Vittorio Messori's concerns regarding Francis...

From Lifesite News:

MILAN, Italy, November 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — A best-selling Italian writer has broken his silence on the current papacy to voice concerns over Pope Francis’ attitude toward doctrine.

Vittorio Messori, 76, is best-known in the English-speaking world for his book-length interviews with then-Cardinal Ratzinger in The Ratzinger Report (1987) and with Pope John Paul II in Threshold of Hope. The journalist has now published an essay in an Italian Catholic magazine, Il Timore, outlining his fears that Pope Francis is turning the Catholic Church into a kind of “liquid society” in which the only certainty is uncertainty and the only constant is change.

The article, which is not available online, was first brought to the attention of the English-speaking world by Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register.

In his essay, Messori draws on the work of Zygmunt Bauman (1925-2017), the Jewish-Polish philosopher who introduced the concept of “liquid modernity” to sociology. “Liquid modernity” represents a change from what Bauman called “solid modernity.” Bauman wrote that the “liquid” modern man values individualism over social ties. He “flows through his own life like a tourist, changing places, jobs, spouses, values and even sexual orientation and gender.”

Bauman observed that such a man excludes himself from traditional networks of support, freeing himself from their restrictions or requirements. This extreme individualism has created societies in which, Messori writes, “everything is unstable and changeable.” Today it is acceptable to believe that change is “the only permanent thing” and that uncertainty is the “only certainty.”

Messori is troubled that these ideas have begun to influence religious faith. He writes that believers are becoming “disturbed by the fact that even the Catholic Church — which was an age-old example of stability — seems to want to become ‘liquid’ as well.”

Francis is engaging in chronological snobbery or what the French philosopher Jacques Maritain referred to as"chronolatry" in his work "Le paysan de la Garonne" - The Peasant of the Garonne.

Maritain defines chronolatry as the idolatry of what is newest or latest in time. This is the characteristic flaw of today's "progressive" who looks upon the wisdom of the ages and dismisses it as nothing more than "theories" which belong to the past.

Is there really any doubt that Francis views the Catholic Church as "outdated" and "stagnant."  recall what his niece had to say about the Church and his "mission" here.

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition..."

Pope St. Agatho (678-681)

Papal Coronation Oath, to be taken by all Roman pontiffs, showing that no
Roman pontiff has the authority to contradict the Deposit of Faith, or to
change or innovate upon what has been handed by to him by Sacred Tradition
and his predecessors:

        "I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing
thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors,
to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

        "To the contrary:  with glowing affection as her truly faithful
student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my
whole strength and utmost effort;

        "To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order,
should such appear;

        "To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were
the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place
I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support,
being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all
that I shall confess;

        "I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will
keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and
whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and
declared.

        "I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline
and the rite of the Church.  I will put outside the Church whoever
dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

        "If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or
should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on
the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

     "Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest
excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare
to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic
Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion,
or
would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with
those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."  (Liber Diurnus Romanorum
Pontificum, Patrologia Latina
1005, S. 54)

Dei verbum, No. 10:

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church,  whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

Concerns regarding Francis, see here.

Confusion from Francis, see here.

Catholics want the truth not sentimental paternalism...

In an essay entitled "People's Needs, Moral Truths and Priests," Dr. William E. May, a professor of moral theology, wrote, "Jesus' yoke is sweet and his burden is light for those who love him and the truth that he came to give us. Like his, their will [priest's] is to do the will of the Father, to shape their lives in accordance with the truth, even if this means that they too must take up their cross and bear it. Catholics have, through baptism, died to sin and have risen to a new kind of life. They know that their baptismal commitment requires them to love even as they have been and are loved by God in Christ. They know that at times fidelity to Christ and his truth will cause them to suffer, but they likewise know that by uniting their lives and sufferings with Christ's they can come to share ever more deeply in his redemptive work, a work that reverences fully the great and good gifts of human existence, the goods meant to flourish in human persons, the goods protected by absolute moral norms. They know, too, that with God's unfailing grace they can choose in ways that fully respect these goods. They want the truth, not sentimental paternalism. And they know, deep in their hearts, that the priest speaks the truth if and only if he affirms Church teaching and offers them the help and support they need to make it real in their lives."


