Conservative Catholics question Pope Francis’s approach

I came across article in Washington Post, where different catholics expressed their opinion on Pope Francis´s statements. I found it quite interesting and when I did not find it in ATS, decided to share it, as it could make an interesting discussion.

Now many of the same traditionalists are attempting to reconcile Francis’s seemingly open statements with this sense of what it means to be Catholic. The conclusions they reach vary greatly.

Mary Ellen Barringer, a Silver Spring resident who attends Mass daily, says she misses Benedict “desperately.” Right away, she said, Francis challenged all Catholics to do more . She felt him saying to people like her: Writing checks to pro-life causes isn’t enough, you need to get closer to the disenfranchised and the poor. She felt him telling her she was being smug about less traditional Catholics.

“He is calling every single one of us to love our neighbor as ourselves, which is a really hard thing to do,” she said. “We tend to have barriers up in society : Republican, Democrat, liberal, whatever. We don’t just sit down and say, ‘Why do you think this or that?’

“Maybe Pope Francis is calling me to love someone whose views I don’t like. And how much better would the world be if we got over all this.”

You can read the article here

A couple of other articles on the matter. At the end both of these accept that it is not bad, but a few paragraphs in these just as in the quotes from the Washington Post article made me think:

Why Pope Francis makes me uncomfortable?

For one thing, he’s constantly reminding me that I need to care about the poor. That’s a “no brainer”. Of course I care about the poor, unless I’m focused on my own financial struggles. When that happens, I have no problem throwing away the mail from the missions asking me to help feed the starving. And I pray for the poor, unless I have too many of my own intentions and somehow forget about them. Oh well, what are you gonna do? Nobody’s perfect. I just wish that he wouldn’t speak about the poor so much because it makes me feel guilty. Then there’s the fact that he’s constantly reaching out to “those people” who I’d like to forget. You know, the ones who don’t understand what it really means to be Catholic. Can’t we just leave them alone. We all know that they’re never going to “get it”. It’s a lot more peaceful when we just reach out to our fellow believers. If someone doesn’t appreciate what it means to be Catholic, why should I waste time coming up with creative ways to meet them where they are? That’s why it annoys me when the Holy Father keeps doing things like that. Shouldn’t he just be excommunicating those Catholics who make a mockery of the Faith? It worked for the Pharisees, didn’t it? Instead, Pope Francis is making me feel that I should learn to bite my lip and devise creative ways to bring Jesus (and the fullness of truth in His Catholic Church) to everyone. I don’t know about you, but it seems like a lot of work to me. Plus, it forces me to leave my “comfort zone”, which is something that I don’t enjoy.

Pope Francis is killing me

The first screw to my pride was when he talked about gossip. About the dark joy that people get from talking about others. Yep, that would be me. Then he began talking about a lot of other things. The more he talks the more I realize that I really have a lot of work to do. At first the work was for me to learn; now I know and it’s time to live that knowledge. That really isn’t easy.

There are times when this life is so stressful, when I fail as a mother and forget to pick up my child from school (because he lives in his room online and I always assume that is where he is), when my uncle calls needing my help and I can’t help him, when my mom calls 27 times wanting me to talk to her, when the grand baby will not nap, and when my husband pisses me off to the max. But even when all of that happens I hear my Pope talk about mercy, love, charity and how it is more important to walk the walk instead of talk the talk and I beg God to give me the grace to make it Home to Him and get all these crazy people there with me.

I really don’t know when it happened but last week I realized that all relationships require a piece of you. No matter who it is: kids, parents, family, spouse, siblings etc. etc. That is what relationships are. They are not about being around people who you take things from to make you happy, but about being around people who you make happy. Not about taking but giving. And the problem isn’t any of those people, the problem is me. I want to be locked in my room on Facebook instead of serving those that I love. That’s not love, that’s selfishness. That is pride and Papa Francis never lets me forget it.

I hope I did not quote too much from the articles, but these were something that made me think. I am not religious myself (atheist) and live currently in the least religious country in the world, yet these things are quite common sense round here, at least for myself, so I do not get why many religious people feel discomfort about the new pope. I do not believe in God, but I believe in somewhat similar moral values.

Shouldn´t religion be about such things - giving rather than taking, accepting people for who they are, helping the poor, being open-minded - rather than creating division among society, which seems to be one of the issues I have come across, especially when learning about US or history?

