Pp Francis' contention that corruption is more fundamentally evil than sin is in accord with his Liberation Theology talk about the "structure of sin". In other words, "sin" is a function of human collectives and their structures of action (e.g., economic). The implications is, willy/nilly, that, if one changes the structure, then sin must disappear. If one ceases being corrupt, one will cease sinning. But why is one corrupt? That is the question and the papal answer refers again to the structures of corruption.

A problematic presents itself as to the profound meaning of the life of Jesus. If structures of sin can be corrected or if corruption can be terminated, sin will diminish or disappear. If my interpretation is correct, then I ask just what can be the meaning of the temporal defeat of Jesus in this life as he is executed by the demeaning (for the Romans) instrument of the Cross? Jesus nailed to and hanging from the Cross is a lousy symbol for the triumph of "love" (= therapy) over those structured as corrupt in this world. Jesus should come down from the Cross and become the Chief Therapist of the world and enact a therapeutic politics. Mankind is from this point of view not saved from his sins through the sacrifice of Jesus, rather by correcting structures or propensities of corruption by means of "love" (= effectively helpful therapy). What structures of Rome, what corruptions of Romans or certain Jewish leaders were changed, even slightly altered, by the "sin" of the execution of Jesus? Sacrifice does not achieve what loving therapy can do IN THIS WORLD -- and that is, I surmise is the theological dimension in which Pp Francis seems to exist.

Ideas have consequences, often ones that the original thinker did not or could not imagine. Pp Francis with his theology of the people (or some similar title) is preaching ideas that diminish the sense of Jesus as an innocent Lamb in salvational Sacrifice. Whatever, that is my opinion.

Oh, you innocents, you youth of today. Years ago, many indeed, long before any of your were even a twinkle in your fathers eye (and maybe before your father was feven conceived) there appeared on the moral scene something (and I remember it) called "Situation Ethics", an ethics that considered itself as accepting the moral teachings of Jesus, namely: LOVE! (Before I continue, does not the reduction of Jesus' teaching to the content of love sound like proclamations made today, particularly by those who seem to want to accept and affirm homosexuality, remarried couples or serial polygamy and who hurl thunderbolds of scrorn at those "in an ivory tower" --where I spent most of my working life--, those rigid misfits bound to the "law" and afraid of the "surprises" of the Spirit, e.g., read the posting above in toto. Situation ethics is an ethics, free of any hard and fast law, and solely wed to "love". But what is "love"?

"Love" is welcoming others, helping others, seeking to aid others, etc., etc. (Below I will reveal the essence of "etc.") Let me illustrate what is meant here by a case taken from Sit. Ethics. A young man, heterosexual and longing eventually for marriage, is so psychologically unsure of himself that he cannot even function sexually, no matter what arrousal he does not arise to the situation. A young woman enters his life. She feels no real sexual attraction to the man and wants no marriage, but knows of his troubled sexual psyche. So, she approaches lovingly the young man, takes up a sexual relation with him (I mean SEX!), but at all times psychologically trying to use sexual intercourse as, well, a sort of therapy, motivated by her "Christian" (sic) love of the young man and his specific needs in this life. After some months she effects a therapeutic change in the man and, well, he can now perform sex acts. He is "cured" in this world by the means of this world. So, we now can ascertain the essence of "love" in each "etc." as THE supposed message of Jesus. And that would be?

"Love" sees life as one big need of therapy. If person X loves a troubled person Y, said person X will do whatever is necessary to aid person Y to overcome his specific "troubles" in this world and within the terms of this ongoing life in this situation at this time in this place. --I hope that the reader noted all the "this'es" as they reveal the essence of "situation" of "Situation Ethics". The ethics are those of "love" (supposedly preached by Jesus), and "love" is but a short expression for seeking therapeutically to help one's neighbor to live happily in THIS world (the "afterlife" being one of those quirks of the inhabitants of the "Ivory Tower"). Now, we know what the "ethics" of "Situation Ethics" means. But we know more:

We have an insight into the structure of argumentation of those who follow Bishop Bergoglio (he does like being called the Bishop of Rome, so he should be addressed as such). J'accuse the Pope, Cardinal Kasper, Canada' Catholic TV, etc. of being de facto adherents to Situation Ethics. Jesus may have spoken against remarriage, but that is but Jesus' then situation and we live in the "then" now. "Love" qua therapy remains THE same (and only) moral imperative, the application changes according to the "this" NOW, i.e., withing the values of the modern world.

