I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:12 am

wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:59 am
+JMJ+

Truth and Myth [In-Depth, Analysis, Opinion]
Image

In my post on “Tribalist Catholicism,” I mentioned, in passing, the French political theorist Georges Sorel (1847-1922). As a follow-up, I’d like to say something more about Sorel, whose thought is particularly useful for understanding this moment in the Church when social media and popular resentments have formed a particularly toxic mix.

Georges Sorel was a retired engineer who, at around the beginning of the twentieth century, became a political analyst, polemicist, and proponent of a new form of post-Nietzschean socialist politics based on a rejection of both gradualist progressivism and utopianism. He preached a gospel of ‘action,’ and aligned himself, at different times, with political movements as varied as revolutionary syndicalism, the integral nationalism of Charles Maurras and the Action Française, and Russian bolshevism. The British author Wyndham Lewis, writing in 1926, referred to Sorel as “the key to all contemporary political thought” (Lewis, 119), and the German political philosopher Carl Schmitt, in a footnote to The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (1926), agreed with Lewis’s appraisal (88n). Sorel was a major influence on Benito Mussolini and Italian fascism, and echoes of Sorel are still heard in the discourse of political extremists — from black bloc anarchists to alt-right provocateurs.

Image
Georges Sorel (1847-1922) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Sorel considered himself a moralist, but he was not a moral philosopher of the usual Catholic sort, concerned with delineating an objective moral order. The values he championed were the heroic values of the pagan warrior: honour, courage, self-sacrifice, ruthlessness, and strength of will. He despised dialogue, cooperation, and compromise, all of which he saw as symptomatic of a decadent bourgeois civilization. Instead, he self-consciously advocated the use of apocalyptic political discourse, which paralyzes the intellect and demands immediate action.

Because Sorel’s brand of moralism was not tied to abstract political ideologies, it appealed to both revolutionaries and reactionaries. As Lewis remarked, Sorel “is the arch exponent of extreme action and revolutionary violence à outrance [to the extreme]; but he expounds this sanguinary doctrine in manuals that often, by the changing of a few words, would equally serve the forces of traditional authority, and provide them with a twin evangel of demented and intolerant class-war” (119). He was the prophet not only of intolerant class war, but also of the culture wars that are still with us today.

Sorel came from a Catholic family, and his understanding of Church history informed his understanding of socialism, and vice versa. The only Church that Sorel was interested in, however, and which he ever showed any support for, was the “Church Militant.” He valorized only those aspects of the Church that stood in stark opposition to the modern world, and his rhetoric is echoed in that of many post-Vatican II traditionalists. S.P. Rouanet eloquently describes Sorel’s attitude toward the Church:
When science was condemned as heretical, and heliocentrism and evolution were attacked as demoniacal theories, the Church kept its vitality. The issues were clear, the two fields were sharply marked, and the task to be accomplished was the destruction of the spirit of Evil. While it maintained this single-mindedness and this heroic simplicity, remaining free from crippling intellectualisms, the Church commanded the loyalty and blind obedience of the faithful. When the Church decided to yield to the liberal spirit and to tolerate evolutionism and democracy, its vitality was lost. The issues lost their clearness, the border line between the two opposing fields was blurred, and a general climate of compromise replaced the old aggressiveness. The former values of warfare and martyrdom were replaced by a prosaic belief in peaceful coexistence. (58-9)
The trend toward “compromise” was, for Sorel, embodied in Pope Leo XIII, who played a role in Sorel’s thinking comparable to the role that Pope Francis plays for some today. He saw the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) as a pernicious blueprint for a reconciliation between the Church and modern society — a model for social harmony where no harmony was possible or desirable.

The central Sorelian concept — his most significant contribution to political theory — is that of the social “myth.” In his Reflections on Violence (1908), Sorel describes social myths as ideas or clusters of ideas that function as calls for action. They are “anticipations of the future” which contain “all the strongest inclinations of a people, of a party or of a class, inclinations which recur to the mind with the insistence of instincts in all the circumstances of life; and which give an aspect of complete reality to the hopes of immediate action by which, more easily than by any other method, men can reform their desires, passions, and mental activity” (125).

[…]

There are times when Catholics are called to heroic action, but Catholics can also, as history has shown, be driven into explosions of fanaticism and hate by myths that have no relationship to the truth. We must always be on guard against such influences. We should beware of Catholic publications that thrive on scandal, that publish, day after day, misleading stories that are designed to create an atmosphere of apocalyptic dread. And we should also beware of false prophets that offer simplistic solutions — especially when these are accompanied by militaristic language, a one-sided emphasis on heroic values, and a demonization of the enemy.

Certainly, within some segments of conservative Catholicism, we can see myth-building at work, and a “body of images” (both visual and verbal) that are meant to represent the two sides of an impending war in the Church. These images and ideas, taken as clusters, are capable of inspiring almost “instinctive” responses, as we see constantly on social media. What are the images that represent ‘the enemy’? These include the “Novus Ordo” mass, effeminate priests, Pachamama, Cardinal McCarrick, liberation theology, Bishop Kräutler, modern sacred architecture, the Nouvelle théologie, Democrat Catholics, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, Saul Alinsky, “nighty night, baby,” and many more. And on the side of the heroic warriors? The TLM, Pope Pius X, the Maccabees, crusader knights, Paul rebuking Peter, the Polish teen protesting a pride parade, the destruction of the ‘Pachamama idols,’ etc. It is conceptual theatre. Consider the following description of the Catholic Identity Conference that appeared on the popular traditionalist website One Peter Five last week, which uses language that would have made even Maurras blush:
The recent Catholic Identity Conference, organized by The Remnant Newspaper, is a call for all Catholics to rise up and fight for the Faith. In days past, the heralds came to town and preached the Crusade, and our fathers left their families to “take up the cross” and die in the holy land fighting Muhammadans. In the same way, Mr. Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, has called this a “time of honor,” when Catholics must manfully arise for the honor of fighting and dying under the banner of Our Lady of Victory and Christ the King. It was his initiative of #UniteTheClans that dominated the conference, bringing together a wide variety of voices for a wholesale call to arms.
Catholic traditionalists of this type are playing with fire. They are also playing with the truth, which as Catholics we must always cleave to. Was there really idol worship at the Vatican during the Amazon synod? For the myth-builder, it doesn’t really matter. The “Pachamama” figure is useful in that it has a mythical quality; it can provide a focal-point around which to rally the troops.

