"People who don't have a sense of humor are boring" - Pope Francis

[Stella]

While that isn't the theme of this latest interview with Pope Francis, it made me laugh.

Pope Francis, speaking in a new interview published by a media outlet in his native Argentina, said the Church must change “in favor of the dignity of the people.”

But in the same interview, conducted late last month and published Tuesday by state-owned news agency Telam Digital, he stressed that change must take place “without recanting the essence of the Church.”

“Since the Second Vatican Council, John XXIII had a very clear perception: The Church has to change. Paul VI agreed, just like the succeeding popes,” Francis said in the interview.

“It’s not just changing ways, it’s about a change of growth, in favor of the dignity of people. That’s theological progression, of moral theology and all the ecclesiastical sciences, even in the interpretation of Scriptures that have progressed according to the feelings of the Church,” he continued.

But, he added, using the image of a tree and its roots, “always in harmony. Rupture is not good. We either progress through development or things don’t turn out right. Rupture leaves you out of the sap of development.”

The Pope went on to reference the writings of Vincent of Lérins, a fifth-century monk who stated that changes in the Church must be consolidating, growing, and ennobling.

“The Church has to change. Let’s think of the ways it has changed since the [Second Vatican] Council until now and the way it must continue changing its ways, in the way to propose an unchanging truth,” he said. “That is, the revelation of Jesus Christ does not change, the dogmas of the Church do not change, they grow and ennoble themselves like the sap of a tree. The person who does not follow this path follows a path that takes steps backward, a path that closes on itself.”

“Changes in the Church take place within this identity flow of the Church. And it has to keep changing along the way, as challenges are met. That is why the core of change is fundamentally pastoral, without recanting the essence of the Church.”

Pope Francis emphasized the role of dialogue. “I believe dialogue cannot be just nationalist, it must be universal, especially nowadays with the advanced communication systems we have. That is why I speak of universal dialogue, universal harmony, universal encounter. And of course, the enemy of this is war. Since the end of World War II up until today, there have been wars everywhere. That’s what I meant when I said we are living a World War in pieces.”

Read further here...https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-fra ... an-dignity

There seems to be a lot of resistance to recognising the 'dignity' of humans in such a way as to welcome them as they are flaws and all before they are improved or healed from their sins. That was one of the goals of Vatican II so you can see why there is such emphasis on this in Francis' mission. That is that the Church is a 'field hospital'. It dispenses the medicine of Gods mercy.

[peregrinator]

If the Church is a field hospital, step 1 would be to sterilize it to stop the spread of disease (sin, heresy, etc.). Then maybe we can get to triage.

[Stella]

If the Church is a field hospital, step 1 would be to sterilize it to stop the spread of disease (sin, heresy, etc.). Then maybe we can get to triage.

The role of a hospital is to treat the sick and return them to health. We take that for granted now but there was a time in our past where certain people weren't admitted to regular hospitals based on human dignity inequalities. I think everyone would agree that we were wrong to reject them, yes?

[peregrinator]

Of course everyone should be admitted to the hospital, but it's gravely important that the hospital be clean first, lest we make new patients even sicker. And, of course, isolation might be needed so new patients don't infect others with their maladies.

[Gandalf the Grey]

Admitting people to a hospital who have literally no one intention of having their maladies remedied and who instead only want entry in order to boost their self-esteem and to further "democratize" their illness by revolutionarily and drastically altering hospital policy so that their disease is treated as a part of their anatomy and that it's purposely spread to others is by every measure of medical care something close to insanity.

[Vern Humphrey]

If the Church is a field hospital, step 1 would be to sterilize it to stop the spread of disease (sin, heresy, etc.). Then maybe we can get to triage.

The role of a hospital is to treat the sick and return them to health. We take that for granted now but there was a time in our past where certain people weren't admitted to regular hospitals based on human dignity inequalities. I think everyone would agree that we were wrong to reject them, yes?

At that time, hospitals killed more people than they saved,

[Doom]

It is true that lacking a sense of humor makes life much harder than it needs to be, sometimes when times are tough and you keep experiencing setback after setback, it actually feels easier to handle if you can joke about it.

But why the Pope is dispensing Pop Psychology rather than preaching the gospel, is beyond my capacity.

[Stella]

Of course everyone should be admitted to the hospital, but it's gravely important that the hospital be clean first, lest we make new patients even sicker. And, of course, isolation might be needed so new patients don't infect others with their maladies.

A field hospital has to do the best in can in the situation necessitating it. Have you ever watched MASH?

