Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Lorac, Feb 11, 2013.
Jesuits can be cool. Though all the ones I know personal have been rather liberal.
These are serious accusations:
What is that supposed to mean?
Cardinal Bergoglio's life has just changed dramatically and forever. Being a Pope is an incredibly taxing job, physically and mentally. If you have a constitutional weakness or a latent condition, it could be aggravated. I hope not, though. Hope he takes good care of himself.
According to , he's been doing flawless 4S+3T+3R combinations in practice.
That the Catholic Church has colluded with the military dictatorship in order to keep/advance its power. Shock horror who would have thought (it's happened pretty much everywhere wherever you had right wing authoritarian governments).
Can he make it to fake London on time for the free skate?
Should we now expect an Argentinian singer to tear a picture of him in half after a performance, following in Sinead O'Connor's footsteps?
Really now. Got any links from The Onion?
Oh goody, we got ourselves a spy.
Liberal Jesuit seems to be an oxymoron...
Though the only Jesuit I know personally was quite a wild child in his college days. Many of us think he entered the priesthood to reconcile his sinful "lifestyle choice"... His theology is very conservative now.
You must have lived a very sheltered life! Here's a famous example of a liberal Jesuit:
Thanks for the example. Perhaps rather than sheltered I'm younger than you? The example you cited was politically active well before I was born. It does seem like he would be an exception rather than a rule though- there are very few priests who support abortion rights at all. Still I'm not sure people who have limited experience with a priesthood order are necessarily sheltered...
Like I said, I only know one Jesuit personally, and my experience with the order second-hand has been that as a group they have very conservative views.
La mano de Díos.
With everyone counting on Scherer for pope, one has to appreciate the irony of electing an Aregentinian pope.
(Latin American too, I know. But the Argentina vs Brazil bickering will get to a new level. )
As for Ms. Kirchner, almost everything she's doing to the country is just
Freezing prices, really? You do remember what happened to that neighbour contry of yours, you know Brazil?
Measures such as this are the reason the 80's are called "the lost decade" around here.
It may be a generation thing. Or geographical. Or just coincidence. All the Jesuits I know are liberals.
Well here's hoping this one is too! Though what he has said about LBGT in the past, I don't think he is...
Pope Francis I is against equal marriage and abortion.
jesuits in general are one of the more liberal orders in Catholicism and got into some trouble with JPII over diverging from official dogma. This pope is actually a conservative Jesuit.
Maybe it was just a ruse? He acted like he was, so that he could be elected Pope, and then he'll change all the church teachings.
Unlikely, but if Obama is a terrorist plant, then it is about as likely that Pope Francis was also a sleeper cell...
Fr. Drinan was a hero and example to me.
Unfortunate that John Paul II demanded that he leave his seat
John Paul II was quite the party pooper. He also banned the performance of secular music from Catholic churches.
I was also under the impression that the Jesuits are one of the more liberal types of catholics....so much so that some of my catholic acquaintances were under the impression that "they'll never elect a Jesuit as pope." Well, maybe a really conservative one. Despite his apparent views on abortion and gay marriage, he might be reasonably friendly to the sciences. He has a master's degree in chemistry: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...with-a-chemistry-degree-a-productive-pairing/
(Might not mean much....here in the US we've seen born-again types with science doctorates claim that all that science-y stuff they learned in their youth is "lies straight from the pit of hell" and the earth is only 7000 years old )
Jesuits have a very long and entrenched history with education - doesn't mean they're socially liberal. Some of the best and most respected universities in the states are Jesuit run.
Susan6, catholicism embraced evolution since the 1950s stating that there is no intinsic conflict between God and the theory of evolution.
Catholics are not theological literalists.
And contraception. The usual.
Yeah, I know....the point of that quote (which is an actual quote from US Rep. Paul Broun, who is actually a physician but now believes the earth is no more than 9000 years old) is that having a science degree does not necessarily mean you'll necessarily side with science. So while the article I posted is hopeful about Francis I having a masters in chemistry, there are a lot of examples of people with similar degrees who've completely turned their back on science.
Catholics, even very conservative ones, aren't generally noted for turning their backs on science.
I don't understand why some think this or any other Pope would be liberal in the sense of being pro-choice, etc. Popes are by definition charged with preserving and maintaining Church tradition. That's what the word conservative comes from--conserving a past principle/tradition. So of course Popes will be conservative. To me the issue isn't whether a Pope will hold liberal beliefs, but whether the Pope can effectively dialogue with those of differing views, and articulate a practice of the Church that is life-giving rather than oppressive. So personally I'm less concerned with the Pope's stance on abortion, and more concerned with whether he can bring accountability to the Church for decades of child-rape and kidnapping.
If we really want to liberalize the Catholic church, we need a sassy sistah in the Vatican. Whoopi Goldberg is perfect for the role. She played a nun in that movie, so she's qualified.
I did hear that this is a quiet but tough guy who is supposed to be a managerial Pope--someone who would clean house. That would be nice.
And, maybe, that is what is needed, right now. We cannot expect that any Pope will come in and change everything. But, someone must start. And the best way to start is cleaning house. Deal with the controversy plaguing the church, get the corruption under control. Then, maybe, just maybe, we can begin to address social issues.
