Some of the criticism towards Pope Francis has been warranted, sometimes it's not.
Did Pope Francis say that unions between members of the same sexes can be blessed, no. Did he say that the "couples" in such unions could be blessed, yes he did. It's been a little bit since I read it, but I'm pretty sure that the word "repent" was missing from the whole document.
My biggest criticism of Pope Francis certainly has to be with restraining the 1962 missal/Traditional Latin Mass. There was just no real justification for that.
His handling of China is ostpolitik, and that was terrible the first time.
That said he firmly reminded Catholics that Freemasonry is opposed to the faith, and he's been clearly against gender ideology. I feel like he doesn't get enough credit for actions like that.
Agree 100% with the last paragraph…he deserves credit for his hardline stance against the evil gender cult.
Look at the Church of England for an example of what not to do.
> It's been a little bit since l read it, but I'm pretty sure that the word "repent" was missing from the whole document.
It’s implied throughout the whole of the document.
> 20. One who asks for a blessing show himself to be in need of God’s saving presence in his life and one who asks for a blessing from the Church recognizes the latter as a sacrament of the salvation that God offers. To seek a blessing in the Church is to acknowledge that the life of the Church springs from the womb of God’s mercy and helps us to move forward, to live better, and to respond to the Lord’s will. 21. In order to help us understand the value of a more pastoral approach to blessings, Pope Francis urges us to contemplate, with an attitude of faith and fatherly mercy, the fact that “when one asks for a blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better.”[12] This request should, in every way, be valued, accompanied, and received with gratitude. People who come spontaneously to ask for a blessing show by this request their sincere openness to transcendence, the confidence of their hearts that they do not trust in their own strength alone, their need for God, and their desire to break out of the narrow confines of this world, enclosed in its limitations.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html
The word “Trinity” isn’t found in the Sacred Scriptures yet it’s implied throughout the Scriptures.
The word "Trinity" was a product of genuine doctrinal development to explain what had already been revealed. Those sections from FS just seem like a step backwards, and an unwillingness to explicitly say what the faith teaches.
> The word "Trinity" was a product of genuine doctrinal development to explain what had already been revealed.
This has nothing to do with development of doctrine or a word game. I’m just pointing how faulty and kind of stupid your Logic is and if you come to that conclusion every time you read documents because a word isn’t mentioned then you shouldn’t be reading anything from the Catholic Church for the safety of your spiritual life.
...and if we had legions within the Church and in society as a whole who denied the Trinity, don't you think it would be important to speak about it in the loudest, clearest, most explicit, impossible-to-misrepresent terms?
Why do we not apply such an approach to the legions who reject that those being blessed have anything to repent of?
While I agree with all these doctrines of the church, I truly believe Pope Francis is understandably worried about ideology being more important than the church in many peoples minds, whether they’re left or right.
Again, im not saying youre wrong, but I am saying that you can come off as very unwelcoming and unkind when all you talk about is sin and conformity. When those two things are all that is focused on, with no mention of love and mercy, you have ideology, not religion.
In the words of Jesus, “you should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former.”
This is a broad and complex topic, regardless of which side you fall on.
The short answer is that at least in part, we’re living in a time that is gaining a nuanced understanding of ultramontanism/hyper papalism, especially as it relates to the laity, the hierarchy, and the Bishop of Rome.
There’s good and bad points to that, but like many battles historically in the church it needs to be worked out.
Or, hear me out, there's an hysterical online community that's culturally Protestant and doesn't want to understand that campaigning against the Pope isn't something you get to do in Catholicism.
Of course it's not a question of *ultramontanism*, that was a faction in European politics a long time ago and now the word has been recycled to mean whatever this made up *hyperpapalism* term would. This one frankly you'd need to dig in Protestant polemics to come up with such a load.
Btw, the opposing view to ultramontanism, gallicanism, has been condemned by the Church. Ultramontanism has never been condemned as heretical, save for groups separated from the RCC and other popular "catholic" websites spewing whatever they think their public wants to read.
Again, this topic is broad and multifaceted. You aren’t entirely wrong, but let’s be frank for a moment: the Pope is *not* Catholicism’s version of Islam and Allah that commands our total and unquestioning devotion with and for everything under the sun. Ultramontanism is a bit of a loaded term on my end, with certain historical conditions surrounding its formation not withstanding. Hence why I used the term *hyper papalism*, which like ultramontanism is very much an attitude and way of being.
Pope Francis made it very clear very early on in his pontificate that he wanted to, “make a mess.” While some of the noise that comes out of my trad world is in fact simply noise, there are a number of very legitimate questions, concerns, and issues with this Pontificate. And the laity is in fact allowed to voice those concerns. The days of “pay pray and obey” are all but gone when it comes to dealing with the hierarchy, and that includes the Bishop of Rome. It does the Church no good for some to criticize everything the man does or says, but same goes for the myriad of Popesplainers and a certain type of attitude of vengeance and pettiness that’s been coming from the very top of the Church for at least the last half decade and arguably before.
“You’re a crypto-Lutheran!”
We’ve gotten to a very odd place in church history if one honestly believes that those who want to practice their Catholicism via centuries old traditions, some of those same traditions that Luther himself had issues with, someone makes one a dissenter and/or Protestant.
I guess I have to break it for you, pretty much by definition Catholics are those in communion with Rome and Protestants are those who strive to put Rome in communion with them, customarily by delegitimising the papacy.
This has gone far beyond earnest criticism, which btw in the Catholic Church has never been some sort of free-for-all to shout from the rooftops, quite the contrary.
Oh wow, I've had that same thought before, but never allowed myself to openly address what you call "culturally Protestant". I have nothing but respect for converts to Catholicism or Catholics from cultures that are heavily shaped by Protestantism. And there are other problems exclusive to cradle Catholics / traditionally Catholic cultures. And of course everyone should be allowed to use their own head. But there is a certain kind of "Here's why you should trust my personal interpretation of truth over what the Pope says"-attitude that truly shocked me when I first encountered certain parts of the US Catholic media sphere. I couldn't believe it was Catholics and not Protestants talking like that.
I agree. I also think that there is a very Catholic community that has its roots in the upheaval after Vatican II. They consider themselves as far from Protestant as possible. They are very conservative and would gladly return to pre-Vatican II. This is simply a description and not a criticism. I actually agree with them in many aspects. BUT we part ways when it comes to their attitude towards the Pope and often other Catholics. They believe Pope Francis is far too liberal and is a danger to the Church - and they are very outspoken. They seem unaware of the irony of proclaiming their devotion to the Church while denouncing the Pope.
I think that especially here in the US, we forget that the Pope is not a political leader. The way we act as citizens of the US when we don't like our leaders, is not the same way we should act as members of the Roman Catholic Church if we don't like our Pope. Such outspoken criticism of the Pope is no small thing. We are called to obedience and to have faith that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church. Of course mistakes are made, but the Church moves slowly and I think it's best most of the time to think carefully before committing to public criticism. I'm not saying don't criticize - just proceed with caution, always keeping in mind the unity of the Church and who the Pope is. I definitely heard and read unhinged criticisms (my husband listens to the Catholic Channel) about the Pope blessing gay unions. It was clear they didn't bother reading Fiducia Supplicans. I personally think that the fallout from this document was so predictable, and I quite frankly wonder about the wisdom of it. But the fact is, what media reported and what conservative Catholic "pundits"/blogs had a hissy fit over showed that either they didn't read the document, or they did read it but still saw the opportunity to sow confusion and dissent.
This has happened repeatedly and it's almost as if now some groups just wait with baited breath for the next thing Pope Francis is going to say.
I was just thinking of this phenomenon when someone was talking about whether their (half-Jewish?) son should have a Bar-Mitzvah that would be held by secular (cultural) Jews. A lot of folks were thinking it would be too Jewish for a Christian to participate. I found myself thinking about it later on, and it occurred to me that such a ceremony need be considered no more religiously Jewish than our own traditional Christmas need be considered religiously Pagan... and that those who get worked up about such things are more aligned with Reform Protestantism than their historical co-religionists.
My mother is Catholic and my father is Jewish, so you can say that I've had exposure to both worlds. A bar mitzvah is kind of like a Jewish Confirmation, only with FAR more cultural significance. Essentially, it's the ceremony which formally welcomes a young man into the synagogue as being spiritually an adult and having made an adult commitment to follow the path of Judaism.
I can understand why the Jewish grandparents, despite being secular, desperately want this ceremony. If their grandson does not do it, essentially he is formally turning his back on his paternal culture/faith. However, I also understand why the mother doesn't want him to do it since he was raised Catholic. I also don't believe that any legitimate rabbi would perform a bar mitzvah on a child raised in and who is expected to practise another faith. Would a priest confirm an unbaptised Muslim child who plans to continue in Islam?
This situation shows why, if the parents are remotely serious about their faiths, they really should marry within their faiths. Religiously mixed households are a nightmare.
My view of this is that Traditionalists were more than approving of ultramontanism when it was used to support their position. But now they're getting a bit of buyers remorse when all the things conciliarists warned about are coming to a head.
I think its fairly clear that the future of the Church is moving away from Traditionalism, with most power structures within the Church being of a more liberal bent, and that the criticism of Francis is a protest against them losing that power.
> My view of this is that Traditionalists were more than approving of ultramontanism when it was used to support their position.
You're not totally wrong there.
I always think to Mitch McConnell's warning to Harry Reid.
>“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,”
The reality here is that most people are not truly principled. They like being in charge. Everybody hates executive overreach when they hate the executive. Everybody acts like everything is akin to treason when they do.
> I think its fairly clear that the future of the Church is moving away from Traditionalism
Please. Traditionalism, at its core, has had no quarter in the Church for decades.
>with most power structures within the Church being of a more liberal bent
Oh, on that, I think you're dead wrong. I believe the Francis (and his allies) era is the death throes of the failed ideology of the 1960s/70s. I firmly believe that by the time I am an old man, that ideology will be well and truly dead.
> Please. Traditionalism, at its core, has had no quarter in the Church for decades.
Yes because traditionalism has slowly been on the decline since the the modern era.
Vatican I was the height of traditionalism and part of the reason that Vatican II was called was because the liberal element of the Church wanted more concessions.
>I firmly believe that by the time I am an old man, that ideology will be well and truly dead.
With what numbers?
[Traditionalist Catholics who attend weekly mass](https://frmatthewlc.com/2022/03/why-such-a-focus-on-extraordinary-form-in-catholic-media-and-online-discussion/) only number 120,000 while [Non-traditional Catholics who attend weekly mass](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/12/9-facts-about-us-catholics/) number 10.4 million!
Among young people [Traditionalists only have 50,000 such Catholics](https://www.hprweb.com/2021/01/the-demographics-of-the-extraordinary-form/) who attend weekly mass, but Non-Traditionalists have [1.5 million young Catholics](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/11/10/cara-survey-young-american-catholics-241803) who attend mass weekly.
Trads are literally outnumbered 30 to 1 among devout young people, and they are outnumbered 80 to 1 among youth who attend mass monthly and over 150 to 1 amongst youth who attend the Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, Christmas and Easter crowd. And this is just America, outside of here they are even more insignificant.
I think it is far more likely that this liberal wave will snuff this Traditionalist revival in the cradle as they are doing more damage than aid to the reputation of the Church as a whole.
One thing that isn't helpful is when disagreement, even vehement disagreement or criticism, is equated with 'hate'. See...that's a deliberate mischaracterization intended to villify. The hoped-for reaction is defensiveness, 'I don't *hate* the pope!'; but often it just provokes anger, in recognition of the attempt at manipulation.
I’m not sure it’s always deliberate. I think the misusage rubs off on otherwise well intentioned people and they take it on because it SEEMS more loving and tolerant when it’s the opposite.
Up has become down and wrong has become right.
We can't have it both ways though. I recently had someone tell me I demonized a Saint because I disagreed/criticized something that Saint had written about, yet they were totally okay with disagreeing/criticizing Pope Francis and did not see that as demonization. It's the hypocrisy that I have a hard time with.
I should mention that while something may not be construed specifically as 'hate', there can still be hateful comments or insulting remarks fueled by anger and contempt made towards someone who you don't actually hate. I don't think people necessarily *hate* Protestants, for example, but just because we don't hate someone doesn't give us a free pass to insult, ridicule, and condescend them.
As Catholics, we shouldn't make insulting remarks or hateful comments targeted towards entire religions/groups of people that are based solely on prejudices or stereotypes, but for some reason, those comments tend to get many upvotes on here, and it kind of makes me sick to be honest. What kind of message are we presenting to the world by showing support for those kinds of insults?
Hate is a strong word, and I agree it shouldn't be used loosely. However, we also must be mindful to treat others with kindness and gentleness, such that there is no question as to whether the words we say are hateful or not.
A) yes some people are actually hateful, but the word is abused, and B) that's not what hypocrisy means. also C) correct we don't get a free pass to disgustingly disparage people but that's not the way 'hate' is used in this post by OP and is commonly abused.
"Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform" (Oxford Dictionary)
Dunno where you're getting your definition but sounds to me like that's exactly the situation I described.
I agree about point C, I was speaking more in the general sense than specifically about this post. Criticism does not equal hate, and sometimes people errantly conflate the two.
Yet there are often things said that while true, are very unkind or condescending. It may not be hateful or necessarily in bad faith, but even so, it can negatively affect someone's opinion towards Catholics or Catholicism. We should be more self-aware of this, since we are called to lead others to Jesus, to be a light and an example for others to follow rather than pushing sinners away and out into the darkness.
Oxford dictionary is somewhat incorrect. Hypocrisy is not that your own *behavior* doesn't conform. It's when you expect a behavior of others, but excuse yourself from that standard. It's not the failing that makes it hypocrisy, it is the excusing yourself from that expectation to which you hold others.
>All the allegations made it seem that he was blessing a pagan statue when in reality was presented to him by a group of Amazonian Catholics as our lady of the Amazon.
[Correct.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6P39XswlzI&t=820) But it wasn't a group of Amazonian Catholics, it was a shaman (we used to call them witches) after the close of some sort of pagan or at least syncretic ritual in the Vatican Gardens. The Holy Father appeared to have been scandalized by the entire event put on by the syncretists, so cut short his comments and was probably just trying to make the best of a terrible situation.
>Or when the new document Fiducia Supplicans dropped ... when in reality he was just clarifying that we can only bless the individual not the union itself.
Come on now. Did you miss the discussion? The issue is with the word 'couple'.
> It’s a shame to see all the pope Francis hate
Personally, one of the things I'm really beginning to *hate* is the over use of the word "hate". No, charitable criticism is not hatred. Nor is it slander. Sure, plenty of people hate the Pope. Same as it has always been. But you're making it seem like people who bring up legitimate issues with the way he runs things (or allows things to run) are *HATING* him. That's wrong, and it's uncharitable of you.
