quinta-feira, 28 de dezembro de 2017

Papa Francisco - "Chapa Branca da Burguesia e dos Poderosos"


O editor da prestigiada revista First Things, R.R, Reno (foto acima) escreveu um excelente artigo sobre liberalismo, no qual tratou muito sobre como podemos definir o Papa Francisco.

Sobre o Papa, em resumo, ele disse:

1) Não é difícil definir o Papa Francisco, ele procura seguir os poderosos da burguesia progressista;

2) Como Jesuíta, ele mantém a tradição dessa ordem religiosa de se adaptar aos poderosos;

3) Jesuítas também têm tradição de considerar os evangelhos como se fossem "plásticos" adaptáveis. Assim é o Papa.

4) É um Papa político, ele vai defender a imigração em massa na Europa até o ponto em que os poderosos da Europa defendam;

5) O Papa tenta aproximar o catolicismo da "burguesia iluminada" que defende gays, divórcio, aborto e eutanásia;

6) O Papa e seus acólitos tentam fazer um tratado de paz com os defensores da revolução sexual;

7) Mas é inútil e estúpido  tentar acordo com o establishment político, a promessa dos poderosos de "diversidade, aborto, divórcio, etc." só traz mais destruição. Eles não entregam o que prometem.

8) O Papa entra também em muitas contradições ao tentar se juntar aos poderosos. Por exemplo, diz que a pena de morte é inconcebível e ao mesmo tempo briga com teólogos e canonistas contra argumentos definitivos;

9) Os atos do Papa reduzem a Igreja a uma instituição política.

O site The American Catholic lembrou que isso acontgeceu muitas vezes na história, com um papa sendo simplesmente um representante de quem tem o pdoer temporário. E que isso não costuma acabar bem, mas também que o catolicismo está acostumado a resistir;

Vejam abaixo a parte do artigo que trata do Papa Francisco:

