Francis continues to cross lines

A reader writes:

Reading my Facebook feed last night, I saw one neopagan friend saying, “Pope Francis continues to do cool things for the hungry, the sick, the poor. Huh.”

If you are happy to read that and get that the mission of the Church is to “‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame.’ And grasp that the master says to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled” with remarkably little concern for how theologically, morally or liturgically perfect this rabble is, you will get what Francis is attempting and not panic when he appeals to those Conservative Catholics regard as The Wrong People.  If you believe that the Pope’s job is to draw sharp lines designed to keep the riff raff away and to protect the Pure within Fortress Katolicus from having to rub shoulders with The Wrong People, you will be frightened and confused when people like this find him attractive.  This is not a Pope who is interested in drawing lines.  This is a Pope who is interested in crossing lines to “compel them to come in”.  Get used to it.

  • http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/ Crude

    And grasp that the master says to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled” with remarkably little concern for how theologically, morally or liturgically perfect this rabble is, you will get what Francis is attempting and not panic when he appeals to those Conservative Catholics regard as The Wrong People.

    Many of us Conservative Catholics are quite fine with people who are ‘theologically, morally or liturgically’ not-perfect coming into the Church. In fact, many of us recognize that we ourselves are far from perfect. I argue with and disagree with those Catholics who seem to want only the morally pure in the Church, or who are overreacting to the Pope reaching out to others, or finding a new tone to take on these issues while remaining orthodox, or criticizing the tone of some social conservatives in the past.

    But considering you have a number of liberals hailing what the Pope is doing as an attack on orthodox – as the first, crucial step in delivering a Church which approves of abortion, gay marriage, etc, etc – and considering these voices are rather loud, I can completely understand exactly why they’re worried. I can look over at the Episcopalians and see a church that has become, by any real measure, the living embodiment of a joke.

    Imagine, for a moment, if the Pope decided to reach out to other sorts of ‘wrong people’: Racists. Anti-semites. Imagine if the Pope said that, on the whole, a racist is at the end of the day a man who is wrong about one issue and who loves his family and is trying to do what is right. Imagine if he exhorted the anti-semite to ‘follow his conscience’ where Jews were concerned. And if he said that these people, with their faults, nevertheless were welcome to and had a home in the Church. Now, imagine that the Pope meant that such people had to be repentant, that anti-semitism or racism were not Catholic virtues, that they were in fact sins – but his words weren’t suitably explicit about this, and you had people from various racist or anti-semite organizations crowing about what a great Pope this is, and how he’s so forward-thinking and coming around on these topics, and perhaps we’ll soon have a Church where blacks and whites have to celebrate mass in their own churches.

    Would you then understand the worry from the orthodox Catholics who found the whole thing unsettling?

    • Andy, Bad Person

      But considering you have a number of liberals hailing what the Pope is
      doing as an attack on orthodox – as the first, crucial step in
      delivering a Church which approves of abortion, gay marriage, etc, etc -
      and considering these voices are rather loud, I can completely
      understand exactly why they’re worried.

      And why are you buying into the same media spin about his comments that they are? You didn’t (or shouldn’t) believe the spin they put on Benedict; why start now?

      I’ll worry if the Church actually starts changing her moral teaching in these matters (spoiler: she won’t).

      • http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/ Crude

        I’m not. I’m showing sympathy to people who are confused. Not every one of these guys, or even most, are these fanatical sedevacantists who flip their lids when the Pope fails to meet their lofty and often insane standards. I’ve been trying to argue with the ones I know that no, the ‘media spin’ is baloney.

        But frankly, there are a lot of Catholics who are preening over just how loyal they are and how much faith they have in their Pope, mocking the people who are worried or confused, or who – better yet – need to understand WHY it’s important to reach out to certain people. A lot of them have seen one institution after another – including many churches – rot away from the inside as a result of trying to appease certain groups of people.

        I ask again: if the Pope was reaching out to racists and anti-semites – people who, by the way, are pretty well on the same moral plane as the ardently pro-abortion, or the fanatically pro-LGBT – would you at least understand if some people were freaking out and worrying, even if this was a case of welcoming people into the Church who had faults, and who were to be expected to repent of those faults?