Just like 99.9% of Catholic priests so not really a surprise.
I'm not certain the percentage is that high but certainly the vast majority of them, yes.
This is what I want as well. i want a pope who will clean house in terms of the corruption, and also the abuse of power.
In terms of science.
I will say this the Church still believes the account of Genesis in the world being created out of "nothing" still is generally true. Now whether this nothingness developed over 6/7 days or it developed over 6/7 billion years that's immaterial. Even if the nothingings first started somewhere else and the earth and planets developed from something else... That's fine.
The Church still believes that God created Adam and that Adam is the direct descendent of all human beings. Now whether when God was creating Adam, God used matter from something that was not "living", or whether God developed Adam out of an existing creature.. That's rather immaterial and frankly unimportant. One thing though that is important as the human soul that we inherited from Adam was not something that that evolved but rather something God directly created at that moment.
None of these things the Church feels extremely strongly on and are the main points of Scripture. Can really be disproven by Science. In general evolution as fine as long as evolution developed by God.
In general the way the Church sees is as many people forget that the ancients had a different understanding of history than we did. They were generally not always going for 100% historical accuracy. Numbers had meanings and significant truths. Figurative language was used all the time. At times people can get caught up in the literal sense of Scripture but they forget that the ancient humans had a very different understanding of literal than we did... Not to mention there are common modes of speech to be considered as well.
In general the Church is content to let science be science and the Church be the Church. How exactly God created the earth is rather immaterial as far as the Church is concerned.. Immaterial in the sense of the Church needing to take a position on it.
I learned about evolution in Catholic school...
As for the Jesuits the Jesuits were not always at all the "liberal element of the Church." The use to be rather the intellectual arm of the Church and conservative. I say conservative although of course Loyola was a mystic and as such he was questioned/interrogated by the inquisition on several occasions. They were widely feared throughout the Protestant world. The Jesuits took a special oath to be loyal to the pope so having a Jesuit as well Pope seemed questionable.. Not to mention in general popes from specific orders were always avoided. There is some healthy competition between the various orders and a pope favoring one over the other.
I sometimes wonder scarily would Loyola would think of the Jesuits today. Although I'm sure founders of the more liberal orders who were looking at, would have felt the same thing.
In general their was no Jesuit Pope because the Jesuits were by far the most powerful organization within the Church anyways since it was founded.
Father Drinan was a friend of my father's (and delivered a eulogy at my father's memorial service).
He told me once that he felt abortion was a moral issue and it wasn't the place of the state to dictate morality.
That's a paraphrase, since the conversation happened decades ago, but it made an impression on me.
Bek, the way I was taught, Adam (and Eve) were symbols for mankind in general (not specifically one man; I don't know Catholics who believes that); the Biblical story of evolution was the ancient Israelis explanation to understand their world since they didn't have the tools to know what we know now. Evolution happened as described, but it was all a process that God started and led.
Granted, I don't know if that's the way it was meant to be understood, but it's certainly the way I interpreted it
That's what I was taught in Catholic school (in the most conservative diocese in the U.S. so it's not like a bunch of "liberals" were distorting something) and what was taught when I was in RCIA four years ago.
I don't know maybe your right... I know we can't believe the soul evolved.
Well yes, but that is not the issue here.
Back in 2005 he was accused by friends of the government of having told the priest under his command to stop going to the Buenos Aires slums during the last military dictatorship, and to have essentially washed his hand and done nothing when two priest who had gone against his orders were kidnapped and tortured by the army.
Main you, he has been actively denouncing the government corruption since he took office as archbishop of Buenos Aires back in the nineties, so this could have been easily been invented to harm his credibility. Which is what I tend to believe considering that people like Adolfo Perez Esquivel (Nobel laureate because of his work denouncing the crimes of the last dictatorship rule in Argentina) and Graciela Fernandez Meijide, senator, human rights advocate and mother of a son that was abducted by the military (and who Bergoglio helped to release), among other persons that have dedicated their entirely lives to find and bring the authors of the genocide perpetrated during the last dictatorship to justice, have always maintained that there is not a single shred of evidence that proofs the accusations made againt him.
Oh, you wait until next year World Cup, we will have A LOT of new songs, posters and slogans to taunt you with
Want to see a preview? http://www.alsurinforma.com/wp-content/gallery/afiches-de-bergoglio/papa-bergoglio-copa-del-mundo.jpg
Well...that is not entirely true.
He is against using the word "marriage" to describe the procedure and ceremony. But he is perfectly fine with "civil union" instead.
A few years before the legalization of gay marriage here in Argentina (which he was against) the city of Buenos Aires legalized the civil union, which was essentially the same, only excluding the right to inheritance between the newly united couples (because that could only be changed by the federal government), and he did not oppose it, he was actually in favor of it and took quite a beating from the catholic right wing because of it.
So I have a couple of questions:
(1) I understand that it is not done to say "Pope Francis I" now. We'd have to wait until he dies and until there is a Francis II. Is that correct?
(2) How do you pronounce "jesuit?" I hear people say "jezhoo-it" with the almost the same sound as the second "g" in the word "garage." What's up with that? It's not "je-zoo-it?"
Separate names with a comma.