Fonte:http://thyselfolord.blogspot.com.br
Li dois textos recentemente que são correlacionados. O primeiro é representante dos esquerdistas que estão cada vez mais reticentes e críticos com o Papa Francisco. O outro que diz que o Papa Francisco está ficando conservador "step by step" (passo a passo).
Será? Rezemos, pela proteção da Doutrina da Igreja.
Vejamos parte dos dois textos.
O primeiro é da política esquerdista australiana Kristina Keneally, que escreveu no jornal The Guardian. Kenally diz que o Papa está cada vez mais parecido com a Sarah Palin (política conservadora dos Estados Unidos). Ela diz também que está tendo uma "crise na sua fé".
Ela fez uma análise bem rasteira do Papa, mas é importante para ver o que a esquerda católica quer: uma Igreja pró-gay, pró-divorciados, liberando aborto, políticas econômicas socialistas, etc. toda a agenda da esquerda.
I'm starting to have a crisis of faith. Not in God, but rather, in Pope Francis.
It seems a betrayal to even write these words. I’m a progressive Catholic who longs for a church that is more welcoming of women, homosexuals and divorced people. I want a church where the hierarchy spends more time talking about liberating the poor and oppressed and less time lecturing about birth control. I pray for a church that comprehensively faces the causes of child sexual abuse so we can have confidence such systematic evil will never occur again.
Francis – global superstar, media darling, a truly modern pope – is the best hope people like me have had for many years, right? He’s the second coming of John XXIII, isn’t he?
I confess that I am starting to doubt it.
Francis swept into the Chair of St Peter with such animation and apparent determination to up-end the traditional notions of how popes ought to behave.
Washing the feet of prisoners, including women and Muslims. Refusing to live in the Apostolic Palace. Apparently calling a woman who married a divorced man in a civil ceremony to assure her it’s OK to go to communion. Refusing to judgehomosexuals.
“I love this guy,” proclaimed the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart. Catholics everywhere – especially progressive Catholics, but also those who were lapsed or just bored – enthusiastically agreed.
The pope has transmogrified into the most modern of all creatures: a 21st century celebrity. Having spent the past two years taking selfies, delighting crowds with his antics and entertaining the media with his well-placed “off the cuff” quips, Francis is starting to look familiar. Think Sarah Palin, or Kevin Rudd: people who confuse popularity with leadership, or celebrity with substance.
I know that Jesus says judge not lest ye be judged. And I also know I am being a bit harsh. Francis has taken a meat cleaver to the Vatican Bank, delivered a scathing assessment of the Curia, shut down a witch-hunt inquiry into the US Catholic nuns’ leadership group, and got the world to pay attention to issues likeboat people and financial inequality. Later this year he will publish an encyclical on climate change. Because of these actions, the American conservative Catholics are not happy with him.
But has Francis really changed the church? If the pope moves on in two or three years, what will he have left behind? A church more welcoming of the talents of all its members, more accepting of all those who love God and live faithful lives, and a safer place for children, or a just a string of Instagram pictures, warm memories and the latent fizz of lost celebrity? I pray it is the former. I pray the Holy Spirit is moving.
O segundo texto é bem mais profundo do que a análise rasa de Keneally. Mas não fiquei muito convencido. Apesar de gostar da análise "periferia versos Vaticano".
O texto é de Andrea Gagliarducci no site Monday Vatican que nos apresenta um Papa Francisco se movendo para o conservadorismo passo a passo.
Vejamos parte do que Andrea diz:
Pope Francis and the family – it’s time for clarification. April 15 was the deadline given to dioceses to return the questionnaire to the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops in preparation for the up-coming Synod. Then, beginning on April 15, Pope Francis dedicated his address intwo consecutive general audiences to the complementarity between man and woman. In his speeches, Pope Francis defended the traditional family, and attacked gender ideology, emphasizing that“difference is the solution, it is not the problem.”
Those who believed that Pope Francis’ pastoral revolution presaged a doctrinal change in terms of marriage and family heaved a sigh of relief upon hearing his latest words. As far as family issues are concerned, it turns out that Pope Francis adheres to traditional Church teaching. His push toward a more pastoral approach does not necessarily mean he is going to water down doctrine, as was commonly thought. It now seems that those who were claiming the Pope’s support for such changes were probably trying to manipulate him.