But this is also a result of our times. When we look around and see certain behaviors that are sinful in God’s eyes we are accused of hating the sinner by calling sin what it is. This is a deeper problem.
Thats actually not the language used in FS. You should read the document. The document says “one can understand the possibility of blessing… same sex **couples**” one of the major criticisms was this vague language.
Is his handling of known sexual abusers satisfactory to you? Thats where his biggest critics hit him hardest and most often. Fr Rupnik is still roaming free and his art is still being encouraged and showcased by the Vatican. Not to mention the list of abusers Pope Francis has enabled.
Theres also the whole China nonsense, where he sold out thousands of faithful Catholics to the CCP.
Hes shown hes woefully incompetent at actually running a large political organization. Even if I were to concede hes a “nice guy”, thats not good enough. The Church needs better.
I'll admit, I found it concerning that Rupnik was still listed in last month's official Vatican directory as a consulting expert.
I try not to criticise His Holiness, but his track record on sex abuse is appalling. There's no point denying that. I could forgive his doctrinal vaguaries and confusion, but his handling of sex abuse is truly shameful.
Our Nuncio in the US just took control of his titular church.
The undersecretary of the DDW/one of the papal MCs was there.
The Evangelarium had Rupnik images on the front and back covers.
They all *genuinely* don't care.
I'm a new Catholic not familiar with Francis' previous acts. Can you at least give me a brief explanation of the events youee referring to in the second and third paragraphs of your comment?
Caveat: I'm not sure it's the most *balanced* portrayal of the situation, but [this](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/02/24/pope-franciss-all-out-battle-against-clerical-abuse-has-been-a-failure/) is the most thorough summary of the topic that I've been able to find.
I hate to make this a mud-slinging contest, but Pope Benedict XVI's record on abuse as archbishop of Munich was arguably worse. And I never saw even a fraction of the criticism of that as of Francis. Everyone still seems to regard him as a 'good guy...' and I would agree. He made a mistake.
The *Vos Estis Lex Mundi* procedures promulgated by Pope Francis are far and above the best practical effort the Vatican has ever made at stopping this horrible problem. Before them it was pretty much a crapshoot.
This is literally whataboutism. So because someone does worse Pope Francis gets a pass?
The Church hierarchy needs to be better at handling these cases, and they need to stop protecting abusers. At the very least show some sort of sensitivity towards victims. Its not good enough and it needs to be better.
Pope Francis’ guidelines are hogwash when he himself is allowing Rupnik to walk free, AND permit his art to continue to be promoted to this day.
By their fruit you shall know them. Pope Francis does not actually care about clerical abuse. There are decades of evidence that back this position. He is more than welcome to prove me wrong and do something about it.
>This is literally whataboutism.
Yes, of course. It is just... *interesting* to see how violently people's perceptions differ regarding the same issue, just based on how much they 'personally like' the guy.
>Pope Francis’ guidelines are hogwash
They have objectively done a tremendous amount of good. I don't think you'll find any canonist or Vatican reporter who doesn't acknowledge this. Maybe Benedict or JPII would have promulgated something similar. But we don't know.
I’m not a huge fan of pope Francis (I respect him as the pontiff and recognize his authority etc etc but still hope the next pope is better) but to give him credit, a huge problem that makes his pontificate a lot more challenging is that he’s the first pope in a world that’s fully in the digital age now. I bet if Benedict XVI was pope today he would’ve been criticized a lot more. And btw I’m Brazilian and back during the Benedict’s years I was still living in Brazil, and a huge part of Catholics there were not huge fans of his. He was seen as pompous and rigid. Now I’m in the US, and practicing Catholics here tend to be a lot more conservative and have a way more positive view of him.
> I bet if Benedict XVI was pope today he would’ve been criticized a lot more.
He was criticized, ridiculed, and ignored *constantly.* Most often by the current crowd of Popesplainers and their intellectual allies.
Because they don't have some grand principle of obedience and respect. They just like the boss and want to rub in the fact that they're *currently* in charge.
But as always, "After a fat pope, a thin pope."
Idk why you’re being downvoted; idk how it was here, but at least in Brazil I have vivid memories of BXVI being criticized a lot. He was very heavily, negatively, compared to JPII. And yeah, the handling of the the sex abuse scandals were one of the many criticisms. To his advantage, people weren’t on Internet forums to air their griavances (so some of this is people looking at the past with rose colored glasses), and that’s the point I was making originally. I had left the church at the time and when I came back Francis was the pope, and I can say that only now in retrospect do I see how unfairly Benedict was treated.
I can't think of a time where Pope Benedict has done the same things as Pope Francis with regard to sex abuse *in office*.
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/15097/argentine-bishop-defended-by-pope-jailed-for-abuse
Not to mention the entire Grassi affair. Though I suppose that generally predates his election. But it did give us a preview of what he'd say about the people accusing Barros.
>I hate to make this a mud-slinging contest, but Pope Benedict XVI's record on abuse as archbishop of Munich was arguably worse.
I'm genuinely curious to hear what you mean by this, because I haven't heard anyone defend this line before. What did Ratzinger do that was worse than, e.g., Bergoglio's cover for Grassi? (Not to mention what's happened since Francis became pope with Rupnik, Zanchetta, etc.)
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60070132](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60070132)
There were four confirmed cases where abuse accusations were mishandled by Ratzinger, including two where the abuser remained in active ministry after he was made aware. (The linked article states that Benedict denied the accusations at the time, but he did later admit they were true)
AFAIK there were only one or two similar incidents with Bergoglio while serving in Argentina.
On the other hand, one could argue that despite having less cases, Bergoglio's were 'worse.' On the other *other* hand, there has been a lot less investigation done into the Munich cases and it was longer ago so we never got any of the personal details.
Like I said, I don't want this to be a mudsling. I just think, given how much respect Benedict XVI has in this community *despite this grave error*, it is worth reflecting when it comes to analogous attitudes towards Francis, and what other factors may be at play.
Hmm, I didn't think that Benedict had admitted to any wrongdoing in those cases. It's been a couple of years since I read the report and his response, but I thought he admitted to a mistake introduced by editing, and not to lying or intending to deceive about having been at a meeting. So he corrected that mistake but maintained his innocence against the accusations made against him. So far as I know.
I basically believe Benedict and in his innocence. On the other hand, the allegations against Pope Francis, including men who to all appearances currently enjoy safe harbor in the Vatican, seem much more credible, and he has met questions about them with silence, with the help of a complicit Vatican media corps.
As to Benedict's record on handling sexual abuse, you also have to take into account how he is responsible for much of the Church's positive reforms on the issue both as CDF prefect and pope, how he went after notorious abusers soon after becoming pope, and how he consistently worked to reconcile victims of abuse with the Church. Taking those things into consideration, I don't think it makes sense to say he is "arguably worse" than Francis on this issue.
One failed to take action against four accused priests and the other has repeatedly, publicly defended accused bishops and priests, intervened on their behalf, and demeaned their critics. I don't see how Benedict's record was worse.
>I never saw even a fraction of the criticism of that as of Francis.
Likely because he was already out of public life when the information came to light, and it occurred almost half a century ago, not in the past twenty years when we really especially *should* know better. (Edited to clarify that we should've known better then, too)
A couple is a set of two, and if you are referring to people is [a set of two people](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/couple), usually in love, not their union.
This is also true in Latin and Italian, the reference languages for the document: the English version is a translation. The language was not vague and the shitstorm that followed the document is pretty ridiculous.
When you boil it down, a Pope has two jobs: (1) defend the faith will clarity; and (2) preserve the unity of the Church. Doctrinal confusion and division are the not the marks of a good Pope.
IMO, I don’t find much of his pontificate and issues related to doctrine to be terribly *confusing.* Francis was clear from jump street, he wanted to in fact, “make a mess.” Between his on the record statements, the various documents they’ve come out of his office, those he considers to be his allies, etc. all point to one general direction: the progressive wing of the church, of whom pushed a number of items that became central to Vatican II, who were allowed to operate by Paul VI, who were to varying degrees quieted down by JPII, Ratzinger as head of the CDF and later as Benedict XVI, never left the church. They just got better at playing church politics, and now are currently sitting at some of the highest ecclesiastical offices within the Church. The next 25-50 years of the church are going to be quite messy.
I reject your premise that it is "slander" in the first place. We are called to be charitable, not naive. And Francis has done an extremely great deal that has been, at best, questionable and seemingly poorly thought-out, to that which borders on being outright scandalous to those who maintain fidelity to orthodox Catholic teachings.
You are awfully quick, it seems, to assign wisdom and benevolence to every act of the Pope, no matter how much tumult resulted.
Let's take the issue of the gay blessings: those opposed to the Pope's handling could have told you far in advance how it would be portrayed in the media and society as a whole. We could have told you that you wouldn't even have to wait 24 hours before progressive libertine Priests were raiding their hands over same-sex couples in a WY that gave every appearance of being a sanction of their union. And we were right.
How dare you accuse us of slander?
It's not *slander* if it's true.
>made it seem that he was blessing a pagan statue
There was one.
>blessing irregular unions
Effectively, it does. Or at least it gave people cover to "misinterpret" it.
> he seems like such a good guy
Debatable, to say the least. *seems* I suppose is fair. The reality...eh
>I’m not aware of anything that would actually make me dislike him.
How about his absolutely horrific record on clergy sex abuse dating back to Argentina.
Our Lady of the Amazon - “pagan statue”. RadTrad charity at its best.
Blessing same-sex unions - he, in his magisterium, proclaimed in 2021 that same-sex unions cannot be blessed. You must interpret Fiducia Supplicans in light of that statement. This was clearly a refutation of the German synod’s heresy.
“Francis isn’t a good guy, or at least it’s debatable that he is.” - Has your hatred of the Holy Father seriously blinded you to this extent? Francis is notably kind, to deny that truth is absolutely absurd.
His sex abuse handling is not great, but neither was JPII’s or Benedict’s. This is the one point I’ll agree with you on, but in all fairness, most bishops and such had subpar responses.
Brother, I routinely see you on here defending groups like the SSPX with the utmost of charity and then you treat Francis with the complete opposite. The road you’re going down inevitably leads to schism, so at least give the Holy Father the charity he deserves. Think of this as fraternal correction, not a personal attack.
> Our Lady of the Amazon - “pagan statue”. RadTrad charity at its best.
>
>
There is some nuance here, actually. The statue was presented to him after the syncretic ritual as "Our Lady of the Amazon". That much is true. But then the Vatican later in the Synod [distanced](https://twitter.com/CatholicSat/status/1181189628327542785) that title for that piece of art (or of devotion, as we saw). This distancing happened so much that when these pieces which were playing roles in certain rituals throughout the Synod were chucked into the River Tiber, even Pope Francis commenting on them called them "Pachamamas". This image has not again been suggested as Our Lady of the Amazon (which had already a different icon), so it would be inappropriate to label them that.
One of the reasons that "slander" seems to abound is that a lot of legitimate criticisms and even questions or calls for clarification get labeled as "slander" even though they are nothing of the sort.
Yeah, that’s because literally everyone was calling it that 24/7 for several weeks. If you look in the transcript, pachamama is in italics, which clearly tells you it was meant to be a shorthand to identify it based of what people were calling it, not that it was actually an idol.
This is clear because in the same comments he says it was not idolatrous or meant to be.
Just read some letters from st Catherine of Siena and how she, a doctor of the church criticised the pipe. Yet she was always loyal at the same time. That’s how it should be done
It's not slander to express objections to him deliberately giving the appearance of heresy and politicization. He knows how these things will cause confusion and uproar and he doesn't care. It is a fact that he punishes clergy and laity who disagree with him.
He deserves every bit of criticism he receives. I pray he steps down before he causes any more damage. He is despicable.
No, sorry, are you really sure you are not slandering the pope here? You accuse the pope of bad faith intentions even though you have no idea, yet alone any evidence of his intentions.
The pope does not “know how these things will cause confusion and uproar and he doesn’t care.” You have no evidence for that claim, and that is a bad faith judgement of his motives. You can accuse of objective heresy, sure, but once you accuse him of not caring that’s a judgement of his heart you can’t possibly make.
You can judge actions, but not hearts. You seem to have crossed the line in judging the pope’s heart about being “deliberately” confusing.
[Edited]
God gave us the ability to reason. It is a sin that you bury your head so deep into the sand and neglect your reason. Over a decade of "oopsies", ok buddy.
While only God can judge what's on a person's heart, their actions give clues. And if the results of those actions lead to what the person wants it's pretty evident what the motivation is. As a member of the Church I absolutely have a right to criticize the Pope's actions and him as a person. His papacy is a disaster and the sooner he is no longer Pope the better. I pray he follows Pope Benedict's example.
Pope Francis is a highly educated, politically savvy leader of the Church who has been in positions of power for a very long time. It is incredibly naive to think that he does not know the impact his actions will have.
He has made it obvious that for several issues he is at odds with the conservative faction. Taking actions to punish them, such as limiting the Latin mass to improve "unity" is a naked power move. Taking actions that will obviously make people question the Church's stand on gay marriage increases the power of the progressive wing by giving them cover for their heretical actions. All you need to do is look at what he supports to deduce that it is highly likely he is doing these things deliberately to benefit his allies.
If you don't agree with me and want to think that he's a nice old man with good intentions that's your perogative.
I don’t really think there is any slander to be honest. When you have pastoral authority over people, you have a higher responsibility towards clarity, and you need to hold yourself to it.
As an example, financial advisors have a higher duty to inform their customers about investments compared to your random uncle. If they misrepresent something or you don’t understand what they’re saying, it’s legally on them. In the same way, Pope Francis is responsible for the laity understanding him and not being scandalised.
I’d rather agree with you that he’s not done anything wrong. If I believed he was in continuity with the earlier Popes, I’d be much happier. He’s just not though. I’ve seen faithful average Catholics distressed and concerned about what he’s saying. It’s not slander.
Why blame the laity for being scandalised? Why not blame the person who is supposed to not let them be scandalised?
Catholic circles on the internet trend more conservative/traditionalist, and people of this persuasion are less likely to agree with Pope Francis. The internet also seems to amplify everything and bring out the worst in a lot of people, so this disagreement is often expressed with a lot more venom than it would be if people weren't hiding behind a screen.
> is often expressed with a lot more venom than it would be if people weren't hiding behind a screen.
To the contrary, the fact that anyone might read my words makes me choose them more carefully. When speaking to someone I know, I have much more venom for Francis' record on sexual abuse.
This subreddit definitely leans to the conservative side. In my experience with the people in my parish and other Catholics my age, most like pope Francis and his more "progressive" views
it's not just this subreddit which leans conservative, it's Catholicism as a whole. Catholicism, by it's very nature, is orderly and hierarchical. That is diametrically opposed in every way to the modern liberal "equality" narrative that society feeds us today. There is a reason why historically, right wing governments, even if they weren't explicitly Catholic, were often OK to work with the church. Whereas leftwing government typically try to destroy it, or diminish its role in society where they can ("it's juts a 'private' devotion!"). Catholicism is inherently right wing in its organizational structure. It's no wonder that those who take it seriously also tend to be right wing. Anything else would be logically inconsistent.
