Diognes notices the irony of a U.S. Today article on the Pope visit, though not concerning the visit itself.
In it George Weigel gives his opinion of the Pope and his visit
followed by a much more negative view by Fr. Reese S.J. where he says "Benedict is still stifling theologians. Theologians worry because the Vatican insists we continue to explain the gospel in the language of the 13th century."
The irony is that recently George Weigel has written a couple of columns concerning the state of the Jesuit order that was much decried within Jesuit ranks. So it is rather funny in an article that quotes George Weigel that they manage to provide proof for his contention.
I also think that the word processing programs that journalists use has a macro that anytime they type Thomas Reese it will automatically append " Jesuit priest and former editor of the Jesuit-owned magazine America. Reese lost that job just after Ratzinger was elected pope;" Getting "fired" was the best thing that could have happened to him since it has even made him more the media darling and the go to guy for journalist wanting the right spin desired for a story. Now I of course jest about this being the best thing that has happened to him, but I bet their are other Jesuit editors right now thinking "What do I gotta do to get fired?" Well maybe I jest about that also.
One thing I find interesting about the whole Weigel/Jesuit kerfuffle is that I wish they would have the same energy against those in their order who teach something contrary to the faith. Many seem to ignore if someone in their order gives them a black eye, but get mad when someone points out the black eye A Jesuit can write in support of abortion and euthanasia and it goes without comment, but if someone writes about the Jesuit who supports abortion and/or euthanasia then that needs a response.
Any Welborn in response to the same article:
… Again, reporters – when a source says something about the Vatican insisting that theological language be that of the 13th century – push . Ask what exactly that means. Request specific examples. Be conversant enough with recent documents – say, the last few encyclicals, from both Benedict and John Paul II – to question that statement in light of those documents. Know that Benedict’s encyclicals sell in the hundreds of thousands when they are published, his books are best sellers for any publisher who gets them and the Vatican website gets millions of hits a day.
Are all those people conversant in 13th-Centuryese?
And once again, add new names to the Rolodex
Well maybe the reporter realized that the comment was pure hyperbole, though probably not. The charitable view is that the statement is hyperbole because otherwise is it just plain malicious or ignorant. Anybody who has read either the Pope writing’s or the books he wrote before being elected as Pope would laugh at such an assertion. The Pope’s book Jesus of Nazareth liberally quotes modern scriptural scholars and praises the good of it where in enlightens and lightly chastises it when it goes astray. Even when Cardinal Ratzinger had to discipline theologians, which was very rare, it was not because there language was not 13th century, but because it was not sufficiently first century in that it contradicted scriptural or Apostolic tradition.