Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Those Reactionary American Catholics
In a rather silly movie in which Russell Crowe plays Father Gabriel Amorth (The Pope’s Exorcist), the demon he is assigned to deal with wants to possess him because this demon did something like that once before centuries ago and supposedly turned the Church’s chief exorcist into the catalyst for the evils of the Inquisition. (Leaving aside the bad history, odd theology, slow pace, and overdone special effects, Crowe’s performance was almost entertaining enough to salvage the film.)
But the demonic strategy of grabbing hold of important figures to make them gut the meaning and vitality of important institutions has likely always been in play. So it kinda makes you go ‘hmm’ when the current pope, for example, seems to seek a grand alignment of the Church founded on the rock of St. Peter with the zeitgeist of the New York Times editorial page. As reported in National Review, his recent comments about American Catholics are consistent with that evolving vision.
Pope Francis said there is a “very strong, organized, reactionary attitude” in the U.S. Catholic church, that is “backwards” and has led the church to replace faith with “ideology,” according to a new transcript of the comments released Monday.
Naturally, the more enlightened view is all about evolution:
“The vision of the doctrine of the church as a monolith is wrong,” he added. “When you go backward, you make something closed off, disconnected from the roots of the church.”
“I want to remind these people that backwardness is useless, and they must understand that there’s a correct evolution in the understanding of questions of faith and morals,” he said.
Speaking of ideology, the comments were initially published in a Jesuit journal, so there may be some pro-“evolution” spin involved because when it comes to inserting (Marxist political) ideology into theology, the Jesuits are really good at that.
About 30% of the pope’s own operating fund (“Peter’s Pence”) is from those mostly reactionary American Catholic dioceses, a fund which has been grossly mismanaged over the years. Maybe a little fiscal “evolution” would be nice, and a little less contempt for the free markets that provided it would be a start.
Published in General
Wow! So much nonsense!
Jer 6:16 Thus says the LORD: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
I’m of two minds on this:
1) is the reporting trustworthy?
2) why is he making it harder for me to convert to Catholicism?
The Jesuits are not in the business of converting Protestants. Their mission is an abject failure. Apparently, their goal is shoe-horning Protestant apostates without any need for those apostates to submit their intellect to divine truth as revealed in scripture and the church through faith with God’s help. (Day 21 of Fr. Schmitz’ daily catechism!)
What is the meaning of The Catholic Church right now?
I was going to add text to flesh out the above question, but I think I will just leave it as it is.
BTW on a discussion on other social media regarding the film “The Pope’s Exorcist,” some people claim it is a true thriller, while others saw it as a comedy. And others were bored.
It is hard to know what is true, because major label films can always have the company PR team pose as bots to tell us how astoundingly terrific the movie is.
You state: “About 30% of the pope’s own operating fund (“Peter’s Pence) is from those mostly reactionary American Catholic dioceses, a fund which has been grossly mismanaged over the years. Maybe a little fiscal “evolution” would be nice, and a little less contempt for the free markets that provided it would be a start.”
One item I’d like cleared up, but I don’t know who would know this: To understand what is really going on, we would have to know who in particular adds to the coffers of the Vatican.
If it is an entity like US Catholic Charities, operating out of 2 dozen locales or more, I have long suspected that this charity org gets some revenue from the Soros and WEF crowd.
I wonder what he thinks of the Africans.
The Jesuits are in the business of dissent, and have been for some time. (I hasten to point out that there are some wonderful, faithful individual Jesuits.)
Pope Francis strikes me as paranoid. I don’t like him, which is a novel emotion for me as I grew up during the pontificate of John Paul II and admired both him and Pope Benedict. He doesn’t seem to understand that the “rad-trad” movement he dislikes so much is the result of the mostly unchecked proliferation of heterodoxy and of irreverent, silly liturgies that were abuses of the actual Vatican II documents. If the Church had corrected those abuses, I doubt the rad-trad movement would have had much steam.
By the way, just last night I listened to an interview with an exorcist, Father Carlos Martins. He worked with Father Amorth, and it was his opinion that “The Pope’s Exorcist” was awful, and that Father Amorth would have been appalled by the movie. He also said that “Nefarious” was the best, most accurate depiction of demonic possession ever.
Oh, and I stopped giving to Peter’s Pence not long into Pope Francis’s pontificate.
The comments on “The Pope’s Exorcist” are compelling me to note that there’s a film, The Devil and Father Amorth, which is an actual exorcism. Director William Friedkin (of The Exorcist fame) was allowed to record an an exorcism conducted by Farther Amorth. The film is available on Tubi TV or Crackle; one can also rent it at the usual sites.
I wonder what Ricochet Roman Catholics think of the movie.
Based on the comments of Father Carlos Martins, I’m not going to bother to see it. He thought it was awful.
I sort of guessed!
Yeah, it’s a lot easier to snipe at those mostly white Americans. I think those mostly white Americans should stop giving to any charity connected to the Vatican as long as Pope Francis is in charge.
The same as it has always been: to give glory to God for the salvation of souls.
Having a lousy pope does not change the meaning and mission of the Catholic Church.