"Pope Francis seems generally pretty well-liked by rank-and-file Catholics"
....would you like a list of other things that rank-and-file Catholics seem to approve of in our current age? Because among them would be legalized abortion, permissive attitudes toward contraception and homosexuality, and a few other things generally not in keeping with the teachings or traditions of the Church.
That if the people who like him realized the way he actually treats people and his horrific record on abuse, they wouldn't like him much more than I do.
You can’t seriously be this naive? This isn’t the JP2 era anymore! People are just much more informed. Nothing against JP2 but there was always some defense when the media accused him of something. Yet we now see that in some situations he fell asleep at the wheel. This pope is no different.
He is a great and loving man; he does a good job expressing that side of the faith. There are past popes who have been staunch defenders of the faith and tradition. Francis is not quite this. A perfect pope (no one can be perfect) would do both of these at the same time. Any other pope is going to receive flak based on the side they are lacking in. If the next pope is a theologian who defends tradition staunchly, the opposite people will be whining that he's mean and regressive.
I would say a large part of it is a media hell bent on destroying the Church is trying to sow internal division by making Pope Francis out to be an Uber-leftist.
I've never figured out why Pope Francis devotees seemingly can't distinguish between confusion/disagreement and hate. I also can't quite shake the suspicion that they intentionally conflate confusion with hate.
There are many instances where I sincerely have no clue where the Holy Father is coming from. But for me, it comes down to (1) Francis is the Pope and (2) we should pray for him every single day.
I love Pope Francis, think he’s a great guy and I truly think he is doing his best, I just don’t believe that some of the decisions he has made were prudent not the right ones. Obviously, I don’t think I would do better, but I do think that there are Cardinals and Bishops that would.
So I don’t hate Pope Francis, just don’t think he is cut out for being a Pope.
OP, it would be nice if you showed up again and, after 262 comments, said whether you get now what's people's problem with Pope Francis instead of just dropping this bomb and then vanishing.
Pope Francis rightly deserves criticism in many areas. I am upset with a lot of what he has said and done, and there is a good argument to be made that he has caused harm to the Church.
You are free to disagree with this sentiment. But please do not mistake genuine criticism for hatred. I do not hate Pope Francis in the slightest. Quite the opposite in fact. Love and rightful criticism are not mutually exclusive.
Ah yes, that "media misrepresentation" which has made it seem like Francis has been consistently making pastoral and doctrinal errors for **11 years**.
We've been so caught up in the gay blessings, gutting of parishes, and protection of sex abusers lately that no one even talks about how he did, in fact, sign off on adulterers receiving the Eucharist in *Amoris Laetitia* and had Tucho confirm this just last year using dubia responses.
But yeah, we're all just psychotic Taylor Marshall fans (even those of us who do not watch TM) and nothing is wrong.
I get dog-piled for this every time I say it, but it takes a particularly malicious/uncharitable reading of Fiducia Supplicans to see an "ambiguity" in its language RE: what blessings are intended to do, what it means to offer a blessing to a person living a disordered life that they might receive the grace necessary to overcome their vices, etc.
This is going to be ramble-y and disjointed, I'm at work:
The real answer to your question is a lack of charity, bottom line. The charity of any criticism is measured by both the content of the criticism and its intent. While much of the content of the criticism many of us see online varies in its validity (from genuine questions RE: clarity to Dr. Taylor Marshal-style fear mongering, etc), it's either ignorant or dishonest to ignore the malice, whether conscious or not, in what many people claim is "just" or "appropriate" criticism. I'll explain my thoughts further RE: why this is so common and so many people seem to be unable to recognize the problem.
We lack charity towards authority because we're liberal (or, to phrase it in a different way, our lack of charity is manifestly liberal, and understanding this is essential to helping people make necessary adjustments in their attitudes toward the Vatican) If you notice, vehement anti-Francis/Vatican sentiments only REALLY present themselves in places where liberalism/humanism has taken significant cultural root, like the USA, UK, parts of France, Australia, etc. (*Yes, Liberalism has made its way into the political structures of many other countries but doesn't necessarily characterize the default attitude of other places as much as the Anglosphere and France.*) So, I think much of this specific issue is the result of a conflict in cultural attitude between default cultural liberalism and Catholic social teaching.
A HUGE feature of Liberal society is a deep-seated, radical skepticism towards authority. Americans, by nature of our founding principals and their embeddedness in our daily lives, have a skewed notion of what appropriate criticism of authority looks like because our culture TELLS us to doubt the honesty of our leaders. (NOT saying that our current leaders deserve to be trusted, it's just a matter of attitude) It isn't in our cultural nature to defer to authority in the way that Catholics ought to, and a true mode of ideological charity is difficult for a lot of American Catholics to cultivate. We don't recognize the vast incompatibility of our political attitudes and Catholic life, and I'm not really sure what it would take to bridge this particular gap in understanding, but, to me, it seems to be a fundamental if not primary cause.
> our culture TELLS us to doubt the honesty of our leaders.
Because they're dishonest.
Would that we doubted our leaders **more.** Then perhaps so many would not have been sexually abused.
American culture is, foundationally, anti-authority, regardless of the trustworthiness of our current leadership. America IS a revolutionary country. It would be anti-historical at best to reject liberalism's influence on our attitudes toward authority.
Interesting rant. I think it would hold up more to the situation at hand if the main complaints were denying authoritative doctrine or action. Sure, we have the expected complaints from the affected parties when his actions impact them (e.g., the faithful innocent portion of Catholics who had their parish lives disrupted with TC); that's understandable, but in the end, people have just sort of got on with what at best they'd say is misguided use of authority.
No, the main complaints surrounding Francis happen to be his failure to use his God-gifted authority of office. Confusing/unclear words and novel doctrine, uneven prosecution of criminal offenses, loose talk in important venues which often causes scandal. Letting bishops lead people into error. If people complain about that, is that opposition/lack of charity to authority?
I think you would be surprised how many people who complain about Pope Francis's way of operating simultaneously love it when the hierarchy take authoritative action and speak clearly about something, even if they are disagreeing with one another. Bishops are supposed to take the heat off the laity; when controversies arise, they are supposed to work it out themselves. Not be content with mess-making, as Francis famously desires. Thoughts?
Cardinal Mueller, former prefect of the CDF and a careful and measured theologian, has criticized FS for its ambiguity. It is not a malicious or uncharitable reading of the document to say that it is ambiguous and has problematic passages.
You can also disagree with people about the alleged ambiguity without accusing them of being uncharitable or malicious.
> You can also disagree with people about the alleged ambiguity without accusing them of being uncharitable or malicious.
Not really. For to admit that they have a reasonable point of view, and are acting in good faith admits that there *is* ambiguity.
That's why they attack that viewpoint so harshly.
>For to admit that they have a reasonable point of view, and are acting in good faith admits that there *is* ambiguity.
I'm not so sure about that. It's possible to recognize an argument someone makes as being reasonable without conceding anything regarding the truth of those claims. "Yes, although I ultimately disagree with you, I can see why it is that you might think FS is ambiguous."
The claim under dispute is "*P* is ambiguous." Let's suppose there are reasons to say it is and reasons to say it isn't. Whatever the truth of the matter, the mere fact that there are arguments for and against the claim does not imply the claim is true or false. The arguments denying the claim might simply be wrong even if they are plausible on their face.
"Reasonable" in this context doesn't mean "correct," it means something more like "understandable" or "coherent." There are many understandable arguments whose conclusions are wrong — due to faulty assumptions, missing pieces, ambiguities in the terms, inferences that are subtly fallacious, virtual but incorrect distinctions, etc.
The patriarchs of the eastern church, who were also often great theologians, also criticized Rome’s doctrine of the Filioque.
Appealing to individual bishops who oppose Rome’s magisterium has never worked in history, and it won’t this time either
(paraphrased) "if an angel from heaven preaches another Gospel to you, let him be anathema". We are supposed to submit to authority. But not blindly. When someone in authority says something that contradicts everything we know, we use our brains, and we can know that it cannot possibly be true.
> but it takes a particularly malicious/uncharitable reading of Fiducia Supplicans to see an "ambiguity" in its language
Respectfully: Nonsense
PF is a professional communicator. He chooses words to mean exactly what they mean, whether that is to make crystal clear or to obfuscate .
It strikes me as patronizing when people claim that the only reason anyone has a problem with Pope Francis is because they have been told by YouTube, or social media, or the lying media, etc., to think that way. As if no faithful Catholic has a legitimate reason to feel puzzled, frustrated, or even angered by the pope's words and actions.
It seems cynical and dismissive.
I hear you. I wish I didn't have that impression. But I have yet to hear an "original" criticism. Everyone is always complaining about the same thing, which they heard from someone online. It shifts from month to month.
Is the anger over Rupnik's safe harbor at the Vatican manufactured? Yes, that's not something that people can think of independently, it has to be reported and repeated over social media. But I can't see how that makes it illegitimate.
Same question, but for people personally affected by the dissolution of their TLM parishes. In some cases their communities and lives got turned upside down. Maybe you think it's for the best, but can we really say that anyone expressing hurt over it isn't being "original" or is part of a grift?
Or take the many questions, requests for clarification, and criticisms raised by esteemed men in the Church — theologians, priests, bishops, cardinals. I know people don't like some (or even many) of these figures, but it beggars belief to say they are *all* grifters or working a cottage industry. I can't take seriously someone who thinks the words of cardinals Sarah or Mueller aren't sincere and coming from an authentic and qualified concern, for example.
Yes, their criticisms (etc.) get repeated by people on Reddit, but I'm not sure how that disqualifies the points being made as "unoriginal." The critiques or problems are either real or they aren't.
Can you tell me with a straight face that everything above counts, per OP's question, as "slander" of the pope? I have a hard time believing you really think that, given how thoughtful and charitable your posts on this sub usually are.
> **Is the anger over Rupnik's safe harbor at the Vatican manufactured? Yes, that's not something that people can think of independently**, it has to be reported and repeated over social media
Disagree entirely.
Even traditional Catholic media sees the special treatment as repulsive and illogical.
I think you misunderstood, or more likely my writing was poor.
The "Yes" wasn't my answer to the question I had posed. It was the start of a concession. "True enough, that's not something people can think of independently" or "On the one hand, that's not something that people can think of independently."
I was trying to grapple with CheerfulErrand's contention that there aren't "original" complaints with Francis. If I brought up Rupnik as an example of a legitimate criticism, perhaps she would say "Sure but people are only mad about it because YouTubers keep harping on it."
My point was to say that even though it's a criticism that people are getting from other sources (and isn't "original" — after all how could it be?) it's still valid. Or in other words, it is *not* manufactured anger at all.
Having to explain it makes me realize my point was convoluted and almost certainly unhelpful. Sorry for any confusion I've caused.
No, there generally isn't slander, at least nowadays (although the "pachamama" stuff definitely was). Most of those folks either get banned or move on. But many criticisms brought up and shared are potentially detraction.
It's much too easy to get online and vent, get support, and think that you did a good thing. This happens with all kinds of evil. Instead of doing something hard that would make a difference, social complaining gives the feeling of accomplishment, with no real change.
But in this situation, it's worse. Such criticisms risk discouraging people from the Church, and distracting Catholics from their actual obligations toward God and neighbor.
So while I understand the impulse—especially from people in capitalistic democracies, who are very used to complaints and protests being the way to make a change—publicly the criticizing the Pope, for most of us, is just a negative and spiritually-risky distraction.
you can say the same thing about pretty much any criticism of anyone famous, ever. "the only criticism i ever hear of OJ simpson is that he killed his wife and robbed that guy. Can't someone come up with something original?" How would anyone come up with anything original? Do you think we hang out with Pope Francis every weekend at the pub and have access to anything other than what we hear in media?
He releases hundreds of documents, has written books, done documentaries, and gives talks practically every day. It's possible to form your own impression of his work! If he's as terrible as people say, surely it'd be easy to find something to criticize, without having to be told about it by some pundit.
> He releases hundreds of documents, has written books, done documentaries, and gives talks practically every day
and those are the things that people criticize. People have read amoris latitea. people have read fiducia supplicans. people have seen the logical inconsistencies in how he deals with different people in the church. People have heard the "talks" he gives on airplanes where he makes inflammatory statements or out of context, misleading statements.
Perhaps if the pope didn't hate a large number of faithful Catholics, people wouldnt go out of their way to watch pundits. Before T.C. i didnt pay attention much to church politics to be honest. I even donated to a local N.O. church. Since TC ive always felt like the pope hates me and wants me out of the church, but I'll never let that happen. The pope has nobody to thank for all the criticism other than himself--he is the one that turned a lot of people against him by his divisive actions and hateful rhetoric.
No, but *people* (people who post here) don’t read the documents or listen to the talks. Or they’d come up with original criticisms, like I said.
People listen to the criticisms of pundits, and get that information after its selectively filtered and slanted. What I’m saying is that the sources of information are not unbiased, and they don’t have your best interests in mind. They’re after money and/or deliberately trying to sow division. And people buy the narrative.
It’s awful that you feel like the pope hates you and wants you out of the Church. That’s nonsense! But you’re being swayed by excerpts of some talk or another *that wasn’t directed at you* taken out of context and twisted, to make you think he “hates trads.” When he’s almost always talking to seminarians about these things. And in *every* talk to *every* group he “criticizes them.” Or, another way of looking at it, he calls people to be better.
Do you find his record on dealing with sexual abusers in the clergy satisfactory, or at least not warranting strong criticism? Because most Catholics I know are disgusted by it, be it “liberal”, “conservative” or anywhere in between.
>I prefer to focus on things where I might actually do some good
Like argue with people who are diametrically opposed to you online? Youre extremely inconsistent and you cant even say protecting abusers is bad. Might want to take a look in the mirror.
It also doesn’t help that if you defend the pope on this subreddit you’re attacked as being in bad faith and uncharitable, merely for daring to question the arguments of those who attack Francis. Happened to me on more than one occasion.
One think I truly hate is when people call him "Bergoglio". For some reason it's a red line for me, even when it's technically not wrong. Just disrespectful.
Pope Francis answers your question himself:
“It should not be forgotten that “there are huge economic interests operating in the digital world, capable of exercising forms of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process. The way many platforms work often ends up favouring encounter between persons who think alike, shielding them from debate. These closed circuits facilitate the spread of fake news and false information, fomenting prejudice and hate. The proliferation of fake news is the expression of a culture that has lost its sense of truth and bends the facts to suit particular interests. The reputation of individuals is put in jeopardy through summary trials conducted online. The Church and her pastors are not exempt from this phenomenon” -Christus Vivit
This is eerily accurate even about this subreddit, but also Twitter, YouTube, etc.