I do hope some of you innocents have just lost your innocence, viz., innocent viewing of the Pope and his Synod. Give the Pope enough time and "innocence" will become situational.

Well, what do you? Pope Francis' behavior, particularly faced problems of upkeep (physical and financial) of the Sistine Chapel, has applied the "capitalistic" thinking described by Ludwig von Mises in his Human Action, a 900 page tractatus on pure praxeiological and monetary acts of human. In other words, the Pope has wisely acted as a capitalist and has been able to calculated monetarily only because of the value of money produced by market exchange.

Whereas the Pope's "renting out" the Chapel is done in light of market rules, the customers he has soucht out are HIGH paying persons. The Pope is selling a very costly serived aimed at the rich who want an excludive experience, an experience that derives from an expensive lifestyle that the Pope condemns. Would not it personally be better for the "big spenders" to limit output of money for personal life activities instead of living "high on the hog" at concert IN the Chapel.

Hypocracy!!!! Good business practice seeking out those with "rich" tastes, but bad moral practice as it contradicts the Pope's exhortation to other. And, businesswise, Capitalist Francis is paying not taxes!!!

All thinking leads to sytematization >> system. Previous or traditional theologians started from cognitive info derived from Scriptues, tradition and developing existant doctrine. "Cognition" is the principle of traditional thinking. What to do is a fuction of what is known to be.

Pope Francis has as his idiosyncratic principle of thinking: feeling good, helping others (as they are). sweet bubbling emotionality (and occasionally hugging men). The principle forming this thing is "incoherence", viz., varying behavior for the Pope is called "surpises", i.e., any situation that is a "surprise" (sic), even if its specific behavioral principle is at variance with the last situation's behavioral principle, and particularly if the new principle of specific surprise contradictd traditional evaluations of centuries,is acceptable. The Pope's derogatory term is "law". In actuality "law" is a derivative of "is". This is valid from any organized thinking, even that of the Pope. There is a "law", i.e., coherent system uniting Pp Francis' actions, words and value judgments and that is "surprises". i.e., so long as the good feeling of being nice, helpful, pardoning or, in short, therapeutic/pastoral acts is realized in a specific situation.it is morally acceptable. God IS ontologically chaotic, i.e., full of surprises and not eternal. This chaotic metaphysics generates the ultimate foundation of behavior as "situation ethics".

In his homilies Pp Francis appears to be acting and thinking heretically. Since a homily is formally no dogmatic statement, one cannot say that he is a formal heretic although what he is doing is materially heretical.

How much longer can those holding to the traditions, viz., to the developed thinking of the Church over countless centuries remain formally attached to a Church being pressed to a morality (and ontology) of "surprises"? (I guarantee that any new morality will produced justifying interpretations of the "is", i.e., doctrine will be changed to justify the morality.

In other words, the Pope is coming close to falsifying the claim that the magisterium will not fall into error ln serious matters of faith and morals. That would be a refutation of the claims of the traditional Church as a reflection of eternity. For a long time believers will equivocate, freely interprete "surprises" away as somehow traditional, but eventually the disparity between tradition and novelty will become so clear that two incompatible religions will bear the same name of "Catholicism".

I repeat my suggestion to Gloria.tv. Remain shy about politics. I have watched Glenn Beck for years and still do as much as possible and read daily his The Blaze. I (with three doctoral titles from three different countries) do not like being accused of being a part of "the dumbed-down American public" and being "confused and cemented in Rabbinic lies ..." and manipulated by a "Zionist Court Jester", influeced by perhaps the future "most dangerous man in America" (not Obama or H. Clinton, but Beck???. I am sure Obama would second the thesis.) @Galahad has insulted me, no indirectly he has exercised calumny against me through his vile, if not sinful distortion of Glenn Beck and what that implies re ME. I have not heard such attacks on Rabbis' Rabbinic Judaism since I read the some time back some propagana put out by the Nazis in support of their getting rid of the "Zionist" problem. "The Protocols of Zion" constitute an paradigmatic Russian Orthodox love manifiesto.

