26 April 2018

"Be what I say"

At the start of the Synodical processes concerning the Family, PF repeatedly begged the Synodal Fathers to demonstrate parrhesia. I took this to mean that he believed they were all bursting with new and liberal ideas with regard to certain theological/pastoral questions; and that all he needed to do was to give them the courage to speak out ... to untie their tongues for them.

Recently, with the 'Youth Synod' on the horizon, PF has spoken about the "daring" of the young, and has asked them to "fight the logic of 'it's always been done this way' ... a poison, a sweet poison, that tranquillises the heart and leaves you anaesthetised so that you can't walk".

[UPDATE: I drafted this about six weeks ago: since then, PF, on Palm Sunday 25 March, returned to this theme by exhorting the Young to SHOUT ... and suggesting that perhaps, if their elders failed to shout, they should do it!! He also cheerfully suggested to them that Old People who try to silence them are corrupt ... You'd think that the Protector of the Lettergate Scoundrels would be more careful not to put ideas into other minds.]

Is this, again, an attempt to persuade a certain group to conform to the stereotypical view of that group which PF has formed in his own mind?

"Be what I think you are"?

"Be what I want you to be"?

"Be what my plan of Hagan lio prescribes you to be"?

A couple of years ago, PF complained bitterly about all those dreadful Young People who want the Extraordinary Form. He seems now to have forgotten about that disorderly yet rigid group.


Kamil M. said...

Our Holy Father seems to miss the fact that what young people know as 'it's always been done this way' is more or less what he advocates for. Therfore his calls to question it... Well, he might be surprised what is going to be considered daring and adventurous by the Catholic youth.

Catechist Kev said...

Well, I suppose we could point out what old St. Paul says: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thes 2:15)

Yet might it be that the "brethren" St. Paul was writing to/about may not be the youth of Thessalonica, but to the old and rigid of that particular church?

One may wonder.

John Nolan said...

Young people, in the main, are not 'daring'. They are very strictly conformist - in dress, in attitudes, in musical tastes and so on. The idea of standing out from the crowd of their contemporaries quite frankly horrifies them.

And there is nothing more pathetic than to see octogenarians, who are assumed to have accumulated a measure of wisdom over the years, invoking a non-existent spirit of youth to justify their tired revolutionary ideas.

Banshee said...

All the Catholic kids I know, even the ones not reared traditionally, like to see priests wearing cassocks or other priest garb during daily life. They like to be able to go to Confession. They like to kneel. They like to be challenged to live a Catholic life, and to have the bar raised.

I go to a university parish where the priest (my own age) started out super-liberal, but has gotten more traditional as he goes along. Just by trying to do what the Church wants, he has ended up officiating at tons of baptisms and Confirmations, a lot of weddings, and has two alums in the seminary (they are both deacons now, rapidly moving toward the priesthood).

Twenty-five some years ago, I went to a similar state university in a much more heavily Catholic area. We had two priests assigned to our university parish. The one was a liberal theologian who meant well but had appalling ideas and appalling friends. The other was a liberal who thought he was "hip," but was twenty years past hipness. We never had any priestly vocations or alumni weddings, and the baptisms and Confirmations were few and far between. It wasn't totally horrible, but the lack of willingness to follow the Church made things hard.

If some priest isn't going to follow Jesus and the Church, why would kids bother to get out of bed on Sunday morning to listen to him? For his pitiful oratorical skills? For his ridiculous attempts at science fiction visions of the future? For warmed-over Marxism, or the opposite? Everybody has better things to do.