Admitting people to a hospital who have literally no one intention of having their maladies remedied and who instead only want entry in order to boost their self-esteem and to further "democratize" their illness by revolutionarily and drastically altering hospital policy so that their disease is treated as a part of their anatomy and that it's purposely spread to others is by every measure of medical care something close to insanity.

We know that isn't going to happen though as the Surgeon in Chief has said outright that the hospital can't do that. ie the Church can't bless sin and can't endorse gender ideology. However other needs that help a person can be met by the Church.

If the Church is a field hospital, step 1 would be to sterilize it to stop the spread of disease (sin, heresy, etc.). Then maybe we can get to triage.

The role of a hospital is to treat the sick and return them to health. We take that for granted now but there was a time in our past where certain people weren't admitted to regular hospitals based on human dignity inequalities. I think everyone would agree that we were wrong to reject them, yes?

At that time, hospitals killed more people than they saved,

I don't know if that is a true statistic but it isn't a good argument for shutting the doors of the hospital altogether.

It is true that lacking a sense of humor makes life much harder than it needs to be, sometimes when times are tough and you keep experiencing setback after setback, it actually feels easier to handle if you can joke about it.

But why the Pope is dispensing Pop Psychology rather than preaching the gospel, is beyond my capacity.

Is it pop psychology? People need to connect Christs radical compassion and love to the kinds of situations we are in today. Even in developed countries there is still discrimination and racism that you'd think should be long dead with the development of knowledge and shocking histories to reference. Human dignity is intrinsic to every single person. I'm assuming you are an older person... thinking about a prejudice you once held about certain groups or individuals, that has now changed with time. You would have been convinced it was justified at the time. Input from somewhere causes us to rethink and recalibrate and experience remorse and humility. You can call that pop psychology if you want but it's a very relevant method throughout Christian evangelization.

[Gandalf the Grey]

We know that isn't going to happen though as the Surgeon in Chief has said outright that the hospital can't do that. ie the Church can't bless sin and can't endorse gender ideology. However other needs that help a person can be met by the Church.

And the same Person said that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church....that doesn't at all mean that they'd never try.

In the Church we've had Arians, Gnostics, and other outright heretics as bishops and cardinals.

I'll argue that we have Gnostics in those same positions right now. And they're building a veritable Tower of Babel right before our eyes in the name of "social justice."

You'd have to be wilfully blind not to see it.

[Stella]

We know that isn't going to happen though as the Surgeon in Chief has said outright that the hospital can't do that. ie the Church can't bless sin and can't endorse gender ideology. However other needs that help a person can be met by the Church.

And the same Person said that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church....that doesn't at all mean that they'd never try.

In the Church we've had Arians, Gnostics, and other outright heretics as bishops and cardinals.

I'll argue that we have Gnostics in those same positions right now. And they're building a veritable Tower of Babel right before our eyes in the name of "social justice."

You'd have to be wilfully blind not to see it.

I'm not a scholar or theologian and only have passing understanding of Arians, Gnostics, Nestorians, Pelagians etc. What is most clear to me from the Scripture imparted by a lifetime of Mass, is that the Pharisees are the worst of all. Jesus had a real deep problem with it to the point of the worst condemnations. They seem to be the problem in the sights of Vatican II and now Pope Francis and I'm personally relieved to know that Phariseeism is the major focus today.

[Gandalf the Grey]

I'm not a scholar or theologian and only have passing understanding of Arians, Gnostics, Nestorians, Pelagians etc. What is most clear to me from the Scripture imparted by a lifetime of Mass, is that the Pharisees are the worst of all."

Yeah, no. You're seriously overstating things here. And it seems like it's definitely seems to me to be an ideologically biased take on who you presuppose the Pharisees are and what category you're placing them in relative to that ideology rather than who they actually were.

Jesus had a real deep problem with it to the point of the worst condemnations.

And it was well deserved and meant to shock them out of complacency, not for you to apparently use as a club against those who you and your ideology deem are your enemies.

They seem to be the problem in the sights of Vatican II and now Pope Francis and I'm personally relieved to know that Phariseeism is the major focus today.

Weird, because I can equally level the same charge of "Pharisaicalism" at Pope Francis and his supporters that he levels against others. Like in how rigid, judgemental, and even abusive he acts towards anyone who ascribes to the more traditional teachings and practices of the Church?

There's a saying that goes like this: "The Ironclad Law of Leftist Projection never misses."

