Quote from: icterus

Quote

I do wonder why you are here in the first place. Does it make you feel superior?

See above exchange between me and 'Man of the West'.  I'm learning from it.  That's why.  

If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"?  

:cool: :smoke-pot:

Quote

If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"?

Because the nutters afflict me.  You are among them.  Why do so many of your posts concern me?  

I have about a half-dozen male posters on here who have some sort of fascination with me.  I'll not go into the possible reasons why, but I'll tell you right now - I'm straight, and I have no interest in you romantically.  I'm married.  

I think you kinda like it.

Quote

If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"?

Because the nutters afflict me.  You are among them.  Why do so many of your posts concern me?  

I have about a half-dozen male posters on here who have some sort of fascination with me.  I'll not go into the possible reasons why, but I'll tell you right now - I'm straight, and I have no interest in you romantically.  I'm married.  

I have seen no evidence of what you speak of, and I am on this forum on a daily basis. You are paranoid at the moment because you think that you have some vulnerability that people on this forum will exploit. Therefore your incessant defensive attitude and violent language towards virtually everyone. Now I would like to know what your vulnerability happens to be, in order that we can reassure you that we do not infringe on your beliefs if you happen to be a traditional Catholic, however, since you mentioned sodomy, I suspect there lies the root of your defensive attitude, and suggest that perhaps you suffer from some sort of sɛҳuąƖ inferiority complex?

How does it feel to be psychoanalysed Icky?

I get taken to task for calling someone foolish, but doing this, well, this is just in good fun, ain't it?

Wait, I thought it was because you insinuated that your critics are sodomites?  

Wait, I thought it was because you insinuated that your critics are sodomites?  

I'm the evil modernist in the room, remember?  Hell-bound and all that.

Francis' ideals are placed on a pedestal by those who live by relativism and more people are taking notice because this guy is so loquacious and in the news.

The governor of New York state recently told prolifers and anti-gαy people that they were not welcome in his state. Huh.

Whether or not these people just think alike or they are part of a concerted effort to change the world doesn't matter because the results are the same. How do you think marginalization starts?

What's ironic is that non practicing Catholics admire Francis - people who have not stepped foot into a church for Sunday worship for 40 years and now resent traditional Catholics for not following his version of the faith.

Just for the record, Bergoglio didn't coin the term self-referentialism. The term self-reference, which refers to recursive motifs in mathematics, philosophy and art, and has latterly been introduced into linguistics and psychology, has been used for many decades now. The concept, of course, is timeless; the explicit recognition of the concept goes back at least to Russell's Paradox and Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which are notable examples of it.

But it is surpassingly curious that Bergoglio would apply this term to Traditional Catholicism. Catholic theology does not make use of recursive methods; Thomistic philosophy regards the appearance of recursion in an argument as fallacious, or at the very least evidence of an inaccurate parsing of the terms. I am unable to see how this is "a problem Traditionalists face," unless (as seems likely) Bergoglio has in mind only the social aspects of Traditional Catholic communities—which if true reveals a great deal about the man himself, for it shows all of the following:

A) His exclusively human-centered understanding of religion. For him, everything ultimately reduces to a social question. Traditionalism earns his ire because it is (in his view) closed off to the wider world and uninterested in the exciting "existential peripheries" of social engagement. This is both an insult and a canard, as I explain below.

B) His rejection of any spirit of renunciation or contemplation. One of the most ominous hallmarks of the Conciliar Church is its sumptuousness, its highly refined egotism which it hides behind a pretense of respect for life and concern for the poor. It positively exhorts and even commands all to feast at the banquet of life. This attitude, especially prominent in Paul VI, reinterprets Catholic doctrine with a Socialist-Humanist hermeneutic so that, while the same words and expressions are used, something different is meant. Thus Conciliarism's incessant carping about social justice stems not from any desire to do a good office for Christ by benefitting His poor servants, but a desire to "integrate them into the human community," that being the community of pseudo-religious aesthetes like themselves. It is actually an intolerance of the fact of poverty, an effeminate insistence that nothing must remain which disturbs the uninterrupted enjoyment of sensuous delights and vainglorious ostentation. The poor are an annoyance, you see, thus "poverty" must be "eliminated." How far these New Churchmen—who seem to think only of redistributing, never of renouncing, wealth—are from the spirit of the Gospel, can be seen from the example of the many saints who followed Christ's counsel to take no thought of riches or poverty, for both fetter us to the cares of this world. The Christian ought to live with a contented otherworldliness, not regarding the passing problems and anxieties of this life as something worthy of his complete attention. The desire to disengage from this world is a great sign of predestination and incipient sanctity, as one turns his thoughts and his entire being ever more fully toward God. Francis impugns this most holy and religious attitude in the person of the Traditionalists by calling them self-referential, hence the insult.

