Thursday, June 9, 2016

Actually, maybe he just plain doesn't like them

I get a little tired of people who take it upon themselves to be the Pope's personal PR agent. We have a pontiff who is almost completely incapable of communicating clearly or clarifying his own remarks, unless there's a liberal backlash or a prominent conservative attacks him (thinking Kim Davis and Donald Trump, respectively.)

It'd be one thing if there was clear evidence the Pope was taken out of context, but that's rarely it. Instead the game seems to be that we're supposed to read the Pope in some context, any context, to make him not be delivering a very blatant slight to orthodox Catholics. (Who seem, I note, to be literally the only group the Pope has any criticism for.) And sometimes these people end up with egg on their faces, like during the communist cross incident where everyone pointed to a mistaken sneer on the Pope's face as a sign that he didn't like the cross. Then when he talked about how great it was, they all went silent. God forbid they let it sink in that no, the Pope doesn't necessarily follow their script.

And so long as I'm ranting, a note. Yes, Christ did hang out with tax collectors and prostitutes. So did Ted Kennedy. Do people forget that sometimes the guy who shows an unusual interest in getting to know every whore in town isn't a preacher but a freaking whoremonger?

11 comments:

Mr. Green said...

I guess you don't mean "literally" literally there. I get more tired of people who are always attacking the Pope, especially since the folks who are always defending Francis (not always aptly) are largely reacting in response to them. It's always possible to find some avenues for serious criticism of anyone, but I've seen a depressing amount of knicker-knotting over stuff that really was taken blatantly out of context, or mistranslated, or just plain made up. The professional attackers seem oblivious to Francis's saying to go to confession, or that women can't be priests, or to go to confession, or that not professing Jesus is professing demonic worldliness, or to go to confession, etc., etc., etc. And yes, of course there is a context in which we're supposed interpret the Pope's words: Catholic teaching. That some people — at least, some Catholics — seem to consider this a last resort, if not ruled out altogether, boggles my mind.

Crude said...

especially since the folks who are always defending Francis (not always aptly) are largely reacting in response to them.

The communist cross moment I thought was telling. You had a lot of people, including some prominent-enough bloggers, cheering on their interpretation of how the Pope was clearly disgusted by the gift, and how right that was. When they were wrong? Radio silence.

The professional attackers seem oblivious to Francis's saying to go to confession, or that women can't be priests, or to go to confession, or that not professing Jesus is professing demonic worldliness, or to go to confession, etc., etc., etc.

Except those things are almost always either A) vague, 'he's not quite saying that but we can kinda interpret him that way' moments at the most out of the way venues, or B) they're just criticisms of Catholics, and typically Catholics who consciously try to be devout.

Either way - no, I mean literally in the normal sense here. The Pope's favorite target is not just Catholics, but Catholics who actually give a damn. His favorite objects of praise and mercy are 'people who reject church teaching'.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

If I may rebut?

>I get a little tired of people who take it upon themselves to be the Pope's personal PR agent.

Not as I tired as I am of having to deal with the serial Pope Bashers in every fucking reign. You think these people would give it a rest? Or at least drop all pretense and get a job with Alpha N' Omega Ministries or something? What is even more tedious is there are no original arguments from that crowd. None at all.

Don't know why you are taken in by them?

>We have a pontiff who is almost completely incapable of communicating clearly or clarifying his own remarks, unless there's a liberal backlash or a prominent conservative attacks him (thinking Kim Davis and Donald Trump, respectively.)

St John Paul II was no different. When the Pope saw the PASSION OF THE CHRIST Mel Gibson's people people said he liked the movie and the Pope's press secretary said he expressed no opinion. There was a war of words between them and St John Paul II said nothing. Which in heinsight was brillant considering Gibson's meltdown that confirmed the attacks of his critics leaving orthodox Catholics (like myself) with egg on their faces who defended Gibson. Not a word of apology to St John Paul II. The Popes wisely doesn't un-naturally mix politics & religion. Unlike many of their followers.

>It'd be one thing if there was clear evidence the Pope was taken out of context, but that's rarely it.
Instead the game seems to be that we're supposed to read the Pope in some context, any context, to make him not be delivering a very blatant slight to orthodox Catholics.