Amen, Scott!
It has been like this from day 1 of his pontificate:
Who am I to judge?
¡Hagan lío! (make a mess)
Amoris Laetitia (sacraments for adulterers, aka divorced and “remarried”)
LaLaLa Laudato Si (capitulation to “climate change”)
The Pachamama debacle
Throwing the Chinese faithful under the bus
Traditiones Custodes
The Synod on Synodality
etc., etc.
I’m sure I’ve missed a few – feel free to add your own.
He loves to call his fellow Catholics derogatory names – backwardists is just one of his latest. Shoot, one of the faithful has an entire blog dedicated to this.
Better to follow the basics than the rantings of Francis Bergoglio.
It is a separate amount collected at the parish level and then from each diocese to the Vatican. Traditionally, it went from there to the Vatican Bank into highly suspect projects and channels with zero transparency. Scandal and legal problems forced some transparency since then. Catholic Charities is separate.
The problem is not Soros money but bishops acting as government contractors dispensing federal welfare money in various projects. Starting in the 1980s with the staff of the loyal son of the Church Sen. Ted Kennedy, they were threatened with a funds cutoff (and no way to pay the salaries of all the staff hired for that) if they kept pushing for a right-to-life constitutional amendment (the same one that Joe Biden and Al Gore pledged to support). Surprise, surprise they decided the ‘timing was not right’ even though just-elected Ronald Reagan expressly offered to honor his campaign promise, and all those good Catholic Democrats also claimed to be on board.
Pope Francis is, paradoxically, too narrow in his thinking it seems. :) On the subject of evolution versus God’s Creation, William Jennings Bryan has always made the most sense to me:
Anyone surprised? Then Cardinal Bergoglio came from the South American Jesuits … the birthplace of liberation theology. He’s a Marxist by training and inclination. Traditional Catholicism is, I’m sure, anathema.
A priest friend of mine advised me to focus on my parish, which is sound (well, except for the music…), and to reduce my exposure to news of Pope Francis. So, for the most part, I don’t seek out news from Rome. I occasionally go to Father Z’s blog, and I listen to quite a few Catholic podcasts (I love Pints with Aquinas!), but I don’t expend much time or thought on Pope Francis. I’m a happier person for following my friend’s advice.
I listened to the PWA interview with Fr. Martins. It was very interesting and if I thought she’d give it a fair listen, I have a friend in need of listening for the sakes of her daughter and brother.
And then there is also the Papal Foundation – the money scam formerly run by our friend Uncle Ted McCarrick. The McCarrick stain still haunts this pontificate.
I’m so pleased that you listened to that interview – it was remarkable, wasn’t it? I have thought of suggesting it to a sister of mine who is in the “I’m spiritual but not religious” camp, as she might find it interesting, and in the process might get some catechesis to her benefit. I have to wait for the right time, as she is generally hostile to anything Catholic.
It may have been Father Carlos Martins’ interview with Michael Lofton (Reason and Theology podcast) in which he talks about the two movies, Nefarious and The Pope’s Exorcist, but I’m not sure as I listened to them both fairly recently so I can’t be sure which one it was.
I’ll check that one out. I’m trying to diversify my catholic podcasting so I’m not discouraged about disagreeing on some things with those I have been listening to. I was a little dismayed to discover Trent is an evolutionist (and relieved the church is neutral), irritated with Akin and unimpressed with Fradd on the subject.
So to keep myself from being discouraged by it, I decided to cast a wider net in the podcasting world. So far, it’s Council of Trent, Shameless Popery, Reason & Theology, PWA, and Fr. Schmitz’ daily catechism and scripture from Ascension. If you have recommendations, I’m interested.
You’re already listening to the ones I’m listening to, so I don’t have others to suggest! I’m also doing Father Schmitz’s Catechism in a Year, though I’m doing it when I can.
FIFY
The choice of words, such as “reactionary” and “ideology” is very revealing. When referring to Catholic belief and practicing the faith the word should be “orthodox” and for those Catholics that are not orthodox the applicable words would be schismatic, or heresy.
The Mass is fine for those who wish to hear the Mass in English, and those who wish to hear it Latin. Look to the Catechism for guidance. The Mass is said in Aramaic in some Eastern Rite Catholic churches.
One would think Pope Francis would know better coming from Argentina, but he seems to have abandoned orthodoxy for his own reactionary positions on those who follow thousands of years of tradition. He should be reminded of the words of Pope John II; Popular culture shapes opinion, it does not shape truth.
As an ex-Catholic my bona fides are, by definition, fides-less.
Still, it’s not like the Pope is Catholic either.
“Getting right with the Lord” isn’t a Catholic formulation per se, but I find a striking lack of same in Francis’ focus while the world is too much with him. Which would be bad enough, but the world he is concerned with doesn’t match the one people actually live in either.
He was ordained a Jesuit. Do you think he ever had any orthodoxy?
I will say that I have met a few very excellent Jesuits. Father Mitch Pacwa is one, Father Meconi another – there are a few others. But overall it is not an order known for its fidelity to Catholic doctrine.