Five observations on Francis' recent interview about France, Europe, and Islam

Date: 
Sunday, May 22, 2016 - 23:30
Article link: 

 

 
 

Pope Francis is comparing the 'Jihadist' minority to other Christian minorities that have interpreted the bible wrongly and thought to have the bible serve their conquest and colonialism. The Pope in general is saying "If we lived our Christianity correctly, we would not need to worry".

And yes, the wealth of the west, in a general -with exceptions - spirit of indifference towards the poor countries, combined with the communications of today where these poor countries can observe the difference is what many of these extremists prey on to grow their ideology.

This critique does not give the Pope the benefit of the doubt to try to deeply understand what he is saying.

The Pope in general is saying "If we lived our Christianity correctly, we would not need to worry".

Glad to know what you think the Pope said in general. However, I was commenting on what he actually said. The West is surely a mixed bag; it increasingly is promoting all sorts of graves ills. Francis' critique is both uneven and unconvincing. He relies often on a victim mentality, continually resorts to empty clichés about arms manufacturers and such, and appears to apologize for any semblance of Christian culture, as if it is the problem. I'm sorry, but trying to deeply understand these sort of remarks is like telling me to swim deeply in a bird bath.

 

 


The mental and theological gymnastics required to reach your conclusion are amazing.
True leaders speak with precision and clarity. The bishop of Rome fails miserably in this respect.


I also have questions regarding what the Pope says but they are usually resolved and explained to me when I ask in prayer with all humility from Jesus to enlighten me so that I can understand what His vicar means. Try it if you haven't dear brother. Mary also intercedes as well in these situations as a good Mother would do if her children did not understand each other :)

 

 

I don't see how Jesus and Mary can explain away falsities which Pope Francis has frequently repeated. Didn't he say that nuns were allowed to take contraceptives by Pope Paul VI, when this is false and Paul VI wasn't even Pope then? Didn't he state that ISIS is not authentic Islam, although in the case of each of their atrocities they quote verbtim verses from the Qur'an? WIth what kind of mental acrobatics does Jesus explain these and other falsehoods in your prayer? Isn't He the TRUTH? Are you aware of the principle of non contradiction?

...

 

 


I think after three years, I have no doubts in my mind that Francis lacks the academic stamina to lead Catholicism. This was first observed to me by a guy from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Every time Francis gives an interview, he reveals a shocking shallowness in his responses. He does not spend time to think through these issues. Watch his speeches in Africa: He said nothing about African presidents changing constitutions to remain in power; nothing about capital flight by corrupt African leaders that bank monies abroad while their peoples suffer, etc. A bishop from Africa once said to my hearing that during their Ad Limina visit, they told Francis that he was wrong in his understanding of Islam. He makes ridiculous statements that betray a shocking superficiality in his thinking. The Great Commission has nothing, not even a remote analogy to Islamic Jihad. Imagine what Pentecostals and Evangelicals will think when they hear this? The question is: must Francis give these interviews? They help no one. Can't he maintain some silence and reflect? A Pope who is always talking has nothing to say.


  • Indeed, the author has shown up Francis's shallowness by including the enlightening quotes of Ratzinger/Benedict.


  • I think that Francis lacks the love for Christ and his Church. The Pope is a Jesuit that knows how to use double speak and ambiguous language for not showing his true colours. The point is that Francis said: "I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty". So he wants an open church at any costs even when the church is damaged while Christ wanted to establish a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

 

 

 


I think I've finally figured out why Pope Francis is so hard for us to understand. It has to be his coming from Argentina. I think this explains all the comments he made during this last interview and why we hear them completely different. Europeans and Americans really just don't think about things like colonialism that much. Its an African/South American thing.

Also, I think that the Popes tendency to not carefully analyze his words before he says them is the result of his origins as well. He simply hasn't been exposed to the media of America / Europe. Ne's not used to having to be so specific in his language. And I think he simply doesn't care.

His interviews are simply him talking about a topic in public and not really exactly what he believes about a topic in totality. And he isn't afraid to accidentally say something incorrect.


  • He has not the self discipline to be a leader. Therefore he often speaks as an undergraduate would speak.
    For a man in his position and for a man of his age, he is very careless with his words.
    Or...maybe not. Maybe he means exactly what he says.
    He is a very clever Jesuit, first, last and always.


  • "Europeans and Americans really just don't think about things like colonialism that much." Many Americans are obsessed with the topic. Anyhow, I think that putting the blame, so to speak, on the Pope's Argentinian roots a mistake. Sure, there are some cultural barriers and language issues, but has spent time living in the West (Germany) and he's a well-educated man. I think we've had enough time to get a good sense of his priorities and approaches.


  • He obviously has a false notion of the true nature of Spain's American Empire. If one goes to Mexico, Guatamala, Equador, or Peru and sees the great baroque churches and cathedrals, one can see what a tremendous job Spain did in evangelizing thos priimitive cultures. The Indians themselves were not stupid and realized that Christianity was light years ahead of their own atrocious religions.

 

 

 

 

I've just been reading a biography of Pope St. Pius X. The exquisite clarity of what he wrote, the practical, sensible reforms of (for example) seminaries he carried out, the beautiful faith and love... His life is inspirational.

 

 

 

 

 

It should be pointed out that while Gregory was hardly coercive toward the barbarians, his goal and purpose was to have the barbarians become Christian. Is that the goal for the Church in France and Europe?

If it is, its senior prelates (including, alas, the top one, in some of his remarks) give almost no sign of it, I'm afraid.