C) His total ignorance of the actual situation. While Traditional Catholics ought to live apart from this world, they very seldom do so. One of the chief complaints one hears from Traditional Catholics these days is the extent to which worldliness has seeped into the roots of their supposedly Traditional parish. It has at least been my own regrettable experience (and I think that I am not alone in this) that the people who attend Latin Masses are by and large just as worldly, just as interested in careerism, just as obsessed with professional sports, just as unknowing about the firm facts of the faith, just as likely to have supercilious daughters with facebook pages, just as convinced of the salutary effects of democracy—in a word just as steeped in the heresy of Americanism—as your average Evangelical Protestant; which is to say, not as much as your typical neo-pagan fellaheen worldling, but more so than is permissible. Bergoglio seems unaware of this ground-level reality within Traditionalist circles, hence the canard. All of this redounds finally to the confirmation of:

D) His grandstanding and bullying. Bergoglio's relentless attacks on Tradition seem utterly out of proportion when we realize that he is talking to a tiny fraction of a percent of all the world's Catholics, and moreover identifying them as the enemies of the Church's mission. Meanwhile, he has more than demonstrated his willingness to jump on board with the popular cause celebres of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ecuмenism. These are two sides of the same coin. Traditionalism is a threat to Bergoglio's "mission" in the same sense that Christ is always scandal to the world, that much is true. It is also unquestionably true that he seeks to damage the credibility of the Trads, but I think this is more of an instinctive response with him than part of a Machiavellian ploy. In either case, he is definitely lacking in supernatural vision and is an untrustworthy guide in spiritual matters. If I'm wrong and he is a Machiavel, than he is exceedingly wicked to boot. However (and I shall close with this point), I would not think that Bergoglio's use of the bully pulpit, as it were opposing the power of the papacy to Traditionalism, really hits Trads where it hurts. The mere fact of being a Traditionalist has meant at the very least ignoring if not opposing the power of the papacy for the last fifty years. Bergoglio's gambit depends on a loyalty which is no longer really there. Traditionalists already stand condemned in the eyes of the world, so trying to further pillory them before the world will not hurt them much either. I conclude that the most likely explanation of Bergoglio's behavior is that he is himself jealous for the praise and approval of the world. He neither knows nor cares much for anything else.

Sic transit gloria mundi was the phrase uttered to every true pope of the Catholic Church upon his coronation, as a patch of burning straw turned to ashes in his hands. How the Conciliar popes have forgotten that fact, along with everything else.

Great post. And boy, is point C ever true!

Just to add to the main idea of Point C, and to wallow a bit further in despair, those who are not completely worldly seem to have a good chance of entering into some form of a lunatic fringe.

This was the last sentence of another fine post in this thread. But could you please explain a little more about your perception of South American Jesuit houses?

Okay.  This is just a working theory of my own.

In the 1960's a leadership model which grew out of the non-directed psychotherapy of Carl Rodgers became very popular in USA convents.  At some points, at least, it was called 'Therapy for Healthy People'.  Today, as very vastly developed and codified by the LCWR (the nuns on the bus folks) it is called 'systems thinking'.  It has many analogues in business and education.

It is very difficult to summarize and do it justice.  

 Very, very basically, it is a technique for leading that avoids conflict by convincing the parties involved that their grievances were properly understood and that the solution proposed benefits them personally and that they have chosen to participate in the solution freely.

It is very different from an authoritarian model.

Pope Francis, in his interviews, has said that, as a young superior, he learned a 'new way of leadership'.  It is highly likely this is that way.  It was the right place at the right time, as Rogerian techniques diffused through the Americas, and I think it fits his style.

For this reason, I've been watching Francis for signs of this technique.  

It's my opinion that his cozying up to gαys and diminishing protests and abortion is the first stage of the Rogerian technique, the creation of a non-hierarchical, non-judgemental engagement space.

I could be wrong.  Or he may die before he reaches the end of the program.  Who knows.  

PS - BTW in this model, the only people who would be 'punished' are those who refuse to engage the program.  I diagnose this to be why Trads are getting the short end of the stick.  Trads insist on authority and definite guidance.