Argentinean Paper Accuses Francis Of Being Divisive

Argentinean Paper Accuses Francis Of Being Divisive

[Is Mark 6:4 applicable? And Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and in his own house, and among his own kindred.]

en.news
7/12/17

Writing for the Argentinean La Nación, Loris Zanatta, a professor of political science at Bologna University, Italy, examines the reasons given by Pope Francis’ Argentinean friends why he does not visit his native country.

Among others Zanatta quotes Argentinean born Vatican Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo who said that Francis avoids Argentina in order not to throw salt on wounds “that afflict the country since times immemorial”.

“Is this possible?”- Zanatta asks, “Does an authority whose mission is to reconcile, to appease, and to calm the passions, cause discord in his own country? – So it is, and Francis friends believe that the Argentinians are to blame for it.” Zanatta adds, “But is it not also the fault of the Pope, if he creates divisions in Argentina and other parts of the world?”

Zanatta criticises Francis’ leftwing bias, “If your heart beats in one direction, if you have recipes on everything (from the climate to retirement, from work to migration, from poverty to development), if you bless some and condemn others, then it is not surprising that you divide more than you unite. For all those things politics were invented.”

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/07/12/argentinean-paper-accuses-francis-of-being-divisive/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

4 comments on “Argentinean Paper Accuses Francis Of Being Divisive

  1. [Also in his home in Rome]

    Posted by hereisjorgebergoglio on Friday, July 7, 2017

    All’s not well in Modernist Rome

    null
    Il Tempo – Quotidiano Independente, 2 July 2017

    The tagline above Francis’ picture reads, “Collapse of the faithful, scandals, ethics, gay, immigrants and ISIS-Islam How many errors. Now the purges. The popularity of Francis of collapses”. The headline is, “Il Papocchio”, which is a play on words in Italian. In 1980 a blasphemous film was released with the title ‘Il pap’occhio’ (literally – in the pope’s eye), this headline is an allusion to the film and the fact that even though Francis is popular with the mainstream medias he isn’t very popular among Italians. The word ‘papocchio’ also translates into English as ‘mess’ being a regional colloquialism of the verb ‘impapocchiare’. This is fitting as Francis has repeatedly told the youth to “make a mess” with their lives especially in their home dioceses. After all, the chemist needs chaos in the Novus Ordo church so that he can reprocess it. In the final stages of this alchemical transformation, chaos will be introduced several times, further refining the Novus Ordo into the Noahide church until the transformation is complete. In this process, Francis is repeating the same behaviors he exhibited in Buenos Aires, Argentina where he alienated his flock and fellow countrymen with his reign of mistrust and lies. As we wrote of in his time in Argentina and the people of Italy are coming to realize, Francis “is a man sick with power.”

  2. Müller’s Firing – Francis’ Supporters Turn Away

    en.news
    7/11/17

    Pope Francis’ autocratic leadership has been criticised by the Austrian journalist Dietmar Neuwirth who shares Francis’ liberal views. In Die Presse, Neuwirth asks for justice for Cardinal Gerhard Müller (69), whom Francis fired in early July without convincing reasons.

    Neuwirth is no friend of Müller’s Catholic positions, but the unceremonious sacking of Müller bothers him, “If Pope Francis is committed to justice and peace, does he not need to worry about these in his own house?” Neuwirth questions, whether Francis practises, what he preaches.

  3. Sandro Magister
    7/13/17

    Even in the Secular and Progressive Camp There Are Those Who Criticize Francis

    Pope Francis is all too abrupt with the cardinals of the Church. It should be enough to see how he dismissed the prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

    While with the “cardinals” of secular thought he is ostentatiously friendly and acquiescent. Evidence of this are the “tears of emotion” shed by “Repubblica” founder Eugenio Scalfari at the end of their umpteenth conversation at Santa Marta, set up by Francis in part to continue their previous discussion on a daring hypothesis presented by the pope himself and summarized by Scalfari like this: “In a millennium or so our human species will be extinguished and souls will merge with God.”

    One effect of these two modes of behavior is the high level of approval that Francis enjoys in secular public opinion worldwide, which sees whatever it wants in him.

    But this general consensus is not without its dissonant voices. Rare, but significant. One of this is that of Professor Gian Enrico Rusconi (in the photo).

    Rusconi has expressed his criticisms in a book released in Italy this year, entitled “The narrative theology of Pope Francis,” published by Laterza.

    Rusconi is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Turin. After a Catholic education in his youth he left the Church, but maintained and fostered a solid theological proficiency. He is a specialist in the history and culture of Germany in the twentieth century and is close to the positions of the philosophical school of Frankfurt, particularly those of Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas, and to their view of religion. He is a prominent editorialist for the newspaper “La Stampa.”

    There are at least three criticisms that Rusconi makes against Francis. And they are substantially shared by another secular Italian thinker, Pierfrancesco Stagi, professor of moral philosophy at the University of Turin and he too a specialist in German philosophy.

    Stagi reviewed Rusconi’s book for the magazines “Teologia e filosofia,” published by Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, and “Nuovo Giornale di Filosofia della Religione,” which he edits on behalf of the Associazione Italiana di Filosofia della Religione.