I have no intention of countering @Galahad. I will not waste my time by defending a defamed man who has demontratively for years analyzed correctly the Islamic threat and its relation to secular Leftism, is against abortion, for the US Constituion, founded an institution that provides multi- thousands of dollars for charity, is well valued by Conservatives (also at Fox News where he still appears as a guest and he was not fired, though George Soros exerted much preasure) and I could go on. I do state firmly, however, that if I ever again come upon such anti-Judaism and such calumny in Gloria.tv. I will disassocate myself totally from Gloria.tv and suggest to the German Government (I now live in Germany) that some virulent anti-Semitism should be investigated. One Rabbi once said that he knows his lethal enemy, one of 20 Centuris and that is the Catholic Church! If the Rabbi had included Protestant Christianiy and Russian Orthodox Christianity, I would not argue against him.

P.S., I do support Israel with all its Rabbis! The outstanding scholar of the Middle East, Bernhard Lewis, has noted that medieval Islam at least gave a legal dhimi status to Jews, whereas Christians did not, resulting in lethal abuse. I live not far from two cities where bearers of Christian love (sic) massacred Jews during the medieval times. I have read in the Regnesburg Cathederal the Church banishment of Jews from that city in the fearly Middle Ages, which meant death in the wilderness. It is not hard to show that the Nazis built their anti-Judaism upon a long history of Christian prejudice. I want none of a repeat!!!!

I do not know exactly who is proposing the "Vat II New Church" creed. Perhaps @Galahad can clarify that for me. Let me, however, comment upon the last thesis, i.e., the "tree with religions icons (? religion ?).

1. During my teaching stint (during Benedict's reign) at Seminario Redemptoris Mater in Brasilia, the aspirant priests were taught to see "Jesus" in each person or Jesus' love for each person. If this is what is mean by "the Divine in each person" I cannot see any specific problem. a. If, however, it is being claimed that a sort of incarnation of Divine/human constitues everyone, this is heresy. I see no reason to think that this is so. b. If the content of the thesis is intended as a historical assertion concerning the nature per se of religion, it is wildly wrong. This is not the place for a theory of religion. But, neither Roman polytheism nor Aztec sacrificing began with seeing the Divine in each person. c. What is the meaning of this blatantly false assertion concerning the nature of religion per se? Here I suspect that it is slighly being suggester that ALL religions are from the very sameuniversal tree because all see the Divine in everyone, etc. False! The Aztecs needed to conquer other tribles so as to sacrifice said captives to the blood lust of their gods.

2. "Being open to dialogue"? Should one reeally have sat down with Adolf Hitler 1944 and blah-blahed about the "final solution" or should one have killed him right on the spot? I bet, however, that dialoguing with leftists and communists would be fine for the current Pope, unless the communist was Stalin or Lenin and, in the blink of an eye, one would be hanged. So, dialogue is a blah-blah category with one purpose, namely to direct one to talk with the others, but do not try to convert them. And this would be quite false!

3. "To seek the good of the other": Fine, but what is the "good" for each and every "other"? The Nazi leaders given a trial at Nürnburg, found guilty and executed received the "good" for their humanity as it would have been a mockery of justice not to have allowed them to pay for their crimes in this world. God judges for eternity. To have "rehabilitated" Göring and then sent him to do good for Jews would be a mockery of reality. Hess was sent to prision for life and argueably became so insane in prison that he killed himself. This was not the "good" that Hess needed. The maxim suggested is too vague, though I suspect it intends a mission of "goody-goodism"

Points 2 and 3 are not essential to Catholic religion, though nice as an effect. What is disturbing is, indeed, point 1. It appears to me that an underhanded thesis is being pushed on the unwary reader, namely, all religions are the "fruit" (better and less offensive than "icon") of the one original nature of religion. This interpretation suggest (post)modernism and reeks of confessional indifferentism.

