“Aware that hearing a pope return to this topic will annoy many….”
It is with this caveat that Pope Francis introduces the tough words he dedicates to abortion in his latest book “Let Us Dream,” which on December 1 hit store shelves all over the world.
And that’s the way it is. Whenever he touches on this subject, Francis by no means enjoys good press. On the contrary, he is systematically ignored.
And yet just recently the pope has spoken out not once but several times against abortion, prompted by his Argentina, where the current president, the Peronist Alberto Fernandez, aims to pass a law that would liberalize the killing of the unborn child.
Francis delivered the first blow in the handwritten letter he addressed on November 22 to a group of women from the slums of Buenos Aires who have been fighting against the legalization of abortion since 2018.
Settimo Cielo reproduced this letter in its entirety, with its bluntest passage presenting these two questions: “Is it right to eliminate a human life in order to solve a problem? And is it right to hire a hitman in order to solve a problem?”
There’s more. In another handwritten letter of December 1 to a group of Argentine former pupils, Francis repeats once again those two blunt questions of his: “1) ¿Es justo eliminar una vida humana para resolver un problema? Y 2) ¿Es justo alquilar un sicario para resolver un problema?”.
Bergoglio also takes pains to highlight his twofold distancing: from former Peronist president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, with whom he says he “has had no contact” since she left office, and from Juan Grabois, leading organizer of the “popular movements” otherwise so dear to the pope, whom he appointed as consultant to the Vatican dicastery for promoting integral human development.
And the reason – he writes – for this distancing is that both of them pretend to be much closer to and friendlier with the pope than they really are. With the result that the media end up attributing to me, Francis, not “what I say,” but what others “say that I say.”
In a postscript to the letter the pope refers, as far as his judgment on the media is concerned, to nos. 42-53 of the encyclical “Brothers all,” where the subtitles are certainly not benevolent: “The illusion of communication”; “Shameless aggression”; “Information without wisdom”; “Forms of subjection and self-contempt.”
Full story at L’Espresso.
His Holiness gives lip service to abortion, but yet surrounds himself with abortionists, eg The Council for “Inclusive Capitalism”
Inherently, Clinton R.’s argument is illogical, an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization kind, called “fallacy of association.” It goes, “Joe Schmo is an abortionist. The Pope associates with Joe Schmo. Therefore the Pope is an abortionist.” False. Also, Clinton R.’s argument is associated with the “ad hominem” fallacy. It goes, “A is bad. B hangs out with A. Therefore B is bad.” Another falsehood. The truth, people, is that the Pope does not support abortion. This article from L’Espresso has just indicated that.
@ jon – I think most of the “ad hominem” attacks stem from your own keyboard. Clinton R. stated that the Pope “gives lip service to abortion”. He did not say that the Pope supports abortion. I just cough whenever I remember Pope Francis’s own words from 2013, when he stated that the Church had grown obsessed with abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he just didn’t want to talk about those things. He also said that Catholics should not breed like rabbits. Seriously. I can certainly understand fellow Catholics when they voice their concern about just how deep the Pope actually thinks. I think he’s been hanging around with the wrong people, hence the old expression “It’s all about the company you keep”.
SObserver: give us a break. The direct implication of Clinton R.’s assertion that the Pope merely gives “lip service” to abortion means that he supports this grave sin, internally, where it matters! A person who merely gives “lip service” to something lacks sincerity. I am flabbergasted by your own defense of a poster who would dare indicate, imply, or assert in any way that the Supreme Pontiff is not sincere in his condemnation of a grave sin. Instead of correcting me, Silent Observer, you ought to have been correcting Clinton R.
Jon gets in over his depth in his enthusiasm to correct others. jon himself commits the straw man fallacy by attributing to Clinton R. an argument that Clinton R. did not make, attacking said phony argument, and then concluding that Clinton R. is wrong. The straw man is that Clinton R. did not say that Pope Francis “associates” or “hangs out” with abortionists. Clinton R. said — correctly — that the pope is partnering with people who have immoral agendas and partnering with them in realizing their questionable aims: the Council for Inclusive Capitalism. More than just associating or hanging out with these people, the pope is joining in their immoral efforts by cooperating with them in realizing their goals.
Folks, Anonymous’ comment is another attempt to make Clinton R. not mean what he/she actually said. Anonymous, no where did Clinton R say “partnering”. Now, you are putting words in his/her mouth. Laughable. People, you can read Clinton R.s comment plainly! Pope Francis, according to Clinton R., surrounds himself with abortionists. Clinton R.’s insinuation being that the Holy Father shares in their viewpoint on abortion because he merely pays “lip service” to the Church’s teaching on abortion. His meaning is very plain, people. Plus, Merriam-Webster defines “surround” to mean “envelop”, “enclose,” “to form and be a member of,” “to constitute.” On the face of it people, Merriam-Webster assigns an even closer relationship among those who “surround” themselves with each other, than I had.
