Francis also took a moment during his visit to the Philippines to remind everyone that he is actually Catholic.
At a rally for families in the country’s capital of Manila, the popular pontiff spoke of an “ideological colonization that we have to be careful about that is trying to destroy the family,” the pope said through a translator. Many people understood his remarks as a reference to same-sex marriage.
“The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life,” Francis said at a Mass in Manila. “These realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces, which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation.”
His choice in delivery is perhaps a bit over the top, and will no doubt obscure his ultimate message for many people who cannot see past the vulgarity, and I don’t think I can agree that Francis is personally responsible for every crime committed by the church over the ages, and I would not judge the pope solely based on this one statement… but I think the core of his message here is sound, especially regarding Christ’s own position on such things.
As you say, Christ advises to relinquish any right to self-defense for yourself. But you can’t make that decision for a third person, especially if it’s someone you have a duty to protect, such as family members.
A few hundred years ago this would have resulted in a schism where a new church that advocates punching people on the nose as part of worship breaks away from Rome.
Christ’s message isn’t literally about getting slapped in the face.
The idea of turning the other cheek is metaphorical. The message is that if you are wronged by another person, you should not return that with vengeance or punishment. Instead, you should show those enemies love and compassion. It’s through that ultimate showing of spiritual strength, that you will win them over to your side, and not through beating them with physical strength. It ends the cycle of revenge that perpetuates so many conflicts throughout history.
Now, it can easily be argued that this is a naive notion, but it is what Christ taught.
Of course (although the motives you then ascribe to the counsel seem overly strategic and political, whereas charity is an end in itself). The point is simply that you cannot forgive an offense not directed against you. If someone insults you, you can forgive it. If someone insults your mother, she can forgive it, but you cannot, and for the time being you must ponder how to best defend her interests and justice itself.
Yeah, turning the other cheek is not about “winning them over to your side”. It’s to forgive, and just forgive. If there’s an intention behind the forgiveness, then it’s not true forgiveness… It’s about avoiding action when the only reason for that action is anger, or defending your honor, or vengeance.
The concept that Christ did not support violent action is debatable. He obviously didn’t put forward violent action as his most prominent or most important message, but he did support -and take part in- actions that could be considered (or not) violent. Both in the scriptures and according to a historical reconstructions of the character. It’s in dispute, but it is considered an issue in religious studies of Christianism, at least whithin Catholic theology schools (the first news I had of that was from a friend who was getting ready to be a priest at the time. They do give this serious thought).
Again, specifying that non-violence is effective in certain cases (as you do in the bolded text) implies a circumstantial and strategic approach to the question of the morality of a possible violent action. It does not imply an absolute position on the subject, whatever the circumstances.
While punishment is something that clearly is deemed “wrong” (again, forgiveness and compassion), there’s a distinction made between forgiveness for a sin (comitted against you. Only God can forgive sins of faith) and inaction while that sin is being comitted. The cleansing of the temple (clearly not a metaphor) is not apologized for in the testaments, but the link I give above expands on less well known facts and parts of the testaments (it’s not the best paper, I’m afraid, it was jus tthe first google link on my search. I’m lazy).
Also, it might be a moot point, what Christ taught is only partially related to what Christianism (or Catholicism, in this case) has become as a religion (that is, Catholicism, in the present day, does reject any kind of violence, like many other Christian denominations do). Going back to Christ and ignoring all the writing and interpretation of the scriptures done whithin the Church (and adopted as dogma) does not thruthfully convey the complexities and idiosincracies of the religion.
This doesn’t make the Pope’s statements less problematic, mind you, but the naive vision of Catholicism as emintently non-active and non-violent is weird.
The disconnect between the historical figure of Jesus, the writers of the gospels several generations later and the revised version being taught today is somewhat gargantuan. I prefer this version, which well could have been the most accurate portrayal. We’ll never know.
We’re learning over time that Pope Francis tends to shoot from the hip when he talks. It’s part of what’s fueling his celebrity. It also means sometimes he says things in an unfortunate way. I think the way he chose to express his point here was a mistake. But of course a lot of it is taken out of context. If you read everything that was said, it helps make some sense out of it (do a search for “punch” on this page to get to the right section). A few points:
Here’s the question he was asked: “Maillard: Holy Father, yesterday at mass you spoke about religious freedom as a fundamental human right. But in the respect for the different religions, up to what point can one go in freedom of expression? That too is a fundamental human right.”
