Turning point for theologians, “paradigm shift,” political pope, dictator pope, pot gets stirred . . .

. . . and a bishop gets bounced, unceremoniously . . .

Theologians are “called to a turning point, to a paradigm shift, to a ‘courageous cultural revolution,’ says Francis,” using a phrase from his 2015 encyclical Laudato si’, his wholesale endorsement of governmental anti-global-warming activities, one of a slew of signals he sent to leftists the world over that they had a friend in the Vatican. (See The Political Pope  for voluminous detail.)

Theologians should try something “fundamentally contextual,” interpreting Scripture according to various “geographical, social and cultural environments.” Different folks, different strokes.

They will have to operate entirely “in a culture of dialogue” with non-Catholic traditions, “engaging with everyone, believers and non-believers.”

No more Catholic theological societies? Instead constant dialogue with other Christians and unbelievers? Otherwise, they risk “isolation and insignificance.” Have to hand it to Francis, predicting bad things for us that way. Doesn’t mince words.

As for what it’s leading up to, this “fundamentally contextual theology,” a sort of getting the lay of the land and taking it from there, it does sound ominous.

Returning to the “isolation and insignificance” matter and its supposed antidote, “contextual theology,” Francis says theology must see itself as embedded “in a web of relationships, first and foremost with other disciplines and other knowledge.”

He calls it “transdisciplinarity,” which he defines as a strong form of interdisciplinarity, not to be mistaken for the weak form, which he calls “multidisciplinarity.”

Well, as Ronald Reagan said of his debate opponent Jimmy Carter it seems ages ago, there he goes again, in this case Francis via his writers burying whatever wisdom he wants to convey in palaver of the first water.

Francis does explain. Transdisciplinarity — whose Wickopedia entry bears the firmest hands-off-not-our-fault apology, “This article has multiple issues” — enables theology to “make use of new categories developed by other knowledge, to penetrate and communicate the truths of faith and transmit the teaching of Jesus in today’s languages, with originality and critical awareness,” the pope explains.

For instance?

================

Consider now in another Francis episode the case of the fired bishop, the man from Tyler, Texas who wouldn’t shut up. Bounced by the one-time bouncer himself, Pope Francis, for no — can’t say no good reason because no reason has been given, period. The acerbic anti-Bergoglio blogger of Novus Ordo Watch, Unmasking the Modernist Vatican II Church, whose battle cry is let no man call him pope, settles down from slash-bang long enough to describe the issue tellingly:

In terms of justice or at least charity, it is surely an outrage if a Catholic bishop gets removed by the Pope with no public accusations against him, no canonical trial, and no reasons given for his removal at all. Even common courtesy would call for at least some explanation.

A legalist might say that Strickland was fired because he had refused to resign, which the Vatican had requested him to do two days before announcing his removal. But such an answer merely shifts the question from, Why was he removed? to, Why was he asked to resign?

The Vatican simply has not explained why Joseph Strickland could no longer be the shepherd over the flock of Tyler, Texas. Since removing a bishop from a diocese is a most rare and unusual step that is usually taken only as a punishment for serious wrongdoing, it is only natural to want an explanation as to . . .  why the bishop is being punished in this way.

Absolutely. Nothing Frances does more to harm Catholic morale than to act the part of Dictator Pope or absolute monarch answerable to no one for using his power absolutely. He’s above it all.

On the day of Strickland’s firing, the metropolitan over Tyler, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, who once rented out his co-cathedral to Methodists for ‘ordinations’, released a public statement in which he ‘clarified’ that asking Strickland to resign had been the recommendation given to Francis by the two bishops he (Francis) himself had appointed to lead “an exhaustive inquiry into all aspects of the governance and leadership” of Strickland and the diocese. But once again, no reason was given as to why the investigation had yielded this recommendation, why keeping the bishop in office was no longer feasible. In fact, Strickland says he was never even given a reason for the visitation! So much for ‘dialogue’ in the ‘Listening Church’. It looks like there wasn’t even a monologue.

Not a good day for Holy Church, no way, no how . . .