Thread by @ModernBoethius

🚨The long-awaited Popesplainer’s response on the Pope Francis drama is here.🚨

This thread is very long (about 70 tweets).

This response is Part I. I will later release a Part II addressing the second of Francis’s remarks, and why Francis doesn’t clarify himself

“There are not one hundred Catholics in the United States who hate Pope Francis, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive Pope Francis to be” -Archbishop Fulton Sheen, paraphrased

This thread addresses the controversy surrounding Pope Francis’s comments on religions. It seeks to establish two points:

1. Pope Francis’s words are entirely good and even offer instructive teaching value.

2. Many Catholics do not understand who Pope Francis truly is: a missionary. That is why they misinterpret him.

The first point will constitute the bulk of this essay, while the second point is merely a theme interwoven throughout, and will receive treatment at the very end.

Now, to continue, below is the first excerpt from Pope Francis’ remarks that have generated a social media firestorm. (We will address the second set of comments made in Albania in a later essay).

To begin, let us first establish the context behind these remarks.

Pope Francis, after completing the trip, noted the following: “I thank the Lord who allowed me to do as an elderly Pope what I would have liked to do as a young Jesuit! I wanted to be a missionary.”

Source: press.vatican.va/content/salast…

From the outset, Pope Francis explicitly tells us what the very focus of his trip to Asia was about: evangelization.

In fact, it is very telling that Pope Francis spent most of his energy in countries with low Christian populations (Indonesia, in fact, is one of the largest non-Christian countries on earth). It is no secret that the Christian evangelization effort have stalled in Asia.

Yet Pope Francis has the solution: interreligious dialogue. As he reminds us in Evangelii Gaudium: “evangelization and interreligious dialogue, far from being opposed, mutually support and nourish one another.”
Interreligious dialogue is the key: it is THE answer to secularism.

It is endorsed by the holy Second Vatican Council, and God the Holy Spirit. We will evangelize the world not by proselytization, but by our attractive witness, and we will do this by fostering respect and dialogue among our brother human beings.

This we do with confidence as we know, as Augustine says, the truth is like a lion: it will fight for itself, we just need to set it free.

When we dialogue with others, we carry forward a twofold aim of truth, our christian doctrine, and love, which is care and respect for our fellow human beings.

From the above, it would be totally irrational to conclude that interreligious dialogue, as some in the heretical Lefebrvist movement have tried to argue, undermines the superiority of Christianity as true.

Far from it, Pope Francis affirms that when one engages in interreligious dialogue as a Christian, we do not compromise on the truth at all, we remain steadfast:

So, Pope Francis is evangelizing Asian countries by advocating for encouragement of inter-religious dialogue, which seeks to plant the seeds of evangelization. This is the absolutely clear context for which we can now address what he actually said.

That is, that “religions are paths to God.” What does that mean? Is it heretical?
Here it is important to develop a distinction between the subjective point of view of the believer, and the objective nature of the beliefs themselves..

On a subjective level, it is undeniable that all religions are paths to God, because the individual by definition, if he has a religion, is trying to seek God. His religion is his personal attempt to seek God. THAT is the simple truth which Pope Francis seeks to affirm.

Because of this truth, we must treat the individual’s religion with sensitivity and a certain kind of respect, because it is admirable for man to seek out God with his heart, especially those who have not yet heard the Gospel and are trying their best.

This is in no way whatsoever affirming the objective nature of all contents of a non-Christian religion. This is most obvious, when once again, we remember the context: Pope Francis is speaking to those who do not yet know Christ, who do not know the Gospel.

He is not speaking to the Christian, or you and me. The Buddhist in Singapore, who does not know Christ, is his audience.
On the subjective plane, it is right to condemn efforts of proselytization that seek to belittle one’s effort to reach God, that is, their current religion.

Because, Pope Francis even says, there is only one God. So when you belittle someone’s sincere efforts to seek out the one God, and treat it with disrespect, you are really destroying the desire that God himself implanted in man to seek Him out.

This leads to destruction, not evangelization. Rather, Pope Francis shows us the way: let us encourage each other to seek out a path to God, and dialogue about it. We will remain firm in our convictions, but with respect to our brother human being.