        • HornOrSilk

          No, what is happening is a lot of so-called “conservative” Catholics online are coming to act like sedes without declaring themselves such. I know many saying Francis is a heretic (when all Francis has said and done is nothing different from other Popes!). I know many are following the “he might be an anti-Pope” mentality now. I know some who basically say, “Yes, he is the Pope, and I know I have a Christian duty to love him, but I don’t like him.” And they think he is speaking too much and not being clear. But, as has been said before, they ignored all the interviews and speeches of Pope Benedict and JPII (in recent years), because if they paid attention, they would see the unity of the three. They really have an ideological lens, which is quite political, and they ignore what the Church is all about. I know many, for example, have lots of hatred in them for Muslims — any Muslim — and find all kinds of ways to twist the Church’s declaration of respect for Muslims (and the fact we are required to strive to work with Muslims to overcome polemical assaults against each other). And so Pope Francis being “nice” to Muslims is seen as heresy by them, despite what he said is nothing new!

          • http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/ Crude

            I know many saying Francis is a heretic (when all Francis has said and done is nothing different from other Popes!). I know many are following the “he might be an anti-Pope” mentality now. I know some who basically say, “Yes, he is the Pope, and I know I have a Christian duty to love him, but I don’t like him.”

            Don’t you think filing the first two alongside the last is a bit inaccurate? That’s quite the outlying view.

            And so Pope Francis being “nice” to Muslims is seen as heresy by them, despite what he said is nothing new!

            I haven’t seen many of them talking about muslims. I have seen many spooked by NARAL putting out an idiotic graphic thanking Pope Francis on behalf of ‘pro-choice women’. Or watching the Pope talk about how everyone should follow their conscience – which, like it or not, really does lend itself to some unfortunate misinterpretation. Praising Martini on top of it all probably doesn’t help.

            Keep in mind, I’ve also been arguing with these people, pointing out the orthodox things Francis has said, explaining what I think he’s doing in reaching out to various Catholics without sacrificing orthodoxy. But I’m tired of watching so many would be defenders of Francis choosing as their primary mode of defense ‘belittling people who are worried or confused about things he said’.

            • HornOrSilk

              The “I dislike him” style creates a lens by which Francis is read and ignored, and it is meant to downplay what Francis does. It gives strength to the first two. It goes well here.

              I’ve seen the Muslim talk, but it depends upon where one goes. This more in the “chat rooms.” There is a major xenophobia against Islam (similar to anti-Irish 19th century commentary), and I do see this often. The letter the Pope wrote got quite a few upset (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-expresses-goodwill-to-muslims-in-letter-to-sunni-grand-imam/ read comments here, and you will see this happening in blog comments, too).

              NARAL/Lifesite and all such groups, on both sides, exist to bring fear to their followers and use it for political and economic gain. I ignore polemics on both sides.

              You might be tired of people who “belittle fears” but when the fears are unfounded, and they are, then that is exactly what needs to be done. Polemics be damned.

              • http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/ Crude

                NARAL/Lifesite and all such groups, on both sides, exist to bring fear to their followers and use it for political and economic gain. I ignore polemics on both sides.

                Yeah, I don’t think NARAL and Lifesite are in the same category by a longshot.

                You might be tired of people who “belittle fears” but when the fears are unfounded, and they are, then that is exactly what needs to be done. Polemics be damned.

                Belittling IS ‘polemics’. Why don’t you try making your case and convincing them that they’re wrong? Pope Francis’ big interview that launched a lot of this reaction is exactly how old again? And you’re writing off everyone who’s worried as being in need of some good ol’ belittling?

                • HornOrSilk

                  Lifesite is constantly misrepresenting facts and the Church. They are not reputable at all. I love how they tried to make Pope Benedict hostile to Harry Potter, when nothing of the sort was true. Again, they have a base, and they twist news to fit the base, as does NARAL. Simple.

                  Belittling is not polemics when it is pointing out the fears are unjustified and come from sources seeking to create panic. That is not polemics.

                  • http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/ Crude

                    Again, they have a base, and they twist news to fit the base, as does NARAL. Simple.

                    Not quite so simple, no. ‘Lifesite’ is a news site with a variety of articles written by various people. ‘NARAL’ is a political organization. The only thing simple is how different they are.

                    Belittling is not polemics when it is pointing out the fears are unjustified and come from sources seeking to create panic. That is not polemics.

                    No, belittling is polemics. Period. Once again, ‘simple’.