[…]
Reductio ad mussolinium.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
Thunktank
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: 471 Km from the London Bridge

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Thunktank » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:34 am

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:12 am
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:59 am
+JMJ+

Truth and Myth [In-Depth, Analysis, Opinion]
Image

In my post on “Tribalist Catholicism,” I mentioned, in passing, the French political theorist Georges Sorel (1847-1922). As a follow-up, I’d like to say something more about Sorel, whose thought is particularly useful for understanding this moment in the Church when social media and popular resentments have formed a particularly toxic mix.

Georges Sorel was a retired engineer who, at around the beginning of the twentieth century, became a political analyst, polemicist, and proponent of a new form of post-Nietzschean socialist politics based on a rejection of both gradualist progressivism and utopianism. He preached a gospel of ‘action,’ and aligned himself, at different times, with political movements as varied as revolutionary syndicalism, the integral nationalism of Charles Maurras and the Action Française, and Russian bolshevism. The British author Wyndham Lewis, writing in 1926, referred to Sorel as “the key to all contemporary political thought” (Lewis, 119), and the German political philosopher Carl Schmitt, in a footnote to The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (1926), agreed with Lewis’s appraisal (88n). Sorel was a major influence on Benito Mussolini and Italian fascism, and echoes of Sorel are still heard in the discourse of political extremists — from black bloc anarchists to alt-right provocateurs.

Image
Georges Sorel (1847-1922) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Sorel considered himself a moralist, but he was not a moral philosopher of the usual Catholic sort, concerned with delineating an objective moral order. The values he championed were the heroic values of the pagan warrior: honour, courage, self-sacrifice, ruthlessness, and strength of will. He despised dialogue, cooperation, and compromise, all of which he saw as symptomatic of a decadent bourgeois civilization. Instead, he self-consciously advocated the use of apocalyptic political discourse, which paralyzes the intellect and demands immediate action.

Because Sorel’s brand of moralism was not tied to abstract political ideologies, it appealed to both revolutionaries and reactionaries. As Lewis remarked, Sorel “is the arch exponent of extreme action and revolutionary violence à outrance [to the extreme]; but he expounds this sanguinary doctrine in manuals that often, by the changing of a few words, would equally serve the forces of traditional authority, and provide them with a twin evangel of demented and intolerant class-war” (119). He was the prophet not only of intolerant class war, but also of the culture wars that are still with us today.

Sorel came from a Catholic family, and his understanding of Church history informed his understanding of socialism, and vice versa. The only Church that Sorel was interested in, however, and which he ever showed any support for, was the “Church Militant.” He valorized only those aspects of the Church that stood in stark opposition to the modern world, and his rhetoric is echoed in that of many post-Vatican II traditionalists. S.P. Rouanet eloquently describes Sorel’s attitude toward the Church:
When science was condemned as heretical, and heliocentrism and evolution were attacked as demoniacal theories, the Church kept its vitality. The issues were clear, the two fields were sharply marked, and the task to be accomplished was the destruction of the spirit of Evil. While it maintained this single-mindedness and this heroic simplicity, remaining free from crippling intellectualisms, the Church commanded the loyalty and blind obedience of the faithful. When the Church decided to yield to the liberal spirit and to tolerate evolutionism and democracy, its vitality was lost. The issues lost their clearness, the border line between the two opposing fields was blurred, and a general climate of compromise replaced the old aggressiveness. The former values of warfare and martyrdom were replaced by a prosaic belief in peaceful coexistence. (58-9)
The trend toward “compromise” was, for Sorel, embodied in Pope Leo XIII, who played a role in Sorel’s thinking comparable to the role that Pope Francis plays for some today. He saw the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) as a pernicious blueprint for a reconciliation between the Church and modern society — a model for social harmony where no harmony was possible or desirable.

The central Sorelian concept — his most significant contribution to political theory — is that of the social “myth.” In his Reflections on Violence (1908), Sorel describes social myths as ideas or clusters of ideas that function as calls for action. They are “anticipations of the future” which contain “all the strongest inclinations of a people, of a party or of a class, inclinations which recur to the mind with the insistence of instincts in all the circumstances of life; and which give an aspect of complete reality to the hopes of immediate action by which, more easily than by any other method, men can reform their desires, passions, and mental activity” (125).

[…]

There are times when Catholics are called to heroic action, but Catholics can also, as history has shown, be driven into explosions of fanaticism and hate by myths that have no relationship to the truth. We must always be on guard against such influences. We should beware of Catholic publications that thrive on scandal, that publish, day after day, misleading stories that are designed to create an atmosphere of apocalyptic dread. And we should also beware of false prophets that offer simplistic solutions — especially when these are accompanied by militaristic language, a one-sided emphasis on heroic values, and a demonization of the enemy.