Thus, Pope Francis gains mutual respect with them, and they will be open to him or other Christians Christianity is discussed. Every Christian should rejoice if a foreign people are more open to hear Christianity than they were before.

It should be remembered that Singapore historically had a government intolerant of Christianity, and so Pope Francis’ strategy is especially appropriate.

Critics have loved pointing out the alleged confusion caused by his comments, but they have totally ignored the fact that all the newspapers in Singapore were in admiration of Pope Francis, and that the actual Signaporean liked his comments.

Such a result is totally amazing, and it’s nearly criminal to attribute a successful evangelization result as something confusing and bad. The fact of the matter is: the evangelization effort in Singapore is better off now as a result of his comments.

Now to rebut the poorly reasoned arguments swirling around social media that claim Francis’ comments were “bad” or even heretical…I cannot rebut them all–but I want to rebut 3 popular arguments specifically:

1. Pope Francis is implying that all religions are equal.

2. His analogy to languages is confusing and bad.

3. The fact that people are confused must mean it is Francis’ fault.

First, simply nowhere did Pope Francis say that all religions are “equal.”

All he did, again, is affirm that on the subjective level, mankind tries to reach God via religion. It’s abundantly obvious, not least because the Pope is, in fact, Catholic, that Pope Francis is not rejecting Christianity as true.

His audience, the Singaporeans, are not dumb and they know that. Everyone knows it. But for those who need absolute proof, here is picture below of all of Pope Francis’s statements about Christ being the only way.

It is a basic principle that when interpreting someone, you always take into account what they past said.

Pope Francis has made clear that Christianity alone is completely true, and therefore, its is irrational to interpret his comments as conveying the meaning that all religions are equal.

Second, far from being confusing, the analogy to languages is actually quite apt.

Again, we must remember the context: each person’s religion is their own attempted path to reach God, and we should be respectful of that.

In this sense a comparison to languages is appropriate, because generally speaking, languages that are something quite dear and personal to the individual.

Like religion, if one attacks someone’s native tongue, one is being highly offensive and will immediately alienate the other person. And like language, religion is inherently about communication: communication with our Creator God.

And both religion and language are diverse only as a result of man’s Fall.

Now, of course, not all analogies are perfect, and so it is entirely missing the point to demonstrate one way in which the analogy doesn’t hold (that is, there is one perfect language while there is a perfect religion).

Pope Francis never set out to make an exact comparison to begin with, so why are his critics treating it as such?

If we used their same standard, no one could ever make an analogy.

And we have already demonstrated it is irrational to interpret Francis as implying religions are equal, given his past statements and his nature as the Pope.

So likewise, the interpretation that Francis’s allusion to languages is implicating no religion is better than another, because no language is better than another, is flawed because the analogy clearly, by context, sought to explicate a different truth.

That truth is that both religion and language are attempts by man on a subjective level to communicate, and that both must be treated with delicacy and respect.

Third, most people blame Pope Francis via the following argument:

1. Some lay Catholics are confused by Pope Francis’ words.

2. Therefore, Pope Francis caused the confusion.

3. Therefore, it is Pope Francis’s fault.

But one can apply this same sort of flawed reasoning to the Bible:

1. Some lay Christians are confused by the Bible.

2. Therefore, the Bible caused the confusion.

3. Therefore, it is the Bible’s fault.

Here it is helpful to recall a concept from the law. The law has two forms of causation: but-for cause and proximate cause.

When a driver runs a red light and runs over someone, he is the but-for cause of the accident (that is, but for the driver running a red light, the person would be uninjured) and the proximate cause (that is, it is fair to attribute fault to him since his own negligent actions…

…caused the person to be hit). But, imagine a driver ran a green light, and did nothing wrong, but someone negligently walked right in front of him such that he didn’t have time to stop.

Here, the driver is still the but-for cause of the accident (but for the driver crossing the green light, the victim would not be injured).

But he assuredly is not the proximate cause (it’s not fair to attribute blame to the driver when he did nothing wrong–rather, it is the pedestrian’s own negligence that is the fault and proximate cause of the accident).

In other words, sometimes we can be factual causes of bad events, but it’s not our moral fault (it’s usually someone else’s). Let us be clear: Something is not bad merely because a large group of people say it is. 5-6 billion people think the Bible is wrong.