So obviously the question comes up because of the Charlie Hebdo case, but it wasn’t a question about the justification of the attacks, and the Pope’s “punch” is not an analogy to the attacks.
The Pope immediately preceded the statement about the punch with a clear statement that “killing in the name of God is an aberration.” That was him addressing the question of what sorts of limits there are on freedom of religion.
Then he turned to freedom of expression. And, as the Church has always held, freedom of expression is not an unlimited right, either. He says that freedom of expression exists to help people contribute to the common good. That is its purpose. As a right, it comes with a particular obligation to put it to good use.
Then he says that one is not free to insult someone else’s faith or to make a mockery of someone’s faith. Some news pieces have translated this as “you cannot provoke, you cannot insult someone’s faith,” etc. This translation points out that it’s better read as “you ought not.” So insulting something dear to people like their faith is an improper use of your freedom of expression.
When he says that someone insulting his mother should “expect a punch,” he immediately says “it’s normal, it’s normal.” I think the point here is not to say “it’s right”–that is, that the punch is the correct act. Rather he’s saying that it’s how a normal person will react, the point being that one’s faith is something that is as dear to them as their mother.
I think an analogy that helps clarify what the Pope says is something like this: If Saturday Night Live presented a sketch that mocked, say, President Obama’s mother or his daughters, would we expect President Obama to not respond with an angry quotation at the next press conference? Would we call that a worthwhile use of the show’s freedom of expression?
The Pope is saying there are limits on freedom of expression and wrong ways to employ it.
I don’t know where you do get the news, but that nightgaunts post is pretty much stating the obvious (news here are in Spanish, which translates from Italian almost perfectly, so there shouldn’t be any misinterpretations -should and must are very similar in Latin languages, and sometimes mistranslated into and from English-. If anybody thought he was saying it’s ok to punch… well… that would be weird indeed…). But yes, it’s a good post and maybe there was clarification needed.
I still disagree with him on the freedom of expression statements, though, specially when he says one shouldn’t make fun of faith (the part that stroke me as weird and out of touch with how he has behaved in the past -there was this amusing call he made to a convent that was full of humor about the role of nuns, but I disgress…-). And specially in the vivid use of language, specially in something as public as this interview (which is part of the charm, but ir might not help his points sometimes). But given that the man worked as a disco bouncer in his youth, juicy language is perhaps to be expected ;) …
To clarify, I like the guy, but his comments (specially in the current climate) have been unfortunate and have helped undermine part of what he was accomplishing (bringing atheists like me into supporting the mission of the Church once more. People have been put off by this). He will recover, though…
Well, he’s back to his former, lively, but entirely reasonable self: "being a good Christian doesn’t mean you have to reproduce like rabbits". (he said this knowing it was saucy and prefacing it with a “pardon the language, but…”)
I love the man, and he IS addressing most of the possible critiques to the Church in the last couple decades…
PS: he also elaborated on his not fortunate freedom of expression remarks, framing them in a context I can get behind: “freedom of speech should take into account the human reality and should be exercised with prudence so that you avoid angering others”.
Important, though, that in the same address he praised Pope Paul VI and his encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reasserted Church doctrine on birth control:
“I think of Blessed Paul VI in the moment of that challenge of population growth, he had the strength to defend openness to life. He knew the difficulties families experience and that’s why in his encyclical (Humanae Vitae) he expressed compassion for specific cases and he taught confessors to be particularly compassionate for particular cases. And he went further, he looked at the people on the earth and he saw that lack (of children) and the problem it could cause families in the future. Paul VI was courageous, a good pastor - and he warned his sheep about the wolves that were approaching. And from the heavens he blesses us today.”
Birth control is a huge political issue in the Philippines where he made the statements, along with some not-very-veiled denunciations of gay marriage.
But isn’t the statment above actually acknowledging the problem? He even specified three sons/daughters as a reasonable number of offspring…
I don’t expect Francis to tolerate abortion as effective birth control, since that goes against very ingrained Church (and religious in general) doctrine. Basically, as an atheist, I acknowledge that f you assume the existance of a soul, abortion is very problematic ethically. I think this is what he’s addressing when quoting Paul VI.
It’s left to see what his policy towards other means of birth control is going to be…