It seems to be the fate of this papacy to be romanticized and mystified in some ways. Yet more in-depth analysis reveals that the truth about it is more trivial, and it is found in Pope Francis’ biography. The man who came “from the end of the world” was never fond of the Roman Curia, and probably saw in it a reflection of the Jesuits’ General Curia that isolated him for a decade, before Cardinal Antonio Quarracino, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, plucked him from peripheries and promoted him as his auxiliary bishop.
Viewed from the peripheries, the Roman Curia can seem a place of illicit dealings and general dysfunction. This is how the media depict it, wishing to draw attention to the Church’s shadowy side. It is seen this way, too, by some of the non-Italian clerics who, upon entering the curial ranks, have to work hard to understand mechanisms and languages so different from those they left behind. And so, too, local bishops view the Roman Curia in a negative light, barely able as they are to stand what they consider to be interference in the form of appointments and decisions made by Rome.
From the perspective of the peripheries, the Curia seems like a medieval relic that can definitely be abolished, unnecessary as it is for the Church’s mission. Paradoxically, it is only by living within this institution that one can understand how it guarantees freedom for the Church.
Little by little Pope Francis has understood this point, as this anecdote may show. The new Italian President went to the Vatican for a state visit on April 18. The protocol for such a visit – which is also the legacy of historical relations between the Holy See and Italy – includes an exchange of public speeches, and requires that both the Pope and the President wear their designated official attire for state occasions.
According to a source, Pope Francis did not want the full ceremony to take place. He would have had to wear the red “mozzetta,” but he has not done so from the first day of his pontificate, nor does he do so when the occasion calls for it, as during the New Year’s reception of ambassadors accredited to the Holy See. The Italian President agreed not to wear his official dress, but his entourage asked that the protocol for a state visit, even one simplified in accord with Pope Francis’ style, should, however, be observed.
Pressured somewhat by the recommendations of his diplomatic consultants, the Pope had to agree. Nevertheless, after the meeting, he became aware that by observing the proper protocol for a state visit he was able to address the Italian nation directly, whereas if only a private meeting had taken place between himself and the President, it would have remained confidential, and the details would not have been disclosed. So in the end the Pope understood that the full ceremony of a state visit allowed him to communicate directly and fully a message that otherwise would have been truncated within the confines of a cold communiqué agreed to with the Italian State press office.
This anecdote does not mean that Pope Francis will always agree to perform his official role in the traditional way. Yet it is the latest signal that the Pope’s “revolution” has step by step reverted back into something more established. Those who had pushed for the revolution are very much aware of this fact.
On April 13, Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga, Coordinator of the Council of Cardinals, presented in Rome a new series of books on Pope Francis. In a short meeting with journalists after the presentation, the Cardinal spoke about the ongoing reforms, and about how they are being carried forward. One question concerned the Institute for Religious Works (IOR), the so-called ‘Vatican Bank’, which was not part ofthe discussions at the recent meeting. Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga replied that everything went well, that the reform was moving along. When someone observed aloud that he was among those who had wanted to abolish the IOR, he turned stone cold. Then he explained: “We understood that abolishing the Institute would have damaged Religious Congregations who would have sustained a financial loss. So we agreed that it was better to heal a sick person than to resurrect a dead one.”
Cardinal Rodriguez’s words nailed the coffin shut on proposals to dismantle the Roman Curia that had begun circulating immediately following Pope Francis’ election. Prior to the last meeting of the Council of Cardinals, Cardinal Rodriguez went to Madrid and took part in a round table with Spanish journalists organized by the weekly ‘Vida Nueva’. One of the questions asked was about the synod. The Cardinal explained that the synod’s method is that of “observing, judging and acting,” and that this method may also lead to a decision to add a third leg to the synod. “We do not know if at the end of the coming October synod, the process will end, or the Pope will convoke a third synod. This could be the case, because the synod deals with very important issues…”
But even these words show that the hoped for doctrinal revolution is stalled.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário