Catholics ‘are not permitted’ to participate in meetings that accept the alleged Medjugorje apparitions as credible.



Vatican Advises U.S. Bishops About Medjugorje Apparitions  

The papal nuncio to the U.S. has written a letter stating Catholics ‘are not permitted’ to participate in meetings that accept the alleged apparitions as credible.

• 
  
• 
  

  
  
  
  

by CNA/EWTN NEWS11/06/2013 Comments (20)

The Oct. 21 letter from the papal nuncio to the U.S. Catholic bishops, as published by Spirit Daily.

WASHINGTON — At the direction of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the apostolic nuncio to the U.S. has written a letter stating that Catholics “are not permitted” to participate in meetings which take for granted that the supposed Marian apparitions in Medjugorje are credible.

“The Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] has affirmed that, with regard to the credibility of the ‘apparitions’ in question, all should accept the declaration … which asserts: ‘On the basis of the research that has been done, it is not possible to state that there were apparitions or supernatural revelations,’” Archbishop Carlo Vigano wrote in an Oct. 21 letter to the bishops of the U.S., sent to the general secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“It follows, therefore, that clerics and the faithful are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such ‘apparitions’ would be taken for granted.”

CNA confirmed that the letter was sent to every diocese in the U.S.

Archbishop Vigano wrote the letter “at the request” of Archbishop Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Oct. 21 letter was evidently following up on one sent Feb. 27.
The nuncio wrote that Archbishop Müller “wishes to inform” the U.S. bishops that Ivan Dragicevic, one of the “so-called visionaries” of Medjugorje, is scheduled to give presentations at parishes across the country and is anticipated to have more apparitions during these talks.
The visions of Medjugorje refer to a series of alleged Marian apparitions that begin in 1981 in what is now Bosnia.
In 1991, the bishops of the former Yugoslavia had determined that it is not possible to say there were Marian apparitions at the site. In 2010, the Vatican established a commission to further investigate “doctrinal and disciplinary aspects of the phenomenon of Medjugorje.”

Because that commission is still in the process of its investigation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has established that the judgment of the Yugoslavian bishops be accepted.

“To avoid scandal and confusion,” wrote Archbishop Vigano, “Archbishop Müller asks that the bishops be informed of this matter as soon as possible.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/vatican-advises-u.s.-bishops-about-medjugorje-apparitions/#ixzz2kl6IFbhY

Fatima and the History of Queen Esther



Is the Book of Esther a Real History?

by

Damien F. Mackey

Though I think that it is, all of my previous attempts to demonstrate this have come unstuck.

This time around I am going to take as my starting point, for Esther as a real history, these two interesting clues, that may possibly be connectable:

Firstly, Louis Ginzberg’s ‘substantial evidence that Mordecai and Haman were both Jews who knew each other well’ (The Legends of the Jews). [See further on]

And,secondly, a synthesis of the elevation of the Jewish king, Jehoiachin, by an eastern king:

2 Kings 25: 27-28: Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. He spoke kindly to him, and gave him a more prominent seat than those of the kings who were with him in Babylon.

with the elevation of Haman by an eastern king:

Esther 3:1: After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.

That Haman was a king (at least as considered from a Jewish perspective) is apparent from Queen Esther’s words, in her prayer:

Esther 14 (Douay): [8] And now they are not content to oppress us with most hard bondage, but attributing the strength of their hands to the power of their idols, [9] They design to change thy promises, and destroy thy inheritance, and shut the mouths of them that praise thee, and extinguish the glory of thy temple and altar, [10] That they may open the mouths of Gentiles, and praise the strength of idols, and magnify for ever a carnal [var. mortal] king.

Presumably“king” here refers to Haman, not to Ahasuerus, who was somewhat gullible and not really au fait, it seems, with the inner machinations of Haman’s conspiracy (16:2-15).

If Ginzberg is correct, then the fact of Haman’s Jewishness is surely a priceless piece of information towards our identifying a character so enigmatic that he is variously called an “Agagite”; an“Amalekite” (or Edomite); a “Bougean” [Septuagint]; and a “Macedonian”.

In other words, critics have until now been guessing.

At least there is the small consolation, regarding efforts to nail down the ethnicity of Haman, that one can eliminate Persian from Haman’s bloodline, based upon the following statement in the edict of King Ahasuerus (but authored by Mordecai): “For Haman, the son of Hammedatha, a Macedonian (really an alien to the Persian blood, and quite devoid of our kindliness) ...” (16:10).

From the above progression of clues, we can deduce that Haman must have been a most unusual character, a supposed foreigner who may yet have been a Jew, whilst his being apparently intensely anti-Jewish. Quite a riddle, according to the following observation (http://www.tidings.org/2003/09/esther-4-the-riddle-of-the-book-of-esther-hamans-hatred/):

Haman must rank as the anti-semite par excellence of the scriptures, and in his fated attempt to exterminate the Jews, he conceives some of the very horrors that Hitler would later fulfil. What does he have against the Jews, and why is he so bent on destroying them?

The striking fact is that from the narrative surface itself Haman doesn’t appear to have anything particularly against the Jews at all. There are underlying issues, as we shall go on to discover, but the major reason for his evil device is a personal vendetta against the one man, Mordecai. The personal issue between Haman and Mordecai became the pretext for a plan not only to harm Mordecai’s family, as well as him, but to eliminate his entire race. It is an absurd example of escalation, but one which, in lesser forms, is often characteristic of human behaviour. ….

[End of quote]

I have already referred to Louis Ginzberg on these matters. Well, here is an interesting reconstruction of the Esther drama that retired academic, Dr. Eugene Kaellis, has built around such information. This piece, that I largely find most plausible, offers some promising points.

http://www.jewishindependent.ca/Archives/Mar05/archives05Mar18-07.html

Power struggle between Jews

Clever Queen Esther takes a chance and manages to create harmony.

EUGENE KAELLIS

Purim is based on the Book of Esther, the most esoteric book in the Hebrew Testament. .... Its hidden meaning can be uncovered only by combining a knowledge of Persian practices during the Babylonian Captivity, the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, his Edict (sixth century BCE) and Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews which, despite its name, contains a great deal of relevant and credible history.

Using these sources, one can arrive at a plausible interpretation completely in accord with historically valid information. Esther, it turns out, describes an entirely intra-Jewish affair set in the Persian Empire, with the two major antagonists as factional leaders: Mordecai, whose followers advocate rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple, and Haman, also a Jew, whose assimilationist adherents oppose the project.

Ginzberg furnishes substantial evidence that Mordecai and Haman were both Jews who knew each other well: they were co-butlers at a royal feast and journeyed together to India to put down a rebellion against Persia. Moreover, Haman's mother had a Hebrew name and his descendants are said to have taught Torah in Akiva's academy.

The multi-ethnic Persian Empire had significant religious freedom and communal authority, as exemplified by the Edict of Cyrus, permitting Jews to return to Judah and rebuild their Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians, and allowing the inclusion of members of various ethnic and religious groups under Persian rule, offering them some representation and influence at the royal court. ….

In the Persian Empire the king's harem typically had ethnic "representatives." Vashti, Esther's predecessor, was a member of the Hamanite faction. In a typically irreverent manner, she had forced her Jewish handmaidens to violate the Sabbath. After Vashti's dismissal, widespread rebellion and Jewish inter-factional fighting flared up, calmed only by Mordecai's elevation and the appointment of Esther, who, in a measure of intrigue, initially conceals her ethnic and factional identification. Her original name was Hebrew, viz., Hadassah; Esther is Persian, derived from Astarte or Ishtar.

….

Haman initially gains the upper hand by convincing Ahasuerus that Mordecai's faction threatens the king's hegemony, an argument given credence by the plan of the pro-Temple faction to construct a wall around the rebuilt Temple, perhaps to defend against Persian armies after the Jews had declared their independence. Haman also probably bribes the king with promises of a share of the plunder expropriated from the wealth of the pro-Temple faction after its members are killed.

After Haman's appointment, when he and the king sat down for a drink, "Susa was perplexed," the text states, indicating that the Jews of Susa, a city with a large Mordecai-supporting faction, were outraged that someone they considered a heretic would henceforth officially advise the king regarding the Jewish community.

As Haman puts his plan in motion, Mordecai warns Esther, and the pro-Temple Jews demonstrate their solidarity with her. During the three days of fasting, while Esther prepares to petition the king, Mordecai is busy collecting a counter-bribe, referred to as "relief and deliverance ... from another quarter," which he had earlier promised Esther while trying to assuage her fears about her own safety following the disclosure of her true allegiance.

The Mordecai faction succeeds and the tolerant but venal king switches his support. Esther gathers information on Haman's collaborators and denounces him. In a staged event in the royal apartment, with the king's co-operation, she frames Haman on an assault charge, providing Ahasuerus with a face-saving device to explain the dismissal and subsequent execution of someone he had so recently elevated.

Ahasuerus, now convinced that the pro-Temple faction does not threaten him with its walled city plans, provides help from forces he had formerly promised to Haman, allowing the Mordecaite Jews to eliminate the Hamanites, but keeping his well-greased hands out of the more violent aspects of the conflict.

The book states repeatedly that the pro-Temple faction members kept no plunder derived from the defeat of their rivals, indicating that this benefit of their triumph went to Ahasuerus. The story goes on to declare that, with the victory of the Mordecai faction, "many people of the country declared themselves Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them." Why would ordinary Persians or Babylonians, now part of the Persian Empire, fear Jews to the point of embracing a minority religion in their own country? It is more reasonable to assume that the now religiously enthusiastic Jews who had become fearful of Mordecai were assimilated Jews who had identified themselves as Persians and who had formerly allied themselves with the Hamanite faction or had previously faltered in their allegiance to the pro-Temple faction. ….

[End of quote]

So, putting together all of the above, the wicked Haman becomes

the captive (and evil) Judaean king, Jehoiachin (var. Jeconiah, Coniah) –

whose “mother had a Hebrew name” (2 Kings 24:8: “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem for three months. His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan; she was from Jerusalem”) –

an opponent of the pro-Temple Jews (as was Queen Vashti)

exalted above all of the other princes in the land by the reigning king.

So far so good.

But why doesn’t the Book of Esther simply refer to the conspirator as Haman the Jew?

And who is the “Hammedatha” whose son Haman was? [Refer back to Esther 3:1]

My view now is that the word (of various interpretations) that has been taken as indicating Haman’s nationality (Agagite, Amalekite, etc.), was originally, instead, an epithet, not a term of ethnic description. In the case of king Jehoiachin, the epithet used for him in 1 Chronicles 3:17 was: (“And the sons of Jeconiah), the captive”.In Hebrew, the word is Assir, “captive”or “prisoner”. Jeconiah the Captive!

Now, in Greek, captive is aichmálo̱tos,which is very much like the word for “Amalekite”, Amali̱kíti̱s. Is this where the confusion may have arisen?

And, hadn’t all of the Amalekite peoples been destroyed well before this time, in the era of king Hezekiah? Here is the biblical evidence for this:

1 Chronicles 4: 42-43:From them, from the sons of Simeon, five hundred men went to Mount Seir, with Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, as their leaders. They destroyed the remnant of the Amalekites who escaped, and have lived there to this day.

So it may be futile to, as many do, revive the old feud between Benjamin of Saul (tribe of Mordecai) and Agag the Amalekite.

The name “Hammedatha” in Esther 3:1 is a really tricky one. I can begin to offer my suggestion for this name in my context only after I have proposed that king Jehoiakin was the son, and not the grandson, of King Josiah as is usually accepted. And I base my claim here on very good authority: on Saint Matthew. Thus Matthew 1:11:“… Josiah the father of Jeconiah”.This would mean that Jehoiachin, the brother to Josiah’s other sons (I Chronicles 3:15) - and therefore not the actual son of one of these, Jehoiakim- may have shared the same mother as did two of these sons of Josiah, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, namely: “Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah” (cf. 2 Kings 23:1 and Jeremiah 52:1). From this reconsideration about Jehoiachin’s origins, now, I can explain that the hitherto unknown “Hammedatha” must refer to this Hamutal (var. Hammutal) - a very good name fit (and I might challenge anyone to think of a better one in this context).

Thus, Hammedatha was not the father of Haman (Jehoiachin), as we might have imagined, but his very mother.

Obviously,“Nehushta daughter of Elnathan”, the usual choice for the mother of Jehoiachin, cannot fit my reconstructed case, and I would suspect that she, the queen mother, was the actual grandmother of Jehoiachin rather than his mother.

Hamutal (Hammedatha), I say, was his real mother.

Prophecies About King Jehoiachin

The prophet Jeremiah wrote about the unhappy fate of the captive King Jehoiachin of Judah, who would never again return to Judah (Jeremiah 22):

²⁴ As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah … were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

{Ironically King Ahasuerus, when having approved of Haman’s plot, “took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman …the enemy of the Jews [Esther 3:10], but then, later [8:2]: “The king took off his signet ring--which he had taken back from Haman--and gave it to Mordecai”}.

²⁵ And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans.

²⁶ And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die.

²⁷ But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return.

²⁸ Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

²⁹ O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.

³⁰ Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

{He and his sons were all destined to be destroyed due to the agency of Queen Esther and Mordecai}.