From what I personally see the, Pope Francis seems to be one of the most reasonable Popes I have come across . Even though his actions might seem controverial, these seem to have certain effect at least on some people, which is very positive in my eyes, as these actually promote the values the religions, at least from what I have heard, should actually be about.

What do you think?

About time they started questioning something. Maybe this pope is exactly what they needed. He's shaking their world so they actually have to spend some time looking at what is there instead of seeing what they think should be there.

He's a common sense guy in a world that doesn't have any.
Religious fundamentalism doesn't like common sense.
So naturally they won't be liking him.

Me?? So far I think he's doing great.

reply to post by Cabin


Interesting.... we have a Pope who's actually following what the Bible says and acts more in the way Jesus acted.

And Catholics are at odds with this.....



I think their arguments are invalid.

And BTW are we sure this isn't an Onion article?

“Maybe Pope Francis is calling me to love someone whose views I don’t like. And how much better would the world be if we got over all this.”

Sounds silly doesn't it.

reply to post by Cabin


Love me some new pope.

And I'm technically an Atheist.

Yes, let the deeply socially conservative ponder and for once have a hard time understanding why the MOST conservative of them is slowly but surely becoming a progressive.

Even religious leaders realize you can't hold a gun to your believers heads anymore on topics that society have long dealt with, accepted and moved one.

~Tenth

reply to post by Cabin


I found the articles very interesting too, thanks for posting.

To me, they perfectly reveal the sort of religiosity which is merely painted on the outside, rather than glowing warmly from within.

I've followed the Vatican shenannigins since John Paul 1 was bumped off. Francis seems to be carrying on the same agenda from where he left off, so I'm delighted and very interested to see how far he gets.

He is tilting at an impressive array of windmills.

mistersmith.



Beebop a loobop a lam bam boom! ( Hildegard of Bingen ).

This is not surprising at all...when he stands up and points to what is wrong with modern Catholicism, it's going to ruffle the feathers of followers of an institution steeped in tradition and unquestioning adherence to the tenets of the Church.

More power to him because, in so many ways, the best attributes of the Church have not had a voice for centuries.

reply to post by kosmicjack

More power to him because, in so many ways, the best attributes of the Church has not had a voice for centuries.

Only the easiest and most human attributes are championed. Those of division, derision, and dedication. The narrow-minded focus and black and white perspective of the animals we come from and still are.

It's time this pope brought us a fresh look at exactly what it is we are trying to become. Obviously, it's not the end-game yet, but that still gives us plenty of time to learn how to get there.

This new Pope is someone I can relate to and give a nod to as the "goodness" structured religion can produce. Bout time they push someone forward that actually had views like him.

And its good the average joe catholic is being challenged to understand Christ a bit more (well, the book Christ). Church is evolving to adapt to todays thinking. Still a bit short, but leaps ahead of where they were.

Funny, isn't it. When Atheists generally speaking give a nod of approval towards a religious leader. Does that mean something has gone right or terribly wrong?

The Vatican is very much like a political entity with conservatives and libs.

Perhaps this pope needs to read about the murder of Pope John Paul I



www.tldm.org...

reply to post by olaru12


Why would he need to read that?

reply to post by Cabin



Hahahahaha | got a nice kick out of the paragraph where it reads "He makes me feel guilty" How long as this person been a Catholic™ ? |'d love to be a fly on the wall when this One gets hit with realization that "guilt" is a great "attachment" that the Catholic Church™ has used since their beginning, that and switching stuff around to further the cause, this is known as a "long con"

Frank is there to welcome the Church™ to the Yin, the Devine Feminine. Part of the Yin is the release of reliance on Gov't., ®eligion™, military, etc.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Good question!
I hope this is helpful AfterInfinity, I wrote it around the time of the succession :-

Since reading of the murder of Pope John-Paul the first, my interest in Papal shenanigans has grown. No soap-opera could match a plot like the ongoing activities in the Vatican, and the recent events seem to highlight a growing schism within the Catholic Church as a whole.

On the night in 1978 that Albino Luciani was bumped off, the 33rd of his papacy, he had set in motion a clean-up of the Vatican Bank, a proposal to reverse the Church's ban on contraception, and he had made a list of over a hundred of the clergy who were members of P2, a secret group of Freemasons which they were banned from joining on pain of immediate excommunication, and the places (at the far ends of the Earth) to which they would be permanently dispatched.

Within the hallowed cloisters of Vatican City, these ideas did not receive universal approval.

