unconvincing. They weren't just a bunch of paranoid jerks making mountains out of molehills and ganging up on Francis for no reason.

There's also the matter that this thing ended up on the Vatican website as one of Francis' speeches, so people had very good reason for thinking he really said them.

The fact is, the Vatican made it look for all the world that Francis had said things that we now realize were the inventions of a man hostile to the Christian faith.

Furthermore, the people who explained them away, and accused those who were unsettled by them of being faithless right-wing kooks, probably would've recognized those phrases as being exactly what they in fact were if they'd known where they'd come from, and so wouldn't have had to tie themselves into knots making them mean something else.

So, what it comes down to, imo, is 1) The Vatican effed up big here, arguably close to the point of inviting scandal, and 2) The people who couldn't quite force themselves to be sufficiently convinced by the excuses of the Francis Damage Control Squad to completely eliminate the cognitive dissonance from their consciousness deserve a bit of an apology.

Crude said...

I'm in the middle on this one. I don't think most of what Francis said was anything close to heresy. At the same time, I'd agree that there was reason to be worried, if not confused and desiring clarification.

Even now, we're not getting anything set straight. We're just getting more and more indications that something was very 'off' with this interview. And frankly, the interviewer's explanation is freaking bizarre. Is it a common habit among interviewers to talk to someone for a bit, kinda-sorta get the gist of what they're saying, and then make up what they said in a way you think sort of catches the spirit of their thoughts?

BenYachov said...


Deuce we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

>But what this shows is that there was a very justified underlying reason that so many people perceived Francis' words as being very "off" and unsettling, and that the attempts of others to explain them away were strained and unconvincing.

I don't agree. You are going to have to give me a solid example because I am skeptical of this claim. I have found Jimmy Akins' explanations most informative and he noted early on it wasn't a word for word interview. They where hardly strained or unconvincing IMHO.

>They weren't just a bunch of paranoid jerks making mountains out of molehills and ganging up on Francis for no reason.

Sorry but some of them where just that some where not. Carl Olsen made reasonable criticisms. The fellow whom the Pope called on the phone was another hard but fair critic. But some where over the top and needlessly uncharitable if not outright antagonistic toward the Pope. In the end the Holy Father was vindicated.

>Furthermore, the people who explained them away, and accused those who were unsettled by them of being faithless right-wing kooks, probably would've recognized those phrases as being exactly what they in fact were if they'd known where they'd come from, and so wouldn't have had to tie themselves into knots making them mean something else.

There where some reasonable respectful criticisms of the Pope's alleged words & I named names. Fr. Z was another & Kevin T. But some where over the top and accused those who defended the Holy Father of belonging to a "Papal Personality Cult". I took offense at this even after I myself criticized both JP2 & B16 for some of their mistakes. It is one thing to say "I am more than a bit put off by the Pope choice of words here" vs "You are only defending him because you think the Pope can never be criticized". No I was in the military and one thing I learned is you don't undermine the command & their is a way to give feedback. Hysteria is any of it.

>So, what it comes down to, imo, is 1) The Vatican effed up big here, arguably close to the point of inviting scandal, and

Since when have they not done that? The curia is incompetent & so is the press office. Don't believe me? I remember the PASSION OF THE CHRIST fiasco. Did JP2 see the film or not? Did he endorse it or not? It's an old problem and even B16 failed to reign in the Curia.

>2) The people who couldn't quite force themselves to be sufficiently convinced by the excuses of the Francis Damage Control Squad to completely eliminate the cognitive dissonance from their consciousness deserve a bit of an apology.

Rather some of these people brought it on themselves for being outraged at the simple premise that the Pope should be treated fairly and be given the benefit of the doubt and accusing those who endorsed this reasonable and civilized policy of belonging to a "Papal Personally Cult".

Like I said we must agree to disagree.

Peace to you brother Deuce.

BenYachov said...

> Is it a common habit among interviewers to talk to someone for a bit, kinda-sorta get the gist of what they're saying, and then make up what they said in a way you think sort of catches the spirit of their thoughts?

I guess somebody hasn't read the New York times lately?;-) LOL!

Cheers.

malcolmthecynic said...

"I'm shocked to find that there's gambling in this establishment!"

"Your winnings, sir."