Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
Anyway, as many experts have pointed out, none of this is in disagreement with Catholic theology. However, it does seem like a signal that he wants to move the church in a more liberal direction, back towards Vatican II rather than away as under the previous two popes. Anyway, as I know that there are a couple Catholics here, I would like to hear their reaction to this interview and that of their fellow Catholics.
It's obviously a step in the right direction. As you rightly point out, there's nothing in there, technically, that is new or revolutionizing, but it not what you say but how you say it. In a sense it's somewhat tragic that - as you rightly say - we're going back towards Vat II stances. We're clawing our way back to a level we had already reached 50 years ago.
What's mostly underappreciated is actually the decision of the last pope to step down voluntarily. Theologically/dogmatically, that's much more of a novum than anything Pope Francis said or did so far.
Different regions of the world have vastly differing theological issues. In Europe/N. America, sexual morals in a wide sense (thus including gay rights, abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex etc.) are a huge issue - and rightly so as the entire theological foundation of these issues is severely flawed - something theology is quite well aware of for decades. Besides that, it's women's participation in the church and women ordination - also somewhat of a home-made problem in the first place. In S. America, it's poverty, societal participation of the underpriviliged etc. Francis is liberation theologian, and it shows. It's VERY healthy for the church to finally have someone who's cutting back on the occasionally obscene way the church presents itself in monetary matters. And I think this is the issue that's causing the most buyers remorse within the hierarchy. Africa - sexual morals (contraception) and poverty.
It would be somewhat difficult to get all of these problems moved forward simultaneously. Mostly, I think he's "just being a liberation theologian". It's common theme of liberation theology to interpret societal problems in terms of equality and participation. If you view abortion, contraception etc. not so much as a sterile theological problem but more of a result of societal inequalities, you more or less naturally reach a position where you kind of "side with the sinner", as most of these "sins" are interpreted to be (at least to to a significant degree) results of societal realities that the individual is powerless against. Depending on how far you want to stretch this, you can get to accepting contraception, perhaps even some forms of abortion, while not having to change much of anything in your theological fundamentals.
So his stance of "our display of wealth is obscene and let's quit the abortion talk" seems more of a result of his theological heritage than anything else, imo. IF he really wanted to shake things up, he'll use the next five years or so to appoint new bishops and then convene a council.