John Paul's avowed intent to become the world's first poor Pope was particularly unwelcome, both with the Bank's chief, Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, a thug from the back streets of Cicero Illinois, and Roberto Calvi, who was later found hanging beneath Blackfriar's Bridge in London, his beautifully tailored pockets stuffed with rubble.

I've re-read David Yallop's book "In God's Name" to set the scene for the next succession. What really shocked me was his mention of Luciani’s answer, when asked what his papal name would be. "Call me John Paul the First," he said. The odd thing being, "the First" is only added when the second turns up. Which he did - about a month later.
The intervening 35 years have not seen any sign of John Paul 1’s ambitions being realised. Quite the opposite.

Pope Benedict's exit was most interesting. In his leaving address, describing his "eventful" term of office, he attempted to create a metaphor from the story of Jesus quelling the storm after the disciples had panicked and woken him in the fishing boat. Benedict was misquoted on the BBC as having said that sometimes God appeared to be asleep, twisting his metaphor dangerously near to blasphemy, and appearing to shuffle any blame for his own mendacity onto the Almighty.
Stranger still, the chief spokesman for the Vatican followed this transmission without trying to correct what was an obvious and mendacious slur.
I can't imagine a more devastating blow to Benedict's pride, than having his exit smeared with such a twisted account of his words. (Bene = good, dict = word. It takes a Jesuit to rise to that sophisticated level of symbolism). Somehow, I don’t think we’ll have long to wait before Benny goes upstairs.

So - Habemus Papam, - and a Jesuit to boot. Already the battle is joined.

The Vatican's "Civil Service" the Curia, has struck the first two blows in the fight for supremacy, for while the Pope runs the Church, they run the Pope. Getting their point across with delicious symbolism, they have established before the watching Church, the fact of their ultimate power.
And it was so easy. When the pope dies, (or is sacked), the Papal apartments are ritually sealed, only to be opened when the new guy comes and breaks (with much ceremony) the Pontiff's seal.
So what happened this time?
Franny was allowed to break the seal, but was he allowed in?
Nope, sorry Guv, we've got the builders in, repairs & stuff. … several days/weeks yet, etc. Back to his temporary accommodation for one thirsty Jesuit, itching to get his hands on more than just Benedict’s sherry decanter. With this divinely inspired move, the Curia underlined its disregard for the Papal Law by first breaking in to the sealed apartment, and then refusing admission to the rightful heir. You can break the seal, but we still won't let you in.
(Which being interpreted means, "you may be Pope, but you can f*ck off").

Perfect symbolism, yet so easily discounted as trivial. Francis is known to be big on demons, but was he expecting them to be wearing red trimmings on their cassocks?

For myself, I feel that all paths can lead to the Numinous, or whatever we want to call it, but I regard Jehovah as an ancient tribal war-god. His representatives on Earth make a convincing case for this.

So the fact that Francis seems to follow in JP1's footsteps will have the Mafia, P2, the CIA, Freemasonry, and the international banking community somewhat worried, and with enemies like that ......
He'll need more than an ancient tribal war-god on his side.

mistersmith.

originally posted by: grey580

I think their arguments are invalid.

That is completely understandable.

Most are unaware of the fact that we have been lied to about EVERYTHING...

This is why the word 'dragon' mysteriously turned into the word ‘dinosaur’.

Anything and everything that points towards the truth has been removed from history...

The art of propaganda through falsification of history has been around for most of recorded history.

The word ‘dinosaur’ wasn’t invented until 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. Before that time they were known as dragons. For most of human history dinosaurs were known as dragons. Did you know the word dinosaur was not even in the dictionary in 1891? Again, for most of human history dinosaurs were known as dragons. Dragons are mentioned in the Bible 34 times. Dragons were listed in the dictionary in 1946 as “Now rare.”

What happened to the Dinosaurs?

Several NDE subjects have seen dinosaurs in Heaven.

Below is just one example:

"Percy saw all the birds, and beings of Heaven, he saw a chain of monkeys 2-3000 miles long and he saw dinosaurs and flying beasts and animals with human faces and animals he never heard about before, all the living creatures created by God." www.percy-collett.com...

Actually the Bible mentions dinosaurs by name and describes them in detail.

Not only are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible but they are presented in the perfect chronological order as taught by modern day science. Although they disappeared, they served a purpose.

Dinosaurs and the Bible

Dragons or Dinosaurs? Trailer
www.youtube.com...

Dinosaurs were Dragons and lived alongside Man
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...