Yeah I’m so over these categories too. Just want a good holy man that will guide the Church. I can’t with the boomer Jesuit take though. Often times I find the boomer Jesuits themselves aren’t bad it’s just the people around them are all heretics but I think they have responsibility for that. I’m admittedly a bit scarred because Fr. James Martin of all people was actually my HS commencement speaker at my Jesuit HS but if you just go to his comment section on FB it’s all just heresy which is actually really bad. In fairness you could argue the same for some trads in a schismatic direction too which I think is also bad
I really appreciate the hot take behind the hot takes. And…
“If you’re struggling to conceive of a paradigm beyond the simplistic lib vs. conservative one, you may want to check out”…my hot take is you might want to check out (carefully and prayerfully read) the gospels and the NT (not to mention the whole Bible). Jesus’s words/actions/life/death/resurrection pretty much shred any concept of the really old and tired “liberal vs. conservative” cliche. Yet somehow these cliches just won’t go away.
After Leo happened, I went back to read rerum novarum. I am again struck by how it’s unintelligible to progressives and conservatives alike. And I mean technically, not in the liberal-Protestant idea of a third way or middle road ( if there is something I don’t like about the big tent analogy it’s how it evokes this idea). The blind spot of conservatism is how it assumes that some idea (whose?) of the status quo is how things always were; and the blind spot of progressives is the old criticisms of a rejection of nature. The genius of Leo 13 in rerum novarum is its resourcement of ideas that antecede enlightenment liberalism, and therefore the blind spots of progressivism and conservatism. The fact we are so tempted to divide the church along these lines shows the extent to which we’ve become modern. It seems to me any pope who can be described in either way will only contribute to the problem.
The book by Massimo Borghesi you mentioned, is it The Mind of Pope Francis?
Yes
Yeah I’m so over these categories too. Just want a good holy man that will guide the Church. I can’t with the boomer Jesuit take though. Often times I find the boomer Jesuits themselves aren’t bad it’s just the people around them are all heretics but I think they have responsibility for that. I’m admittedly a bit scarred because Fr. James Martin of all people was actually my HS commencement speaker at my Jesuit HS but if you just go to his comment section on FB it’s all just heresy which is actually really bad. In fairness you could argue the same for some trads in a schismatic direction too which I think is also bad
I really appreciate the hot take behind the hot takes. And…
“If you’re struggling to conceive of a paradigm beyond the simplistic lib vs. conservative one, you may want to check out”…my hot take is you might want to check out (carefully and prayerfully read) the gospels and the NT (not to mention the whole Bible). Jesus’s words/actions/life/death/resurrection pretty much shred any concept of the really old and tired “liberal vs. conservative” cliche. Yet somehow these cliches just won’t go away.
I was so psyched to see the Borghesi book referenced here! I'm reading it right now and finding it very insightful.
His other book about the Neocons is also excellent.
After Leo happened, I went back to read rerum novarum. I am again struck by how it’s unintelligible to progressives and conservatives alike. And I mean technically, not in the liberal-Protestant idea of a third way or middle road ( if there is something I don’t like about the big tent analogy it’s how it evokes this idea). The blind spot of conservatism is how it assumes that some idea (whose?) of the status quo is how things always were; and the blind spot of progressives is the old criticisms of a rejection of nature. The genius of Leo 13 in rerum novarum is its resourcement of ideas that antecede enlightenment liberalism, and therefore the blind spots of progressivism and conservatism. The fact we are so tempted to divide the church along these lines shows the extent to which we’ve become modern. It seems to me any pope who can be described in either way will only contribute to the problem.
The Holy Spirit does not pick the Pope. Otherwise, how do you explain the first and second Pormocracies? (Not to mention the present one).
If the HS did pick Francis, it's to show the rotten fruit of the Modernist agenda.
And who should the next Pope be? Imma pray for Viganò