The video is a good conversation to be had, though I personally think he is very bias in his approach and makes a lot of bad points. Especially since critical Catholics aren't actively trying to kill the Pope. He repeatedly makes the presumption that Catholics who are criticizing the Pope are actually eager to do so. In general, I believe Catholics for the most part would rather not be having these conversations. To the point now where people simply tune out the Pope. There are also a lot of scripture passages which he conveniently glosses over, such as by their fruits ye shall know them. If they are not faithful with little they will not be faithful in much. Not to mention all the verses where Jesus criticizes the authorities of His day. I am not exactly sure what the proper posture is, but I think it lays somewhere between "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.” There could be the far more grave sin at hand of abandoning Christ and our Conscience than criticizing God's anointed. Not to mention the weight of all the souls who are possibly going to fall into error because people are not speaking up. Our Precious Lord abides within each of us and He is due the dignity of a King.
I listen to quite a wide range of Catholic commentators in the course of the day, especially Traditional ones who I am fascinated with. It can be kind of a two way street. I am learning a very great deal from them and for that I am very grateful. But on the other hand I find that it can be harmful to have a constant stream of negativity. But overall in the Church I don't think the problem is or has been that people are speaking out too much. No, by far the biggest problem has been that people especially people in authority have been far,far too silent. I think Our Lady of Good Success mentioned this at one point , that the one who should speak out will remain silent.
Luke 22:31–32, where Jesus addresses Peter to warn him that Satan has asked permission to test him, but that He has prayed for him so that his faith may not fail. The full passage explains that life’s trials “shake” people, but Jesus’ intervention ensures that Peter can overcome them and then strengthen his brothers in the faith. In this biblical passage, we are shown how Satan exercises his power on earth. Some ideas we can meditate on that will do us a lot of good in improving our understanding. First, we must ask for the intercession of the Holy Spirit to grant us sufficient wisdom: On the one hand, that makes it possible for man to be free, since we cannot be free without being able to choose. Regarding the devil, we must be clear about three things: we must not engage in any conversation with him because he is a flatterer, a liar, and, finally (when we have fallen into his deception), an accuser and a violent being. The devil, when he gets permission from God, is unstoppable. We can hardly handle a simple situation. When the situation turns into an orchestra of unexpected events, our capacity is virtually nil. In a demonic possession or obsession, the only way we can confront it is with God’s help thru the Catholic Church and its hierarchy. The exorcist must have been appointed by the bishop of the diocese. No priest can act as an exorcist on his own, and certainly not a layperson, no matter how devout he may be. Finally, to the devil we are untouchable if we consecrate ourselves to our Mother in Heaven or to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. In the first case, it is essential to attain purity in the face of lust as a path to perfection, invoking the beautiful Love of our Mother in every battle. In the second, we commit ourselves to imitating Christ on every occasion. The first consecration tends to bring about the second within a certain period of time. The Virgin will always lead us to the Most Sacred Heart of her Son. In summary, we can do nothing without divine grace. That is the first premise we must clarify to begin the true journey.
I agree with the video. The accusation and trial of men is biased and unfair. We must not criticize any of God’s anointed ones.
We are called to be faithful to church teachings, so if the Pope goes contrary to them the laity have the duty to speak up. 2465-2513 of the Catechism emphasizes the importance of upholding the truth. The following is a snippet from Canon Law. Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church. §2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-...cuments/cic_lib2-cann208-329_en.html#TITLE_II. So how does a Catholic walk this line? What is the proper posture? Recently Pope Leo XIV blessed a block of ice in relation to climate change. Something which the globalists have been hypocritically persecuting the world's population with for decades. How do you critique the Pope on this without detracting from him? I feel that since 2013 the Popes often do things that detract from their own reputations, detracting from their own offices to the pain of the Church in her entirety. And, when people comment on the obvious they are attacked as the detractors. I am not posting this to make anyone wrong or anything like that. As I said before, I think this is a good conversation and appreciate everyone's take.
Detraction goes beyond the pope and clergy. I once had a boss who just a constant huge challenge for me. To cope I derided this person with other colleagues. As video said, I was not making up stuff- repeating truthful flaws. I confessed to a priest about my struggle and he said if I cant control myself then I should quit. I was at first annoyed with him but slowly came to see he was right. So i did find another job. And i was at peace. Funny thing was years later I met my ex boss at an industry meeting and we got along perfectly.