Archaeological Information About King Jehoiachin

Whether or not the drama of the Book of Esther was a real history, certainly King Jehoiachin – with whom I am here identifying one of the book’s leading characters, Haman – was real. For he is attested by archaeology - and the data accords with the biblical account.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1406

Jehoiachin, the Bible, and Archaeology

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

For centuries, God had warned the sinful nation of Judah to turn from its wicked, idolatrous ways. Judah refused, and strayed farther from the true God. Due to Judah’s immoral, rebellious behavior, God sent His prophets to foretell the nation’s destruction and exile at the hands of the Babylonians. Just as God had predicted, the Babylonians crushed the forces of Judah and took them into exile.

The ruling king of Judah at the time of the Babylonian invasion was an 18-year-old young man named Jehoiachin. His brief reign of three months is chronicled in 2 Kings 24:12-15. The text states that he did evil in the sight of the Lord and that the Babylonian king (Nebuchadnezzar) came against the capital city of Jerusalem and besieged it. In response to this siege, the text states: “Then Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his servants, his princes, and his officers went out to the king of Babylon; and the king of Babylon, in the eighth year of his reign, took him prisoner” (2 Kings 24:12).

Jehoiachin’s miserable state of affairs lasted over thirty years, throughout the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Yet, when Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he took pity on Jehoiachin and released him from prison. The biblical text mentions that the Babylonian king “spoke kindly” to Jehoiachin, and “gave him a more prominent seat than those of the kings who were with him in Babylon” (2 Kings 25:28). In addition to releasing him from prison, the Bible says that Evil-Merodach gave Jehoiachin a set amount of provisions: “And as for his provisions, there was a regular ration given him by the king, a portion for each day, all the days of his life” (2 Kings 25:30).

These rations given to Jehoiachin have become increasingly important in light of an interesting archaeological discovery. Several administrative documents have been found in ancient Babylon that record events and transactions that took place during the reign of Evil-Merodach. These documents were preserved on clay cuneiform tablets, of which many have been found broken into several pieces. Jehoiachin’s name, however, is clearly legible on the tablets. Not only is he mentioned, but documentation for an allotment of grain, oil, and foodstuffs also is also provided. Alfred J. Hoerth mentions the find in his book Archaeology and the Old Testament and includes a picture of the cuneiform tablet that mentions Jehoiachin (1998, pp. 378-379).

The significance of this find is not lost on the observant reader. The Bible mentions Jehoichin’s captivity and subsequent elevation and daily rations at the hand of Evil-Merodach. The secular record uncovered in the ruins of ancient Babylon verifies the facts to an exacting degree. Biblical accuracy is unparalleled by any ancient or modern book in existence. Only due to the superintending of a divine hand could a book as extensive, exhaustive, and historically infallible as the Bible have been produced.

REFERENCES

Hoerth, Alfred J. (1998), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

And:

http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/biblical-archaeology-24-jehoiachins-rations/

During his excavation of Babylon in 1899-1917, Robert Koldeway discovered a royal archive room of King Nebuchadnezzar near the Ishtar Gate. It contained tablets dating to 595-570 BC. The tablets were translated in the 1930s by the German Assyriologist, Ernst Weidner. Four of these tablets list rations of oil and barley given to various individuals—including the deposed King Jehoiachin—by Nebuchadnezzar from the royal storehouses, dated five years after Jehoiachin was taken captive.

One tablet reads:

“10 (sila of oil) to the king of Judah, Yaukin; 2 1/2 sila (oil) to the offspring of Judah’s king; 4 sila to eight men from Judea.” Another reads, “1 1/2 sila (oil) for three carpenters from Arvad, 1/2 apiece; 11 1/2 sila for eight wood workers from Byblos. . .; 3 1/2 sila for seven Greek craftsman, 1/2 sila apiece; 1/2 sila to the carpenter, Nabuetir; 10 sila to Ia-ku-u-ki-nu, the son of Judah’s king[1]; 2 1/2 sila for the five sons of the Judean king.”

Notice how much more Jehoiachin got than everyone else. Obviously he had the king’s favor.

Significance:

1. This confirms the existence of Jehoiachin.

2. This confirms the Biblical account of his rations.

The Babylonian chronicles are currently housed in the Pergamum Museum in Berlin.

[End of quote]

Another fact, most important in my context, emerges from this precious document. It is that Jehoiachin [here referred to as Yaukin, and as Ia-ku-u-ki-nu] already has five sons with him in captivity. I Chronicles 3:17 attributes seven sons to him: “Shealtiel his son,¹⁸ Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah”. Later of course he, as Haman, will have ten sons (Esther 9:7, 12, 13, 14), presumably now of Persian names: “Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha, … Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha, … Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai, and Vajezatha”.

Linguists may have fun with comparisons between these two sets.

