I appreciate your view of Pope Francis. I have never heard the idea that he is not only not modernist but completely antithetical to modernism. This is the opposite from what is usually said about him, but I am beginning to see that it is the case. I found your thoughts on modernism and South America very enlightening as well. I am Canadian but I live here in Minas now. Canadians are profoundly modern and since I have been here I have tried to make sense of Brazilians and how they are seemingly so unaffected by modernism. It has always been a source of confusion for me.
If you read Portuguese well, I'd recommend Vianna Moog's book "Bandeirantes e Pioneiros - Paralelo entre Duas Culturas", in which he compares how European settlers entered Brazil and the US. Canada is not that different, after all; I always say Canada is the non-United State, where Americans can run if they have problems with the Union and want to "vote with their feet" as many did during the Vietnam War, for instance. You can also read Roberto DaMatta's "Carnivals, Rogues, and Heroes - An Interpretation of the Brazilian Dilemma". He deals with present-day Brazilian society
Where are you in Minas? I live near São Lourenço, in the Southern part of Minas Gerais, close to the border between Rio, São Paulo, and Minas Gerais. I'd be glad to have a cup with you of the best coffee in the world, which grows here, if you find yourself around here one day.
Thanks for the recommendations. I am very interested, I will look into them. I am not fluent enough to read a Portuguese book yet but I will check out the DaMatta.
I live close to BH. We are actually planning to visit São Lourenço and area within the next year. When we do I will let you know!
When someone is locked inside an ideological cage, everything is seen through an ideological lens. That's why right-wing Modernists consider most of the Church's Social Doctrine (and Pope Francis, too, of course) [left-wing] Modernism, when in fact there is no Modernism there at all.
You can see it clearly outside the Church, too, of course: for leftists, everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Fascist, while for rightists, everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Communist. It happens because in their ideological prisons, any disagreement can only come from an ideological enemy.
Yes, it is hard for anyone to be free and clear of ideological thinking. I certainly have my struggles with it. If someone thinks they are above modernism's effects, they are deluded. I think this might be why Pope Francis was so interested in Mary, Undoer of Knots. He knew of this problem. It requires something more than knowledge to escape from Modernism.
And this is how I have come to see most complaints about Pope Francis. If he makes a poor judgment it is not simply a poor judgment, it has to be equated to some ideology or plan. Can you imagine if people judged your every decision in that way? It's insane. And it is impossible to parse out his apparent ideology from the complainer's ideology, which are all conceived in such vague terms. I am no leftist, but I have found many on the right to be insufferable about him.
I really, really enjoy most of your pieces. Your clarity of thought and grasp of the historical interplay of world events is top level. But I can't agree with one.
I will never forget what Francis did in regard to the vaccine. Told me it was a moral obligation, not getting the vaccine was akin to suicide; a grave mortal sin. He made it nearly impossible to get a religious exemption. He himself suffered health issues non stop after getting the shot and booster. He stopped advocating them after he got his second booster. Why? If he realized the error of his ways, he never mentioned it or apologized to those he bid inject themselves with that literal poison. I pray for his soul and hope he is at peace, but I will not canonize him.
I think he trusted the medical class's consensus then and didn't realize (as most doctors didn't, by the way) that mRNA vaccines are different from regular ones.
I would like to say that there is a right "Liberation Theology" (that I am aligned to, and saint Oscar Romero as well, for example) and a materialist Liberation Theology, which he and his predecessors denounced.
In Brazil, cultural wars politically polarized our people through Olavo de Carvalho and his priest-ally, Paulo Ricardo. Meanwhile, I felt the kind action of Holy Spirit in my heart, guiding me towards a "preferential option for the poor", that now integrates my spiritual life. I wonder if I could understand the action of God if wasn't the Pope that canonized Oscar Romero, Teresa of Calcuta, Dulce dos Pobres and Charles de Foucauld. The Pope that wrote Evangelii Gaudium. The Pope of my youth as a newly converted to Catholicism.
Indeed. If the text wasn't already too big, I'd have told about how he helped, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, some religious whose work could be considered a true preferential option for the poor, living in the poorest neighborhoods and trying to help the poor both spiritually and materially. They may be the origin of the Holy Father's insistence on the importance of popular devotions, for instance.
I do think he often "slipped" in some leftist consensus, just like when he said that Dilma Rousseff was an "excelent woman with clean hands" and Lula was a victim of lawfare, supposedly convicted without any evidence.
O seguinte resumo é da autoria de Joathas Soares Bello, insuspeito de ser "cismático":
Os aspectos negativos de seu [do Papa Francisco] pontificado são gravíssimos e superam em muito qualquer bondade realizada. Os erros geralmente são mais nefastos do que supõe a crítica teológica que se fixa nas afirmações mais diretas e não intelige a forma geral dos arrazoados dos documentos.