I see a lot of Ironclad Law of Projection coming out of the Vatican expressing their disdain of "crimes" that claim are committed by "others" who are in fact committed by both the Pope and those in the Curia on a regular basis.

So who exactly are the Pharisees? Seems to me like there's plenty around who can wear that hat, they're just not on the side you'd typically assume you'd see them.

[Doom]

The use of the word "Pharisee" as an insult is....problematic. The fact of the matter is that Jesus was critical of certain Pharisees. Still, his teachings were entirely consistent with Pharisee theology, and Jesus even used Pharisee logic to criticize the Pharisees. Indeed, Jesus never criticized either the teachings or the style of reasoning used by the Pharisees for a good reason: because Christianity is to a large extent Pharisaic. The apostle Paul brags about being a Pharisee, and employs Pharisaic reasoning all throughout the epistles. Jesus never criticized Pharisee teaching, in fact the exact opposite is the case, he told his disciples "Obey the scribes and Pharisees because they sit in Moses' seat but do not follow their example because they preach but do not practice",

And modern rabbinic Judaism is basically Phariseism carried into the modern age, so attacking the Pharisees, qua Pharisees, carries the taint of antisemitism.

So who are the modern Pharisees? Anyone who calls himself Christian but makes no apparent effort to uphold Christian morality, people such as Pope Francis, who lacks either compassion or empathy and condemns everyone who deviates even slightly from his very narrow views and treats those who criticize him or wish to uphold traditions older than his own pontificate with contempt.

[Stella]

I'm not a scholar or theologian and only have passing understanding of Arians, Gnostics, Nestorians, Pelagians etc. What is most clear to me from the Scripture imparted by a lifetime of Mass, is that the Pharisees are the worst of all."

Yeah, no. You're seriously overstating things here. And it seems like it's definitely seems to me to be an ideologically biased take on who you presuppose the Pharisees are and what category you're placing them in relative to that ideology rather than who they actually were.

The Scriptures show fairly clearly that the bias was in those who were against Jesus. The seriousness of their flaws reinforced by all 4 gospel writers reiterating events to show that. Constantly posing loaded questions trying to catch Him to prove Him a heretic.

Jesus had a real deep problem with it to the point of the worst condemnations.

And it was well deserved and meant to shock them out of complacency, not for you to apparently use as a club against those who you and your ideology deem are your enemies.

Aren't they lessons for all Christians. Not just those contemporaries of Jesus?

They seem to be the problem in the sights of Vatican II and now Pope Francis and I'm personally relieved to know that Phariseeism is the major focus today.

Weird, because I can equally level the same charge of "Pharisaicalism" at Pope Francis and his supporters that he levels against others. Like in how rigid, judgemental, and even abusive he acts towards anyone who ascribes to the more traditional teachings and practices of the Church?

There's a saying that goes like this: "The Ironclad Law of Leftist Projection never misses."

I see a lot of Ironclad Law of Projection coming out of the Vatican expressing their disdain of "crimes" that claim are committed by "others" who are in fact committed by both the Pope and those in the Curia on a regular basis.

So who exactly are the Pharisees? Seems to me like there's plenty around who can wear that hat, they're just not on the side you'd typically assume you'd see them.

FYI I'm not American and don't experience your cultural divisions based on politics and hard left/right ideologies so I'm not prepared to dialogue with that intensity. I think there's a need on Catholic forums to put the mission and measures of Pope Francis out there and they can be judged just on their merit. I believe he'll be known as the most hardworking Vatican II Pope we've had.

[Stella]

So who are the modern Pharisees? Anyone who calls himself Christian but makes no apparent effort to uphold Christian morality, people such as Pope Francis, who lacks either compassion or empathy and condemns everyone who deviates even slightly from his very narrow views and treats those who criticize him or wish to uphold traditions older than his own pontificate with contempt.

Is that really the definition of modern Pharisees though? Mark 7:1-23 does a good job of defining the sin of the Pharisees as opposed to sin in general. They thought Jesus disciples were disrespecting tradition by not doing what their Elders taught. But Jesus came to establish a new paradigm. Was His insistence on the new paradigm lacking compassion and empathy with His detractors? I guess they probably thought so.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

[Gandalf the Grey]

The Scriptures show fairly clearly that the bias was in those who were against Jesus. The seriousness of their flaws reinforced by all 4 gospel writers reiterating events to show that. Constantly posing loaded questions trying to catch Him to prove Him a heretic.