Wörterbuch: Deutsch-Englisch: Gender = Geschlecht. Punkt!!! Man, hoppla, "es" mißbraucht Englisch, um hinterlistig Geschlecthlichkeit vom pyschischen Sein zu trennen, d.h., "Mann", "Frau" oder "genderless" wird zu einer willkürlichen Identitätswahl des Individuums. Auf englisch ist das nichts anders als "split personality", eine geistige Krankheit in der anomalen Psychologie.
Dazu sind gleiche Chancen nicht Gleichstellungung (mein Gott, das klingt wie Hitlers "Gleichschaltung"), sondern gestztliche gezwunge "Sameness", bzw. "Gleichschaltung".

Question: If the Pope can "invalidate" his papacy, just WHO is to make the determination? If Pope X has been validly elected, who is to judge that said X-papacy is invalid? The individual theologian? If my history is correct, an individual theologian with a doctoral title in the early 16th Century condluded that not only Pope X is invalid, but that the papacy per se is invalid. I mean, of course, Luther.

Catholicism is in a difficult position here. I thought that the Pope, the bearer of the Keys, could not falsify doctrine qua the function of the magisterium. But Fr. Bowring seems to be saying that Pope Francis is seeminly changing apparently authentic and authenticaded doctrine and, hence, invalidating his claim to the Papacy. But, if this is so, it seems to me that the claim of an infallible magisterium has been falsified. That is a disquieting "it seems to me". Fine, the doctrine altering pope has invalidated his office, but seemingly by contradiction previous doctinal positions. Can someone clarify my quandry.

@Galahad, I am a bit confused. The title of your posting is ambiguous. I interpreted you as meaning that Card. Pell is an example of False Ecumenism and the Jews. Or? Yet the speech of Card. Pell did not, at least with my first reading, say anything in itself "false" or talk about "false ecumenism". Or? If your answer is that the speech is an example of false ecumenism, could you briefly explain why?

Your posting "The Jews and the broken Covenant" lends itself to a Replacement theology re "the" Jews. I take from the posting that THE Jews are, so to speak, no longer in the salvational scheme, having rejected the fulfilment of said scheme, namely accepting Jesus as the Christ. If so, what is the status of Judaism?

You will note that I used quotation marks or capitals to refer to "THE" Jews. I live in Germany and am well aware of what happens when a people are subsumed under a "THE". Jewish colleagues I knew, born in the 20th Century, do not feel that they themselves have broken any "convenant" (whatever might have been the status of certain Jewish prelates at the time of the crucifixion --indeed, most of the Jews living then were not in Jersualem at the time). Such Jewish colleagues remain unconvinced of Christian attempts "to prove" through copies of copies of scriptural writings that Jesus qualifies as THE Christ. Such rejections are individual, not collective, i.e., they do not represent the Jewish people taken disjunctively. I did know one Jew, a colleague, that came to accept Cathoicism. Such acceptance was individual. Or? Somehow the "THE" is being used as a pars pro toto function. E.g., when the Japanese representative signed the paper of surrender in 1945 to the Allies, hence forth all Japanese individuals, those being soldiers, lost all claim to continue fighting. The Jap. Rep. was a pars pro toto representative for "THE" Japanese. So: What is meant by "THE" Jews and the broken Covenant"?

Thank you again for your interesting postings.

@Galahad, you have presented an excellent horrifying report. No irony here. The report was very informative, the content was horrifying. My compliments for noting the parallel between Luther and Francis. Howeever, the comparison is not fully fair. Luther actually strays less from the truth that Francis. I explain myself so:

Luther held that humans are sinful, cannot stop being sinful. Because he could find no forgiveness for his sinning, he became despondent until he concluded that God forgives humans as they are. God's forgiving, indepentent of any repentence, sanctifies and, thereby "saves" the believer sola fide. Luther did not mean that people should go about seeking knew sins to commit. He met that sinning per se will not condemen IF and ONLY if the sinner has faith that God has already forgiven the sin. So, onr should noz get up tight if onr feeld sinnful -- it is already discounted. The result is that Luther does at least leave "sin" as sin. (Note: Because God has forgiven the hapless sinnning sinner, the sinner feels relieved, happy and THANKFUl >>>> automatic "good works" flow. As Protestant theology developed doing "good works" became a criterion for having been forgiven. "Good works" were smuggled in through the backdoor.)

Francis is an irrationalist in the Kantian sense that one can "know" nothing about the SUPER-empirical-natural realm. Existencialists believed that same and tried to live in a godless world. Francis has latched on to "feeling", gushy, lovy-dovy emotionality, as the empirical mechanism for attaining God (or, perhaps better, the Holy Ghost swoops down and seizes the believer and this is felt via emotions >>> penachant for Penecostal liturgical exuberance). Francis seems, re sin, to allow the act of immersion of the actual sinner into "love-grace", into those gushy feelings, to be sanctifying 1. even if the sin (fornification or adultery) continues (which is close to Luther) or 2. (as I think your article is indicating) the sin itself is purified of sinfulness by love, thereby becoming no longer sin. (By "sin" here I mean acts dealing with sexuality, not murder.) This would be different from Luther who did not lose sight of sin nor try to cleanse the nature of "sin" of its sinfulness, only freeing sola fide the sinner from the consequential burden. Francis, if this second interpretation is correct, would, on the other hand, be actually changing morals, i.e., asserting (at least materially) that previous "sin X" is qua the content of X now no longer a sinful act, rather a moral act.

Assuming my thesis is correct and that I have caught your idea, I am faced with a problem. A Pope, in and by the act of changing "sin" into "morality", would be contradicting one essential feature traditionally ascribed to Papal powers as the Keeper of the Keys. Am I right? On the surface, this looks like that at least traditional claim for the Magisterium has be falsified. In science a "falsified" theory is, well, not a true theory. In theology?

"Respice in me" can be translated into modern character terms such as "cynosure". A cynosure is a person of s developed and often compulsive "narcistic personality". Such persons can be nicer than nice so long as the "look at me" is feed with adulatory praise . But, let one be of another opinion and the narcisstic mind turns to rage and represses or rejects his non-admirer. Pope Narcisscus has continually referred to traditionalists in the most unmerciful terms. Where did the Latin phase come from? In other words, did some famous person make such a statement or did the author just invent it? Whatever, Pope Francis was well characterized.

@romanpoc, Sie haben keine meiner Fragen beantwortet, nur Ihr Prinizip wiederholt. Sie haben dennoch was verwechselt. "Töten" und "hassen" sind nicht notwendig vereint. Ich war immer bereit, aus Liebe, meine Kinder zu schützen, falls notwending durch "töten". Solches "Töten" wäre eine Funktion meiner Liebe für meine Kinder und für mich selbst als Vater. Gibt es was Grüßeres, als das eigene Leben (im Kampf) für einen anderen aufzuopfern. Weil ich Leben liebe, werde ich, wenn notwendig, das Leben durch Töten verteidigen. Jede Mutter würde das für ihr Kind tun. Die Problematik des Lebens ist, daß dieses Leben hier jenes Leben dort bedrohen kann. Leider ist vielleicht "töten" das einzige Mittel, unschuldiges Leben zu retten. Wenn ich recht habe, ist der Pazifismus falsch.

@romanpoc: Ein jüdischer Kollege hat mich informiert, daß das Verb "(er)morden" und nicht "töten" das hebräisches Wort übersetzt. Muß ich aus Ihren Worten schließen, daß die Päpste der päpstlichen Staaten alle immoralisch gehandelt haben, indem sie die Todesstrafe für die Aufrechterhaltung des Gesetzts benutzt haben? Ja oder Nein? Haben diese Päpste deswegen "Totsünden" begangen? Sind sie vielleicht deswegen alle in der Hölle?