That does not mean it is wrong. To point to widespread condemnation of Francis’ comments by isolated individuals, as proof in itself of the comments’ problematic nature, simply does not logically follow.

Aquinas is now helpful, when he writes, “Whatever is received is received according to the mode of the recipient.” Summa Theologiae, 1a, q. 75, a. 5; 3a, q. 5. In other words, Pope Francis’ comments are received according to how well disposed someone is to Pope Francis.

For those who sadly have built years of distrust and suspicion against Francis, it is no surprise at all that they have received Pope Francis’s comments with distrust and suspicion! Here, though, Pope Francis can only be blamed if he actually said something bad or confusing.

But as we have demonstrated above, Pope Francis’ comments are correct and even good—they provide an effective example of evangelization to us (Singapore reacted favorably to Pope Francis’s comments and now views Christianity more favorably).

So obviously, but for Pope Francis making his comments, there would be no confusion. But it is not Pope Francis’ fault that there is confusion, because what he said was perfectly fine.

Rather, it must be the fault either of media misleading souls astray, or the poor disposition of Catholics today when they hear the Pope’s remarks.

For an example of a holy disposition every Catholic should have when reading Francis, I would like to point out one online comment by Dr. Robert Fastiggi:

“When I read documents from Pope Francis or any other pope, I read them as coming from the successor of St. Peter who, as the Council of Florence teaches, ‘is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians’…

who has from our Lord Jesus Christ ‘the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church, as is also contained in the acts of the ecumenical…

councils and in the sacred canons’ (Denz.-H 1307). In other words I read Pope Francis…as a Catholic who respects the teaching office of the Roman Pontiff. In reading any papal document my desire is not only to understand but to learn.

This is not “popesplaining” sophistry but the “reverence and charity” the Church asks the faithful to manifest towards their shepherds ‘who by reason of their sacred office represent the person of Christ’ (Lumen Gentium, 37).”

Would that every Catholic approach Pope Francis’s remarks as something to learn! How many people seek to learn from Francis, rather than find a way to condemn him?

In essence, the modern online Catholic has a problem of making “snap judgments,” a term used in a helpful YT video linked below by @ApostolicZoom Apostolic Zoomer. .

@ApostolicZoom One can clearly see this, within hours, nay, within minutes, Catholics were confidently declaring Pope Francis’ words to be heretical!

@ApostolicZoom There was no attempt to learn from him, there was no attempt to learn the context behind the words, there was no attempt to seek out a possible defense before an accusation. This is the textbook definition of rash behavior.

@ApostolicZoom I at least respect those like Trent Horn (@Trent_Horn) who put up a critical video only several days after Francis’ comments. But the broad phenomenon of instant condemnation shows the TikTokification of the modern brain: nobody stops and thinks anymore.

It’s just kneejerk reaction due to decreased attention spans on social media. “Pope Francis said something weird, it bad,” and then any attempts to explain it can be lazily dismissed with juvenile charges of “gaslighting” or “popesplaining.”

This is not Pope Francis’ fault, this is a problem of the human heart.
In fact, I seriously question how many of Pope Francis’ critics have read Francis’ seminal work, Evangelii Gaudium.

Evangelii Gaudium is a masterpiece, a work that has even led esteemed Catholic scholars like Dr. Brant Pitre to tears. It is the lens through which we understand Francis. But most Catholics do not read papal documents (as throughout history). And it shows.

Because if they had, they would understand who Francis really is: a missionary. Pope Francis is not addressing many of his comments to you, orthodox and devout Catholic, but to the lost sheep.

To the Singaporean who does not know Christ, but who desires to respectfully dialogue with his fellow neighbor. To the one who is following his religion to the best of his ability as his path to God, but who could also hear the Christian message.

“I continue to dream of a truly missionary Church,” Pope Francis has famously said. To have a missionary Church in the 21st century, we need a church that focuses on authentic interreligious dialogue.

Far from being confusing or a bad example, Pope Francis shows us a model example. Pope Francis is THE antidote to secularism, and it is ironically through his example that Christianity is growing in the countries Francis has visited.

End thread. 🧵

@threadreaderapp unroll