                    Arguing that fears are unjustified, pointing out the sources? Different story. But that is not belittling.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      Lifesite is a political group claiming to be “news,” but they lie and distort in their news. It’s politics.

                      Belittling fears is not polemics. When the fear mongers are out trying to make fears, it’s not polemics to say, “they are of no value.” Just as it is not polemics to say, “Flat earthers are not worth my while to debate.”

                    • http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/ Crude

                      Lifesite is a political group claiming to be “news,” but they lie and distort in their news. It’s politics.

                      Most sites ‘lie and distort in their news’. The New York Times is not therefore a ‘political group’.

                      Belittling fears is not polemics.

                      Yes, it is. Are you just deciding to change the definition of ‘polemics’ on a whim?

                      Polemics: a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something.

                      Calling someone a fearmonger? Polemics. Saying ‘they are of no value’? Polemics. Comparisons to flat earthers? Polemics.

                    • HornOrSilk

                      Easing fears, saying they are of nothing, is not a strong verbal or written attack. You are the one engaging polemics here, and I do think your nick is right. I will leave you be now.

                    • http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/ Crude

                      Easing fears, saying they are of nothing, is not a strong verbal or written attack.

                      Calling people fearmongers, saying ‘they are of no value’, comparing them to flat earthers? Straightforward polemics.

                      And you know what? That’s fine. Sometimes polemics are appropriate. I don’t think it is in the case, but you can disagree. But don’t play the game of thinking that when you engage in polemics, it isn’t really polemics, on the grounds that… what, because you think ‘but I’m RIGHT’?

                    • Kate Cousino

                      Lifesite is a polemical site. They do some pretty awful and blatant misreporting, and they don’t really even try to pretend to care about journalistic principles. I admire the motivation and sentiment, but I abhor the practices, and think they weaken the pro-life movement.

                    • http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/ Crude

                      Lifesite is a polemical site. They do some pretty awful and blatant misreporting, and they don’t really even try to pretend to care about journalistic principles.

                      Welcome to just about any news site, period. I’m sure everyone loves to carve out exceptions for THEIR news site: ‘All the others are terrible, but when I want to hear straight news the way it is, I tune in to (Liberals: MSNBC / Conservative: Fox).’ But it’s largely the case.

        • http://hjg.com.ar/ Hernán J. González

          “if the Pope was reaching out to racists and anti-semites – people who, by the way, are pretty well on the same moral plane as the ardently pro-abortion, or the fanatically pro-LGBT ”

          There are no groups of people who “are on some moral plane”.

          • http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/ Crude

            There are no groups of people who “are on some moral plane”.

            Sure there are. There’s no strict scientific measure, but yes, I think it’s pretty fair to equate the fanatically pro-abortion with ardent racists and anti-semites morally.

        • Kate Cousino

          But the previous pope DID reach out to racists and anti-semites, in much the same way as this pope is reaching out to ‘pro-aborts and LGBT’. When Benedict sought to find common ground and make allowances where possible for the legitimate concerns of the SSPX and other sedevecantist sects, that included figures who had made horribly anti-semitic and/or racist comments in the past. Benedicts desire to reach out to them didn’t amount to ‘weakening’ the Church’s position against those evils though, and there were lines Benedict wouldn’t and couldn’t cross to make reconciliation happen.

          Similarly, Francis hasn’t changed anything about the Church’s teachings on abortion or sexuality; but he has sought to address the legitimate needs and suffering of those people where he can see them. That doesn’t mean that he’s changing anything, and I expect that we’ll see (as will those who are having fun pretending that the Pope is some kind of political activist) that there are lines that can’t and won’t be crossed.

          • http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/ Crude

            But the previous pope DID reach out to racists and anti-semites, in much the same way as this pope is reaching out to ‘pro-aborts and LGBT’. When Benedict sought to find common ground and make allowances where possible for the legitimate concerns of the SSPX

            The SSPX is not a ‘racist’ or ‘anti-semite’ group, no matter what you may think of their members. There is no comparison between reaching out to the SSPX and reaching out to racists – and if you think so, just find me a statement by Benedict or PJPII naming racists and anti-semites as people who are people too and who Catholics should welcome into the Church, and that theirs is just a failing like any other.