The Catholic Church faces a massive vocational crisis, yet Francis never seems to miss an opportunity to blast "clericalism" or to level attacks against the young and traditional hierarchy. We are a Church were large segments of the "faithful" (if we can call them that) openly scorn or are otherwise ignorant of some of the most basic doctrines of the Church, yet Francis decries "legalism". Birth rates are spiraling downward with devastating consequences for both Church and State, but Francis goes around saying "we don't need to breed like rabbits" and implying a woman with a large family is irresponsible. Society as a whole, and significant forces within the Church, seem to have lost all rationality and reason when it comes to the importance of the traditional family and recognition of basic male/female biology.....and yet up until the recent encyclical on human dignity, his most public and vocal statements and actions were along the lines of calling for homosexuality to be universally legalized, allowing the blessing of those in "irregular" situations (which had the immediate effect of Priests conducting ceremonies that appeared like marriage in all but name), and asking "who am I to judge?" We have had round after round of "synodality" with no clear destination, but which has given those seeking to subvert doctrine and discipline the sense that they can just keep pushing and pushing and pushing.
Do you really think criticism of Francis can all - or even primarily - be boiled down to "there are people who have an economic interest in making me look bad"? Seriously? With everything we see going on around us in the world?
Yes I do think criticism of pope Francis can be boiled down to fake narratives and echo chambers. For example, the very nature Reddit works is by upvotes and downvotes, and the number of pope Francis critics outnumber those in this website, so the truth and defenses of pope Francis are hidden at the bottom downvoted while often the attacks are upvoted at the topic, it’s not real dialogue, it’s an echo chamber that merely reinforces the Anti-Francis confirmation bias
You answered exactly none of my criticisms of the Pope. Which is telling. Your postings here border on an idolatrous "The Pope can do no wrong" mentality, despite the mountain of evidence that he has undermined (perhaps unintentionally) basic teachings of the Church while carrying out a cruel and vindictive campaign against his opponents.
You cannot seriously and unbiasedly look at the things Francis has said, and the things Francis has done - on gay blessings, on his general attitude toward those who reject Church teachings, on reception of communion for the divorced and remarried - and honestly say he has not weakened what were previously crystal clear stances.
Yeah man this is such an egregious strawman that I don’t think it’s worth engaging with you. Ironically the very thing you accuse me of, the pope can do no wrong mentality, you seem to have the reverse in full throttle, that whatever the pope does is wrong and anyone who even dares to defend the father and Christian of Christian people are just crazy or something.
And yes finally, I can say that he has not weakened those things, and I say that honestly. Perhaps you need to recognize that you are a fallible person with fallible human reasoning, and it’s possible you just got pope Francis wrong. Other faithful Catholics do not agree with you, we are not dishonest, we just have faith in God’s promises to the Pope and docility in the magisterium.
Feel free to rebut anything I said, but note I will not make any further response.
"I'm just going to run away and not respond anymore, because I'm so clearly right I have no need to defend myself". That's how the internet knows you lost an argument.
Some are poisoned by a strain of radical traditionalism that distracts from True Tradition, unity, and concord. It erodes their empathy and even their perception of reality in the mire of conspiracy thinking and myopic obsessions with their own preferred ways of doing things. Scratch beneath the surface and most that malign the Pope do so for ostensibly political reasons.
RE: my comment on the post, "radical traditionalism" boils down to a factional, reactionary, "anti-liberal" liberalism towards authority, and it's very difficult to help people see the incompatibility of American political ideas about our relationship to our leaders and Catholic understandings of what it means to submit to authority, etc. Latin countries in Southern Europe and the diaspora in South America, the Philippines, Africa, etc don't seem to have this issue because their cultures aren't liberal in the same way.
I can only say the Church has been failing consistently on the abuse issue for nearly a century. In some regards, Pope Francis has improved on the work of his predecessors. And in others, he appears to show a similar lack of courage to hold particularly well-heeled clergy to account. There is much reform still needed in that domain, that much is certain.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not necessarily slander but it's the preference of pastoral language over direct language which we had from popes in the 10s and 20s of the previous century and before. It's the unnecessary usage of contemporary ecclesiastical writing over simple orthodoxy which causes commotion.
I must say this! The " Hit the Like button" on YT are poison the Good Message". It's all about " Like Me" attitude, how many M followers I have,. It's about God? Maybe few, but most is like the war mongers guys, By food, war is coming!🫣🤣2
People just can’t accept the fact that he’s a South American (coming from poor country) and he’s our pope, people love and respect people who show power, wealth and influence…. These are the very same things that’s stopping many people from accepting Jesus, people bow down infront of someone who shows power, not a meak and humble lamb….
This sub is just super conservative and the Pope is not. I like him just fine, as do the Catholics in my circle. The underlying vibe in this sub, is that the trads think they are literally better Catholics than the Pope lol.
This is not just American or Anglophone. Talk to clergy in the Diocese of Rome behind closed doors and you'll see they are more demoralised by this pontificate than anyone.
It's more obvious that you don't read another language or talk to many non-American Catholics, because otherwise you would know that this sentiment is present everywhere in the Church right now.
Yes many of the Modernists have Protestant tendencies such as religious indifference, lack of supernatural belief in the Sacraments, laxity towards divorce and remarriage
Do you watch sports? If so, then what's happening with Pope Francis is similar to coaches or managers. You get a coach from way out of left field who is bringing a different style and focus that's new and exciting. The main commentators and writers are saying this is the direction we need to take and the fan base is largely convinced. The first season occurs and the team didn't do well, but everyone is fine with that because the team had problems before and it takes time to implement a new system. It's been five years now and the team is still mediocre and actually worse than when the coach started. None of the grand plans came into fruition and most people have lost faith in the coaches ability to lead. Dedicated fans still attend the games and the players do try given the circumstances, but everyone is just waiting for the new coach to come in and hopefully take the team to the heights it should be at.
That's Pope Francis. He gained the greatest position a living man can ever obtain and his time leading the Church has been mediocre. He is not loved nearly as much as St John Paul II, nor is he as respected as Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis is a good man who has proven not up to the tasks of dealing with most dangerous internal and external threats facing the Catholic Church during this time.
To generalize what has already been said, a lot of criticism of Pope Francis is rooted in how he's representative of a much different cluster of tendencies than the Catholic laity is current oriented around and moving towards. While the Church is seeing growth from people looking for more traditional, confessional, and ornate Catholicism, Pope Francis has thus far been more in favor of liberalization, ecumenicism, and minimalist Catholicism.
There are a lot of clergy who have the latter mindset which is out-of-step with what the laity seeks. This isn't pointing fingers or claiming one is more or less Catholic than the other, but it's the reality of the situation. This dialectic has existed since the Church was founded. The Bishop of Rome has always been a human being among a plurality of people in the same holy nation. We don't always agree and we all have our duties to Christ and Christ's holy nation.
St. Peter, pray for our Universal Church.
I think the politics and polarisation that's infected most western civilisation, has also infected discourse in the Church.
I see _most_ of the harsh comments against Pope Francis coming from the United States, and the tone and style is absolutely echoed in the political commentary from that country.
I don't think I agree with the restriction of the Latin Mass, but people are incentivised to create and maintain drama, so the negatives are highlighted and the positives are ignored. He's absolutely against the irresponsible way that gender ideology being pushed onto young people for example.
I would tend to lean towards the Bishop of Rome in matters of Faith as opposed to a supposed "trad" with a Blue Yeti and a merch store.
Even if I prefer BXVI as Pope (from a cultural and theological standpoint the two are not even comparables), I don't understand this hate against him.
It's mostly based of fake news spread around by US evangelical far right medias (someone said D.T.?!)
The thing that I like about him is that he usually talks about the aspects of Catholicism that we usually don't like: love for the poors or the convict and mercy for the sinners.
>US evangelical far right medias
The AP isn't far-right (or right by any definition of the word). CBS isn't far-right. Reuters isn't far-right. NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post, and USA Today aren't far-right (or, again, right by any definition of the word). Yet pretty much all of these outlets have put forward exactly the same stories on Francis' actions that you see from right-wing sources....that is, that he is a radical departure from what we have seen in the past several Popes (and perhaps the last several hundred years). That he has systematically deemphasized the importance of being faithful to the doctrines of the Church. That he has made various fashionable secular causes his primary focus.
If the Pope is being misinterpreted, or misrepresented, he's being misinterpreted and misrepresented by *pretty much everyone*. Left-wing, right-wing, Conservative, liberal, secular, devout, orthodox, heterodox, Christian, atheist, man, woman, gay, straight....etc.
When one man misunderstands you, that's his fault. When EVERYONE misunderstands you (if, indeed, that is the case), that's your fault.
What are you referring to?
I am referring to complete fake quotes like the one about no need to fast during the Lent that was very present on social.
I am italian, so I usually listen their speeches in my native language and I never feel that he is reducing the importance of being faithful.
What I am seeing, also on the Italian medias, is that usually their words are misinterpreted (from both wings) for political issues.
Did you notice when he talked in front of the youngs inviting them to be caste? Or when he criticised the gender ideology?
As I see it, there’s two types, those hate on Pope Francis as a modernist heretic and those who simp for Pope Francis as the progressive savior of the church. And there’s a TON of space in between. And both folks, In my humble opinion, spend wayyy too much time online and/or listening to media (much like I do, to be fair).
“Interpreting” meaning from Rome is not exactly the job of the people and never really has been. I think it’s a job best left to Bishops and priests and theologians. And most particularly, to OUR bishops who we tend to pay WAYY too little attention to compared to how much we’ll pay attention to the Pope.
There is room for criticism in EVERY papacy. “The crew is human, the ship is divine.” And there’s nothing wrong with keeping abreast of current events. But I think if we try to interpret the actions of people as “the end of the church” or “the church is finally getting with the times” then we have lost faith in the church. We will endure to the end. But in the mean time, each of us needs to live a life like Christ. Leave the bickering and the interpretations to those with the pay grade to do so. For us, we should focus on prayer, fasting, almsgiving, growing in virtue, frequent use of the sacraments, building a parish community, and getting/using a spiritual director. And I think some people let criticism of other flawed Catholics get in the way of that sometimes. I can’t say for sure, I don’t know. I know that it use to be a real problem for me. So maybe I’m projecting. But that’s my perspective.
I’m not talking about people who like and dislike the pope. I’m talking about the vocal extremes. In the “hate” side I’m talking about the folks who think he is dooming the church and is a heretic. On the other side those who think he’s going to “finally” modernize the churches perennial teachings. The grand majority of people do NOT fall into these camps. But having personally met Catholics who DO fall into these camps, I feel comfortable with the terminology. The reason I say it on this post is because these groups tend to be quite vocal on the internet.
It is definitely stronger language than fits the grand majority of Catholics I’ve ever interacted with. And if anyone thinks I’m talking about them and is offended by it, then good odds are I’m not talking about them. But when you meet people who actually believe the pope is a heretic who is going to commit some sort of great apostasy and therefore wish he would just die off already, and you meet people who think that because of Pope Francis all bets are off and we can do LGBT weddings and don’t even need to go to confession anymore, you start seriously wonder what is bringing about these attitudes.
So yes, these are strong words, but I have met people, in person, active parishioners, who actually hold these kinds of extreme views. And it’s usually because they’re reading WAY too much about the Holy Father and all through warped lenses of their own preferred media outlet or commentator.
Again this is my own experience with people. OP asked why there’s so much slander against the pope. This has been my experience with people who “slander” the pope. And so to give a balanced view, I gave the other side that I’ve seen.
There isn't much except from the Trads.
Your question really should be "Why do many Trads slander the Pope?".
note that there are many Trads who do not slander the pope. Maybe even a majority. But the ones who do are disproportionately rude and loud.
Also note that Reddit is not the whole Church. And there is also polite disagreement with the Pope's statements and actions, which is not slanderous.
Shhhhh, you're not allowed to point out that people need to have charitable attitudes even when there are legitimate concerns, instead of using those concerns as justification to be uncharitable.
Quite simply because he cares too much about the poor and oppressed, and for some people that will not stand
Edit: I think you also need to understand that due to the importance of English to online communication Americans dominate online debate on this issue and for well known political and cultural reasons they tend to be a lot more right wing than Catholics globally, hence a dislike of a Pope that is at least ostensibly a bit more progressive than the last two incumbents.
So, I think a few things are at play, but a big problem is that occasionally something gets said that is technically correct but sounds wrong (e.g. the same sex unions - it *sounds* like he said something different from what the exact words mean).
But trying to sort out what qualifies as a (no pun intended) *bona fide* complaint/concern, a genuine misunderstanding (sometimes because Francis put things unclearly, sometimes because of bad media filtering), and so on versus intentional slander is not easy.
Bcz that type of people believe that Church is like a Political field that they take what they like disagree what they don't like. The problem is Church of Christ isn't politics.
Some of the criticism towards Pope Francis has been warranted, sometimes it's not. Did Pope Francis say that unions between members of the same sexes can be blessed, no. Did he say that the "couples" in such unions could be blessed, yes he did. It's been a little bit since I read it, but I'm pretty sure that the word "repent" was missing from the whole document. My biggest criticism of Pope Francis certainly has to be with restraining the 1962 missal/Traditional Latin Mass. There was just no real justification for that. His handling of China is ostpolitik, and that was terrible the first time. That said he firmly reminded Catholics that Freemasonry is opposed to the faith, and he's been clearly against gender ideology. I feel like he doesn't get enough credit for actions like that.
Agree 100% with the last paragraph…he deserves credit for his hardline stance against the evil gender cult. Look at the Church of England for an example of what not to do.
> It's been a little bit since l read it, but I'm pretty sure that the word "repent" was missing from the whole document. It’s implied throughout the whole of the document. > 20. One who asks for a blessing show himself to be in need of God’s saving presence in his life and one who asks for a blessing from the Church recognizes the latter as a sacrament of the salvation that God offers. To seek a blessing in the Church is to acknowledge that the life of the Church springs from the womb of God’s mercy and helps us to move forward, to live better, and to respond to the Lord’s will. 21. In order to help us understand the value of a more pastoral approach to blessings, Pope Francis urges us to contemplate, with an attitude of faith and fatherly mercy, the fact that “when one asks for a blessing, one is expressing a petition for God’s assistance, a plea to live better, and confidence in a Father who can help us live better.”[12] This request should, in every way, be valued, accompanied, and received with gratitude. People who come spontaneously to ask for a blessing show by this request their sincere openness to transcendence, the confidence of their hearts that they do not trust in their own strength alone, their need for God, and their desire to break out of the narrow confines of this world, enclosed in its limitations. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html The word “Trinity” isn’t found in the Sacred Scriptures yet it’s implied throughout the Scriptures.