Is this supposed to be your un-clever attempt at painting Francis as Jesus and claiming that those like the Cardinals or Bishops who issue things like the Dubias are "Pharisees"

Let me show you how this can be flipped on it's head:

Jesus wasn't trying to change the Law like Francis is literally trying to undermine the Church's teachings. It was the Pharisees' additions to the Law which obscured and made the Law more and more ambiguous and harder for the people to follow and allowed many of the Pharisees to maintain an elitist position among the people. It was that weaponized ambiguity that Jesus sought to remove and His opposition was to bring clarity and simplicity back to the Law. It was Jesus' simplicity and clarity in understanding the true essence of the Law that allowed Him to escape the loaded and duplicitous questions that were posed to Him.

See how that works? Pharisaicalism isn't just a one-way street. It goes both ways.

Aren't they lessons for all Christians. Not just those contemporaries of Jesus?

As with most things, it depends on the context that you're trying to frame it in.

My disagreement with you isn't in the lesson itself, its with how you're trying to frame it. It's loaded with ideological biases that I simply don't appreciate nor do I think are appropriate.

Everyone is possessed by duplicitousness and moral blindspots, the Pope isn't excluded from that problem simply by the fact that he's the Pope. In fact that he should be necessarily and sufficiently so self-aware of his own moral blindspots that he should absolutely cause him to pause before issuing such abusive criticisms against traditionalists. Especially when he's so excessively gentle and permissive towards those who actively flaunt Church teaching and practice on every level.

No, instead he just apparently proceeds to blithely issue these sorts of abuses when he'd have been more prudent in just keeping silent.

So, no, it's not just people who you see as those "others" who you believe are supposedly "unfairly" criticizing Pope Francis that you get to pin that label of "hypocrisy" or "duplicitousness" on.

I think there's a need on Catholic forums to put the mission and measures of Pope Francis out there and they can be judged just on their merit. I believe he'll be known as the most hardworking Vatican II Pope we've had.

If by "he'll be known as the most hardworking Vatican II Pope we've had," you mean, "the most hardworking Vatican II Pope that sought to undermine the Church's Sacred Tradition and her Magisterium we've had," then that's definitely a statement where you and I would find common ground.

[Doom]

I do not believe he is actively trying to undermine the teaching of the Church. I think that frankly he is not very bright, knows very little about theology and tends to shoot from the hip and speaks without thinking because he lacks self-discipline. He has no program.

[Stella]

The Scriptures show fairly clearly that the bias was in those who were against Jesus. The seriousness of their flaws reinforced by all 4 gospel writers reiterating events to show that. Constantly posing loaded questions trying to catch Him to prove Him a heretic.

Is this supposed to be your un-clever attempt at painting Francis as Jesus and claiming that those like the Cardinals or Bishops who issue things like the Dubias are "Pharisees"

Aquinas cites Jesus as a model for preachers and teacher in this regard. When he poses the question ‘should Jesus have preached to the Jews without offending them?’

I answer that, The salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to the peace of any individuals whatsoever. Consequently, when certain ones, by their perverseness, hinder the salvation of the multitude, the preacher and the teacher should not fear to offend those men, in order that he may insure the salvation of the multitude. Now the Scribes and Pharisees and the princes of the Jews were by their malice a considerable hindrance to the salvation of the people, both because they opposed themselves to Christ's doctrine, which was the only way to salvation, and because their evil ways corrupted the morals of the people. For which reason our Lord, undeterred by their taking offense, publicly taught the truth which they hated, and condemned their vices. Hence we read (Mat. 15:12, 14) that when the disciples of our Lord said: "Dost Thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?" He answered: "Let them alone: they are blind and leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit." (ST III q42 art2)

Let me show you how this can be flipped on it's head:

Jesus wasn't trying to change the Law like Francis is literally trying to undermine the Church's teachings. It was the Pharisees' additions to the Law which obscured and made the Law more and more ambiguous and harder for the people to follow and allowed many of the Pharisees to maintain an elitist position among the people. It was that weaponized ambiguity that Jesus sought to remove and His opposition was to bring clarity and simplicity back to the Law. It was Jesus' simplicity and clarity in understanding the true essence of the Law that allowed Him to escape the loaded and duplicitous questions that were posed to Him.

See how that works? Pharisaicalism isn't just a one-way street. It goes both ways.

Well yes the ‘true essence of the law’ is clear and simple, even to the point that little children can plainly see it. Hence the reason that Pope Francis mission makes complete sense to multitudes of us. It gets back to the basic teaching of love for one another, equal in dignity and deserving of a share in the bounty of the earth etc. You’d need to be a contortionist extraordinaire to make your interpretation fit.