Thanks for posting. Often, what I used to call "venting" was really committing the sin of detraction.
So if I am correct in reading your post, detraction is where a person is simply wanting to make someone lesser. What if someone doesn't have the intention to make the Pope lesser by criticizing them? Like the instance where St. John the Baptist was criticizing Herod for marrying his brother's wife.
St Paul accused the first Pope St Peter of being a coward and a hypocrite here: A} Is this the sin of Detraction? B} If it this not the sin of Detraction please tell me why not? (A clue perhaps St Paul was engaging in genuine and much needed Critique and maybe put up and shut up is not always such a good strategy. However if St Paul had simply said this to put Peter down it would indeed have been detraction.) Galatians 2:11-13 Paul Confronts Peter 11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
I think it would be wise to discuss questions about the sin of detraction in the confessional if need be. Imho
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.277 He becomes guilty: - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; - of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;278 - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them. 2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.279 2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity. https://www.vatican.va/content/cate...two/article_8/iii_offenses_against_truth.html It appears you are correct that while motive may play a role, it isn't a necessary requirement for detraction to occur. However in the first line in 2477 it states that the sin of detraction operates around justice. If the judgement has an objectively valid foundation, detraction has not happened even though injury may have, because it is just. But, there are a lot of steps which must occur beforehand. Which begs the following questions, Do the people who criticize the Pope/Vatican/Church Authorities have valid reasons built on a sufficient foundation? Have the people who criticize the Pope/Vatican/Church Authorities tried to give a favorable interpretation? The people voicing a correction, are they doing it with love? I think we are getting closer to having a better understanding of what kind of posture to take in regards to the criticism/detraction of the Papacy. It isn't a black and white issue.
I personally think those criticizing the Pope/Vatican/Church Authorities do have valid reasons built on a sufficient foundation. Everything leading up to now from 2013 is evidence of this. The fact that the popesplainers have become a thing of the past for the most part means the attempts to give favorable interpretations are exhausted. The people who are voicing correction are not always doing it with love, many do it out of frustration and I think this is where Catholic critics can do better and might win a few more people over too.
This instance was just, therefore it was not detraction. St. Paul saw the sacred duty to correct and criticize St. Peter and did so without prejudice.
I will tell you an incident in my own life which was a great lesson to me on this issue of detraction and charity.## When I was in the monastery with the Cistercians we did not eat meat as a penance. Therefore we were vegetarians. No meat ever. There was the most appalling priest who did the cooking there, for instance he asked the guy who supplied the vegetables to only give us the veg he would throw out. So, effectively we got to eat rotten vegetables. So if you , for instance cut open your potato it would be black inside. The same with the other veg. This happened all the time. This for people who lived on veg. Anyway I was asked if I could cook and I said I could, Plus I can bake. So they asked me to go and cook on Thursdays to give this dreadful priest a break. So I did. The kitchen was great all the best equipment and tools it could have served a small hotel. But totally, totally filthy. In terms of hygiene very dangerous. So I got help in and cleaned the place down. Was that ever a job. Top to bottom,even the ceiling just a horror picture.## The food on hand to cook with , I mean just was not there. So I got permission to go into town to buy stuff. So I did cook and bake really nice fresh good breads. Anyhow the guy who was the cook turned really nasty about this. Why? Because it did not show him up in a very good light,, to say the least. For instance at Christmas as a special treat he used to serve burnt baked beans and fish that had been steamed to a paste. So anyway my idea on all this was that saints never complained they put up and shut up . That this was a great chance for penance. Keep quiet. But after a year or two putting up with all this and my goodness was that guy ever nasty to me I began to have a change of view. In the first place it was not all about me it was about everyone else. His filthy hygiene was dangerous to everyone else. His horrific cooking was terrible for everyone's health. Plus such abominable cooking was just plain wrong. So I went to the Abbot to ask questions. The Abbot denied nothing. But he said the guy was mentally unstable and he did not know what else to do with him. I told the Abbot this was not a good answer that this guy was doing grave harm and it needed to stop. Well you know when I was in putting up and shutting mode things went fine. It was when I started to ask questions that problems arose. This taught me a great lesson in the Spiritual Life. That putting up and shutting up and being nice does not some times make you holy. Its taking the risk of speaking out that can take the real courage.