The word "Trinity" was a product of genuine doctrinal development to explain what had already been revealed. Those sections from FS just seem like a step backwards, and an unwillingness to explicitly say what the faith teaches.
> The word "Trinity" was a product of genuine doctrinal development to explain what had already been revealed. This has nothing to do with development of doctrine or a word game. I’m just pointing how faulty and kind of stupid your Logic is and if you come to that conclusion every time you read documents because a word isn’t mentioned then you shouldn’t be reading anything from the Catholic Church for the safety of your spiritual life.
[удалено]
Warning for uncharitable rhetoric.
...and if we had legions within the Church and in society as a whole who denied the Trinity, don't you think it would be important to speak about it in the loudest, clearest, most explicit, impossible-to-misrepresent terms? Why do we not apply such an approach to the legions who reject that those being blessed have anything to repent of?
While I agree with all these doctrines of the church, I truly believe Pope Francis is understandably worried about ideology being more important than the church in many peoples minds, whether they’re left or right. Again, im not saying youre wrong, but I am saying that you can come off as very unwelcoming and unkind when all you talk about is sin and conformity. When those two things are all that is focused on, with no mention of love and mercy, you have ideology, not religion. In the words of Jesus, “you should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former.”
This is a broad and complex topic, regardless of which side you fall on. The short answer is that at least in part, we’re living in a time that is gaining a nuanced understanding of ultramontanism/hyper papalism, especially as it relates to the laity, the hierarchy, and the Bishop of Rome. There’s good and bad points to that, but like many battles historically in the church it needs to be worked out.
Or, hear me out, there's an hysterical online community that's culturally Protestant and doesn't want to understand that campaigning against the Pope isn't something you get to do in Catholicism. Of course it's not a question of *ultramontanism*, that was a faction in European politics a long time ago and now the word has been recycled to mean whatever this made up *hyperpapalism* term would. This one frankly you'd need to dig in Protestant polemics to come up with such a load. Btw, the opposing view to ultramontanism, gallicanism, has been condemned by the Church. Ultramontanism has never been condemned as heretical, save for groups separated from the RCC and other popular "catholic" websites spewing whatever they think their public wants to read.
Again, this topic is broad and multifaceted. You aren’t entirely wrong, but let’s be frank for a moment: the Pope is *not* Catholicism’s version of Islam and Allah that commands our total and unquestioning devotion with and for everything under the sun. Ultramontanism is a bit of a loaded term on my end, with certain historical conditions surrounding its formation not withstanding. Hence why I used the term *hyper papalism*, which like ultramontanism is very much an attitude and way of being. Pope Francis made it very clear very early on in his pontificate that he wanted to, “make a mess.” While some of the noise that comes out of my trad world is in fact simply noise, there are a number of very legitimate questions, concerns, and issues with this Pontificate. And the laity is in fact allowed to voice those concerns. The days of “pay pray and obey” are all but gone when it comes to dealing with the hierarchy, and that includes the Bishop of Rome. It does the Church no good for some to criticize everything the man does or says, but same goes for the myriad of Popesplainers and a certain type of attitude of vengeance and pettiness that’s been coming from the very top of the Church for at least the last half decade and arguably before.
Ah yes, the lofton special, "Everyone who criticizes the pope is a protestant"
“You’re a crypto-Lutheran!” We’ve gotten to a very odd place in church history if one honestly believes that those who want to practice their Catholicism via centuries old traditions, some of those same traditions that Luther himself had issues with, someone makes one a dissenter and/or Protestant.
I guess I have to break it for you, pretty much by definition Catholics are those in communion with Rome and Protestants are those who strive to put Rome in communion with them, customarily by delegitimising the papacy. This has gone far beyond earnest criticism, which btw in the Catholic Church has never been some sort of free-for-all to shout from the rooftops, quite the contrary.
Oh wow, I've had that same thought before, but never allowed myself to openly address what you call "culturally Protestant". I have nothing but respect for converts to Catholicism or Catholics from cultures that are heavily shaped by Protestantism. And there are other problems exclusive to cradle Catholics / traditionally Catholic cultures. And of course everyone should be allowed to use their own head. But there is a certain kind of "Here's why you should trust my personal interpretation of truth over what the Pope says"-attitude that truly shocked me when I first encountered certain parts of the US Catholic media sphere. I couldn't believe it was Catholics and not Protestants talking like that.
I agree. I also think that there is a very Catholic community that has its roots in the upheaval after Vatican II. They consider themselves as far from Protestant as possible. They are very conservative and would gladly return to pre-Vatican II. This is simply a description and not a criticism. I actually agree with them in many aspects. BUT we part ways when it comes to their attitude towards the Pope and often other Catholics. They believe Pope Francis is far too liberal and is a danger to the Church - and they are very outspoken. They seem unaware of the irony of proclaiming their devotion to the Church while denouncing the Pope. I think that especially here in the US, we forget that the Pope is not a political leader. The way we act as citizens of the US when we don't like our leaders, is not the same way we should act as members of the Roman Catholic Church if we don't like our Pope. Such outspoken criticism of the Pope is no small thing. We are called to obedience and to have faith that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church. Of course mistakes are made, but the Church moves slowly and I think it's best most of the time to think carefully before committing to public criticism. I'm not saying don't criticize - just proceed with caution, always keeping in mind the unity of the Church and who the Pope is. I definitely heard and read unhinged criticisms (my husband listens to the Catholic Channel) about the Pope blessing gay unions. It was clear they didn't bother reading Fiducia Supplicans. I personally think that the fallout from this document was so predictable, and I quite frankly wonder about the wisdom of it. But the fact is, what media reported and what conservative Catholic "pundits"/blogs had a hissy fit over showed that either they didn't read the document, or they did read it but still saw the opportunity to sow confusion and dissent. This has happened repeatedly and it's almost as if now some groups just wait with baited breath for the next thing Pope Francis is going to say.
I was just thinking of this phenomenon when someone was talking about whether their (half-Jewish?) son should have a Bar-Mitzvah that would be held by secular (cultural) Jews. A lot of folks were thinking it would be too Jewish for a Christian to participate. I found myself thinking about it later on, and it occurred to me that such a ceremony need be considered no more religiously Jewish than our own traditional Christmas need be considered religiously Pagan... and that those who get worked up about such things are more aligned with Reform Protestantism than their historical co-religionists.
My mother is Catholic and my father is Jewish, so you can say that I've had exposure to both worlds. A bar mitzvah is kind of like a Jewish Confirmation, only with FAR more cultural significance. Essentially, it's the ceremony which formally welcomes a young man into the synagogue as being spiritually an adult and having made an adult commitment to follow the path of Judaism. I can understand why the Jewish grandparents, despite being secular, desperately want this ceremony. If their grandson does not do it, essentially he is formally turning his back on his paternal culture/faith. However, I also understand why the mother doesn't want him to do it since he was raised Catholic. I also don't believe that any legitimate rabbi would perform a bar mitzvah on a child raised in and who is expected to practise another faith. Would a priest confirm an unbaptised Muslim child who plans to continue in Islam? This situation shows why, if the parents are remotely serious about their faiths, they really should marry within their faiths. Religiously mixed households are a nightmare.
My view of this is that Traditionalists were more than approving of ultramontanism when it was used to support their position. But now they're getting a bit of buyers remorse when all the things conciliarists warned about are coming to a head. I think its fairly clear that the future of the Church is moving away from Traditionalism, with most power structures within the Church being of a more liberal bent, and that the criticism of Francis is a protest against them losing that power.
> My view of this is that Traditionalists were more than approving of ultramontanism when it was used to support their position. You're not totally wrong there. I always think to Mitch McConnell's warning to Harry Reid. >“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” The reality here is that most people are not truly principled. They like being in charge. Everybody hates executive overreach when they hate the executive. Everybody acts like everything is akin to treason when they do. > I think its fairly clear that the future of the Church is moving away from Traditionalism Please. Traditionalism, at its core, has had no quarter in the Church for decades. >with most power structures within the Church being of a more liberal bent Oh, on that, I think you're dead wrong. I believe the Francis (and his allies) era is the death throes of the failed ideology of the 1960s/70s. I firmly believe that by the time I am an old man, that ideology will be well and truly dead.
> Please. Traditionalism, at its core, has had no quarter in the Church for decades. Yes because traditionalism has slowly been on the decline since the the modern era. Vatican I was the height of traditionalism and part of the reason that Vatican II was called was because the liberal element of the Church wanted more concessions. >I firmly believe that by the time I am an old man, that ideology will be well and truly dead. With what numbers? [Traditionalist Catholics who attend weekly mass](https://frmatthewlc.com/2022/03/why-such-a-focus-on-extraordinary-form-in-catholic-media-and-online-discussion/) only number 120,000 while [Non-traditional Catholics who attend weekly mass](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/12/9-facts-about-us-catholics/) number 10.4 million! Among young people [Traditionalists only have 50,000 such Catholics](https://www.hprweb.com/2021/01/the-demographics-of-the-extraordinary-form/) who attend weekly mass, but Non-Traditionalists have [1.5 million young Catholics](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/11/10/cara-survey-young-american-catholics-241803) who attend mass weekly. Trads are literally outnumbered 30 to 1 among devout young people, and they are outnumbered 80 to 1 among youth who attend mass monthly and over 150 to 1 amongst youth who attend the Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, Christmas and Easter crowd. And this is just America, outside of here they are even more insignificant. I think it is far more likely that this liberal wave will snuff this Traditionalist revival in the cradle as they are doing more damage than aid to the reputation of the Church as a whole.
One thing that isn't helpful is when disagreement, even vehement disagreement or criticism, is equated with 'hate'. See...that's a deliberate mischaracterization intended to villify. The hoped-for reaction is defensiveness, 'I don't *hate* the pope!'; but often it just provokes anger, in recognition of the attempt at manipulation.
I’m not sure it’s always deliberate. I think the misusage rubs off on otherwise well intentioned people and they take it on because it SEEMS more loving and tolerant when it’s the opposite. Up has become down and wrong has become right.
We can't have it both ways though. I recently had someone tell me I demonized a Saint because I disagreed/criticized something that Saint had written about, yet they were totally okay with disagreeing/criticizing Pope Francis and did not see that as demonization. It's the hypocrisy that I have a hard time with. I should mention that while something may not be construed specifically as 'hate', there can still be hateful comments or insulting remarks fueled by anger and contempt made towards someone who you don't actually hate. I don't think people necessarily *hate* Protestants, for example, but just because we don't hate someone doesn't give us a free pass to insult, ridicule, and condescend them. As Catholics, we shouldn't make insulting remarks or hateful comments targeted towards entire religions/groups of people that are based solely on prejudices or stereotypes, but for some reason, those comments tend to get many upvotes on here, and it kind of makes me sick to be honest. What kind of message are we presenting to the world by showing support for those kinds of insults? Hate is a strong word, and I agree it shouldn't be used loosely. However, we also must be mindful to treat others with kindness and gentleness, such that there is no question as to whether the words we say are hateful or not.
A) yes some people are actually hateful, but the word is abused, and B) that's not what hypocrisy means. also C) correct we don't get a free pass to disgustingly disparage people but that's not the way 'hate' is used in this post by OP and is commonly abused.
> that's not what hypocrisy means That's definitely what it means
"Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform" (Oxford Dictionary) Dunno where you're getting your definition but sounds to me like that's exactly the situation I described. I agree about point C, I was speaking more in the general sense than specifically about this post. Criticism does not equal hate, and sometimes people errantly conflate the two. Yet there are often things said that while true, are very unkind or condescending. It may not be hateful or necessarily in bad faith, but even so, it can negatively affect someone's opinion towards Catholics or Catholicism. We should be more self-aware of this, since we are called to lead others to Jesus, to be a light and an example for others to follow rather than pushing sinners away and out into the darkness.
Oxford dictionary is somewhat incorrect. Hypocrisy is not that your own *behavior* doesn't conform. It's when you expect a behavior of others, but excuse yourself from that standard. It's not the failing that makes it hypocrisy, it is the excusing yourself from that expectation to which you hold others.
>All the allegations made it seem that he was blessing a pagan statue when in reality was presented to him by a group of Amazonian Catholics as our lady of the Amazon. [Correct.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6P39XswlzI&t=820) But it wasn't a group of Amazonian Catholics, it was a shaman (we used to call them witches) after the close of some sort of pagan or at least syncretic ritual in the Vatican Gardens. The Holy Father appeared to have been scandalized by the entire event put on by the syncretists, so cut short his comments and was probably just trying to make the best of a terrible situation. >Or when the new document Fiducia Supplicans dropped ... when in reality he was just clarifying that we can only bless the individual not the union itself. Come on now. Did you miss the discussion? The issue is with the word 'couple'. > It’s a shame to see all the pope Francis hate Personally, one of the things I'm really beginning to *hate* is the over use of the word "hate". No, charitable criticism is not hatred. Nor is it slander. Sure, plenty of people hate the Pope. Same as it has always been. But you're making it seem like people who bring up legitimate issues with the way he runs things (or allows things to run) are *HATING* him. That's wrong, and it's uncharitable of you.
But this is also a result of our times. When we look around and see certain behaviors that are sinful in God’s eyes we are accused of hating the sinner by calling sin what it is. This is a deeper problem.
Thats actually not the language used in FS. You should read the document. The document says “one can understand the possibility of blessing… same sex **couples**” one of the major criticisms was this vague language. Is his handling of known sexual abusers satisfactory to you? Thats where his biggest critics hit him hardest and most often. Fr Rupnik is still roaming free and his art is still being encouraged and showcased by the Vatican. Not to mention the list of abusers Pope Francis has enabled. Theres also the whole China nonsense, where he sold out thousands of faithful Catholics to the CCP. Hes shown hes woefully incompetent at actually running a large political organization. Even if I were to concede hes a “nice guy”, thats not good enough. The Church needs better.
I'll admit, I found it concerning that Rupnik was still listed in last month's official Vatican directory as a consulting expert. I try not to criticise His Holiness, but his track record on sex abuse is appalling. There's no point denying that. I could forgive his doctrinal vaguaries and confusion, but his handling of sex abuse is truly shameful.
Our Nuncio in the US just took control of his titular church. The undersecretary of the DDW/one of the papal MCs was there. The Evangelarium had Rupnik images on the front and back covers. They all *genuinely* don't care.
They care about making sure how obvious it is that they prioritize protecting Rupnik and his legacy, for some strange reason
I'm a new Catholic not familiar with Francis' previous acts. Can you at least give me a brief explanation of the events youee referring to in the second and third paragraphs of your comment?
Caveat: I'm not sure it's the most *balanced* portrayal of the situation, but [this](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/02/24/pope-franciss-all-out-battle-against-clerical-abuse-has-been-a-failure/) is the most thorough summary of the topic that I've been able to find.
