Vatican II All Over Again

At the end of Vatican II, liberals thought they had been given permission to remake the Church, and off they ran. Naturally, they were aided by their willing accomplices in the media.

It took 40 years and two popes, JPII and BXVI, to reign them in.

Are we seeing the pontificate of Pope Francis being hijacked in the same manner?

To begin, I don’t even think that this is true.

Pope Francis is showing himself to be Catholic to the core; he states what has always been but in, perhaps, a somewhat different way. There have always been those who think things should be their way (I detest the words “liberal” and “conservative”). There’s nothing new to see here.

Then again, Paul VI and Vatican II were Catholic to the core (if ever the core could have finally been gotten at!), but they were still twisted by “interpreters” to suit various agendas.

The same thing is happening now. However, the difference is that we have a living memory of Vatican II and the Pontificates of that era, and the silliness that was tangentially connected to these institutions, and we have good records of it, so I don’t think the misinterpretation and misapplication of Francis’s words will be nearly as severe. (Yes, that implies that there will be and has been misinterpretation and misapplication already.)

I basically agree with Randy. There is a definite attempt to hi-jack the Papacy of Francis but I pray that it will, in the long run, fail.

No, definitely not.


This has been my issue from the start. The WAY that Pope Francis has said several things has made the job of the hi-jackers that much easier.


And that of the apologists that much harder.

Perhaps he is saying things just fine, but traditionalists aren’t comfortable with those things?

As you know, many liberals use the tactic of, “well, the Pope didn’t** really** mean what he said… here’s how I’m going to re-interpret it.”

I don’t think “traditionalists” are above using the same strategy. We’ve got a crowd here that is to the right of the Church on many issues, e.g. capital punishment, war, torture, poverty, etc.

No, plain and simple.



Isn’t that what they did after Vatican II?

What Went Wrong With Vatican II
by Ralph McInerny

Yes, that is exactly what’s happening.

The thing that gives me hope is that Vat II was unfortunately timed so that it coincided with 60’s/70’s social revolution, which I think greatly exacerbated the problem. I think the Church is not in that same situation now, so maybe the results will not be as severe. At least that’s what I’m hoping and praying for.

Why do the results have to be “severe” to begin with? Why can’t the results be positive?

Why is it that certain people on these forums will only trust Benedict and not Francis??? Is Francis not guided by the same Holy Spirit?

What is the core of this distrust?

Perhaps it would have been better had all this been taken care of in 1869-1870.

What is at the core of the distrust is not anything Francis said, or did, per se.

What is at the core is the reaction of the liberal media and dissident Catholics. What they are up to is having, and will continue to have, very negative results. It’s this reaction, and the actions that will be taken by these groups that is the problem.

Pope Francis hasn’t really said anything different from Church teaching…the media is getting into a hype about it because the way he said it makes them believe he’s going to change Church teaching somehow. :shrug:

He’s able to put Church teaching in a down to earth manner so that those unwilling to listen before are now. Some want to take that a step further by saying he’s going to change things…

So the solution is what? That Francis never speaks to the secular media? That dissident Catholics crawl into a hole and die? That Francis never uses any and all means to reach out to people? That “washing one’s hands” of all those who have left the Church and never attempting to reach out to them is the thing to do?

What then?

I’m not asking these questions to be difficult, I honestly want to understand the mindset – if speaking in the secular media is “bad” and “risky” because of the possibility of unintentional or unintentional misinterpretation then what is the solution???

What would you tell Francis to do?

All it seems to take is one misinterpretation/misapplication, such as Progressio Populorum or S.C., and there goes tradition. IMO.

It seems to me that the way he has said things is completely legitimate, but that the way news people read them is just plain silly. It appears that they’ve decided that Pope Francis is “progressive” and twist everything he says to reflect that decision of theirs, in the same way where they decided that Pope Benedict was a conservative.

Example of something Pope Francis said that the media ignored: (also the fact that under his rule - though whether he personally was involved I cannot say - a priest was excommunicated for his wrong position on gay marriage and ordination of women

Example of stuff Pope Benedict said that the media ignored (although this piece is a prank and starts by saying Francis said it):

Yeah, Pope Francis has a different style, but so far (as far as I have seen) most of the people who seem to think he’s going against Church teaching in what he says are not within the Church.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit