The Authentic Interpreters Of Pope Francis

It's hard to escape the insane mass belief that the authoritative interpretation of Pope Francis is to be found everywhere except within the parameters of Catholic thought. For example, we've previously discussed the Scalfari claims that His Holiness had "abolished sin."

The latest bit is from agnostic philosopher Massimo Cacciari, who is asserting that Pope Francis has initiated a cataclysmic shift in Church teaching by abandoning the Catholic notion of just war and entrusting the United Nations with the job of being the sole arbiter of whether or not a military action is legitimate. This, all based on a single paragraph's response to an interviewer. You can read the whole thing on Rorate.

First, let's ignore Cacciari's, shall we say, tenuous, comments like international law being "created by agreement among national positive laws," which ignores the whole role of things like custom and realpolitik in how international law actually works.

Second, holy smokes. I've had this sentiment thrown at me from multiple sources today. It is amazing to me how secularism, atheism, Protestantism, any -ism imaginable can be used for a Pope Francis hermeneutic, except Catholicism. Do these people really think what he said means overthrowing the idea of a just war? Even if he did say such, do they think it possible to re-write Church teaching in an interview?

I very much doubt they really think such things. And if they don't really think such things, their agenda is pretty clear. It's a sad state of affairs that so many people are falling for it.