            Nor am I condemning Francis for reaching out to the people he is. I am illustrating why people are concerned. And frankly, if Benedict ever explicitly said that racists and anti-semites were welcome in the Church, so long as they were repentant of their past views, I think a lot of the people defending Francis would have completely lost their minds.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Actually, they aren’t on the same moral plane, from aCatholic perspective. A racist isnt committing a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance. A racist IS ypur brother who.is just sinfilly wrong on ome of.many issues. Mark Shea can explain that better tha. I can. Of this i have no doubt.

    • Donna

      I’m not an orthodox, or reactionary, or whatever label is given to the people Mark frequently comments on, but I have begun to feel that the unrelenting attacks on this group are unfair. The portrayal of this group as overwhelmingly panicked, livid and irrationally anti-Francis is misleading in the sense that while I think many are concerned, there aren’t all that many who are over the top. There are some who are greatly overreacting to Francis, but giving them so much attention paints with a very broad brush and throws a lot of sincere Catholics who are trying to do their best to follow Christ under the bus.

      All the attention to the traditionalists overlooks the fact that some in the progressive or liberal branch are also overreacting to Francis. They’re projecting their own hopes for radical change in the church onto him. Crude is exactly right when he/she wrote that to this group Francis is all things wonderful until he reaches out to – gasp – the wrong people. Or is put in a position where he has to clearly uphold the church’s teaching on marriage or sexuality. Then let’s see how this group reacts or overreacts to Francis.

      One final thought – back in law school, most in my class were proudly liberal. In our minds, we were the intelligent, the clear thinking, the sophisticated ones. We knew and cared about what was important and had the brains to make a difference. We felt superior to the few conservative students. We believed they were not nearly as smart as we were and were only interested in themselves and making money. Our favorite target was one very outspoken, very conservative guy.

      Law schools give one test at the end of the semester, and your entire grade is based on that test so things get very competitive. There was a sight impaired student in our class and the school asked for volunteers to work with this student to prepare for finals. Only one person did – the conservative guy. The rest of us who loved to feel superior and shoot off our mouths were too busy taking care of our grades to actually take a risk and help. The conservative guy spent hours helping this student. He also ended up number 2 or 3 in our class.

      That was a great learning experience for me and I see a lot of parallels in some of the online discussion pitting liberal catholics against their conservative counterparts.

    • chezami

      And so, of course, whatcha *do* is *educate the people who misunderstand what the pope teaches*, not get worrried because the pope is attracting the “wrong” people. That means *listening* to the Pope, not hastening to correct him.

    • Bill

      Very tight reasoning Crude…until I see a Church open to sitting down openly and cheerfully with “All Sinners” equally, believe me I do not want to be, but nonetheless I am, in the “Nervous and Worried” camp….certain kind of “Culture of Death” leaders are more publicly acceptable to sit down with than others and how convenient that is and how bad that looks to the average Catholic Joe!…are we going for practicality here or principle….or are we being “Selective” on which tactic is applied to which classes of sinners? It of course “Looks” but may not be reality that the Church is being a good lapdog of the Elite Secular Liberal & Media Magisterium.

      I am okay with being questioned about these concerns but I do not care to be “Dismissed”..being “Dismissed” instead of addressing points… is when the dukes come up……”Aggiornamento Dialogue” for You…..but none for You!

      None-the-less I follow the Holy Father but I am nervous.

      Father Hugh o’flaherty pray for us.

    • savvy

      The church is not about our culture wars or politics. We are all being called to conversion to get over ourselves. Jesus did not spend a lot of time, pushing sexual politics. Liberals need to practise what they preach as much as conservatives do.

      The SSPX rejected his outreach. Will the liberals do the same? Time will tell.

  • Dave G.

    I have to say this. I’ve come to appreciate Traditional Catholics and Conservative Catholics in recent months.

  • vox borealis

    Another post pointed at the group Mark Shea claims not to care about. Odd that.

    • chezami

      Not odd at all. I care about defending confused people from the poison these guys pump out.

      • Stu

        I don’t think your means are aligned with your ends.

        Wanting to clear up confusion is certainly a noble goal. I applaud the desire to do so and having read some of your books, I can
        certainly say that you have within you the ability to do just that. But I don’t think you are doing that here.

