Popes Benedict and Francis: Differences in Style, Continuity in Teachings and Faith

Pope Francis is an outgoing informal man, while Pope Emeritus Benedict is shy and introverted. But don’t let those differences in style confuse you. Both are holy men of fidelity to the truth of our Catholic faith. To learn more, watch the video below.

YouTube Preview Image

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I think the difference in style between the two goes beyond shy versus extrovert. I said this on max Lindeman’s blog on a similar subject:

    “I think it comes to leadership style. Some leaders get people to follow because they’re the golden-haired boy and project an aura that they alone know the path through the forest. Some leaders get people to follow because they project that you’re one of them and so make them feel comfortable that you have their best intentions in mind as you work your way through the forest. Not saying that Pope Francis is ignorant of the path, but that he’s more of the latter while B16 was more of the former.”

    Now that I think of it, their personalities probably led them toward their leadership style. It is inter related.

  • Peg

    Excellent video! I am so thankful we have two great leaders to inspire us. We live in a world with such a leadership vacuum these days… in our schools, government, business, even churches…soon we might not even recognize what good leadership looks and sounds like.

    I’ve often thought that those who think Benedict dragged things down and Francis has come to rescue have missed a deeper reality beyond the worldly idealogies they are entrenched in. Both have brought great leadership and abilities and continue the building up of the Church. You can see the hand of God working with their strengths and weaknesses in profound ways!

    I feel we are all very blessed to have both!

  • Bill S

    Relativism
    1 a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them

    Absolutism
    1.
    a. A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority.
    b. A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority.
    2. An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard.

    So, Francis has joined Benedict in the condemnation of the dictatorship or tyranny of relativism. And it’s opposite, absolutism, that’s a good thing.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I don’t know where you got your definitions (I assume they are dictionary definitions) of these words, but they are not the ones that the Church uses, or that philosophers, ethicists or anyone I know applies to the various permutations of social/moral/cultural/ethical relativism. I normally am not this picky, but since you are trying to make a theological argument I think it’s pertinent.

      Also, so far as I know, neither pope has even addressed absolutism as a social/moral/cultural/ethical movement.

      I am only saying all this because you are creating a very flimsy and inaccurate straw man here.

  • Bill S

    I was just trying to ascertain why relativism is considered tyranny when its opposite would be something like absolutism, under which the Pope would have absolute power. Of course he would oppose relativism. What absolute ruler wouldn’t. It seems ironic for it to be condemned as a dictatorship or a tyranny by someone holding absolute power over a billion plus followers. Thank you for not deleting me. I crave your attention.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I don’t think you understand what relativism, as the Holy Father means it, is.

      Frankly, relativism has become a kind of tyranny in much of our society. By the way you are using the terms, it would be a form of absolutism, the way you are using the word.

    • Theodore Seeber

      “Thank you for not deleting me. I crave your attention.”

      Not really deriding our friend Bill, but this is what the dictatorship of relativism is to me. “I insist that all men have the right to decide their own morality, except for those who don’t decide their own morality, and you need to pay attention to me while I do it”. The gay marriage lobby is just the latest in a long line of people who insist that *their sin is special* and *shouldn’t be called a sin*, and that to do so makes us bigots, and bigots should always be discriminated against.

      So yes, I’d agree with Bill that the dictatorship of relativism is in and of itself a paradox. It doesn’t make it any the less real; just very, very, very irrational. And the irrational side isn’t those who identify the behavior, but rather those committing the behavior.

  • Bill S

    “The gay marriage lobby is just the latest in a long line of people who insist that *their sin is special* and *shouldn’t be called a sin*, and that to do so makes us bigots, and bigots should always be discriminated against.”

    Ted,

    You can practice a religion that designates homosexual activities as “sins” but that doesn’t make them wrong to the people involved and it doesn’t make them illegal. “Sin” is a theological concept that has questionable correlation to reality. People who discriminate against gays are going to be labeled as bigots and face discrimination against them. If you don’t want to be discriminated against, don’t discriminate against others. What goes around comes around.

    • Theodore Seeber

      “You can practice a religion that designates homosexual activities as “sins” but that doesn’t make them wrong to the people involved and it doesn’t make them illegal.”

      A sin is not a sin just because a religion says so. A sin is a sin because it destroys human relationships with each other and with God.

      Illegal things are illegal because they destroy the relationships that make up civilization.

      Now of course, one can say that civilization is incompatible with American Law, and one would certainly be right in saying so, but if so, one cannot claim special rights for any one group, and thus, we’d have to get rid of ALL laws that mirror religious morality in any way.

      ““Sin” is a theological concept that has questionable correlation to reality. ”

      Only for people who wish to deny reality.

      “People who discriminate against gays are going to be labeled as bigots and face discrimination against them. If you don’t want to be discriminated against, don’t discriminate against others. What goes around comes around.”

      Then why are you discriminating against pedosexuals, polysexuals, and pseudosexuals? Or against murderers, shouldn’t they be allowed since “sin” is a useless concept? You’re as much of a bigot as I am, and so is everybody else who supports “same sex marriage” to the exclusion of a necrosexual’s right to “marry” his intended spouse by killing them.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X