Aren't they lessons for all Christians. Not just those contemporaries of Jesus?

As with most things, it depends on the context that you're trying to frame it in.

My disagreement with you isn't in the lesson itself, its with how you're trying to frame it. It's loaded with ideological biases that I simply don't appreciate nor do I think are appropriate.

Everyone is possessed by duplicitousness and moral blindspots, the Pope isn't excluded from that problem simply by the fact that he's the Pope. In fact that he should be necessarily and sufficiently so self-aware of his own moral blindspots that he should absolutely cause him to pause before issuing such abusive criticisms against traditionalists. Especially when he's so excessively gentle and permissive towards those who actively flaunt Church teaching and practice on every level.

No, instead he just apparently proceeds to blithely issue these sorts of abuses when he'd have been more prudent in just keeping silent.

So, no, it's not just people who you see as those "others" who you believe are supposedly "unfairly" criticizing Pope Francis that you get to pin that label of "hypocrisy" or "duplicitousness" on.

Perhaps if you do the flip trick and ask yourself if any of these accusations apply to your position?

I think there's a need on Catholic forums to put the mission and measures of Pope Francis out there and they can be judged just on their merit. I believe he'll be known as the most hardworking Vatican II Pope we've had.

If by "he'll be known as the most hardworking Vatican II Pope we've had," you mean, "the most hardworking Vatican II Pope that sought to undermine the Church's Sacred Tradition and her Magisterium we've had," then that's definitely a statement where you and I would find common ground.

I fall on the side of those who believe otherwise.

[Stella]

I do not believe he is actively trying to undermine the teaching of the Church. I think that frankly he is not very bright, knows very little about theology and tends to shoot from the hip and speaks without thinking because he lacks self-discipline. He has no program.

The fact is that he was 76 years old when elected Pope, had been a highly visible and active 'player' in the South American Church. Known for his ability to get things done without engaging in pointless argument. For all his flaws, he is what the Church needs today. He has a program. It's just not bogged down in bureaucracy.

[Stella]

Everyone is possessed by duplicitousness and moral blindspots, the Pope isn't excluded from that problem simply by the fact that he's the Pope. In fact that he should be necessarily and sufficiently so self-aware of his own moral blindspots that he should absolutely cause him to pause before issuing such abusive criticisms against traditionalists. Especially when he's so excessively gentle and permissive towards those who actively flaunt Church teaching and practice on every level.

Just want to add an important factor to consider on that point. The Divine Mercy is accepted and presented by the Church to be so important in eschatology that a feast day, prayers, chaplets, meditations are vigorously promoted for the faith. On reading St Faustina's dictations from Jesus, could we really call mercy "excessively gentle and permissive"?

83 – “Write this: before I come as the Just Judge, I am coming first as the King of Mercy.”

429 – “You will prepare the world for My final coming.”

635 – (Words of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Mercy, to St. Faustina): “…you have to speak to the world about His great mercy and prepare the world for the Second Coming of Him Who will come, not as a merciful Savior, but as a just Judge. Oh, how terrible is that day! Determined is the day of justice, the day of divine wrath. The angels tremble before it. Speak to souls about this great mercy while it is still the time for granting mercy.”

848 – “(My daughter) Speak to the world about My mercy; let all mankind recognize My unfathomable mercy. It is a sign for the end times; after it will come the day of justice. While there is still time, let them have recourse to the fount of My mercy; let them profit from the Blood and Water which gushed forth for them.” (cf., John 19:34)

965 – “Secretary of My mercy, write, tell souls about this great mercy of Mine, because the awful day, the day of My justice, is near.”

1146 – “Write: before I come as a just Judge, I first open wide the door of My mercy. He who refuses to pass through the door of My mercy must pass through the door of My justice…” (cf., John 10:7: “I am the Door.”)

1160 – “…I am prolonging the time of mercy for the sake of sinners. But woe to them if they do not recognize this time of My visitation. My daughter, secretary of My mercy, your duty is not only to write about and proclaim My mercy, but also to beg for this grace for them, so that they too may glorify My mercy.”

1588 – “Before the Day of Justice I am sending the Day of Mercy.”

1732 – “I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My will, I will exalt her in might and holiness. From her will come forth the spark that will prepare the world for My final coming.”

[Gandalf the Grey]

Just.... nevermind.

I'm going to stop myself here. It's just not worth carrying forward.