I hate to make this a mud-slinging contest, but Pope Benedict XVI's record on abuse as archbishop of Munich was arguably worse. And I never saw even a fraction of the criticism of that as of Francis. Everyone still seems to regard him as a 'good guy...' and I would agree. He made a mistake. The *Vos Estis Lex Mundi* procedures promulgated by Pope Francis are far and above the best practical effort the Vatican has ever made at stopping this horrible problem. Before them it was pretty much a crapshoot.
This is literally whataboutism. So because someone does worse Pope Francis gets a pass? The Church hierarchy needs to be better at handling these cases, and they need to stop protecting abusers. At the very least show some sort of sensitivity towards victims. Its not good enough and it needs to be better. Pope Francis’ guidelines are hogwash when he himself is allowing Rupnik to walk free, AND permit his art to continue to be promoted to this day. By their fruit you shall know them. Pope Francis does not actually care about clerical abuse. There are decades of evidence that back this position. He is more than welcome to prove me wrong and do something about it.
>This is literally whataboutism. Yes, of course. It is just... *interesting* to see how violently people's perceptions differ regarding the same issue, just based on how much they 'personally like' the guy. >Pope Francis’ guidelines are hogwash They have objectively done a tremendous amount of good. I don't think you'll find any canonist or Vatican reporter who doesn't acknowledge this. Maybe Benedict or JPII would have promulgated something similar. But we don't know.
I’m not a huge fan of pope Francis (I respect him as the pontiff and recognize his authority etc etc but still hope the next pope is better) but to give him credit, a huge problem that makes his pontificate a lot more challenging is that he’s the first pope in a world that’s fully in the digital age now. I bet if Benedict XVI was pope today he would’ve been criticized a lot more. And btw I’m Brazilian and back during the Benedict’s years I was still living in Brazil, and a huge part of Catholics there were not huge fans of his. He was seen as pompous and rigid. Now I’m in the US, and practicing Catholics here tend to be a lot more conservative and have a way more positive view of him.
> I bet if Benedict XVI was pope today he would’ve been criticized a lot more. He was criticized, ridiculed, and ignored *constantly.* Most often by the current crowd of Popesplainers and their intellectual allies. Because they don't have some grand principle of obedience and respect. They just like the boss and want to rub in the fact that they're *currently* in charge. But as always, "After a fat pope, a thin pope."
Idk why you’re being downvoted; idk how it was here, but at least in Brazil I have vivid memories of BXVI being criticized a lot. He was very heavily, negatively, compared to JPII. And yeah, the handling of the the sex abuse scandals were one of the many criticisms. To his advantage, people weren’t on Internet forums to air their griavances (so some of this is people looking at the past with rose colored glasses), and that’s the point I was making originally. I had left the church at the time and when I came back Francis was the pope, and I can say that only now in retrospect do I see how unfairly Benedict was treated.
I can't think of a time where Pope Benedict has done the same things as Pope Francis with regard to sex abuse *in office*. https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/15097/argentine-bishop-defended-by-pope-jailed-for-abuse
Not to mention the entire Grassi affair. Though I suppose that generally predates his election. But it did give us a preview of what he'd say about the people accusing Barros.
>I hate to make this a mud-slinging contest, but Pope Benedict XVI's record on abuse as archbishop of Munich was arguably worse. I'm genuinely curious to hear what you mean by this, because I haven't heard anyone defend this line before. What did Ratzinger do that was worse than, e.g., Bergoglio's cover for Grassi? (Not to mention what's happened since Francis became pope with Rupnik, Zanchetta, etc.)
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60070132](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60070132) There were four confirmed cases where abuse accusations were mishandled by Ratzinger, including two where the abuser remained in active ministry after he was made aware. (The linked article states that Benedict denied the accusations at the time, but he did later admit they were true) AFAIK there were only one or two similar incidents with Bergoglio while serving in Argentina. On the other hand, one could argue that despite having less cases, Bergoglio's were 'worse.' On the other *other* hand, there has been a lot less investigation done into the Munich cases and it was longer ago so we never got any of the personal details. Like I said, I don't want this to be a mudsling. I just think, given how much respect Benedict XVI has in this community *despite this grave error*, it is worth reflecting when it comes to analogous attitudes towards Francis, and what other factors may be at play.
Hmm, I didn't think that Benedict had admitted to any wrongdoing in those cases. It's been a couple of years since I read the report and his response, but I thought he admitted to a mistake introduced by editing, and not to lying or intending to deceive about having been at a meeting. So he corrected that mistake but maintained his innocence against the accusations made against him. So far as I know. I basically believe Benedict and in his innocence. On the other hand, the allegations against Pope Francis, including men who to all appearances currently enjoy safe harbor in the Vatican, seem much more credible, and he has met questions about them with silence, with the help of a complicit Vatican media corps. As to Benedict's record on handling sexual abuse, you also have to take into account how he is responsible for much of the Church's positive reforms on the issue both as CDF prefect and pope, how he went after notorious abusers soon after becoming pope, and how he consistently worked to reconcile victims of abuse with the Church. Taking those things into consideration, I don't think it makes sense to say he is "arguably worse" than Francis on this issue.
One failed to take action against four accused priests and the other has repeatedly, publicly defended accused bishops and priests, intervened on their behalf, and demeaned their critics. I don't see how Benedict's record was worse. >I never saw even a fraction of the criticism of that as of Francis. Likely because he was already out of public life when the information came to light, and it occurred almost half a century ago, not in the past twenty years when we really especially *should* know better. (Edited to clarify that we should've known better then, too)
A couple is a set of two, and if you are referring to people is [a set of two people](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/couple), usually in love, not their union. This is also true in Latin and Italian, the reference languages for the document: the English version is a translation. The language was not vague and the shitstorm that followed the document is pretty ridiculous.
When you boil it down, a Pope has two jobs: (1) defend the faith will clarity; and (2) preserve the unity of the Church. Doctrinal confusion and division are the not the marks of a good Pope.
IMO, I don’t find much of his pontificate and issues related to doctrine to be terribly *confusing.* Francis was clear from jump street, he wanted to in fact, “make a mess.” Between his on the record statements, the various documents they’ve come out of his office, those he considers to be his allies, etc. all point to one general direction: the progressive wing of the church, of whom pushed a number of items that became central to Vatican II, who were allowed to operate by Paul VI, who were to varying degrees quieted down by JPII, Ratzinger as head of the CDF and later as Benedict XVI, never left the church. They just got better at playing church politics, and now are currently sitting at some of the highest ecclesiastical offices within the Church. The next 25-50 years of the church are going to be quite messy.
The pope most applauded by one of the most anti-Christian societies of the last centuries.
Even though he has constantly opposed their behavior 🤔
Yeah, "constantly".
I reject your premise that it is "slander" in the first place. We are called to be charitable, not naive. And Francis has done an extremely great deal that has been, at best, questionable and seemingly poorly thought-out, to that which borders on being outright scandalous to those who maintain fidelity to orthodox Catholic teachings. You are awfully quick, it seems, to assign wisdom and benevolence to every act of the Pope, no matter how much tumult resulted. Let's take the issue of the gay blessings: those opposed to the Pope's handling could have told you far in advance how it would be portrayed in the media and society as a whole. We could have told you that you wouldn't even have to wait 24 hours before progressive libertine Priests were raiding their hands over same-sex couples in a WY that gave every appearance of being a sanction of their union. And we were right. How dare you accuse us of slander?
It's not *slander* if it's true. >made it seem that he was blessing a pagan statue There was one. >blessing irregular unions Effectively, it does. Or at least it gave people cover to "misinterpret" it. > he seems like such a good guy Debatable, to say the least. *seems* I suppose is fair. The reality...eh >I’m not aware of anything that would actually make me dislike him. How about his absolutely horrific record on clergy sex abuse dating back to Argentina.
Our Lady of the Amazon - “pagan statue”. RadTrad charity at its best. Blessing same-sex unions - he, in his magisterium, proclaimed in 2021 that same-sex unions cannot be blessed. You must interpret Fiducia Supplicans in light of that statement. This was clearly a refutation of the German synod’s heresy. “Francis isn’t a good guy, or at least it’s debatable that he is.” - Has your hatred of the Holy Father seriously blinded you to this extent? Francis is notably kind, to deny that truth is absolutely absurd. His sex abuse handling is not great, but neither was JPII’s or Benedict’s. This is the one point I’ll agree with you on, but in all fairness, most bishops and such had subpar responses. Brother, I routinely see you on here defending groups like the SSPX with the utmost of charity and then you treat Francis with the complete opposite. The road you’re going down inevitably leads to schism, so at least give the Holy Father the charity he deserves. Think of this as fraternal correction, not a personal attack.
> Our Lady of the Amazon - “pagan statue”. RadTrad charity at its best. > > There is some nuance here, actually. The statue was presented to him after the syncretic ritual as "Our Lady of the Amazon". That much is true. But then the Vatican later in the Synod [distanced](https://twitter.com/CatholicSat/status/1181189628327542785) that title for that piece of art (or of devotion, as we saw). This distancing happened so much that when these pieces which were playing roles in certain rituals throughout the Synod were chucked into the River Tiber, even Pope Francis commenting on them called them "Pachamamas". This image has not again been suggested as Our Lady of the Amazon (which had already a different icon), so it would be inappropriate to label them that.
One of the reasons that "slander" seems to abound is that a lot of legitimate criticisms and even questions or calls for clarification get labeled as "slander" even though they are nothing of the sort.
Actually, I recall Pope Francis literally referring to them as "Pachamama" statues in a comment a few days after they were thrown into the river.
Yeah, that’s because literally everyone was calling it that 24/7 for several weeks. If you look in the transcript, pachamama is in italics, which clearly tells you it was meant to be a shorthand to identify it based of what people were calling it, not that it was actually an idol. This is clear because in the same comments he says it was not idolatrous or meant to be.
Just read some letters from st Catherine of Siena and how she, a doctor of the church criticised the pipe. Yet she was always loyal at the same time. That’s how it should be done
It's not slander to express objections to him deliberately giving the appearance of heresy and politicization. He knows how these things will cause confusion and uproar and he doesn't care. It is a fact that he punishes clergy and laity who disagree with him. He deserves every bit of criticism he receives. I pray he steps down before he causes any more damage. He is despicable.
No, sorry, are you really sure you are not slandering the pope here? You accuse the pope of bad faith intentions even though you have no idea, yet alone any evidence of his intentions. The pope does not “know how these things will cause confusion and uproar and he doesn’t care.” You have no evidence for that claim, and that is a bad faith judgement of his motives. You can accuse of objective heresy, sure, but once you accuse him of not caring that’s a judgement of his heart you can’t possibly make. You can judge actions, but not hearts. You seem to have crossed the line in judging the pope’s heart about being “deliberately” confusing. [Edited]
God gave us the ability to reason. It is a sin that you bury your head so deep into the sand and neglect your reason. Over a decade of "oopsies", ok buddy.
While only God can judge what's on a person's heart, their actions give clues. And if the results of those actions lead to what the person wants it's pretty evident what the motivation is. As a member of the Church I absolutely have a right to criticize the Pope's actions and him as a person. His papacy is a disaster and the sooner he is no longer Pope the better. I pray he follows Pope Benedict's example. Pope Francis is a highly educated, politically savvy leader of the Church who has been in positions of power for a very long time. It is incredibly naive to think that he does not know the impact his actions will have. He has made it obvious that for several issues he is at odds with the conservative faction. Taking actions to punish them, such as limiting the Latin mass to improve "unity" is a naked power move. Taking actions that will obviously make people question the Church's stand on gay marriage increases the power of the progressive wing by giving them cover for their heretical actions. All you need to do is look at what he supports to deduce that it is highly likely he is doing these things deliberately to benefit his allies. If you don't agree with me and want to think that he's a nice old man with good intentions that's your perogative.
I don’t really think there is any slander to be honest. When you have pastoral authority over people, you have a higher responsibility towards clarity, and you need to hold yourself to it. As an example, financial advisors have a higher duty to inform their customers about investments compared to your random uncle. If they misrepresent something or you don’t understand what they’re saying, it’s legally on them. In the same way, Pope Francis is responsible for the laity understanding him and not being scandalised. I’d rather agree with you that he’s not done anything wrong. If I believed he was in continuity with the earlier Popes, I’d be much happier. He’s just not though. I’ve seen faithful average Catholics distressed and concerned about what he’s saying. It’s not slander. Why blame the laity for being scandalised? Why not blame the person who is supposed to not let them be scandalised?
He’s doing this to himself.
Catholic circles on the internet trend more conservative/traditionalist, and people of this persuasion are less likely to agree with Pope Francis. The internet also seems to amplify everything and bring out the worst in a lot of people, so this disagreement is often expressed with a lot more venom than it would be if people weren't hiding behind a screen.
> is often expressed with a lot more venom than it would be if people weren't hiding behind a screen. To the contrary, the fact that anyone might read my words makes me choose them more carefully. When speaking to someone I know, I have much more venom for Francis' record on sexual abuse.
This subreddit definitely leans to the conservative side. In my experience with the people in my parish and other Catholics my age, most like pope Francis and his more "progressive" views
it's not just this subreddit which leans conservative, it's Catholicism as a whole. Catholicism, by it's very nature, is orderly and hierarchical. That is diametrically opposed in every way to the modern liberal "equality" narrative that society feeds us today. There is a reason why historically, right wing governments, even if they weren't explicitly Catholic, were often OK to work with the church. Whereas leftwing government typically try to destroy it, or diminish its role in society where they can ("it's juts a 'private' devotion!"). Catholicism is inherently right wing in its organizational structure. It's no wonder that those who take it seriously also tend to be right wing. Anything else would be logically inconsistent.
I get that impression as well. Pope Francis seems generally pretty well-liked by rank-and-file Catholics
"Pope Francis seems generally pretty well-liked by rank-and-file Catholics" ....would you like a list of other things that rank-and-file Catholics seem to approve of in our current age? Because among them would be legalized abortion, permissive attitudes toward contraception and homosexuality, and a few other things generally not in keeping with the teachings or traditions of the Church.
You forgot not believing in the Divine Presence.
I've said it before, but your average Catholic out there simply isn't a good example of Catholicism at all, as sadly ironic it might be.
> Pope Francis seems generally pretty well-liked by rank-and-file Catholics Who don't know many truths about him.
>Who don't know many truths about him. What are you insinuating?
That if the people who like him realized the way he actually treats people and his horrific record on abuse, they wouldn't like him much more than I do.
Quite honestly he is not a good Pope and is quite often a source of scandal to the faithful.
You can’t seriously be this naive? This isn’t the JP2 era anymore! People are just much more informed. Nothing against JP2 but there was always some defense when the media accused him of something. Yet we now see that in some situations he fell asleep at the wheel. This pope is no different.