Certainly, within some segments of conservative Catholicism, we can see myth-building at work, and a “body of images” (both visual and verbal) that are meant to represent the two sides of an impending war in the Church. These images and ideas, taken as clusters, are capable of inspiring almost “instinctive” responses, as we see constantly on social media. What are the images that represent ‘the enemy’? These include the “Novus Ordo” mass, effeminate priests, Pachamama, Cardinal McCarrick, liberation theology, Bishop Kräutler, modern sacred architecture, the Nouvelle théologie, Democrat Catholics, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, Saul Alinsky, “nighty night, baby,” and many more. And on the side of the heroic warriors? The TLM, Pope Pius X, the Maccabees, crusader knights, Paul rebuking Peter, the Polish teen protesting a pride parade, the destruction of the ‘Pachamama idols,’ etc. It is conceptual theatre. Consider the following description of the Catholic Identity Conference that appeared on the popular traditionalist website One Peter Five last week, which uses language that would have made even Maurras blush:
The recent Catholic Identity Conference, organized by The Remnant Newspaper, is a call for all Catholics to rise up and fight for the Faith. In days past, the heralds came to town and preached the Crusade, and our fathers left their families to “take up the cross” and die in the holy land fighting Muhammadans. In the same way, Mr. Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, has called this a “time of honor,” when Catholics must manfully arise for the honor of fighting and dying under the banner of Our Lady of Victory and Christ the King. It was his initiative of #UniteTheClans that dominated the conference, bringing together a wide variety of voices for a wholesale call to arms.
Catholic traditionalists of this type are playing with fire. They are also playing with the truth, which as Catholics we must always cleave to. Was there really idol worship at the Vatican during the Amazon synod? For the myth-builder, it doesn’t really matter. The “Pachamama” figure is useful in that it has a mythical quality; it can provide a focal-point around which to rally the troops.

[…]
Reductio ad mussolinium.
It’s no wonder I don’t remember much about Sorel. It seems to me that he was resistant to learning, lacked curiosity and remained insular.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:44 am

Thunktank wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:34 am
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:12 am
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:59 am
+JMJ+

Truth and Myth [In-Depth, Analysis, Opinion]
Image

In my post on “Tribalist Catholicism,” I mentioned, in passing, the French political theorist Georges Sorel (1847-1922). As a follow-up, I’d like to say something more about Sorel, whose thought is particularly useful for understanding this moment in the Church when social media and popular resentments have formed a particularly toxic mix.

Georges Sorel was a retired engineer who, at around the beginning of the twentieth century, became a political analyst, polemicist, and proponent of a new form of post-Nietzschean socialist politics based on a rejection of both gradualist progressivism and utopianism. He preached a gospel of ‘action,’ and aligned himself, at different times, with political movements as varied as revolutionary syndicalism, the integral nationalism of Charles Maurras and the Action Française, and Russian bolshevism. The British author Wyndham Lewis, writing in 1926, referred to Sorel as “the key to all contemporary political thought” (Lewis, 119), and the German political philosopher Carl Schmitt, in a footnote to The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (1926), agreed with Lewis’s appraisal (88n). Sorel was a major influence on Benito Mussolini and Italian fascism, and echoes of Sorel are still heard in the discourse of political extremists — from black bloc anarchists to alt-right provocateurs.

Image
Georges Sorel (1847-1922) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Sorel considered himself a moralist, but he was not a moral philosopher of the usual Catholic sort, concerned with delineating an objective moral order. The values he championed were the heroic values of the pagan warrior: honour, courage, self-sacrifice, ruthlessness, and strength of will. He despised dialogue, cooperation, and compromise, all of which he saw as symptomatic of a decadent bourgeois civilization. Instead, he self-consciously advocated the use of apocalyptic political discourse, which paralyzes the intellect and demands immediate action.

Because Sorel’s brand of moralism was not tied to abstract political ideologies, it appealed to both revolutionaries and reactionaries. As Lewis remarked, Sorel “is the arch exponent of extreme action and revolutionary violence à outrance [to the extreme]; but he expounds this sanguinary doctrine in manuals that often, by the changing of a few words, would equally serve the forces of traditional authority, and provide them with a twin evangel of demented and intolerant class-war” (119). He was the prophet not only of intolerant class war, but also of the culture wars that are still with us today.

Sorel came from a Catholic family, and his understanding of Church history informed his understanding of socialism, and vice versa. The only Church that Sorel was interested in, however, and which he ever showed any support for, was the “Church Militant.” He valorized only those aspects of the Church that stood in stark opposition to the modern world, and his rhetoric is echoed in that of many post-Vatican II traditionalists. S.P. Rouanet eloquently describes Sorel’s attitude toward the Church:
When science was condemned as heretical, and heliocentrism and evolution were attacked as demoniacal theories, the Church kept its vitality. The issues were clear, the two fields were sharply marked, and the task to be accomplished was the destruction of the spirit of Evil. While it maintained this single-mindedness and this heroic simplicity, remaining free from crippling intellectualisms, the Church commanded the loyalty and blind obedience of the faithful. When the Church decided to yield to the liberal spirit and to tolerate evolutionism and democracy, its vitality was lost. The issues lost their clearness, the border line between the two opposing fields was blurred, and a general climate of compromise replaced the old aggressiveness. The former values of warfare and martyrdom were replaced by a prosaic belief in peaceful coexistence. (58-9)
The trend toward “compromise” was, for Sorel, embodied in Pope Leo XIII, who played a role in Sorel’s thinking comparable to the role that Pope Francis plays for some today. He saw the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) as a pernicious blueprint for a reconciliation between the Church and modern society — a model for social harmony where no harmony was possible or desirable.

The central Sorelian concept — his most significant contribution to political theory — is that of the social “myth.” In his Reflections on Violence (1908), Sorel describes social myths as ideas or clusters of ideas that function as calls for action. They are “anticipations of the future” which contain “all the strongest inclinations of a people, of a party or of a class, inclinations which recur to the mind with the insistence of instincts in all the circumstances of life; and which give an aspect of complete reality to the hopes of immediate action by which, more easily than by any other method, men can reform their desires, passions, and mental activity” (125).

[…]

There are times when Catholics are called to heroic action, but Catholics can also, as history has shown, be driven into explosions of fanaticism and hate by myths that have no relationship to the truth. We must always be on guard against such influences. We should beware of Catholic publications that thrive on scandal, that publish, day after day, misleading stories that are designed to create an atmosphere of apocalyptic dread. And we should also beware of false prophets that offer simplistic solutions — especially when these are accompanied by militaristic language, a one-sided emphasis on heroic values, and a demonization of the enemy.

