Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Who do we think we are?

"The question is, who do we think we are? Bloggers, arm-chair theologians, canon-lawyers, historians and politicians. What possesses us to offer an opinion on the acts of the pope?...

...When you don't assume the best it is because you assume you know better, which means you do not think very highly of the person in question, or, even worse, you think quite highly of yourself."

--Colin Kerr in his post Piety towards the Pope

Just a friendly reminder: Rorate Caeli is the "Traditional" blog that on the very heels of the election of Pope Francis posted "The Horror" as their reaction. They thought it was funny or witty or something. To my knowledge they never made any public apology stating their filial obedience and charity towards our Holy Father. Therefore, anything they write, post, disseminate, can be immediately dismissed out of hand by faithful Catholics as unworthy of trust whatsoever without second thought or any self-recrimination.

Colin Kerr's post articulates stuff that I have been thinking about. I remember reading sarcastic caustic comments from priests about Pope Francis in the comment boxes of certain blogs. I think to myself, what's going through your mind during Mass when during consecration you say the words "together with ______ our Bishop and Francis our Pope..."?

Gives me the creeps.

If as a Catholic, layperson or religious, your primary stance towards the Pope is one of questioning suspicion which you then use as the basis for articulating what constitutes real orthodoxy and traditionalism...yeah, you might want to take that to confession.

That is, take it to confession - not take it to Fr. Z after hyperventilating into a paper bag.

People writing to Fr. Z after every single thing Pope Francis says or does...it's like Fr. Z is their little pope.


Terry Nelson said...

I hope this doesn't freak you out - but we think alike here.

Paul Stilwell said...

lol, no, it doesn't freak me out at all. I hope it's not intellectual pride in the Francis naysayers. Because if it is, then it's real bad - real bad.

owen swain said...

I simply no longer read such blogs, haven't for a long time. For me to read them is simply courting an occasion to sin.

As I wrote to Terry recently, everyone on the Internet is an expert, an authority, at least in their own mind. Now I'm further challenged to consider continuing reading those who do read such blogs and share their reactions because it still presents me with that which I am tying to avoid.

I should probably stop reading AbbeyRoads but I like Terry.

Chris said...

But never mind that you or Kerr or others are judging and categorizing others, and in blanket fashion, and using your blogs to pontificate. And you are even able to somehow conclude that such people are sinning? And it seems mortally so, as we are only obligated to confess mortal sins, so your suggestion they need to go to confession would give this conclusion. But it's good to know you are above those nasty "Francis Naysayers" who are supposedly suspicious, throw around accusations, etc.

Paul Stilwell said...

People should confess venial sins as well - all sins. This "obligation to only have to confess mortal sins" talk that people bandy about on the internet is what results from reductionism and a paltry attitude towards the great gift of the sacrament of reconciliation. In other words, our venial sins receive the forgiveness of Christ upon the asking or at the beginning of Mass whereas mortal sins put us into the state of spiritual death and need to be confessed for absolution from the priest - therefore only mortal sins need to be confessed. Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta went to confession every day. Was she committing mortal sin everyday or something?