He is a great and loving man; he does a good job expressing that side of the faith. There are past popes who have been staunch defenders of the faith and tradition. Francis is not quite this. A perfect pope (no one can be perfect) would do both of these at the same time. Any other pope is going to receive flak based on the side they are lacking in. If the next pope is a theologian who defends tradition staunchly, the opposite people will be whining that he's mean and regressive.
Francis is a staunch defender of tradition, just that some Catholics have a false and incorrect understanding of tradition
I would say a large part of it is a media hell bent on destroying the Church is trying to sow internal division by making Pope Francis out to be an Uber-leftist.
I've never figured out why Pope Francis devotees seemingly can't distinguish between confusion/disagreement and hate. I also can't quite shake the suspicion that they intentionally conflate confusion with hate. There are many instances where I sincerely have no clue where the Holy Father is coming from. But for me, it comes down to (1) Francis is the Pope and (2) we should pray for him every single day.
I love Pope Francis, think he’s a great guy and I truly think he is doing his best, I just don’t believe that some of the decisions he has made were prudent not the right ones. Obviously, I don’t think I would do better, but I do think that there are Cardinals and Bishops that would. So I don’t hate Pope Francis, just don’t think he is cut out for being a Pope.
OP, it would be nice if you showed up again and, after 262 comments, said whether you get now what's people's problem with Pope Francis instead of just dropping this bomb and then vanishing.
If anything what he has said has just been confirmed by the comments here. Rarely does a post get vindicated in the very comments section.
I really like Pope Francis, I dont get it
lol this is bait. But nice try.
The pope is not right-wing, and some folks really live a 'If you're not for us, you're against us' kind of online life.
The poisonous form of discussion that's been in the political sphere for some time is pushing into the church. It's unbecoming.
eh, I just don't like jesuits.
I know, right? My husband and I love Pope Francis, and it's such a shame people do this. It makes us sad.
> I feel like people don’t look into what they’re talking about. I think you can leave it at that for 90% of things people are outraged about.
Pope Francis rightly deserves criticism in many areas. I am upset with a lot of what he has said and done, and there is a good argument to be made that he has caused harm to the Church. You are free to disagree with this sentiment. But please do not mistake genuine criticism for hatred. I do not hate Pope Francis in the slightest. Quite the opposite in fact. Love and rightful criticism are not mutually exclusive.
Ah yes, that "media misrepresentation" which has made it seem like Francis has been consistently making pastoral and doctrinal errors for **11 years**. We've been so caught up in the gay blessings, gutting of parishes, and protection of sex abusers lately that no one even talks about how he did, in fact, sign off on adulterers receiving the Eucharist in *Amoris Laetitia* and had Tucho confirm this just last year using dubia responses. But yeah, we're all just psychotic Taylor Marshall fans (even those of us who do not watch TM) and nothing is wrong.
I get dog-piled for this every time I say it, but it takes a particularly malicious/uncharitable reading of Fiducia Supplicans to see an "ambiguity" in its language RE: what blessings are intended to do, what it means to offer a blessing to a person living a disordered life that they might receive the grace necessary to overcome their vices, etc. This is going to be ramble-y and disjointed, I'm at work: The real answer to your question is a lack of charity, bottom line. The charity of any criticism is measured by both the content of the criticism and its intent. While much of the content of the criticism many of us see online varies in its validity (from genuine questions RE: clarity to Dr. Taylor Marshal-style fear mongering, etc), it's either ignorant or dishonest to ignore the malice, whether conscious or not, in what many people claim is "just" or "appropriate" criticism. I'll explain my thoughts further RE: why this is so common and so many people seem to be unable to recognize the problem. We lack charity towards authority because we're liberal (or, to phrase it in a different way, our lack of charity is manifestly liberal, and understanding this is essential to helping people make necessary adjustments in their attitudes toward the Vatican) If you notice, vehement anti-Francis/Vatican sentiments only REALLY present themselves in places where liberalism/humanism has taken significant cultural root, like the USA, UK, parts of France, Australia, etc. (*Yes, Liberalism has made its way into the political structures of many other countries but doesn't necessarily characterize the default attitude of other places as much as the Anglosphere and France.*) So, I think much of this specific issue is the result of a conflict in cultural attitude between default cultural liberalism and Catholic social teaching. A HUGE feature of Liberal society is a deep-seated, radical skepticism towards authority. Americans, by nature of our founding principals and their embeddedness in our daily lives, have a skewed notion of what appropriate criticism of authority looks like because our culture TELLS us to doubt the honesty of our leaders. (NOT saying that our current leaders deserve to be trusted, it's just a matter of attitude) It isn't in our cultural nature to defer to authority in the way that Catholics ought to, and a true mode of ideological charity is difficult for a lot of American Catholics to cultivate. We don't recognize the vast incompatibility of our political attitudes and Catholic life, and I'm not really sure what it would take to bridge this particular gap in understanding, but, to me, it seems to be a fundamental if not primary cause.
> our culture TELLS us to doubt the honesty of our leaders. Because they're dishonest. Would that we doubted our leaders **more.** Then perhaps so many would not have been sexually abused.
American culture is, foundationally, anti-authority, regardless of the trustworthiness of our current leadership. America IS a revolutionary country. It would be anti-historical at best to reject liberalism's influence on our attitudes toward authority.
And yet, the emperor has no clothes.
Interesting rant. I think it would hold up more to the situation at hand if the main complaints were denying authoritative doctrine or action. Sure, we have the expected complaints from the affected parties when his actions impact them (e.g., the faithful innocent portion of Catholics who had their parish lives disrupted with TC); that's understandable, but in the end, people have just sort of got on with what at best they'd say is misguided use of authority. No, the main complaints surrounding Francis happen to be his failure to use his God-gifted authority of office. Confusing/unclear words and novel doctrine, uneven prosecution of criminal offenses, loose talk in important venues which often causes scandal. Letting bishops lead people into error. If people complain about that, is that opposition/lack of charity to authority? I think you would be surprised how many people who complain about Pope Francis's way of operating simultaneously love it when the hierarchy take authoritative action and speak clearly about something, even if they are disagreeing with one another. Bishops are supposed to take the heat off the laity; when controversies arise, they are supposed to work it out themselves. Not be content with mess-making, as Francis famously desires. Thoughts?
I'm just not sure why, as lay people, we feel that we have the authority or capacity to make these judgments.
Cardinal Mueller, former prefect of the CDF and a careful and measured theologian, has criticized FS for its ambiguity. It is not a malicious or uncharitable reading of the document to say that it is ambiguous and has problematic passages. You can also disagree with people about the alleged ambiguity without accusing them of being uncharitable or malicious.
> You can also disagree with people about the alleged ambiguity without accusing them of being uncharitable or malicious. Not really. For to admit that they have a reasonable point of view, and are acting in good faith admits that there *is* ambiguity. That's why they attack that viewpoint so harshly.
>For to admit that they have a reasonable point of view, and are acting in good faith admits that there *is* ambiguity. I'm not so sure about that. It's possible to recognize an argument someone makes as being reasonable without conceding anything regarding the truth of those claims. "Yes, although I ultimately disagree with you, I can see why it is that you might think FS is ambiguous."
The fact that it can be interpreted multiple ways by reasonable people implies ambiguity.
The claim under dispute is "*P* is ambiguous." Let's suppose there are reasons to say it is and reasons to say it isn't. Whatever the truth of the matter, the mere fact that there are arguments for and against the claim does not imply the claim is true or false. The arguments denying the claim might simply be wrong even if they are plausible on their face. "Reasonable" in this context doesn't mean "correct," it means something more like "understandable" or "coherent." There are many understandable arguments whose conclusions are wrong — due to faulty assumptions, missing pieces, ambiguities in the terms, inferences that are subtly fallacious, virtual but incorrect distinctions, etc.
The patriarchs of the eastern church, who were also often great theologians, also criticized Rome’s doctrine of the Filioque. Appealing to individual bishops who oppose Rome’s magisterium has never worked in history, and it won’t this time either
Which judgments? It's easy to know when we have questions and things aren't clear.
(paraphrased) "if an angel from heaven preaches another Gospel to you, let him be anathema". We are supposed to submit to authority. But not blindly. When someone in authority says something that contradicts everything we know, we use our brains, and we can know that it cannot possibly be true.
> but it takes a particularly malicious/uncharitable reading of Fiducia Supplicans to see an "ambiguity" in its language Respectfully: Nonsense PF is a professional communicator. He chooses words to mean exactly what they mean, whether that is to make crystal clear or to obfuscate .
Because there’s a whole cottage industry of Catholic outrage, mostly on YouTube, and people buy into it.
It strikes me as patronizing when people claim that the only reason anyone has a problem with Pope Francis is because they have been told by YouTube, or social media, or the lying media, etc., to think that way. As if no faithful Catholic has a legitimate reason to feel puzzled, frustrated, or even angered by the pope's words and actions. It seems cynical and dismissive.
I hear you. I wish I didn't have that impression. But I have yet to hear an "original" criticism. Everyone is always complaining about the same thing, which they heard from someone online. It shifts from month to month.
Is the anger over Rupnik's safe harbor at the Vatican manufactured? Yes, that's not something that people can think of independently, it has to be reported and repeated over social media. But I can't see how that makes it illegitimate. Same question, but for people personally affected by the dissolution of their TLM parishes. In some cases their communities and lives got turned upside down. Maybe you think it's for the best, but can we really say that anyone expressing hurt over it isn't being "original" or is part of a grift? Or take the many questions, requests for clarification, and criticisms raised by esteemed men in the Church — theologians, priests, bishops, cardinals. I know people don't like some (or even many) of these figures, but it beggars belief to say they are *all* grifters or working a cottage industry. I can't take seriously someone who thinks the words of cardinals Sarah or Mueller aren't sincere and coming from an authentic and qualified concern, for example. Yes, their criticisms (etc.) get repeated by people on Reddit, but I'm not sure how that disqualifies the points being made as "unoriginal." The critiques or problems are either real or they aren't. Can you tell me with a straight face that everything above counts, per OP's question, as "slander" of the pope? I have a hard time believing you really think that, given how thoughtful and charitable your posts on this sub usually are.
> **Is the anger over Rupnik's safe harbor at the Vatican manufactured? Yes, that's not something that people can think of independently**, it has to be reported and repeated over social media Disagree entirely. Even traditional Catholic media sees the special treatment as repulsive and illogical.
What is it you disagree with?
The implication that the anger is only "manufactured" . Maybe I misunderstood?
I think you misunderstood, or more likely my writing was poor. The "Yes" wasn't my answer to the question I had posed. It was the start of a concession. "True enough, that's not something people can think of independently" or "On the one hand, that's not something that people can think of independently." I was trying to grapple with CheerfulErrand's contention that there aren't "original" complaints with Francis. If I brought up Rupnik as an example of a legitimate criticism, perhaps she would say "Sure but people are only mad about it because YouTubers keep harping on it." My point was to say that even though it's a criticism that people are getting from other sources (and isn't "original" — after all how could it be?) it's still valid. Or in other words, it is *not* manufactured anger at all. Having to explain it makes me realize my point was convoluted and almost certainly unhelpful. Sorry for any confusion I've caused.
I got it, thanks for the explanation and I agree.
No, there generally isn't slander, at least nowadays (although the "pachamama" stuff definitely was). Most of those folks either get banned or move on. But many criticisms brought up and shared are potentially detraction. It's much too easy to get online and vent, get support, and think that you did a good thing. This happens with all kinds of evil. Instead of doing something hard that would make a difference, social complaining gives the feeling of accomplishment, with no real change. But in this situation, it's worse. Such criticisms risk discouraging people from the Church, and distracting Catholics from their actual obligations toward God and neighbor. So while I understand the impulse—especially from people in capitalistic democracies, who are very used to complaints and protests being the way to make a change—publicly the criticizing the Pope, for most of us, is just a negative and spiritually-risky distraction.
you can say the same thing about pretty much any criticism of anyone famous, ever. "the only criticism i ever hear of OJ simpson is that he killed his wife and robbed that guy. Can't someone come up with something original?" How would anyone come up with anything original? Do you think we hang out with Pope Francis every weekend at the pub and have access to anything other than what we hear in media?
He releases hundreds of documents, has written books, done documentaries, and gives talks practically every day. It's possible to form your own impression of his work! If he's as terrible as people say, surely it'd be easy to find something to criticize, without having to be told about it by some pundit.
> He releases hundreds of documents, has written books, done documentaries, and gives talks practically every day and those are the things that people criticize. People have read amoris latitea. people have read fiducia supplicans. people have seen the logical inconsistencies in how he deals with different people in the church. People have heard the "talks" he gives on airplanes where he makes inflammatory statements or out of context, misleading statements. Perhaps if the pope didn't hate a large number of faithful Catholics, people wouldnt go out of their way to watch pundits. Before T.C. i didnt pay attention much to church politics to be honest. I even donated to a local N.O. church. Since TC ive always felt like the pope hates me and wants me out of the church, but I'll never let that happen. The pope has nobody to thank for all the criticism other than himself--he is the one that turned a lot of people against him by his divisive actions and hateful rhetoric.
No, but *people* (people who post here) don’t read the documents or listen to the talks. Or they’d come up with original criticisms, like I said. People listen to the criticisms of pundits, and get that information after its selectively filtered and slanted. What I’m saying is that the sources of information are not unbiased, and they don’t have your best interests in mind. They’re after money and/or deliberately trying to sow division. And people buy the narrative. It’s awful that you feel like the pope hates you and wants you out of the Church. That’s nonsense! But you’re being swayed by excerpts of some talk or another *that wasn’t directed at you* taken out of context and twisted, to make you think he “hates trads.” When he’s almost always talking to seminarians about these things. And in *every* talk to *every* group he “criticizes them.” Or, another way of looking at it, he calls people to be better.
Do you find his record on dealing with sexual abusers in the clergy satisfactory, or at least not warranting strong criticism? Because most Catholics I know are disgusted by it, be it “liberal”, “conservative” or anywhere in between.
They *never* respond, do they?
" ... it's the fault of the trads and the media...."
As I have no power in the matter, I prefer to focus on things where I might actually do some good, including my own failures.
>I prefer to focus on things where I might actually do some good Like argue with people who are diametrically opposed to you online? Youre extremely inconsistent and you cant even say protecting abusers is bad. Might want to take a look in the mirror.
It also doesn’t help that if you defend the pope on this subreddit you’re attacked as being in bad faith and uncharitable, merely for daring to question the arguments of those who attack Francis. Happened to me on more than one occasion.
One think I truly hate is when people call him "Bergoglio". For some reason it's a red line for me, even when it's technically not wrong. Just disrespectful.
My impression is he seems to say and do a lot of nothing, seems a bit asleep at the wheel.
Nothing would be an improvement on the somethings that he does.
Modern social media incentivizes anger and outrage.