Rather in almost all cases(a handful excepted) one merely has to read the Pope's very words and ignore the Liberal media & or Radical Traditionalist spin and see his words are at worst trivial and harmless & at best mere orthodoxy. Also as I recall over Trump, you know I quoted the Pope's exact words in answer to the reporter's leading question. You refused to deal with it. Rather went off on a speculation of some hidden meaning instead of dealing with what he said at face value. How does one argue rationally with that? Are the Pope's blatant words important or not? Make up your mind.

Also Trump reacted to what the Press said Francis said, not to his actual words, which he did not read till the next day. Then commented "They where not that bad or as bad as I thought".

Son of Ya'Kov said...

part ii

>to make him not be delivering a very blatant slight to orthodox Catholics.

Warning orthodox Catholics of the sins they are by nature prone too, in general terms, is a slight? Rather that smacks of pride on the part of those who take offense. Do the clueless over at the REMNANT & or CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT actually imagine when the Pope warns of falling into the sins of the Pharisees he is slighting orthodox Catholics? What sins do orthodox Catholics commit?
Spreading heresy? Well being orthodox precludes that. No they become Pharisees. Do these people really imagine if we drive the liberals out of our local parishes that Satan will just throw in the towel and go back to Hell? No he will just change tactics.
One should not get insulted by the Pope's warning. One should take it to heart and remember if anyone says they are without sin they are a liars.


>(Who seem, I note, to be literally the only group the Pope has any criticism for.) And sometimes these people end up with egg on their faces, like during the communist cross incident where everyone pointed to a mistaken sneer on the Pope's face as a sign that he didn't like the cross. Then when he talked about how great it was, they all went silent. God forbid they let it sink in that no, the Pope doesn't necessarily follow their script.

Which was worst accepting this cross or excepting a Koran & then kissing it? According to the usual suspects back then it was the end of the Church & a sign the Pope was leading us to apostasy and Hell(this mind you was the Pope who objectively is in Heaven right now praying for us). Vatican II was blamed for it and it was linked to Assisi. \

Like I said nothing original.

>And so long as I'm ranting, a note. Yes, Christ did hang out with tax collectors and prostitutes. So did Ted Kennedy. Do people forget that sometimes the guy who shows an unusual interest in getting to know every whore in town isn't a preacher but a freaking whoremonger?

**Yawn!**

Meanwhile the man the Pope appointed to take charge of the liturgy (something near and dear to the trad heart) is taking some pretty "Traditionalist" views on which way the Priest should face during Mass.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-robert-sarah-makes-the-case-for-christ-centered-liturgy/

Does the Pope get any credit for appointing this man? No, the Pope can do no right it seems.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>The communist cross moment I thought was telling. You had a lot of people, including some prominent-enough bloggers, cheering on their interpretation of how the Pope was clearly disgusted by the gift, and how right that was. When they were wrong? Radio silence.

Crude you where silent on the Pope's literal words about Trump. You complained about me "Your reasoning: look at what he(i.e. the Pope) literally said, not at all what he's insinuating."

When the Pope does the right thing. Silence from the Pope Bashers.

>Except those things are almost always either A) vague, 'he's not quite saying that but we can kinda interpret him that way' moments at the most out of the way venues, or B) they're just criticisms of Catholics, and typically Catholics who consciously try to be devout.

All the Popes are Vague. The Bible is Vague. But when the Pope is clear he is ignored by Pope bashers cause it doesn't fit their narrative.

To give advice or warnings to devout Catholics is not criticism. It is him doing his Job. Resisting that advice is pride.

>Either way - no, I mean literally in the normal sense here. The Pope's favorite target is not just Catholics, but Catholics who actually give a damn. His favorite objects of praise and mercy are 'people who reject church teaching'.

Someone needs to re-read the parable of the Prodigal son. The Son that "gave a damn" bitched over the crap son who got a feast.

He was not the hero of that narrative.

Catholics who REALLY give a damn realize if they do so it's because of Grace & they must humbly submit to it. No seek praise or recognition.

I only hope this Pope rachetts up his "criticism" of those who "give a damn". It will show once and for all if they really do.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

PS well said Mr. Green.

Crude said...

If I may rebut?

Gotta be shorter, Ben. If I have to read through 3 full posts, there's just a good chance I won't read.

Give me more concise points to respond to.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

I think it is long because I include your words and respond directly too them?

I'll see what I can do in the future or this weekend.

Crude said...

