I decided to wander, as I periodically do, over to The Thinking Housewife to see what that homage site to the mores of the early twentieth century was up to, and found that they are very upset with Pope Francis, using language that is surprisingly harsh for such a genteel site. He is referred to as the ‘Argentine Bomber’, not a true pope (which they reinforce by putting “pope” in scare quotes), and even a ‘scandalous heretic’ because he did not use his trip to the Middle East to try and convert Jews and Muslims. The author has a truly novel view of religious freedom, saying “Religious freedom is no more a human right than walking down a street in the face of ongoing traffic is a human right. No one has the right to be wrong.”
The site sees Francis as the child of pope John XXIII’s Vatican II that conservative Catholics despise because it attempted to modernize the church. They say that Francis is subtly teaching that Catholic doctrine is false.
They are not going to be any happier with the recent news that the pope performed a marriage ceremony for twenty couples, some of whom had been cohabiting, and even had had children.
The diocese of Rome, which is organizing the ceremony, said the 20 couples being married range in age from those in their mid-20s to those in their 50s and include “those who are already living together, those who already have children, those who met in church.”
Francis already set a precedent of sorts back in January when he baptized the child of a couple who hadn’t married in the church, but only in a civil ceremony.
His decision to marry couples who are technically living in sin is another sign of his desire for a more merciful and forgiving church that cares less about morals and rules than it does about the conversion of souls.
You would think that traditional Catholics would be happy that the couples were no longer living in sin but in their strange world, the fact that they had been living in sin for so long means that they were not worthy of having the pope conduct their wedding and the fact that he did so somehow implies that he endorses such behavior.
“…because he did not use his trip to the Middle East to try and convert Jews and Muslims.”
Um, yeah, that would be because the Catholic Church is not a proselytizing sect, something the catechists take great pains to get across in confirmation prep classes. We were taught that the church doors are always open and if God moves someone to walk through, they will.
But I don’t suppose I should expect an evangelical to grasp that other denominations are…not.
As for the cohabiting couples, Francis is on solid theological ground here, as numerous couples in the bible lived together as man and wife without a marriage ceremony. An old testament dude could just say, ok, I take you as wife (and the other wives have already voted you in), so POOF there it is. And legal marriage during the time of the new testament could be dissolved as simply as the husband writing a note saying “I divorce your sister/mother/daughter” to the male guardian of her family, draw up a draft for the returned dowry, and send her on her way. So…not really the model evangelicals are going for, methinks.
breaplum,
Actually, I think that this website is not evangelical (at least in the Protestant sense) but they are very traditional Catholic. They may just not be quite up to speed on the Catholic policy on proselytizing
Maybe they are beginning to see the writing on the wall. The Catholic Church is dying, and purging the not-completely-pure will simply accelerate the process. Of course they will turn around and try to convince people that they have changed nothing.
Well, I guess these people and I can agree on something: I, too, see Francis as a Vatican II pope. He seems very in tune with the social justice Catholicism I was taught at liberal Catholic schools in the 1960s/70s. He may be the last, since the church seems to have mostly abandoned that path and he’s actually annoying the hell out of the Good Catholics (TM), like TTH.
As an atheist, my only dog in this fight is the social justice part. But Francis is preaching to a church that no longer seems to give a fat rat’s patootie about hunger, homelessness, or medical care for the poor. It’s so much more fun to wring hands about other people’s evil religions, sex lives and decisions about bodily autonomy! Bleh. Just because the Good Catholics don’t believe in Karma (not that I do either), doesn’t mean I can’t wish it would come around and bite them in the ass.
What a nasty cesspool of religious fanaticism and racism.
They seem similar to the Society of St. Pius X, whose leaders were excommunicated by John Paul II, while Benedict tried to get them back into the church. Not sure if there is an official connection, the site is rather badly organized and lacks any clear statement as to it’s owners position.
The LAST time the Catholics had a ‘conversion’ policy, THAT didn’t go all that well ( :
Maybe this version of Catholicism is a ‘yankee’ version of the southern baptist
The title of that blog is an oxymoron.
What, both of them? :p
The thinking housewife doesn’t strike me as one of the good ones if this article is any indication (or am I missing something here?).
Went postal on some Mormons who came annoying me in my own home the other day. Their stake hall is not far from my house; if I had any interest at all in converting, I could sashay on over and knock on the door and ask to speak with someone. Same with the whackadoo megachurch in the other direction; if I was interested, I’d contact them.
I think it’s the height of arrogance and bad manners to barge into someone else’s territory--be it home or even country--and insist they’re doing religion wrong and have to listen to you.
I don’t think they dislike him for what he’s done, as he hasn’t done much more than good public relations. (His action on homosexuality, for instance, is essentially to say “Don’t tell them what’s wrong with their behavior and actions, then invite them to join us in worship, as we use to. Instead, invite them to join us first, then tell them what’s wrong.” He’s still telling women that they are important to the church, as long as they shut up and have babies and stay away from talking about serious issues -- he’s just using better language than his predecessors. His talk about the poor is not revolutionary -- it is, after all, in their bible. )
I think their real fear is that he might actually work to implement the things he talks about.
It’s been mildly amusing to me as a former Catholic that the infallibility of the Pope is a concept not questioned by the arch conservatives in the church until they get someone who doesn’t comport with their politics. So, is it the pope whose wrong for his views or God for putting the wrong guy at the head of the church? Where are the demands for unquestioning obedience to a church now headed (in their minds) by a free-love, no fire-and-brimstone hippie?
coffeehound,
The pope’s statements are not considered infallible unless he specifically invokes it by speaking ex cathedra. But it is generally considered that since he is god’s chosen agent to act on Earth, what he says should be taken seriously by the faithful.
that site has always had an underlying snideness and hatefulness to it… ironically these people who talk so much about being virtuous and humble, kind and gentle, christlike etc, tend to be the most harsh and unkind.