@ jon – Just leave people alone and try to resist critiquing their motives. You get your knickers in a knot that way.
Cal-Catholic’s own Dr. of Theology has spoken.
Excuse me SO but again you’re wrong. The motive behind Clinton R’s words are apparent from his/her own words. Just read them: “the Pope gives lip service to [the Church’s teachings on abortion],” he “surrounds himself with abortionists.” Very plain. A tactic of those who have lost an argument is to make you shut up. The radical left does that by attacking people and destroying them. You folks are not far from that.
How do you respond to this?: https://wdtprs.com/2020/12/more-bad-news-from-the-vatican-wherein-fr-z-rants/ The following is reported –
The Dec. 16-17 Vatican Youth Symposium, hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is serving as the launch for a collaboration between Pope Francis’ Global Compact on Education initiative, which invites a new humanism based on a global change of mentality, and Mission 4.7, a U.N.-backed advisory group of civil and political leaders aiming to meet the educational target (numbered 4.7) of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Now in its fifth year, this week’s Vatican Youth Symposium has always served to promote the SDGs, even though targets 3.7 and 5.6 include “sexual and reproductive health services” — U.N. codewords for abortion and contraception.
It’s exactly as you stated, Clinton R., which jon refuses to acknowledge because that would mean admitting he’s wrong. This pope is partnering with organizations and people who promote intrinsic evils. This pope is joining in their work. jon is wrong. you are right.
I hate being right in this circumstance. All we desire and pray for is a Pope who will courageously uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church? I wonder if over a century ago, the faithful realized and appreciated the angelic pontiff they had in Pius X?
Sorry, but Clinton R. and Anonymous are both wrong. Folks, the article from the National Catholic Register itself, to which Clinton R. indirectly leads us, points to the comments by the Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, who took pains to explain that any pro-abortion commentary were not expressed by Jeffrey Sachs nor by anyone in last year’s event of this kind. Moreover people, if you look at the program for this year’s symposium, there is nothing in there that promotes abortion.
If you have to criticize the Holy Father, the only justifiable one you can hurl at him is that he is bold, and he goes to the margins such as some of the folks in this event. How so? Folks, read the signs of the times will you (as Our Lord commanded us): issues like sustainability, nature, education, and human dignity which this symposium is promoting are very big in the minds of young people today. The Church cannot afford to stay away from events like this; but rather must get involved in order to purify it, and even change it from within in the long run. I mean, Bishop Sorondo got Jeffrey Sachs to shut up about abortion at this event last year: did you think that was easy?
Lip service is exactly right. Catholics should watch what he does, not just what he says.
Right. Therefore if any cleric should preach about obedience to God’s commandments while belonging to a group that is inherently disobedient to God’s Church, we should watch out for that.
When does Francis ignore the Dubia cardinals, and Vigano, and Zen, and . . . ?
When does the conservative Catholic media ignore Pope Francis? Whenever he speaks.
Can we agree this pope has caused a crisis of faith in multitudes of faithful Catholics? You can’t dismiss that he’s an Argentinian with Communist leanings.
Nora, I think we can agree that the Pope has challenged Catholics. He is an Argentinian. What are Communist leanings?
challenged Catholics? How about demoralized them?
As an eagle stirs her nest…
No we cannot agree on this. You can choose to disrespect the Holy Father, but don’t claim to be a traditionalist at the same time.
Argentinians dislike Americans very much. For one thing, Argentina has defaulted on it’s national debt nine times, and some of these funds were supplied by the US and American banks. Of course, that means that Argentinians consider the US to be at fault for this problem -it is their usual outlook, and it is evident if you read any speeches by Argentinian politicians. The US is their national scapegoat. If you think this dislike is not real, consider which country was pro Nazi, and took in Nazi officers at the end of the war – Argentina.
So naturally, the Pope dislikes Americans. He said it in the first year of his Papacy.
Stereotypes make life really simple, don’t they? No need to waste time getting to know individuals. No need to try to understand other points of view. Can anyone rationally believe that everyone in any one country dislikes everyone in another country? It is not “natural.”
There is a distinction here between National Behavior, and individual behavior. Of course, individual Chinese, Russians and Muslims are decent, do not intend harm, and may even like the United States. But are you seriously stating that the Chinese government, and Islamic governments are all kindly and peaceful? It is obvious that these countries are intent on world domination and will damage the
United States if they get the chance. Argentina is not in that category, but nationally, they do not like the United States.