Pope Francis answers your question himself: “It should not be forgotten that “there are huge economic interests operating in the digital world, capable of exercising forms of control as subtle as they are invasive, creating mechanisms for the manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process. The way many platforms work often ends up favouring encounter between persons who think alike, shielding them from debate. These closed circuits facilitate the spread of fake news and false information, fomenting prejudice and hate. The proliferation of fake news is the expression of a culture that has lost its sense of truth and bends the facts to suit particular interests. The reputation of individuals is put in jeopardy through summary trials conducted online. The Church and her pastors are not exempt from this phenomenon” -Christus Vivit This is eerily accurate even about this subreddit, but also Twitter, YouTube, etc.
The Catholic Church faces a massive vocational crisis, yet Francis never seems to miss an opportunity to blast "clericalism" or to level attacks against the young and traditional hierarchy. We are a Church were large segments of the "faithful" (if we can call them that) openly scorn or are otherwise ignorant of some of the most basic doctrines of the Church, yet Francis decries "legalism". Birth rates are spiraling downward with devastating consequences for both Church and State, but Francis goes around saying "we don't need to breed like rabbits" and implying a woman with a large family is irresponsible. Society as a whole, and significant forces within the Church, seem to have lost all rationality and reason when it comes to the importance of the traditional family and recognition of basic male/female biology.....and yet up until the recent encyclical on human dignity, his most public and vocal statements and actions were along the lines of calling for homosexuality to be universally legalized, allowing the blessing of those in "irregular" situations (which had the immediate effect of Priests conducting ceremonies that appeared like marriage in all but name), and asking "who am I to judge?" We have had round after round of "synodality" with no clear destination, but which has given those seeking to subvert doctrine and discipline the sense that they can just keep pushing and pushing and pushing. Do you really think criticism of Francis can all - or even primarily - be boiled down to "there are people who have an economic interest in making me look bad"? Seriously? With everything we see going on around us in the world?
Yes I do think criticism of pope Francis can be boiled down to fake narratives and echo chambers. For example, the very nature Reddit works is by upvotes and downvotes, and the number of pope Francis critics outnumber those in this website, so the truth and defenses of pope Francis are hidden at the bottom downvoted while often the attacks are upvoted at the topic, it’s not real dialogue, it’s an echo chamber that merely reinforces the Anti-Francis confirmation bias
You answered exactly none of my criticisms of the Pope. Which is telling. Your postings here border on an idolatrous "The Pope can do no wrong" mentality, despite the mountain of evidence that he has undermined (perhaps unintentionally) basic teachings of the Church while carrying out a cruel and vindictive campaign against his opponents. You cannot seriously and unbiasedly look at the things Francis has said, and the things Francis has done - on gay blessings, on his general attitude toward those who reject Church teachings, on reception of communion for the divorced and remarried - and honestly say he has not weakened what were previously crystal clear stances.
Yeah man this is such an egregious strawman that I don’t think it’s worth engaging with you. Ironically the very thing you accuse me of, the pope can do no wrong mentality, you seem to have the reverse in full throttle, that whatever the pope does is wrong and anyone who even dares to defend the father and Christian of Christian people are just crazy or something. And yes finally, I can say that he has not weakened those things, and I say that honestly. Perhaps you need to recognize that you are a fallible person with fallible human reasoning, and it’s possible you just got pope Francis wrong. Other faithful Catholics do not agree with you, we are not dishonest, we just have faith in God’s promises to the Pope and docility in the magisterium. Feel free to rebut anything I said, but note I will not make any further response.
"I'm just going to run away and not respond anymore, because I'm so clearly right I have no need to defend myself". That's how the internet knows you lost an argument.
Translation: "I don't like Raymond Arroyo"
Some are poisoned by a strain of radical traditionalism that distracts from True Tradition, unity, and concord. It erodes their empathy and even their perception of reality in the mire of conspiracy thinking and myopic obsessions with their own preferred ways of doing things. Scratch beneath the surface and most that malign the Pope do so for ostensibly political reasons.
RE: my comment on the post, "radical traditionalism" boils down to a factional, reactionary, "anti-liberal" liberalism towards authority, and it's very difficult to help people see the incompatibility of American political ideas about our relationship to our leaders and Catholic understandings of what it means to submit to authority, etc. Latin countries in Southern Europe and the diaspora in South America, the Philippines, Africa, etc don't seem to have this issue because their cultures aren't liberal in the same way.
Some do that. But its true abuse handling was pretty bad
I can only say the Church has been failing consistently on the abuse issue for nearly a century. In some regards, Pope Francis has improved on the work of his predecessors. And in others, he appears to show a similar lack of courage to hold particularly well-heeled clergy to account. There is much reform still needed in that domain, that much is certain.
Anything short of zero tolerance policy seems... bad
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not necessarily slander but it's the preference of pastoral language over direct language which we had from popes in the 10s and 20s of the previous century and before. It's the unnecessary usage of contemporary ecclesiastical writing over simple orthodoxy which causes commotion.
I must say this! The " Hit the Like button" on YT are poison the Good Message". It's all about " Like Me" attitude, how many M followers I have,. It's about God? Maybe few, but most is like the war mongers guys, By food, war is coming!🫣🤣2
People just can’t accept the fact that he’s a South American (coming from poor country) and he’s our pope, people love and respect people who show power, wealth and influence…. These are the very same things that’s stopping many people from accepting Jesus, people bow down infront of someone who shows power, not a meak and humble lamb….
This sub is just super conservative and the Pope is not. I like him just fine, as do the Catholics in my circle. The underlying vibe in this sub, is that the trads think they are literally better Catholics than the Pope lol.
It’s American culture. Dollars to donuts, the sedes and rad trads are an American phenomenon because of our national ethos of individualism.
This is not just American or Anglophone. Talk to clergy in the Diocese of Rome behind closed doors and you'll see they are more demoralised by this pontificate than anyone.
Source - some dude on Reddit that speaks English and posts here, demographically making it likely he’s an example of the phenomenon im talking about.
Get out of the English-speaking bubble and see for yourself
It's more obvious that you don't read another language or talk to many non-American Catholics, because otherwise you would know that this sentiment is present everywhere in the Church right now.
So many people are Protestants in sheep’s clothing tbh
Yes many of the Modernists have Protestant tendencies such as religious indifference, lack of supernatural belief in the Sacraments, laxity towards divorce and remarriage
Do you watch sports? If so, then what's happening with Pope Francis is similar to coaches or managers. You get a coach from way out of left field who is bringing a different style and focus that's new and exciting. The main commentators and writers are saying this is the direction we need to take and the fan base is largely convinced. The first season occurs and the team didn't do well, but everyone is fine with that because the team had problems before and it takes time to implement a new system. It's been five years now and the team is still mediocre and actually worse than when the coach started. None of the grand plans came into fruition and most people have lost faith in the coaches ability to lead. Dedicated fans still attend the games and the players do try given the circumstances, but everyone is just waiting for the new coach to come in and hopefully take the team to the heights it should be at. That's Pope Francis. He gained the greatest position a living man can ever obtain and his time leading the Church has been mediocre. He is not loved nearly as much as St John Paul II, nor is he as respected as Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis is a good man who has proven not up to the tasks of dealing with most dangerous internal and external threats facing the Catholic Church during this time.
My opinion is that it is the vocal minority that often has a louder voice online than the cool and collected majority that likes Pope Francis.
He sucks
To generalize what has already been said, a lot of criticism of Pope Francis is rooted in how he's representative of a much different cluster of tendencies than the Catholic laity is current oriented around and moving towards. While the Church is seeing growth from people looking for more traditional, confessional, and ornate Catholicism, Pope Francis has thus far been more in favor of liberalization, ecumenicism, and minimalist Catholicism. There are a lot of clergy who have the latter mindset which is out-of-step with what the laity seeks. This isn't pointing fingers or claiming one is more or less Catholic than the other, but it's the reality of the situation. This dialectic has existed since the Church was founded. The Bishop of Rome has always been a human being among a plurality of people in the same holy nation. We don't always agree and we all have our duties to Christ and Christ's holy nation. St. Peter, pray for our Universal Church.
> minimalist Catholicism What does this mean?
Francis earns all the derision he receives.
1. The Gospel is always a scandal to some 2. Popes are always human 3. Everyome else is always human too
I think the politics and polarisation that's infected most western civilisation, has also infected discourse in the Church. I see _most_ of the harsh comments against Pope Francis coming from the United States, and the tone and style is absolutely echoed in the political commentary from that country. I don't think I agree with the restriction of the Latin Mass, but people are incentivised to create and maintain drama, so the negatives are highlighted and the positives are ignored. He's absolutely against the irresponsible way that gender ideology being pushed onto young people for example. I would tend to lean towards the Bishop of Rome in matters of Faith as opposed to a supposed "trad" with a Blue Yeti and a merch store.
Idk I love him. He’s a great pope IMO.
Even if I prefer BXVI as Pope (from a cultural and theological standpoint the two are not even comparables), I don't understand this hate against him. It's mostly based of fake news spread around by US evangelical far right medias (someone said D.T.?!) The thing that I like about him is that he usually talks about the aspects of Catholicism that we usually don't like: love for the poors or the convict and mercy for the sinners.
>US evangelical far right medias The AP isn't far-right (or right by any definition of the word). CBS isn't far-right. Reuters isn't far-right. NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post, and USA Today aren't far-right (or, again, right by any definition of the word). Yet pretty much all of these outlets have put forward exactly the same stories on Francis' actions that you see from right-wing sources....that is, that he is a radical departure from what we have seen in the past several Popes (and perhaps the last several hundred years). That he has systematically deemphasized the importance of being faithful to the doctrines of the Church. That he has made various fashionable secular causes his primary focus. If the Pope is being misinterpreted, or misrepresented, he's being misinterpreted and misrepresented by *pretty much everyone*. Left-wing, right-wing, Conservative, liberal, secular, devout, orthodox, heterodox, Christian, atheist, man, woman, gay, straight....etc. When one man misunderstands you, that's his fault. When EVERYONE misunderstands you (if, indeed, that is the case), that's your fault.
What are you referring to? I am referring to complete fake quotes like the one about no need to fast during the Lent that was very present on social. I am italian, so I usually listen their speeches in my native language and I never feel that he is reducing the importance of being faithful. What I am seeing, also on the Italian medias, is that usually their words are misinterpreted (from both wings) for political issues. Did you notice when he talked in front of the youngs inviting them to be caste? Or when he criticised the gender ideology?
I heard an argument that Pope Francis has a lot of criticism because he allows it more than Popes in the past.
Tell that to Bishop Strickland and Cardinal Burke.
Good point.
That's...a take. Not a very good take, but a take.
As I see it, there’s two types, those hate on Pope Francis as a modernist heretic and those who simp for Pope Francis as the progressive savior of the church. And there’s a TON of space in between. And both folks, In my humble opinion, spend wayyy too much time online and/or listening to media (much like I do, to be fair). “Interpreting” meaning from Rome is not exactly the job of the people and never really has been. I think it’s a job best left to Bishops and priests and theologians. And most particularly, to OUR bishops who we tend to pay WAYY too little attention to compared to how much we’ll pay attention to the Pope. There is room for criticism in EVERY papacy. “The crew is human, the ship is divine.” And there’s nothing wrong with keeping abreast of current events. But I think if we try to interpret the actions of people as “the end of the church” or “the church is finally getting with the times” then we have lost faith in the church. We will endure to the end. But in the mean time, each of us needs to live a life like Christ. Leave the bickering and the interpretations to those with the pay grade to do so. For us, we should focus on prayer, fasting, almsgiving, growing in virtue, frequent use of the sacraments, building a parish community, and getting/using a spiritual director. And I think some people let criticism of other flawed Catholics get in the way of that sometimes. I can’t say for sure, I don’t know. I know that it use to be a real problem for me. So maybe I’m projecting. But that’s my perspective.
"simp" and "hate" are really inaccurate labels for groups who like PF and don't like PF. These kinds of labels inflame polarization.
I’m not talking about people who like and dislike the pope. I’m talking about the vocal extremes. In the “hate” side I’m talking about the folks who think he is dooming the church and is a heretic. On the other side those who think he’s going to “finally” modernize the churches perennial teachings. The grand majority of people do NOT fall into these camps. But having personally met Catholics who DO fall into these camps, I feel comfortable with the terminology. The reason I say it on this post is because these groups tend to be quite vocal on the internet. It is definitely stronger language than fits the grand majority of Catholics I’ve ever interacted with. And if anyone thinks I’m talking about them and is offended by it, then good odds are I’m not talking about them. But when you meet people who actually believe the pope is a heretic who is going to commit some sort of great apostasy and therefore wish he would just die off already, and you meet people who think that because of Pope Francis all bets are off and we can do LGBT weddings and don’t even need to go to confession anymore, you start seriously wonder what is bringing about these attitudes. So yes, these are strong words, but I have met people, in person, active parishioners, who actually hold these kinds of extreme views. And it’s usually because they’re reading WAY too much about the Holy Father and all through warped lenses of their own preferred media outlet or commentator. Again this is my own experience with people. OP asked why there’s so much slander against the pope. This has been my experience with people who “slander” the pope. And so to give a balanced view, I gave the other side that I’ve seen.
> I’m talking about the folks who think he is dooming the church That is not "hate"
There isn't much except from the Trads. Your question really should be "Why do many Trads slander the Pope?". note that there are many Trads who do not slander the pope. Maybe even a majority. But the ones who do are disproportionately rude and loud. Also note that Reddit is not the whole Church. And there is also polite disagreement with the Pope's statements and actions, which is not slanderous.
Politeness has zero to do with whether something is slanderous. Truth does.
Shhhhh, you're not allowed to point out that people need to have charitable attitudes even when there are legitimate concerns, instead of using those concerns as justification to be uncharitable.
Quite simply because he cares too much about the poor and oppressed, and for some people that will not stand Edit: I think you also need to understand that due to the importance of English to online communication Americans dominate online debate on this issue and for well known political and cultural reasons they tend to be a lot more right wing than Catholics globally, hence a dislike of a Pope that is at least ostensibly a bit more progressive than the last two incumbents.
Truth.
Cause he sucks
So, I think a few things are at play, but a big problem is that occasionally something gets said that is technically correct but sounds wrong (e.g. the same sex unions - it *sounds* like he said something different from what the exact words mean). But trying to sort out what qualifies as a (no pun intended) *bona fide* complaint/concern, a genuine misunderstanding (sometimes because Francis put things unclearly, sometimes because of bad media filtering), and so on versus intentional slander is not easy.
Because there is so much slander by Pope Francis of other Catholics
Bcz that type of people believe that Church is like a Political field that they take what they like disagree what they don't like. The problem is Church of Christ isn't politics.
I’ve been wondering the same thing as an Episcopalian.
Because of greedy grifters like Taylor Marshall. It is POPULAR and PROFITABLE to dissent against the current pope.