        In being called to love our enemies, it seems to me that it really means showing charity to “them” especially when that is hard to do. Not marginalizing “them” through name calling or bitter language and sentiments but actually making an effort to love them EVEN when they may have hurt you in the past (or do so now). Anyone who has been in a position to assist someone who is wounded or very ill knows that their condition can sometimes cause them to lash out even to those who are attempting to give them aid and comfort. The response to that isn’t to shoot the wounded. It’s to suck it up, stay on task and try again. (And again. And again. And again…)

        Pope Francis made a very good comparison to the Church as a
        field hospital. That’s because there is a war going on and we are on the spiritual battlefield. Well, Mark some of your fellow soldiers are down, hurt and confused. You have the gifts to help. What are you going to do?

    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

      I think Shea’s challenging us, and I think he’s doing a good job. He’s abrasive, but when have you known him not to be? The fact that posts calling out us “conservatives” quickly fill up with many, many comments is a sign he’s doing something right.

      &lt/bootlicking>

      • chezami

        You may have a cookie. :)

  • ivan_the_mad

    Hopefully a small seed has been sown there. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add as a regular intention such people, for whom the words or deeds of the pope provide even the smallest opportunity for grace and the Spirit.

  • meunke

    It does irk me a bit. Let me explain why:

    The great things that Pope Francis is doing are right in line with the great works that Benedict and John Paul II before him did. The constant barrage I hear goes along the lines of ‘Hey, THIS guy is actually doing something.’ It is a continuous middle finger to everything that came before him, which really isn’t different from what Francis is doing now. What that means is that people don’t really care about what he does, just about the coverage he gets doing it. Seems a lot of people have no problem with that.

    The other point I’d like to raise is that this public awareness, as good as it is, is totally artificial. I can wager my next paycheck that your reader’s facebook friend noticed this about Francis NOT because he follows goings on in the Catholic Church, but because MSNBC or FOX or some such outlet threw out a fawning headline about it. That’s great. However we must realize that this will continue only until the media realizes that the Holy Father will not turn out to be the theological libertine they are trying to believe he is. Once that happens they will ignore him or attack him just like they have with the previous two.

    • Stu

      The media will turn on Francis soon enough. Folks at NCR already have begun.

    • Iota

      meunke,

      1. People going on about how THIS Pope is different don’t have to be showing “a continuous middle finger” to the last Popes.

      Aristotle famously said that the effectiveness of a message depends on two things: what you say and what the audience is prepared to hear. Both are important. There are people who benefited form Benedict’s style but are confused by Francis (may God bless them and give them graces). The there are people who weren’t listening to Benedict on JP II, for whatever reason, and are listening now, at least a bit (may God bless them and give them graces). Insisting on a teacher who speaks your kind of language might not be the most polite, virtuous and great way to learn, but it’s very human. Even insisting that your previous teacher was stupid because you didn’t understand his explanations is human. That doesn’t make it good, but – in my estimation – not worth holding a grudge about.

      2. Sure, if all people are doing is making bets about Francis “reforming the Church” (in the wrong ways) then once he doesn’t do that they’ll stop listening. But I wouldn’t insist that that’s all there is.

      • meunke

        “1. People going on about how THIS Pope is different don’t have to be showing “a continuous middle finger” to the last Popes.”
        - I think you’re confused about what I meant. I’m not talking about noticing differences. What I am talking about is latching onto things being done/taught by one that were the same as the other, pretending the other guy never actually taught that, and new guy is just so much fresher in all his teaching. It’s either dishonest or lazy, take your pick.

        “The there are people who weren’t listening to Benedict on JP II, for whatever reason, and are listening now”
        - Some may be, I’ll grant. But what are the rest hearing? If all the non Catholics I’ve run across in Facebook and other blogs are to be believed, it’s that Francis is on the verge of making gay marriage ok, giving the Church’s stamp of approval to casual divorce, woman priests, etc. Now we both know those things aren’t going to happen. But a lot of his popularity that I’ve seen in other circles is based on such silly assumptions.

        I’ll give an example: I have a friend who’s daughter is gay. He is non Catholic, in fact he’s not much of anything religion wise. But we have had honest discussions on what the Church teaches and I dispelled a LOT of misconceptions he had about it. Then he was all excited to learn from several news outlets that, it seems, the pope says being an active homosexual is totally fine now and not ‘sinful’ in any way. He told me how happy he was to hear that. Now, the pope didn’t actually say that. I carefully showed him the quotes involved and how it didn’t change what the Church taught (it was a long discussion). End result: doesn’t much like the pope afterall.

