Ross Douthat has an interesting article in The Atlantic about whether Pope Francis is leading the Church into schism. He examines the life of Pope Francis for clues as to how Bergoglio developed his positions:
Go here to read the rest. Douthat rejects the interpretation of biographer Paul Vallely , but PopeWatch thinks that Vallely is on to something. Pope Francis has always struck PopeWatch as having the zeal of a convert for the ideas he presents. Hence the abuse, self-absorbed promethean neopelagian, he pours upon those who not in line with his views may be regarded as a condemnation of the youthful Bergoglio who stood in the path of radical Jesuits. This may or may not be accurate, but at least Vallely is at least looking at the contradictions in the life of Pope Francis, while the usual attitude of most Catholics, and most of the media, is to ignore his past life entirely.
G K Chesterton observed that “A confusion… has arisen in connection with the word “liberal” as applied to religion and as applied to politics and society. It is often suggested that all Liberals ought to be freethinkers, because they ought to love everything that is free. You might just as well say that all idealists ought to be High Churchmen, because they ought to love everything that is high. You might as well say that Low Churchmen ought to like Low Mass, or that Broad Churchmen ought to like broad jokes. The thing is a mere accident of words.”
Similarly, a man may be a Throne and Altar Conservative in politics and a Liberal or Modernist in theology – One recalls the “Catholic atheism” of Charles Maurras and not a few of his supporters. Similarly, French Radical Republicans were often supporters of laissez-faire economics and Royalists were often dirigistes.
At most, one can say that there is often a temperamental, rather than a logical, connection between political and theological liberalism.
MPS suggests that religious liberal and political liberal are two different things, and that a person may be one without necessarily being the other. Yet it would seem from Jorge Bergoglio’s actions that he is both. His Synod on the Family introduced a liberal progressive agenda: welcome sodomites and adulterers without requiring repentance. And his writings indicate a liberal progressive mindset opposed to the free market and in favor of more government intervention. Now he may have the best of intentions – mercy for the sinner in religion and mercy on the poor in economics – but what he does and what he says ignores the fundamental cure for these problems: repentance by everyone – you, me, the poor, the rich, the sodomite, the adulterer, the fornicator, the thief, the murderer, etc. Holiness and righteousness come first – no some misplaced (however good-willed) social justice program.
Paul W Primavera
Opposition to free markets is quite as common on the Right as on the Left.
The French Catholic Counter-Revolutionaries of the 19th century were passionately opposed to them, demanding the restitution of the privileges and immunities of the trade and merchant guilds and making landed estates impartible and inalienable.
Indeed, Tocqueville pointed out that “the ancien régime, which doubtless differed in many respects from that system of government which the socialists call for (and we must realize this) was, in its political philosophy, far less distant from socialism than we had believed. It is far closer to that system than we. The ancien régime, in fact, held that wisdom lay only in the State and that the citizens were weak and feeble beings who must forever be guided by the hand, for fear they harm themselves. It held that it was necessary to obstruct, thwart, restrain individual freedom, that to secure an abundance of material goods it was imperative to regiment industry and impede free competition. The ancien régime believed, on this point, exactly as the socialists of today do. It was the French Revolution which denied this.”
It was, in fact, the liberal parliamentary régimes of the 19th century that favoured free markets; neither the absolutist monarchies that preceded them – in Austria, France, Prussia and Russia – nor the totalitarian régimes that followed them, in Italy, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere, did so.
My impression is that Pope Francis appears to be a person of feeling rather than thought, sentiment rather than truth, mercy rather than justice. His desire to be liked over-arches his desire to be respected. Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth and the Light.” Sentiment doesn’t have a part in this formula of being.
Tangential…a vice president of CRS is in a gay marriage apparently…
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-relief-services-vice-president-is-in-a-gay-marriage-promotes-gay-a
Everything about the Roman Pontiff’s history points to a past in an order that has gone off the rails and is often openly rebellious against Catholic teaching and doctrine. Throw in the mix that Argentina has had corrupt government almost since it became independent from Spain and you have a clergyman about whom few knew anything in depth.
The Jesuits are far greater in number in South America than in North America and as a result exert far more influence upon Catholic thought. Imagine Georgetown University everywhere and involved in everything Catholic.
Douthat apparently has not mentioned the impact the SSPX and specifically Bishop Williamson have had on the Roman Pontiff. +Williamson was the most hard core of the bishops ordained by +Lefebvre and anyone who even hints at denying any part of the Holocaust is seen as not just a kook but possibly a dangerous person along with any group he participates in or represents. Do not doubt for a minute the anti-Semitism that percolates in certain Traditionalist circles.
The Roman Pontiff apparently never set foot in North America and had little if any contact with North Americans. Given that the North American Church hierarchy is no great friend of free market economies, how could the Roman Pontiff possibly appreciate economic freedom when Latin America has almost never known such a thing?
I agree fully with Michael Dowd.
Francis seems more interested in saying what will be liked than in saying what really matters. Have a look at his affirmations at the Denzinger-Bergoglio: http://denzingerbergoglio.com/
Bill Bannon:Tangential…a vice president of CRS is in a gay marriage apparently…
.
Symptoms of the crisis we face in the Church and in the World.
Is Pope Francis part of the problem or part of the solution?
@John F. Ishwar: Thank you for EL “DENZINGER-BERGOGLIO” Thanks be to God who has left for him and us seven thousand in [the Church], all the knees that have not bowed to Ba′al, and every mouth that has not kissed him. [Cf. 1Kings 19:18]