Certainly, within some segments of conservative Catholicism, we can see myth-building at work, and a “body of images” (both visual and verbal) that are meant to represent the two sides of an impending war in the Church. These images and ideas, taken as clusters, are capable of inspiring almost “instinctive” responses, as we see constantly on social media. What are the images that represent ‘the enemy’? These include the “Novus Ordo” mass, effeminate priests, Pachamama, Cardinal McCarrick, liberation theology, Bishop Kräutler, modern sacred architecture, the Nouvelle théologie, Democrat Catholics, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, Saul Alinsky, “nighty night, baby,” and many more. And on the side of the heroic warriors? The TLM, Pope Pius X, the Maccabees, crusader knights, Paul rebuking Peter, the Polish teen protesting a pride parade, the destruction of the ‘Pachamama idols,’ etc. It is conceptual theatre. Consider the following description of the Catholic Identity Conference that appeared on the popular traditionalist website One Peter Five last week, which uses language that would have made even Maurras blush:
The recent Catholic Identity Conference, organized by The Remnant Newspaper, is a call for all Catholics to rise up and fight for the Faith. In days past, the heralds came to town and preached the Crusade, and our fathers left their families to “take up the cross” and die in the holy land fighting Muhammadans. In the same way, Mr. Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, has called this a “time of honor,” when Catholics must manfully arise for the honor of fighting and dying under the banner of Our Lady of Victory and Christ the King. It was his initiative of #UniteTheClans that dominated the conference, bringing together a wide variety of voices for a wholesale call to arms.
Catholic traditionalists of this type are playing with fire. They are also playing with the truth, which as Catholics we must always cleave to. Was there really idol worship at the Vatican during the Amazon synod? For the myth-builder, it doesn’t really matter. The “Pachamama” figure is useful in that it has a mythical quality; it can provide a focal-point around which to rally the troops.

[…]
Reductio ad mussolinium.
It’s no wonder I don’t remember much about Sorel. It seems to me that he was resistant to learning, lacked curiosity and remained insular.
Thanks, buddy.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
Hovannes
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Posts: 26312
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Hovannes » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:11 pm

Could Sorel be considered the anti-Comte?
Or is Comte the anti-Sorel?
Those boys seem to be at opposing ends!
"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

User avatar
Thunktank
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: 471 Km from the London Bridge

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Thunktank » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:44 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:44 am
Thunktank wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:34 am
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:12 am
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:59 am
+JMJ+

Truth and Myth [In-Depth, Analysis, Opinion]
Image

In my post on “Tribalist Catholicism,” I mentioned, in passing, the French political theorist Georges Sorel (1847-1922). As a follow-up, I’d like to say something more about Sorel, whose thought is particularly useful for understanding this moment in the Church when social media and popular resentments have formed a particularly toxic mix.

Georges Sorel was a retired engineer who, at around the beginning of the twentieth century, became a political analyst, polemicist, and proponent of a new form of post-Nietzschean socialist politics based on a rejection of both gradualist progressivism and utopianism. He preached a gospel of ‘action,’ and aligned himself, at different times, with political movements as varied as revolutionary syndicalism, the integral nationalism of Charles Maurras and the Action Française, and Russian bolshevism. The British author Wyndham Lewis, writing in 1926, referred to Sorel as “the key to all contemporary political thought” (Lewis, 119), and the German political philosopher Carl Schmitt, in a footnote to The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (1926), agreed with Lewis’s appraisal (88n). Sorel was a major influence on Benito Mussolini and Italian fascism, and echoes of Sorel are still heard in the discourse of political extremists — from black bloc anarchists to alt-right provocateurs.

Image
Georges Sorel (1847-1922) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Sorel considered himself a moralist, but he was not a moral philosopher of the usual Catholic sort, concerned with delineating an objective moral order. The values he championed were the heroic values of the pagan warrior: honour, courage, self-sacrifice, ruthlessness, and strength of will. He despised dialogue, cooperation, and compromise, all of which he saw as symptomatic of a decadent bourgeois civilization. Instead, he self-consciously advocated the use of apocalyptic political discourse, which paralyzes the intellect and demands immediate action.

Because Sorel’s brand of moralism was not tied to abstract political ideologies, it appealed to both revolutionaries and reactionaries. As Lewis remarked, Sorel “is the arch exponent of extreme action and revolutionary violence à outrance [to the extreme]; but he expounds this sanguinary doctrine in manuals that often, by the changing of a few words, would equally serve the forces of traditional authority, and provide them with a twin evangel of demented and intolerant class-war” (119). He was the prophet not only of intolerant class war, but also of the culture wars that are still with us today.

Sorel came from a Catholic family, and his understanding of Church history informed his understanding of socialism, and vice versa. The only Church that Sorel was interested in, however, and which he ever showed any support for, was the “Church Militant.” He valorized only those aspects of the Church that stood in stark opposition to the modern world, and his rhetoric is echoed in that of many post-Vatican II traditionalists. S.P. Rouanet eloquently describes Sorel’s attitude toward the Church:
When science was condemned as heretical, and heliocentrism and evolution were attacked as demoniacal theories, the Church kept its vitality. The issues were clear, the two fields were sharply marked, and the task to be accomplished was the destruction of the spirit of Evil. While it maintained this single-mindedness and this heroic simplicity, remaining free from crippling intellectualisms, the Church commanded the loyalty and blind obedience of the faithful. When the Church decided to yield to the liberal spirit and to tolerate evolutionism and democracy, its vitality was lost. The issues lost their clearness, the border line between the two opposing fields was blurred, and a general climate of compromise replaced the old aggressiveness. The former values of warfare and martyrdom were replaced by a prosaic belief in peaceful coexistence. (58-9)
The trend toward “compromise” was, for Sorel, embodied in Pope Leo XIII, who played a role in Sorel’s thinking comparable to the role that Pope Francis plays for some today. He saw the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) as a pernicious blueprint for a reconciliation between the Church and modern society — a model for social harmony where no harmony was possible or desirable.