        I’ll tell you what I’m seeing a lot of. I see a lot of enthusiasm about new stuff that, if anyone besides apparently me a five other people had actually READ Benedict’s encyclicals, isn’t any different from what was being taught already for a long time, enthusiasm for what, as far as I’m concerned, doesn’t really matter that much (OMG!!!111!! He PERSONALLY CALLED TO CANCEL HIS PAPER!!!! *insert Justin Bieber fangirl-like shriek here*) and a LOT based upon a total misunderstanding of what is being said (see my example above).

        In Scripture tons of people followed Christ for a long time. We aren’t really given all the reasons they did. But when it came down to ‘eat My Flesh and drink My Blood’, a ton decided they had totally thought he was someone else.

        A lot of his popularity is going to turn to hatred and derision quickly when hard questions, the answers to which we don’t want to hear, are asked and answered directly. Teaching being the same, I don’t think Benedict had that problem because all the usual suspects hated him at the beginning.

        I think a lot of people are going to be shocked when that happens, unfortunately.

        • kenofken

          None of us non-Catholics have any business caring one way or the other what the pope does with the doctrine of his own Church. I certainly don’t. I don’t see that he’s changed any core message, but he clearly has radically different ideas about how to engage the world in his ministry, and he has the stones to tell all of his various would-be puppet masters to sod off. I respect that in any leader of any system.

        • Iota

          > “It’s either dishonest or lazy, take your pick.”

          Given a choice and no data, I’ll go with mostly “normally, humanly lazy”. Because that seems to be more charitable and in the absence of data, I prefer to try to be charitable.

          Out of all the people who comment on this kind of stuff, only relatively well catechized Catholics with extra time on their hands (or doing this as a job) can be reasonably expected to delve into encyclicals. The ones with less spare time can be kind of expected to have a general idea of what the Pope is saying.

          For the whole rest (e.g. even baptised Catholics who are mentally outside of the Church, more so non-Catholics), any familiarity with, say, Church documents shouldn’t be assumed. It’s good if they do their research, but I wouldn’t expect them to.

          > End result: doesn’t much like the pope afterall.

          But that isn’t a new problem, is it? He didn’t like the Church teaching as it stood. He was confused (by bad reporting and possibly because he kind of hoped the teaching WOULD change). So you had a conversation. You cleared things up, I’m assuming skilfully. So if, at this point he doesn’t like what the Pope actually said, it’s normal, to be expected and generally business as usual. Nothing has changed for the worse, right? He didn’t suffer a massive hearbreak, blaming the duplicious Pope for having given him ideas, right?

          > I think a lot of people are going to be shocked when that happens, unfortunately.

          So they might be. In which case the math seems to be:

          “People who really don’t like the Church teaching and, therefore, didn’t like Pope Benedict” = “People who don’t like Church teaching and, therefore, will eventually be disappointed with Pope Francis and would possibly already be if they paid more attention” = regrettably business as usual.

          The people who are interesting are the ones who might be tempted to look into the Church. They are, logically, the people anyone can humanly reach out to. The ones who are currently set on their positions aren’t going to change their position because the Pope sent an elderly Italian lady some money. If I had to guess at a means to reach THEM, I’d go for insistent prayer.

  • jackryan

    You’re such a hateful jackass Mark. And you’re not witty.

  • Stu

    “This is a Pope who is interested in crossing lines to “compel them to come in”. Get used to it.”
    (And all of you effing reactionary panicky bedwetter can get the F*** out because I can’t stand all of your whining and don’t give a s*** about your toxic subculture.)
    ———————–
    I applaud the Pope for reaching out to those who feel disaffected in an attempt to bring them to the truth. What a great example for us all.

  • david

    I know another guy who made “pure” religious people really really nervous and worried because of his boldness in reaching out to sinners.

    • Stu

      Reflecting on such things is certainly a good thing. After all, such is certainly why these accounts appear in Scripture. But it seems to me the point in doing so is one of introspection rather than trying to identify everyone else as a Pharisee, “older brother”, etc.

      • david

        I wasn’t intending to imply everyone else is a Pharisee, just that Jesus’ way of interacting with sinners made a lot of people nervous, because he was so bold. My thought is that maybe it is a good thing Francis is shaking some of us up a little.

        EDIT: grammar correction

        • Stu

          Noted and appreciated.

  • dudeman1144

    Nothing says tolerance and acceptance like telling people to “get used to it.” And what if I don’t? Big tough blog man going to hit me with his blog?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X