In an interview with The Boston Globe Magazine back in 2006, Father Richard Erikson was quoted as having said that, "I expect people to judge us by our actions. I can go down to the Boston Common with a megaphone and proclaim Christ, but it's how are we living our lives, and how are we leading,...how are we healing? And are we doing so in a way that would imitate what Jesus Christ would do out of love and care? And let me say something about upholding Christ. It may sound almost arrogant, unlivable - you know, I'm going to uphold Christ? He doesn't need me to uphold him. But I need to uphold him. It's about what I need to do to be centered in Christ. Because if my life here becomes primarily about finances and about structure and about corporations, and if I'm more concerned about the heater than I am about people's souls, then I have lost perspective.

When asked what his priorities were for the Archdiocese, Father Erikson responded, "The priority is leadership in the Catholic Church. Our priority is to continue Cardinal O'Malley's effort of healing, of rebuilding trust, of welcoming people home to the Catholic Church who've gone away, continued care and outreach and support of victims of sexual abuse. And also, besides sexual abuse, there are other people who've been hurt by actions of the church, and reaching out in a healing way to them. Those are the structural priorities. And my personal priority is to uphold Jesus Christ and bring whatever leadership and healing I can in his name." (See here).

Father Erikson spoke of being a "father figure" during his interview with the The Boston Globe Magazine. But, as Dr. May has said, Catholics have a very definite idea of what a loving father should be. They are looking for truth and not sentimental paternalism. And yet, when faithful Catholics have expressed their legitimate concerns over dissent within the troubled Boston Archdiocese, the response they have received from Father Erikson is not that of a loving father concerned with people's souls, but that of a bureaucrat anxious to dismiss complaints with a wave of the hand while accusing those who have meticulously documented their concerns of engaging in falsehood. This is not the proper approach if one is sincere about "rebuilding trust."

Father Erikson has gone on record as having said that he expects people to judge Archdiocesan officials by their actions. That they are now beginning to do so should not then come as a surprise.

Philosopher Sam Harris advances the "Heaven is escapist" argument...

No one can accuse philosopher Sam Harris of being original. During a recent interview with CNN, which may be seen here, Mr. Harris asserted that, "Religion causes people to fixate on issues of less moral importance....Religion has convinced us that there's something else entirely other than concerns about suffering. There's concerns about what God wants, there's concerns about what's going to happen in the afterlife..." In other words, concerns about supernatural realities such as God's Holy Will and Heaven are "escapist" because these "distract us" from the concerns of this world.

It was C.S. Lewis who so eloquently answered this charge of "escapism" with the simple question "Who talks the most against 'escapism'? Jailers." No doubt this point would be lost on Mr. Harris.

Heaven is not escapist because it is real. An idea is only "escapist" if it is a lie. By asserting that the afterlife is somehow "escapist," Mr. Harris is presupposing atheism. But if Heaven is real (and it is), it is escapism not to think about it and realistic to do so. One can almost hear Mr. Harris responding, "There is no scientific evidence to show that Heaven (or the "afterlife") exists." But this argument also falls flat. Where is the scientific evidence proving the notion that nothing exists except what may be proved by scientific evidence? There is no scientific evidence for such an assumption. In fact, such an assumption represents merely a desire to narrow the bounds of reality to that which may be demonstrated by the scientific method.

If Heaven is real and it is our ultimate destination, then it is really our primary task. Which is why we are commanded to "strive first for the kingdom of God" (Matthew 6: 33) because "our citizenship is in heaven." (Phil 3: 19-20). And what of Mr. Harris' assertion that "Religion causes people to fixate on issues of less moral importance"? What could be more important than saving one's soul and attaining eternal life in Heaven with God? How is such an issue of "less moral importance"?

Does concern for the afterlife necessarily distract one from "concerns about suffering"? Did it serve to distract Moses, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Augustine, Aquinas and, of course, Jesus the Christ from such concerns?

God preserve us from such nonsense!