As for Gregory the Great: During his pontificate, the real barbarian threat was the Lombards, who had overrun large sections of Italy (which had recently been reconquered by the Eastern Roman Empire). Gregory certainly tried to convert them, but he also pleaded repeatedly with the emperors at Constantinople to send more troops to deal with the threat. (The Lombard threat was only dealt with decisively by Charlemagne, nearly two centuries later.) No pacifism there.

Gregory likewise would have been flummoxed by much else in Francis's interview. But I think that would be true pretty much of any pope up through the 20th century.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you Mr Olson. I feel as if I have woken up in Bizarro Catholic World.

 

 

 

 

We must face facts: Pope Francis is a leftist political demagogue. He is entirely in line with modern "progressives" on socialism, colonialism / imperialism, migration, global warming and obsequious cow-towing to Islam. In matters of politics, he is dead wrong about almost everything. All we can hope to do is limit the damage.

 

 

 

I'm sorry to say this, but part of me wonders if his brain is somewhat oxygen starved due to having only one lung. These comments comparing the "spirit of conquest" between Islam and Christianity and the Christian roots of Europe make absolutely no sense.

 

 

 

 

At this point, one must conclude that trying to parse the statements of the Holy Father is like trying to pick up blobs of mercury with a pitchfork. Even more difficult is to try to relate them to authentic Christianity, the teaching of the Catholic Church, the history of Christian civilization, and the role of the papacy. He appears to be one of the most uninformed people in Europe when it comes to any discussion of things Christian. The real concern is not what it says about Francis – who, after all, is just one confused individual – but what it says about the college of Cardinals who elected him.

 ...

 

 

 

 

A very excellent analysis. I am afraid that Pope Francis is a lost cause. What still amazes me is the large number of faithful Catholics and clergymen that see no problem with him. May God have mercy on us!

 ...

 

 

 

 

Immediately after the pope was elected, the Argentinian journalist Marcelo González publicly warned us all what to expect. Some paragraphs taken from his public correspondence:

"Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and morals seem to have been irrelevant to him."

-----

"Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox but, rather, non-existent for how confusing it is."

___

"This election is incomprehensible. He is not a polyglot, he has no curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual 'marriage' [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.

"It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.

"May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion... and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us."

 

 


One hardly needs to add to Carl's observations. I will say only that this is the worst of Francis' off-the-cuffs.
Here, he most clearly aligns himself with the relativism that is destroying Europe and the West, and that is attempting to corrupt Africa.
I will not repeat Carl's reasoned analysis.
But I must note that this is the same Pope who is opening to SSPX with a liberality that even Pope Benedict didn't. Francis seems to want a "big tent" Church in which doctrinal and ecclesiological issues don't matter much. Benedict desperately longed for a dialogue in which the traditionalists and the rest of the Church could forge a hermeneutic of continuity to go forward in unity.
Francis' unity is the cohabitation of the "two truths": orthodoxy and "orthopraxy".

Perhaps he should apply next time the Archbishopric of Canterbury opens up -- Anglicanism is arguably the biggest doctrinal "tent" in the world. Not that it has worked very well for them...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Own comment: 

There are many informative comments regarding the interveiw wherein Bergoglio tries to create an equivalence in perception between the Great Commission to evangelise the whole world, and the actions of ISIS and Islamists to conquer the whole world by blood. The man has touched off many nerves, and people are fed up.

The Catholic World Report is far from a traditionalist website, and if I am not mistaken, many of the commenters have at least in the past been very vocal against the SSPX in particular. It is evident that Bergoglio's scandals have pushed even Novus Ordo Catholics against the wall and being there, more and more are realising they have to push back against what is a pirate of a pope. Carl Olson had 2 very good pieces within the space of a week - the other being the one about deaconesses, an idea Bergoglio typically suggested needs revision - and I have seen that with a lot of the other non-traditionalist Catholics who still respect the integrity of the faith.

I expect that trend to continue as Bergoglio's assaults against Holy Mother Church and the Holy Trinity become all the clearer.

Of all the comments to the piece, these two seemed to capture the essence of the situation:

I think after three years, I have no doubts in my mind that Francis lacks the academic stamina to lead Catholicism. This was first observed to me by a guy from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Every time Francis gives an interview, he reveals a shocking shallowness in his responses. He does not spend time to think through these issues. ...He makes ridiculous statements that betray a shocking superficiality in his thinking. The Great Commission has nothing, not even a remote analogy to Islamic Jihad...The question is: must Francis give these interviews? They help no one. Can't he maintain some silence and reflect? A Pope who is always talking has nothing to say.

Then we have this one, reflecting on the state of those who elected this very queer man:

At this point, one must conclude that trying to parse the statements of the Holy Father is like trying to pick up blobs of mercury with a pitchfork. Even more difficult is to try to relate them to authentic Christianity, the teaching of the Catholic Church, the history of Christian civilization, and the role of the papacy. He appears to be one of the most uninformed people in Europe when it comes to any discussion of things Christian. The real concern is not what it says about Francis – who, after all, is just one confused individual – but what it says about the college of Cardinals who elected him.

As to those who twist Bergoglio's around trying to make them sound Catholic or rational, Carl Olson had this pointed response to one of the commenters:

Glad to know what you think the Pope said in general. However, I was commenting on what he actually said.

So there we have it. From these comments, taken in order, we can see that some have concluded that Bergoglio is simply a "malignant buffoon". Others have realised that Bergoglio cannot be taken in isolation, and one must wonder whatever possessed the cardinal electors to vote for such an un-Catholic man. Then we have those who attempt to twist Bergoglio's words and Christian teaching with them, so as either to aid him in his assault on the faith, or hide from the brutal reality that they would otherwise have to confront.