Francisco pode ter sido o pior papa da história. Está entre os piores seguramente. Seus principais erros a meu juízo:
1) Traditionis Custodes: afirma a Lex orandi como um arbítrio do papa e não uma instituição divina; assume a ruptura da eclesiologia conciliar com a Tradição eclesiológica.
2) Amoris Laetitia: ensina tacitamente que a Graça não pode converter todos os pecados (ou, o que é pior, que convive com o pecado); e que o matrimônio não é indissolúvel.
3) Fiducia Supplicans: ensina tacitamente que há bem moral na relação homossexual enquanto tal.
4) Mudança sobre a pena de morte: ensina tacitamente que não há condenação.
5) Dignitas infinita: confirma tacitamente o ponto anterior e permite tacitamente a mudança de sexo ("em certos casos").
6) Autorização da histerectomia: encaminha tacitamente a permissão ao aborto de bebês cujo desenvolvimento é "inviável".
7) Fratelli Tutti: ensina tacitamente que a missão católica precípua é a fraternidade universal política (liberal-maçônica).
8) Declaração de Abu Dhabi e discurso em Singapura: ensina tacitamente que todas as religiões agradam a Deus enquanto tais.
9) Beneficiou os amigos maus e prejudicou os adversários bons: não puniu abusadores amigos, como Rupnik ou o bispo argentino Zanchetta, promoveu os péssimos Paglia e Tucho...; perseguiu Müller, Strickland, Lívio Melina, Burke..., ofendia com frequência e gratuitamente os conservadores e tradicionalistas, desmantelou o Instituto JPII...
P. S.: digo "tacitamente" porque ele não afirmou de frente e formalmente fórmulas heréticas, mas as heresias e erros morais estão lá materialmente, são demonstráveis e estão demonstrados.
Infelizmente meu querido amigo Joathas entrou numa onda extremamente errada de -- ao contrário do que mandam o bom senso e a Tradição -- sempre procurar a pior interpretação possível do que quer que venha da Santa Sé, e, pior ainda, acreditar no que crê ter encontrado. Só posso lamentar.
Obrigado pela reflexão. Já tinha lido alguns comentários sobre ele não ser de direita nem de esquerda, e seu texto reforçou ainda mais isso. Que o papa Francisco descanse em paz ❤️
One more text in which Carlos Ramalhete says he understand everything and everyone else is dumb.
And surprisingly, it seems to be true
I appreciate your view of Pope Francis. I have never heard the idea that he is not only not modernist but completely antithetical to modernism. This is the opposite from what is usually said about him, but I am beginning to see that it is the case. I found your thoughts on modernism and South America very enlightening as well. I am Canadian but I live here in Minas now. Canadians are profoundly modern and since I have been here I have tried to make sense of Brazilians and how they are seemingly so unaffected by modernism. It has always been a source of confusion for me.
Irmão Emanuel, vá rezar as Vésperas ao invés de propagar bobagens pela internet!
If you read Portuguese well, I'd recommend Vianna Moog's book "Bandeirantes e Pioneiros - Paralelo entre Duas Culturas", in which he compares how European settlers entered Brazil and the US. Canada is not that different, after all; I always say Canada is the non-United State, where Americans can run if they have problems with the Union and want to "vote with their feet" as many did during the Vietnam War, for instance. You can also read Roberto DaMatta's "Carnivals, Rogues, and Heroes - An Interpretation of the Brazilian Dilemma". He deals with present-day Brazilian society
Where are you in Minas? I live near São Lourenço, in the Southern part of Minas Gerais, close to the border between Rio, São Paulo, and Minas Gerais. I'd be glad to have a cup with you of the best coffee in the world, which grows here, if you find yourself around here one day.
Thanks for the recommendations. I am very interested, I will look into them. I am not fluent enough to read a Portuguese book yet but I will check out the DaMatta.
I live close to BH. We are actually planning to visit São Lourenço and area within the next year. When we do I will let you know!
When someone is locked inside an ideological cage, everything is seen through an ideological lens. That's why right-wing Modernists consider most of the Church's Social Doctrine (and Pope Francis, too, of course) [left-wing] Modernism, when in fact there is no Modernism there at all.
You can see it clearly outside the Church, too, of course: for leftists, everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Fascist, while for rightists, everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Communist. It happens because in their ideological prisons, any disagreement can only come from an ideological enemy.
Yes, it is hard for anyone to be free and clear of ideological thinking. I certainly have my struggles with it. If someone thinks they are above modernism's effects, they are deluded. I think this might be why Pope Francis was so interested in Mary, Undoer of Knots. He knew of this problem. It requires something more than knowledge to escape from Modernism.
And this is how I have come to see most complaints about Pope Francis. If he makes a poor judgment it is not simply a poor judgment, it has to be equated to some ideology or plan. Can you imagine if people judged your every decision in that way? It's insane. And it is impossible to parse out his apparent ideology from the complainer's ideology, which are all conceived in such vague terms. I am no leftist, but I have found many on the right to be insufferable about him.