Part of the problem here, Ben - beyond what amounts to a Gish Gallop - is this sort of thing:

Crude you where silent on the Pope's literal words about Trump. You complained about me "Your reasoning: look at what he(i.e. the Pope) literally said, not at all what he's insinuating."

That's not at all what happened, and that's not what went down. I was not silent, and 'the Pope's literal words' didn't help shit.

Do not attempt to bullshit me. Do not refer to a conversation where I pointed out that 'Golly gee gosh the Pope just didn't know anything about this 'wall' hubbub' was bullshit, and then try to pretend that you just stone cold had me floored and I was at a loss for words for your brilliant argument. Because if you do that, you're signalling to me that you now view me not as someone to have a discussion with, or someone who has even potentially serious reservations or criticisms, but instead as someone who you view as an enemy who you are here to just silence, attack, belittle and demean at all costs.

This is small shit, it's petty comment blog stuff on a nowhere blog. But if you treat me like that, I will turn around and reply in kind.

And, by the by.

He was not the hero of that narrative.

Actually, he was. He was the good son, he was the one who did everything he could to live a decent life, and when he was outraged at how the prodigal son was treated, he was NOT belittled. He was not mocked, attacked, demeaned, and told he was worthless or disobedient or the worse of the two. He was reasoned with, while the failings of his brother (who, at that point, REPENTED) were acknowledged.

I am not perfect. Traditionalists are not perfect. But if the game is that everyone who spits on the cross and defies the church is treated as a poor widdle wost wamb who deserves only mercy and understanding and love, while those of us who actually have tried conform ourselves to the church's teachings are just a pack of fucking pharisees who deserve nothing but contempt, then do not be surprised when we react poorly.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

I hope my next Post(after this one) is not too long. I cannot defend myself in sound bites. If the Posts are too long feel free to copy them and store them elsewhere on your computer to mull but delete them so they don't post. What I say to you does not have to be public. I have no desire to publicly shame your or belittle you or anything or be your enemy. But I do think you are wrong. So I argue. It is as simple as that.

Son of Ya'Kov said...


OTOH Maybe I can keep it pithy? So archiving and deletion are not needed.

I disagree with you as to what happened in our debate on the Pope’s words about Trump. To argue further would be to repeat myself & I have already spoken on it so why re-invent the wheel. I will say this:
I am not bullshitting you. I argued the Pope’s actual words about Trump not hidden insinuations. Also from his words I pointed out how he said he didn’t want to get involved, gave the benefit of the doubt, nor was telling us who to vote for……
I view you as someone who I believe is wrong and I am making my argument. Respond in kind. Be as aggressive as possible. I am a big boy and so are you and neither of us is a special snowflake.
If you harsh on the Pope you must expect harshness in return. Also (present company accepted) the harshness and distain from the Francis bashing crowd toward his defenders is a bit off putting. It sends the message they can dish it but can’t take it. So don’t even give the appearance of it.
unlike the conventional Francis bashing crowd you are at least man enough to allow dissent even harsh dissent. I respect that & will try to appreciate it more.
How you want the “Good son” to be treated is how you should treat Francis or the Francis defenders. Because you can’t express outrage and not provoke it in people who take your outrage to be wrong and unjust (regardless of your good intentions) and are outraged in return.
Charactering my argument as “So you are saying the Pope is retarded?” doesn’t move me. Since I think he is plausibly not paying attention (or at least at that time)to our internal politics. Based on his own words.

Finally.

>I am not perfect. Traditionalists are not perfect. But if the game is that everyone who spits on the cross and defies the church is treated as a poor widdle wost wamb who deserves only mercy and understanding and love, while those of us who actually have tried conform ourselves to the church's teachings are just a pack of fucking pharisees who deserve nothing but contempt, then do not be surprised when we react poorly.

If the Pope specifically and publicly said “Cardinal Burke you are a pharisee”that is condemnable. General warnings against sins are not condemnable nor do they merit a poor reaction accept to those with a guilty conscience. I am a Catholic who tries to conform himself to Church teaching. I believe in ruthless strict orthodoxy. How come I wasn’t personally offended by the Pope’s admonishments? Well for me the answer is either after an examination of conscience “That doesn’t apply to me” or “Maybe I should be wary of that?”. In that case there is no third choice nor does one ask “Hey is he dissing me and my crew?”.. I am firm in this and would be more likely to be outraged over the commie cross then this.