    Presented below are three passages from his review.

    One element not to be overlooked is that both Rusconi and Stagi are in the progressive camp. Which makes their criticisms of Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio even more significant.

    *

    1. A NARRATIVE THAT SOWS “DUBIA”

    “Francis no longer teaches the way Professor Ratzinger did, but he recounts, he narrates episodes and comments on them. A ‘narrative theology,’ according to Rusconi’s pregnant definition: ‘Bergoglio intends to revitalize, through a narrative theology, the biblical and evangelical events, setting them forth as if they were everyday happenings of the present.’ Such a hermeneutic, however, which is based on poetic and allusive discourses, on continual semantic throwaways, according to which it is rare for one and the same term to define a precise and stable frame of reference, creates not a few ‘dubia,’ which not only cardinals as stubborn as they are zealous but also secular philosophers of religion like Rusconi (and the undersigned) cannot fail to emphasize, because they threaten to undermine Bergoglio’s project of reform at its foundation. There is the risk that he may leave the field open for improvisers of the word, who open and sow more ‘dubia’ than they clarify. On this path, Bergoglio will certainly have to leave aside his prudent Jesuitical garb within the next few years to assume a tone ‘less elusively cautious’ and more direct in defining the main categories of a reform of Catholic dogmatics and more generally of the Church.”

    2. THE MYTH OF THE PEOPLE, AGAINST THE OLIGARCHIES

    “Francis lives in a natural sympathy for the people, the people made up of the common folk, of the indigent masses, who are contrasted with the violent despotism of the oligarchies. Francis is bothered by the negative meaning of populism, which is wholly European, because he has always experienced the other dimension, wholly positive, of South American populism, as closeness to the natural and therefore always good outlook of the people, which ‘naturaliter’ follows the Christian message in the face of selfish and exploitative oligarchies. More than opportune is Rusconi’s discussion of the populist South American theologians Rafael Tello and Juan Carlos Scannone. From them Bergoglio gets the conviction that in order to overcome the spiritual crisis of our time it is necessary first to overcome the paradoxes of the contrast between the people and the oligarchies, according to a model that in any case brings him closer to European and North American populism, even if on the other side of the barricade with respect to classical liberalism, meaning on the side of the ‘pueblo’ against the economic, social, and even hierarchical-religious oligarchies.”

    3. A MERCY FORGETFUL OF SIN

    “Another contradiction that Rusconi reads in the papacy of Francis is the exclusive stress on mercy, leaving in the shadows the ontological problem of sin. In the account of the expulsion from paradise and of the original sin of Adam and Eve, Francis aims his attention almost exclusively at the gratuitous gift and friendship that God offers to the two progenitors, without clarifying the circumstances and motivations of his original prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and even without clarifying why this original failing of man should unleash a tragic succession of suffering, illness, and death that culminates in the sacrifice of expiation par excellence: the death of the Son of God on the cross. Rusconi correctly demonstrates how the necessity of this infinite expiation, of this continual succession even today, after the redemptive sacrifice, of unheard-of sorrows and sufferings is not explained in the merciful theology of pope Bergoglio and ultimately not in Ratzinger either, both of whom tend to criticize the thesis of infinite expiation of Anselm of Canterbury, and is not able to escape the paradox of why there still seems to be no end to pain and suffering, in an endless chain of dramas that the tragedy of Christ does not at all seem to have resolved or reduced, but rather increased and incentivized. It is the enigma of “theodicy,” which at least from Leibniz on has marked modern philosophy and theology and shows no signs of stopping but on the contrary, as Rusconi recalls, seems ever more relevant, and precisely in those secular circles that thought they had left behind them the complex and at times captious arguments on the justice of God.”

    • This is interesting. Do non-Catholic philosophers have an advantage over their Catholic counterparts because they’re willing to open their eyes to the rot in modern thinking? What caught my attention, in addition to Francis’ channeling Teilhard, “In a millennium or so our human species will be extinguished and souls will merge with God,” is paragraph 3, regarding the problem of suffering. It’s interesting how Rusconi shows the inadequacy of both Francis’ thinking along with Ratzinger’s:

      Rusconi correctly demonstrates how the necessity of this infinite expiation, of this continual succession even today, after the redemptive sacrifice, of unheard-of sorrows and sufferings is not explained in the merciful theology of pope Bergoglio and ultimately not in Ratzinger either, both of whom tend to criticize the thesis of infinite expiation of Anselm of Canterbury, and is not able to escape the paradox of why there still seems to be no end to pain and suffering, in an endless chain of dramas that the tragedy of Christ does not at all seem to have resolved or reduced, but rather increased and incentivized.

      Wow. Not having a background in theology, I’ve never been able to pin down why I didn’t care for Ratzinger’s encyclical Spe Salvi and other writings touching on suffering. The impression I’d get is that suffering makes no sense, that the Good God shouldn’t allow it, but that He will ultimately compensate all justly. The cause of Ratzinger and Bergoglio’s poor thinking is likely in the New Theology’s rejection of Original Sin. Which brings us back to Teilhard and the evolutionists.

Leave a Reply