The Catholic Church’s retreat from anything resembling clarity about sexual morality does not surprise me. It’s been a long time coming. Catholicism and other forms of establishment Christianity in the West tend to take the form of bourgeois religion. That term denotes the fusion of church culture with the moral consensus held by the good, respectable people who set the tone for society as a whole. In the aftermath of the sexual revolution, that consensus shifted. For a long time now it has been socially acceptable to divorce and contracept. Soon thereafter it was OK to cohabitate, and then the good and responsible people who run things adopted an affirmative attitude toward gay sex. During all this, the same consensus became hostile to those who say otherwise. It became “cruel,” “hateful,” and “bigoted” to call something wrong that the bourgeois consensus now deems right. In this way, the good and responsible people did not just accommodate themselves to the sexual revolution; they took ownership of it.
Amid this change, most Catholic bishops and priests have been disoriented. Not too long ago, they were happy chaplains of the bourgeois, the good people, who tended to affirm the moral code that the Church taught. As the sexual revolution worked its way through elite culture, bishops and priests were eager to sustain their place as chaplains of the establishment consensus. Unfortunately for them, the Catholic Church has a rigorous tradition of moral philosophy and theology. This closed off the broad, well-traveled avenues of revisionism used by mainline Protestants. Do the loving thing! This noble and conveniently vague imperative offers wide latitude. In the smug and self-complimenting culture of the bourgeois, that meant pretty much anything they did was by definition loving. These sorts of people are always seeking to do what’s best!
Given the inconvenience of the Catholic commitment to moral truth, the approach has been to remain silent. Insofar as bishops and cardinals have spoken about sex, it has almost always been to qualify and soften the Church’s moral voice. The strategy was one of careful retreat. The enduring hope has been to find a way to moderate the obvious clash between what the Church teaches and the bourgeois consensus about sex.
It has become apparent that Pope Francis wants to make this retreat more explicit. For this reason, I have given up trying to keep track of controversies surrounding Amoris Laetitia. The details don’t matter. Pope Francis and his closest associates have no interest in the sacramental coherence of their positions on matters such as divorce and remarriage, nor do they care one whit about defending the logic of the arguments they put forward. I admire those who have explained the limits that the rich tradition of Catholic sacramental and moral teaching places on our interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. This is important work. But it has little bearing on the near-term outcome of this controversy. Pope Francis and his associates want to sign a peace treaty with the sexual revolution. They will use whatever arguments and rhetoric are necessary to achieve this goal.
One can see the urgency of the task. Reconciling the Catholic Church with the sexual revolution is necessary in order to preserve Catholicism as a bourgeois religion. Unless this is done, more and more of the good and responsible people will come to regard the Church as a regressive, harmful force in society, a source of repression and bigotry that is antithetical to the spirit of inclusion and affirmation that promotes human flourishing. This is especially obvious in the controversy surrounding divorce, remarriage, and communion. These are good, sensitive people trying to make the best of a difficult situation!How can the Church deny them communion? The same is true for those who use artificial means of contraception or who are committed to another person of the same sex—which is why it’s reasonable to think the pontificate will seek to muddy the Church’s teaching on those issues as well.
This papacy’s goal of aligning the Catholic Church with the bourgeois consensus has other dimensions that show how unprincipled this process will be. Euthanasia is not something our bourgeois consensus wishes to endorse, at least not enthusiastically. Most good and responsible people have misgivings. They recognize the dangers it poses to the weak and vulnerable. But they believe that intelligent, self-possessed people like them ought to have the option of doctor-assisted suicide, at least in some cases. The general tone of the Francis papacy thus encourages bishops to mirror this position. Doctor-assisted suicide is not OK, exactly, but it is OK-ish. It falls under the rubric of “accompaniment,” which means saying “no” without saying “no,” which is a way of saying “yes” without saying “yes.”
One need only consult the opinions of earnest and progressive secular elites in Germany, France, Canada, the United States, and elsewhere to be able to predict the positions that will be taken by this papacy on a wide range of issues. It will be permissive where permission is wanted, not so much changing the Church’s teaching as sidelining it. But Francis also will denounce where denunciations are wanted. Recently, he declared capital punishment always and everywhere forbidden. One can argue that this pronouncement is inconsistent with the Church’s two-thousand-year tradition of moral teaching on the matter. But that’s beside the point. The notion of Pope Francis defining any act as intrinsically evil is laughable on its face, given how often he attacks the “doctors of the law” who speak about objective moral norms. And didn’t Fr. Antonio Spadaro very clearly tell us that the time has passed when we can speak of “a norm that stands above all”? Pope Francis takes the hard line because it’s required if the Catholic Church is to remain aligned with the good and responsible people. After all, only barbarians in Texas continue to support the death penalty.
Christianity orients us upward and toward the divine. Bourgeois religion is horizontal. It takes its cues from the consensus of the moment, the opinions of the good and responsible people. This reduces Christianity to a political religion organized to buttress the status quo. The Francis papacy largely follows this pattern, making it quite predictable. We can count on Pope Francis to talk about the poor in exactly the same way that people do in Berkeley, which means with great earnestness and little consequence.
This papacy is not hard to figure out. Pope Francis and his associates echo the pieties and self-complimenting utopianism of progressives. That’s not surprising. The Jesuit charism is multifaceted and powerful. I count myself among those profoundly influenced by the spiritual genius of St. Ignatius. Yet there’s no disputing that for centuries Jesuits have shown great talent in adjusting the gospel to suit the powerful. And so, I think the European establishment can count on the Vatican to denounce the populism currently threatening its hold on power. I predict that this papacy will be a great defender of migrants and refugees—until political pressures on the European ruling class become so great that it shifts and becomes more “realistic,” at which point the Vatican will shift as well. What is presently denounced will be permitted; what is presently permitted will be denounced.
Adjustment, trimming of sails, and accommodation are inevitable. The Catholic Church is not set up to be countercultural. Catholicism, at least in the West, has establishment in its DNA. But this papacy is uniquely invertebrate. I can identify no consistent theological structure other than a vague Rahnerianism and post–Vatican II sign-of-the-times temporizing. This makes Francis a purely political pope, or at least very nearly so. No doubt he has an evangelical heart. But ever the Jesuit, he seems to regard every aspect of the Church’s tradition as a plastic instrument to be stiffened here or relaxed there in accord with ever-changing pastoral judgments.
This will not end well. The West has seen a long season of loosening, opening up, and deconsolidation, of which the sexual revolution is but a part. Our establishment is committed to sustaining this consensus. This is why it has been at war with Catholic intransigence, which is based on the Church’s insistence that she answer to timeless, unchanging, and demanding truths. It’s foolish for the papacy to make a peace treaty with this establishment consensus. It’s theologically unworkable. It’s also politically inept. For the establishment consensus is failing, and that includes the sexual revolution, which made many promises that were not fulfilled.



Um comentário:

  1. A Igreja em si mesma é Col 1,18, 1 22-23 etc., superior portanto a meros humanos que acaso a governem, vigarios os papas, de modo geral santos, mas aparece um desses, mais se parecendo do tempos do fim!
    São todos dualistas a partir do pecado original de nossos pais, portanto frageis, tendo sua infalibilidade em raros casos pontuais, fora do mais, tantos problemas como o atual.
    Seria a profecia de S Fco de Assis de haver em certo tempo, "não um pastor, mas um destruidor"?
    Se for o caso, merecimentos temos de sobra, embora seja conspiração de Satã-maçonaria, hoje representados pela maçonaria eclesiástica, tb prevista, caso planos Vindice e Nubius e nas visões do papa Leão XIII, mesmo certas antecipações do papa Bento XVI prevendo...

    ResponderExcluir

Certa vez, li uma frase em inglês muito boa para ser colocada quando se abre para comentários. A frase diz: "Say What You Mean, Mean What Say, But Don’t Say it Mean." (Diga o que você realmente quer dizer, com sinceridade, mas não com maldade).