The central Sorelian concept — his most significant contribution to political theory — is that of the social “myth.” In his Reflections on Violence (1908), Sorel describes social myths as ideas or clusters of ideas that function as calls for action. They are “anticipations of the future” which contain “all the strongest inclinations of a people, of a party or of a class, inclinations which recur to the mind with the insistence of instincts in all the circumstances of life; and which give an aspect of complete reality to the hopes of immediate action by which, more easily than by any other method, men can reform their desires, passions, and mental activity” (125).

[…]

There are times when Catholics are called to heroic action, but Catholics can also, as history has shown, be driven into explosions of fanaticism and hate by myths that have no relationship to the truth. We must always be on guard against such influences. We should beware of Catholic publications that thrive on scandal, that publish, day after day, misleading stories that are designed to create an atmosphere of apocalyptic dread. And we should also beware of false prophets that offer simplistic solutions — especially when these are accompanied by militaristic language, a one-sided emphasis on heroic values, and a demonization of the enemy.

Certainly, within some segments of conservative Catholicism, we can see myth-building at work, and a “body of images” (both visual and verbal) that are meant to represent the two sides of an impending war in the Church. These images and ideas, taken as clusters, are capable of inspiring almost “instinctive” responses, as we see constantly on social media. What are the images that represent ‘the enemy’? These include the “Novus Ordo” mass, effeminate priests, Pachamama, Cardinal McCarrick, liberation theology, Bishop Kräutler, modern sacred architecture, the Nouvelle théologie, Democrat Catholics, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, Saul Alinsky, “nighty night, baby,” and many more. And on the side of the heroic warriors? The TLM, Pope Pius X, the Maccabees, crusader knights, Paul rebuking Peter, the Polish teen protesting a pride parade, the destruction of the ‘Pachamama idols,’ etc. It is conceptual theatre. Consider the following description of the Catholic Identity Conference that appeared on the popular traditionalist website One Peter Five last week, which uses language that would have made even Maurras blush:
The recent Catholic Identity Conference, organized by The Remnant Newspaper, is a call for all Catholics to rise up and fight for the Faith. In days past, the heralds came to town and preached the Crusade, and our fathers left their families to “take up the cross” and die in the holy land fighting Muhammadans. In the same way, Mr. Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, has called this a “time of honor,” when Catholics must manfully arise for the honor of fighting and dying under the banner of Our Lady of Victory and Christ the King. It was his initiative of #UniteTheClans that dominated the conference, bringing together a wide variety of voices for a wholesale call to arms.
Catholic traditionalists of this type are playing with fire. They are also playing with the truth, which as Catholics we must always cleave to. Was there really idol worship at the Vatican during the Amazon synod? For the myth-builder, it doesn’t really matter. The “Pachamama” figure is useful in that it has a mythical quality; it can provide a focal-point around which to rally the troops.

[…]
Reductio ad mussolinium.
It’s no wonder I don’t remember much about Sorel. It seems to me that he was resistant to learning, lacked curiosity and remained insular.
Thanks, buddy.
You don’t seem like the Sorel type. Then again, like I said, I’m rather ignorant if Sorel. I’m sure he was valid to a few people from time to time, but he’s rather irrelevant to me what very little I know of him. I’m I missing something of importance with him? I didn’t condone the parallel Wosbald was making in reference to you, Hugo. I was simply stating my opinion on Sorel who apparently wasn’t a snow boot inventor, who would have been more relevant to me.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

User avatar
hugodrax
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
UncleHugo the Tobbaconist
Posts: 19987
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:16 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:44 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:44 am
Thunktank wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:34 am
hugodrax wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:12 am
wosbald wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:59 am
+JMJ+

Truth and Myth [In-Depth, Analysis, Opinion]
Image

In my post on “Tribalist Catholicism,” I mentioned, in passing, the French political theorist Georges Sorel (1847-1922). As a follow-up, I’d like to say something more about Sorel, whose thought is particularly useful for understanding this moment in the Church when social media and popular resentments have formed a particularly toxic mix.

Georges Sorel was a retired engineer who, at around the beginning of the twentieth century, became a political analyst, polemicist, and proponent of a new form of post-Nietzschean socialist politics based on a rejection of both gradualist progressivism and utopianism. He preached a gospel of ‘action,’ and aligned himself, at different times, with political movements as varied as revolutionary syndicalism, the integral nationalism of Charles Maurras and the Action Française, and Russian bolshevism. The British author Wyndham Lewis, writing in 1926, referred to Sorel as “the key to all contemporary political thought” (Lewis, 119), and the German political philosopher Carl Schmitt, in a footnote to The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (1926), agreed with Lewis’s appraisal (88n). Sorel was a major influence on Benito Mussolini and Italian fascism, and echoes of Sorel are still heard in the discourse of political extremists — from black bloc anarchists to alt-right provocateurs.

Image
Georges Sorel (1847-1922) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Sorel considered himself a moralist, but he was not a moral philosopher of the usual Catholic sort, concerned with delineating an objective moral order. The values he championed were the heroic values of the pagan warrior: honour, courage, self-sacrifice, ruthlessness, and strength of will. He despised dialogue, cooperation, and compromise, all of which he saw as symptomatic of a decadent bourgeois civilization. Instead, he self-consciously advocated the use of apocalyptic political discourse, which paralyzes the intellect and demands immediate action.

Because Sorel’s brand of moralism was not tied to abstract political ideologies, it appealed to both revolutionaries and reactionaries. As Lewis remarked, Sorel “is the arch exponent of extreme action and revolutionary violence à outrance [to the extreme]; but he expounds this sanguinary doctrine in manuals that often, by the changing of a few words, would equally serve the forces of traditional authority, and provide them with a twin evangel of demented and intolerant class-war” (119). He was the prophet not only of intolerant class war, but also of the culture wars that are still with us today.