I really, really enjoy most of your pieces. Your clarity of thought and grasp of the historical interplay of world events is top level. But I can't agree with one.
I will never forget what Francis did in regard to the vaccine. Told me it was a moral obligation, not getting the vaccine was akin to suicide; a grave mortal sin. He made it nearly impossible to get a religious exemption. He himself suffered health issues non stop after getting the shot and booster. He stopped advocating them after he got his second booster. Why? If he realized the error of his ways, he never mentioned it or apologized to those he bid inject themselves with that literal poison. I pray for his soul and hope he is at peace, but I will not canonize him.
I think he trusted the medical class's consensus then and didn't realize (as most doctors didn't, by the way) that mRNA vaccines are different from regular ones.
Obrigado, Carlos, pelo texto. Importantíssima reflexão fora do viés politiqueiro no qual estamos submergidos em nossa cultura.
I would like to say that there is a right "Liberation Theology" (that I am aligned to, and saint Oscar Romero as well, for example) and a materialist Liberation Theology, which he and his predecessors denounced.
In Brazil, cultural wars politically polarized our people through Olavo de Carvalho and his priest-ally, Paulo Ricardo. Meanwhile, I felt the kind action of Holy Spirit in my heart, guiding me towards a "preferential option for the poor", that now integrates my spiritual life. I wonder if I could understand the action of God if wasn't the Pope that canonized Oscar Romero, Teresa of Calcuta, Dulce dos Pobres and Charles de Foucauld. The Pope that wrote Evangelii Gaudium. The Pope of my youth as a newly converted to Catholicism.
Indeed. If the text wasn't already too big, I'd have told about how he helped, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, some religious whose work could be considered a true preferential option for the poor, living in the poorest neighborhoods and trying to help the poor both spiritually and materially. They may be the origin of the Holy Father's insistence on the importance of popular devotions, for instance.
I do think he often "slipped" in some leftist consensus, just like when he said that Dilma Rousseff was an "excelent woman with clean hands" and Lula was a victim of lawfare, supposedly convicted without any evidence.
Unfortunately, that was the international press's consensus.
Well, the international press is leftist, and a Pope has to be aware of this fact.
O seguinte resumo é da autoria de Joathas Soares Bello, insuspeito de ser "cismático":
Os aspectos negativos de seu [do Papa Francisco] pontificado são gravíssimos e superam em muito qualquer bondade realizada. Os erros geralmente são mais nefastos do que supõe a crítica teológica que se fixa nas afirmações mais diretas e não intelige a forma geral dos arrazoados dos documentos.
Francisco pode ter sido o pior papa da história. Está entre os piores seguramente. Seus principais erros a meu juízo:
1) Traditionis Custodes: afirma a Lex orandi como um arbítrio do papa e não uma instituição divina; assume a ruptura da eclesiologia conciliar com a Tradição eclesiológica.
2) Amoris Laetitia: ensina tacitamente que a Graça não pode converter todos os pecados (ou, o que é pior, que convive com o pecado); e que o matrimônio não é indissolúvel.
3) Fiducia Supplicans: ensina tacitamente que há bem moral na relação homossexual enquanto tal.
4) Mudança sobre a pena de morte: ensina tacitamente que não há condenação.
5) Dignitas infinita: confirma tacitamente o ponto anterior e permite tacitamente a mudança de sexo ("em certos casos").
6) Autorização da histerectomia: encaminha tacitamente a permissão ao aborto de bebês cujo desenvolvimento é "inviável".
7) Fratelli Tutti: ensina tacitamente que a missão católica precípua é a fraternidade universal política (liberal-maçônica).
8) Declaração de Abu Dhabi e discurso em Singapura: ensina tacitamente que todas as religiões agradam a Deus enquanto tais.
9) Beneficiou os amigos maus e prejudicou os adversários bons: não puniu abusadores amigos, como Rupnik ou o bispo argentino Zanchetta, promoveu os péssimos Paglia e Tucho...; perseguiu Müller, Strickland, Lívio Melina, Burke..., ofendia com frequência e gratuitamente os conservadores e tradicionalistas, desmantelou o Instituto JPII...
P. S.: digo "tacitamente" porque ele não afirmou de frente e formalmente fórmulas heréticas, mas as heresias e erros morais estão lá materialmente, são demonstráveis e estão demonstrados.
Infelizmente meu querido amigo Joathas entrou numa onda extremamente errada de -- ao contrário do que mandam o bom senso e a Tradição -- sempre procurar a pior interpretação possível do que quer que venha da Santa Sé, e, pior ainda, acreditar no que crê ter encontrado. Só posso lamentar.
Obrigado pela reflexão. Já tinha lido alguns comentários sobre ele não ser de direita nem de esquerda, e seu texto reforçou ainda mais isso. Que o papa Francisco descanse em paz ❤️