Frage: Sie sind im Nordirak und ein ISIS-Kämper kommt in ein Zimmer mit der Absicht, mehrere Kinder und Babys zu "töten". Sie sind da und verfügen über ein Gewehr. Die absolut einzige Weise, die Kinder zu retten, besteht darin, den ISIS-Kämper sofort zu erschießen, sonst sterben alle Kinder in ein paar Sekunden. Würden Sie das Gewehr wegschmeißen und mit reinstem Gewissen sagen: "Ich darf nicht töten"? Oder würden Sie schießen?

Wollen Sie sagen, daß die in KZs von den Nazis ermordeten 6 Millionen Juden, 5 Millionen Russen, 2 Millionen Polen, weil sie ohneweiters irgendwann und irgendwo eine oder mehrere Sünden begangen haben, kein Recht besitzen, eine Strafe zu verlangen, daß der Ernsthaftigkeit des Verbrechens entgegenkommt.

Waren die Soldaten aus Polen und Rußland gebunden an "Du sollst nicht töten!", während die Nazi die Ostländer militärisch überfielen - und mit der Absicht, die einheimischen Bevölkerungen zu "vernichten" (Hitlers Wort)? Laut den Nazis sollten 11 Millionen Juden und mindestens 30 bis 50 Millionen Slaven getötet werden, weil die "Herrenrasse" ihren Boden brauchte.

Denken Sie darüber nach, weil Sie nolens-volens eine Pazifistin sind! Ich muß logisch annehmen, daß als Pazifistin Ihre Antwort zu allen Fragen "Ich würde nicht töten" wäre. Sogar im Extrmfall würden Sie sagen "Ich würde nicht töten", hätten einige Römer versucht, Marie zu ermorden und Sie wären dabei (angenommen, daß "töten" das einzige Verteidigungsmittel sei). Solche Schuld möchte ich mir nicht aufladen.

Name: Giovanni Battista Bugatti, Spitzname Mastro Titta.
Arbeit: Staatshenker, Arbeitslauf: 1796-1865, mit 516 Vollstreckungen der Todesstrafe (normalweise Enthauptung)
Arbeitsgeber: Päpstliche Staaten, Chef: jeweiliger Papst
Pension: 30 Scudi/Monat vom Papst Pius IX

Confesio: Als Amerikaner, der vollständig hinter der Todesstrafe für die 16 Nazis (inclusiv Göring) steht, und, der es für vollständig moralisch gerechtfertigt hält, daß Israel Eichmann rechtlich verurteilt und hingerichtet hat, finde ich es objektiv nicht akzepierbar, daß die objektive Aufrichtigkeit dieser Hinrichtungen von Schwerverbrechern gegen die Menschenrechte, z.B., Massenmord von Völkern, in Zweifel gezogen wird, als ob sie objektiv nicht vertretbar wäre.

These: Es verletzt die Menschenwürde des Mörders, der Gerechtigkeit für seinen begangen Mord will und soll, und auch dazu die Würde des Ermordenten, wenn die Todesstrafe dem Schuldigen abgesprochen wird. (S. Fr. Schiller, die Problematik von Die Braut von Massina). Ableitung: Hölle als ewige Todesstrafe wird problematisch.

Traditionalisten beziehen sich oft auf die Aussagen von "Pius"-Päpsten, nein? Ich gebe Pius IX das Wort!

Question: Did the couples to be married make use of Confession before the ceremoney or did they utter no repentance? If the first alternative is the case, Pope Francis did not place in jeopardy the traditional view. If the second alternative is the case, well he did make former Catholic (and Orthodox and some Protestant denominations) doctrine problematic.

Comment: "Sex outside of marriage", if accepted, will not long remain merely a pre-marital "outside marriage", but transmorph, as it already has, say, here in Germany, into sexual activity between two persons who care or "love" each other, i.e., until interest is lost and a new partner is sought. Serial partnership then become a reality as normal sex. Sex within a "loving" relationship, however limited, will not long remain the final derivative of "outside marriage", rather soon simply sex between two consenting persons will suffice. (I would wager that contraception, both preventive and remedial, i.e., abortion, will soon follow.) In logic, who say A, must say B .... and for that matter C, D, E, etc.