Sorel came from a Catholic family, and his understanding of Church history informed his understanding of socialism, and vice versa. The only Church that Sorel was interested in, however, and which he ever showed any support for, was the “Church Militant.” He valorized only those aspects of the Church that stood in stark opposition to the modern world, and his rhetoric is echoed in that of many post-Vatican II traditionalists. S.P. Rouanet eloquently describes Sorel’s attitude toward the Church:
When science was condemned as heretical, and heliocentrism and evolution were attacked as demoniacal theories, the Church kept its vitality. The issues were clear, the two fields were sharply marked, and the task to be accomplished was the destruction of the spirit of Evil. While it maintained this single-mindedness and this heroic simplicity, remaining free from crippling intellectualisms, the Church commanded the loyalty and blind obedience of the faithful. When the Church decided to yield to the liberal spirit and to tolerate evolutionism and democracy, its vitality was lost. The issues lost their clearness, the border line between the two opposing fields was blurred, and a general climate of compromise replaced the old aggressiveness. The former values of warfare and martyrdom were replaced by a prosaic belief in peaceful coexistence. (58-9)
The trend toward “compromise” was, for Sorel, embodied in Pope Leo XIII, who played a role in Sorel’s thinking comparable to the role that Pope Francis plays for some today. He saw the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) as a pernicious blueprint for a reconciliation between the Church and modern society — a model for social harmony where no harmony was possible or desirable.

The central Sorelian concept — his most significant contribution to political theory — is that of the social “myth.” In his Reflections on Violence (1908), Sorel describes social myths as ideas or clusters of ideas that function as calls for action. They are “anticipations of the future” which contain “all the strongest inclinations of a people, of a party or of a class, inclinations which recur to the mind with the insistence of instincts in all the circumstances of life; and which give an aspect of complete reality to the hopes of immediate action by which, more easily than by any other method, men can reform their desires, passions, and mental activity” (125).

[…]

There are times when Catholics are called to heroic action, but Catholics can also, as history has shown, be driven into explosions of fanaticism and hate by myths that have no relationship to the truth. We must always be on guard against such influences. We should beware of Catholic publications that thrive on scandal, that publish, day after day, misleading stories that are designed to create an atmosphere of apocalyptic dread. And we should also beware of false prophets that offer simplistic solutions — especially when these are accompanied by militaristic language, a one-sided emphasis on heroic values, and a demonization of the enemy.

Certainly, within some segments of conservative Catholicism, we can see myth-building at work, and a “body of images” (both visual and verbal) that are meant to represent the two sides of an impending war in the Church. These images and ideas, taken as clusters, are capable of inspiring almost “instinctive” responses, as we see constantly on social media. What are the images that represent ‘the enemy’? These include the “Novus Ordo” mass, effeminate priests, Pachamama, Cardinal McCarrick, liberation theology, Bishop Kräutler, modern sacred architecture, the Nouvelle théologie, Democrat Catholics, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, Saul Alinsky, “nighty night, baby,” and many more. And on the side of the heroic warriors? The TLM, Pope Pius X, the Maccabees, crusader knights, Paul rebuking Peter, the Polish teen protesting a pride parade, the destruction of the ‘Pachamama idols,’ etc. It is conceptual theatre. Consider the following description of the Catholic Identity Conference that appeared on the popular traditionalist website One Peter Five last week, which uses language that would have made even Maurras blush:
The recent Catholic Identity Conference, organized by The Remnant Newspaper, is a call for all Catholics to rise up and fight for the Faith. In days past, the heralds came to town and preached the Crusade, and our fathers left their families to “take up the cross” and die in the holy land fighting Muhammadans. In the same way, Mr. Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, has called this a “time of honor,” when Catholics must manfully arise for the honor of fighting and dying under the banner of Our Lady of Victory and Christ the King. It was his initiative of #UniteTheClans that dominated the conference, bringing together a wide variety of voices for a wholesale call to arms.
Catholic traditionalists of this type are playing with fire. They are also playing with the truth, which as Catholics we must always cleave to. Was there really idol worship at the Vatican during the Amazon synod? For the myth-builder, it doesn’t really matter. The “Pachamama” figure is useful in that it has a mythical quality; it can provide a focal-point around which to rally the troops.

[…]
Reductio ad mussolinium.
It’s no wonder I don’t remember much about Sorel. It seems to me that he was resistant to learning, lacked curiosity and remained insular.
Thanks, buddy.
You don’t seem like the Sorel type. Then again, like I said, I’m rather ignorant if Sorel. I’m sure he was valid to a few people from time to time, but he’s rather irrelevant to me what very little I know of him. I’m I missing something of importance with him? I didn’t condone the parallel Wosbald was making in reference to you, Hugo. I was simply stating my opinion on Sorel who apparently wasn’t a snow boot inventor, who would have been more relevant to me.
:lol:

I'm not the Sorel type, but I am becoming more and more insular as I age.

I've told you before you reset me. You did this morning, too, whether intentionally or not. I am starting to lack curiosity, too.
Notre Dame de Paris, priez pour nous y comprise les Jesuites.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:34 pm

+JMJ+

Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 91 / pg 91 / pg 91 / pg 91 / pg 91 / pg 91 / pg 92 / pg 92



ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
Hovannes
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Posts: 26312
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Hovannes » Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:59 pm

"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:23 pm

+JMJ+

Panel ponders Pope, liberalism, nationalism, and not burying the Gospel’s lede [In-Depth]
Image
(Credit: Photo courtesy of Georgetown University)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As impeachment hearings divided the nation Wednesday, several blocks away a blockbuster line-up of Catholic thinkers sought to harness the Church’s social teachings to make sense of increasing political and cultural volatility while, at the same time, wrestling with public witness in a fractured church.

The wide-ranging conversation on “Nationalism, Post-liberalism, and Pope Francis,” was sponsored by Georgetown University’s Initiative for Catholic Social Thought and Public Life. Panelists included New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, papal biographer Austen Ivereigh, journalist Leah Libresco Sargeant and Commonweal editor Matthew Sitman.

Kim Daniels, associate director of Georgetown’s Initiative, moderated the discussion.

Ivereigh began by declaring Francis to be neither a nationalist nor a globalist. Instead, he said, the pope is “making the people below the architects of their own destiny” to counteract technocratic forces and a “throwaway economy.”

