Entitled, "I will change the Church", Rocco Palmo reports the holy Father has yet another interview about to hit the presses, this time with the atheist journalist and founder of La Republicca. So expect another round of squeals of delight from one quarter and groans of misery from another.
The sensibly bonded Ches suggests that problem is Francis' choice of vocabulary, though maybe he is not a Liberal, he talks a Liberal:
Those who try to harness Francis to their liberal cause are on a hiding to nothing, they say.
But there is something deeper here which makes their campaign rather difficult to manage, and it just comes back (once again) to Pope Francis's use of language. The fact is that unwittingly he often expresses himself in the codes that liberal Catholics use. When he says, for example: The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently, he does so apparently without a thought for the connotations of such a proposition. But in a liberal mind, that is simply code for, Don't worry about the doctrine, God loves ya. When he says, The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules, your liberal Catholic knows just what kind of rules this can be applied to. I could give you another half a dozen examples, but anyone who has read the interview will see that what I'm saying is true. Francis uses - unwittingly, I'm sure - multiple citations from the liberal Catholic phrase book.I don't think it is just the choice of vocabulary that suggest Liberalism, it is also the Pope's style, especially his liturgical style; pushing the Blessed Sacrament to the side and minimising the crucifix in the chapel of Domus S. Marta, assisting priests and bishops discarding vestments proper to their office, or as one of my parishioners says, "It is the abundance of polyester"! Then there is that man with the damned camera too!
For me, the problem is the chatter, the incessant words of Francis, the adulation of Francis, overshadowing the action of Christ in the Sacraments.
Ches ends his piece:
Meanwhile, the Franciscan tsunami is washing over us. Somewhere in it is a rather beautiful message about love of God but I find it is spoiled by a lot of flotsam, not to mention the screams of those who are terrified of its unwitting and possible enduring damage to orthodox projects under construction. Whatever else might survive now, I have a sense that what Paul Virilio calls the synchronization of collective emotion is going to consign people like me - and other lingering doubters, however modestly they express themselves - to the outer darkness. And if you don't believe me, perhaps you have never tried crossing a rainbow-stole wearing priest in crappy sandals talking about love. The chances are that such creatures are coming back (I know some never went away)... and they'll be able to cite a liberal code-talking pope to support them (except when he is teaching full-fat doctrine).
Oh yes, after a conservative ultramontane, hell hath no fury like a selectively ultramontane liberal.
+++Speaking of Ultramontanism, Palmo has now published this: "I Am the Pope" – In Fresh Interview, Francis On Church's New "Beginning"
"We must be a leaven of life and of love," Francis said, "and the leaven is infinitely smaller than the mass of fruit, of flowers and trees that grow thanks to it.... [O]ur objective isn't proselytism but listening to [people's] needs, desires, disappointments, desperations and hopes. We must restore hope to the young, aid the old, open ourselves to the future, spread love. [We must be] the poor among the poor. We must include the excluded and preach peace. Vatican II, inspired by Pope John and Paul VI, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to open [the church] to modern culture. The Council fathers knew that opening to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non believers. After then very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do it."Which means?