As part of his witness to stand with the downtrodden, Ivereigh said the pope “is the world’s leading advocate for migrants” and that how a country receives the foreigner is “a test of who they are ethically.”

Douthat offered qualified agreement, declaring Francis to be “broadly aligned” with his two most recent predecessors but with a particular focus on migrants and operating in a very different political context — one where political and social elites have worsened the economic prospects for middle and lower class people and created a deeper cultural alienation between the governing and working classes.

“Nationalism emerges out of that tangle of economic disappointment and cultural isolation, a sense of cultural decline and social decline,” Douthat said. Among its problems, he said nationalism struggles to find leaders who are not “bigots and hucksters.”

“The Catholic Church is a global church,” he added, discussing Francis’s challenge to lead a multifaceted worldwide institution. “The pope is the shepherd of Catholics in residually Christian nations in western Europe … and the millions, at some point, billions of Catholics who are part of the global south likely to be migrating to the global north and who are seen as a threat.”

Sitman said that what troubles him about much of the current conversation regarding nationalism is that it is occurring at a time when populist leaders such as President Donald Trump and Viktor Orban of Hungary are in elected office, and some individuals defend nationalism “when there are kids in cages at the border and families are being separated.”

[…]

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:21 am

+JMJ+

Japan government recognizes Pope as 'Emperor of Teaching'
Image
Japanese Catholics prepare for arrival of Pope Francis (AFP or licensors)

Just a few days before Pope Francis’ arrival in Japan, the nation’s government recognizes the Japanese-language characters that the Catholic Church has used for the Pope for over 40 years.

“Pope Francis has something to teach.”

That’s how Thomas Power, an associate professor at Tokyo’s Meiji University, interprets a recent decision taken by the Japanese government.

Early this week, the government announced that it would recognize the Pope with the Japanese characters 教皇, transliterated as Kyō-kō, rather than 法王, pronounced Hōō.

What’s the difference?

Dr Power told Vatican Radio that Kyō-ō means something like “Emperor of Teaching or Doctrine”.

The Catholic Church in Japan has used those characters for over 40 years to identify the Bishop of Rome.

The previous Hōō is similar to the term used for the highest ranking official in Buddhism, and means “Emperor of Law”.

“A Japanese Catholic friend of mine,” recounts Dr Power, “said when it was announced [on TV] he had tears in his eyes.”

The professor from Meiji University’s School of Political Science and Economics thinks his friend got emotional because “it was a recognition of the Catholic Church.”

Catholics make up only 0.42% of Japan’s population.

[…]

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
Thunktank
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: 471 Km from the London Bridge

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Thunktank » Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:57 pm

Catholicism is becoming palatable to the world. We no longer hope for people to convert from Shinto or Buddhism. We can make generic prayers without invoking the Holy Trinity. We can make our way back to God through the nature of the Amazon without Jesus and “Our Lady” can be a symbol of “Mother Nature” or the Virgin, whatever we wish. We approve plans to build worship centers on one foundation with other religions who do not believe in the Holy Trinity. Heck, the Pope accepts the bishops of the communist Chinese government! I’m starting to really dislike this Pope! :x
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

User avatar
Hovannes
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Posts: 26312
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Hovannes » Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:07 pm

Thunktank wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:57 pm
Catholicism is becoming palatable to the world. We no longer hope for people to convert from Shinto or Buddhism. We can make generic prayers without invoking the Holy Trinity. We can make our way back to God through the nature of the Amazon without Jesus and “Our Lady” can be a symbol of “Mother Nature” or the Virgin, whatever we wish. We approve plans to build worship centers on one foundation with other religions who do not believe in the Holy Trinity. Heck, the Pope accepts the bishops of the communist Chinese government! I’m starting to really dislike this Pope! :x
Kind of throws the Communion of Saints under the bus, if that is what Francis means.
But I don't know what Francis means.
Then again neither do the Dubia Cardinals, so I guess I'm in good company :confused:

I tend to spend my time with Aquinas and Augustine. They're easier to comprehend!
"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:19 am

+JMJ+


ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:00 pm

+JMJ+

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Pope Francis bids to be “norm entrepreneur” [In-Depth, Analysis]
Image
Pope Francis leaves after celebrating Mass at the Assumption Cathedral, Friday, Nov. 22, 2019, in Bangkok, Thailand. (Credit: AP Photo/Wason Wanichakorn)

Every pope over the last seven decades has supported nuclear disarmament, so there’s nothing novel in Francis doing the same.

KEY WEST, Florida — Today in Japan, which began last night in the States, brought the expected highlights of Pope Francis’s Nov. 20-26 trip to Thailand and Japan in visits to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two Japanese cites incinerated by U.S. atomic weapons during the Second World War.

“One of the deepest longings of the human heart is for security, peace and stability,” Francis said on Sunday, speaking in the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Hypocenter park during driving rain.

“The possession of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is not the answer to this desire; indeed they seem always to thwart it,” he said.

News headlines around the world generally are carrying some form of, “Pope condemns nuclear weapons,” which is true as far as it goes but not terribly informative. The Catholic Church has never approved of nuclear weapons, so those headlines have a somewhat “dog bites man” feel.

[…]

What is a bit more striking with Francis is his unequivocal rejection not merely of the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons, but their very existence. In effect, Francis has capped a development in Church thinking from a grudging and conditional acceptance of the concept of deterrence under St. John Paul II, which was forged during the Cold War, to a sweepingly abolitionist position today.

What’s changed isn’t so much the moral principles involved, but the diagnosis of the global situation.

[…]

That’s a shift, by the way, that was well underway before Francis arrived; in 2010, when Pope emeritus Benedict XVI was still in charge, the Vatican declared that “the conditions that prevailed during the Cold War, which gave a basis for the Church’s limited toleration of nuclear deterrence, no longer apply.”

What’s interesting about the pope’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki stops, therefore, isn’t really the substance of what Francis is saying, but rather the fact he appears to be ratcheting up the emphasis and visibility with which he’s saying it.

A pope standing in those two spots and thundering away at nuclear weapons obviously isn’t the same as issuing a bland diplomatic communique for the next round of negotiations over the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, or mentioning disarmament as one item on a laundry list of desired social goods in the pope’s year-end speech to diplomats at the Vatican.

In effect, today marks Francis’s bid to become what social scientists call a “norm entrepreneur” on nuclear disarmament, a possibility suggested in May 2018 by Gerard Powers of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and a former advisor to the U.S. bishops’ conference on nuclear issues.

As coined by Cass Sunstein, a “norm entrepreneur” is someone who aims to change social conventions, including moral conventions. If it works, such efforts can lead to a “norm cascade,” which triggers an upheaval in attitudes followed by a new sense of what’s acceptable and what isn’t.

[…]

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
Hovannes
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Posts: 26312
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Hovannes » Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:37 am

https://bitterwinter.org/xi-jinping-por ... c-symbols/
If you cross Xi Image
with Pachamama Image
What do you get?
"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:28 am

+JMJ+


ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
Jester
Brother of Tuttle
Brother of Tuttle
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Jester » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:55 am

wosbald wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:28 am
+JMJ+

Go, culture warrior! Go!
Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

"O Christmas Tree is going to be a dirge in his home this year I fear."

"We are in a battle, therefore, between a world made out of social constructs and the world made out of created essences." -Doug Wilson

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:01 pm

+JMJ+

Pope says financial reforms are working, wants anti-nuke stance in catechism [In-Depth]
Image
Pope Francis speaks during a news conference onboard the papal plane on his flight back from a trip to Thailand and Japan, Monday, Nov. 26, 2019. (Credit: Remo Casilli/Pool Photo via AP)

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE — Pope Francis said Tuesday that the latest round of financial scandal at the Vatican is actually a success story, because the situation was revealed thanks to an internal Vatican probe, which he said demonstrates that new controls are working.

The pontiff also called both owning and deploying nuclear weapons “immoral,” saying that point should be added to the Catholic catechism, and suggested that it might be time to re-think the veto power wielded by a handful of countries in the United Nations Security Council.

His comments came during an airborne news conference on the return flight to Rome from his Nov. 19-26 trip to Thailand and Japan.

Vatican financial scandals

[…]

On nuclear weapons and nuclear power

Several questions turned on nuclear weapons, nuclear energy and St. Thomas Aquinas’s principle of just war. Peace today, Francis said after a question from a French journalist, “is weak, very weak.”

Prompted by a Japanese journalist who asked about what the pope felt when visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he recalled that he had condemned the use of nuclear weapons “as immoral.”

“This has to go to the Catechism,” the pope said. “And not only the use of them, but having them.”

Possessing such weapons, he said, is dangerous, because accidents happen but also because “the craziness of one can destroy humanity.” He quoted Albert Einstein, who said that the fourth world war will be waged with “sticks and stones.”

Regarding nuclear power plants, Francis insisted on the possibility of an accident, something Japan was privy of due to the 2011 triple disaster, meaning the earthquake, tsunami and meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear plant that resulted from the previous two.

Nuclear power, he said, “is the limit.” Nuclear weapons “are destruction,” but the use of nuclear energy is “at the limit” because “we still haven’t achieved total security” for its deployment.

Underlining that it was a personal opinion, Francis said that he wouldn’t use nuclear power until such security is achieved to prevent the disaster it can cause for humanity and also the environment.

Asked about a rumored papal encyclical on violence, the pontiff said that the idea is “in a drawer,” but that he doesn’t feel like the issue has matured enough to write it himself, in addition to a lack of time.

The pontiff said that while international organizations such as the United Nations have done much good, they haven’t been able to control weapons.

“If there’s a problem with safety, with weapons, and all countries vote yes [to control them] and one with a right to veto says no, then it’s stopped.”

“I have heard, I’m not capable of judging if it’s good or not, but perhaps the United Nations should renounce to some nations in the Security Council having a right to veto” he said. “Everything that is done to stop the construction of weapons, to stop war, to go through negotiations,” he said, “must always be done.”

Latin America in flames, and “I love China”

[…]

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
Hovannes
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Posts: 26312
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Hovannes » Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:00 pm

If I were Chinese, liking the pope would be a stretch. Seriously a stretch.
"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20945
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:25 am

+JMJ+

Most Americans support life in prison over death penalty, says new poll
Image
Demonstrators march to protest the death penalty during a rally organized by Catholics Against the Death Penalty-Southern California in Anaheim Feb. 25, 2017. Most Americans support life imprisonment over the death penalty, according to a Gallup poll released Nov. 24, 2019, revealing a shift in the majority opinion on this issue for the first time in 34 years. (Credit: Andrew Cullen/Reuters via CNS)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Most Americans support life imprisonment over the death penalty, according to a Gallup poll released Nov. 24, revealing a shift in the majority opinion on this issue for the first time in 34 years.

The poll, based on results from telephone interviews conducted Oct. 14-31 with a random sample of 1,526 adults in the U.S., showed 60 percent prefer that convicted murders receive a sentence of life imprisonment, while 36 percent said capital punishment would be better.

This view marks a shift in Americans’ opinion over the past two decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, the majority opinion leaned toward the death penalty. The survey also is just the second time more people said they thought life in prison was a better punishment than the death penalty; in 2007 they did so by 1 percentage point, with 48 percent favoring life in prison and 47 percent favoring the death penalty.

[…]

This poll revealed religious divides on the issue and showed that Catholics, Jews, members of other non-Christian religions and the religiously unaffiliated preferred life without parole as a punishment over the death penalty. Only white evangelicals (59 percent) and white mainline Protestants (52 percent) expressed majority support for the death penalty.

[…]

In an Oct. 10 roundtable discussion about the death penalty with Catholic bishops, Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City said: “It’s really important for our Catholic people to really dig into and learn, study, read the teachings of the magisterium of the church” on this issue.

He said with the popes — St. John Paul II and Popes Benedict and Francis — there has been “a steady movement toward a greater clarity in terms of the morality and the inadmissibility of the death penalty.”

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

Post Reply