Jehoiachin, having gone into captivity as an 18 year old, would have been (18+37=) about 55 years of age when (2 Kings 25:27): “In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month, King Evil-Merodach of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, pardoned King Jehoiachin of Judah and released him from prison”.

This synthesis of the 37^th year of Jehoiachin’s exile with the 1^styear of king Evil-Merodach [var. Awel-Marduk] is - like that of Jeremiah 25:1 -a most significant biblico-historical correlation. If only we knew more about Evil-Merodach. For, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia’s article,“Evil-Merodach” (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5921-evil-merodach): “No personal or historical inscriptions of his reign have been discovered, and there are only two sources of information concerning him—the Hebrew Scriptures and Berosus”.

So, this poorly known king might stand in need of an alter ego.

Does he appear also in the book of Esther?

 

A Few Further Thoughts on Ahasuerus and Haman

 

Historical King Ahasuerus

 

Given that Evil-Merodach is the monarch who had raised up Jehoiachin, then he must stand - in my context - as a very strong contender for the “King Ahasuerus” [var. “Artaxerxes”] of the Book of Esther, who raised up Haman. And this, despite that the little bit of data that we do have about Evil-Merodach might suggest that he was a successor in the Chaldean line of Nebuchednezzar II, and that his reign lasted for only about 2 years (though one source gives 12 years) - thereby seeming to disqualify him for “Ahasuerus”.

This will need to be properly developed in Part Two, considering that it must affect the Chaldeo-Medo/Persian succession.

Supposing that Evil-Merodach were this very king, Ahasuerus, then this would mean that Jehoiachin/Haman, whom Ahasuerus said the Persians had referred to as “our father” (Esther Add 8:23) - {aged 55 in the 1^st year of the king} - must have been, say, about (55+11=) 66 years of age when he had, “in the 12^th year of King Ahasuerus” instigated his conspiracy against Mordecai and his people (3:7). 

 

Meaning of the Name ‘Haman’

 

The name “Haman”, having no apparent likeness to Jehoiachin in any of its variant forms, was presumably the elderly conspirator’s given Persian name. In fact the element haman can be found in its entirety in the famous name, Achaemenes, which is, in Persian, Hakhamanish. (“Old Persian proper name Haxāmaniš, traditionally derived from haxā- “friend” and manah “thinking power”.” http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/achaemenes-greek).

This is a further endorsement of what already is the accepted view, anyway, that the drama of the Book of Esther belongs to the Medo-Persian, rather than to the Chaldean, period of history.

* * * * * *

Esther and Fatima

Along with the motivating factor of my wanting to test the historicity of the Book of Esther, just as I had done in the case of the Book of Judith in Volume Two of my university thesis,

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background

http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/5973

I was keen to provide an underlying history for my devotional book (and this will be of interest particularly to Marian Catholics),

FIVE FIRST SATURDAYS OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA

http://amaic2.blogspot.com.au/2008/04/five-first-saturdays-of-our-lady-of.html

according to which the drama of the Book of Esther, played out between the 13^thday of various months, was a providential foretaste or preview of the cosmic drama of Fatima (1917), played out on the 13^th day of consecutive months, and culminating in the great solar miracle on October 13^th thus intended by the ‘new Queen Esther’, Our Lady of the Rosary: "On the last month, I will perform a miracle so that all may believe." This event has become known as the “Miracle of the Sun” (e.g: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun) and has been justly characterized as the greatest supernatural occurrence of the 20th century.

As one leading Fatima authority has noted, this great miracle "does not belong (only) to the domain of faith, or even that of science. Before all else it is an historical event.”

And so, as I hope to have begun to show in this article, was the fascinating Queen Esther drama “an historical event”.

“Like Mary, the mother of Christ, Pope Francis continually points to Christ".

With new pictures and stories going viral every week, our 76-year-old Holy Father is dominating the conversation on the Internet. But is the Gospel message getting across?

12.11.2013
PRINT

Brantly Millegan

27 Share

Jeffrey Bruno

27 Share

We already know he’s the most influential world leader on Twitter, but a new report shows Pope Francis’ reach on the digital continent goes far beyond that. According to Global Language Monitor’s 14th annual global survey of the English language, “Pope Francis” is the most discussed name on the 1.83 billion person English-language portion of the Internet.

And “name” here is understood fairly broadly, encompassing not only people but also organizations, programs, and even laws. The next five most discussed names are “Obamacare”, “NSA”, “Ed Snowden”, “Kate Middleton”, and “IRS” - and Pope Francis bests them all.

Among the most commonly used words in the English-language portion of the Internet, “@Pontifex” (Pope Francis’ English username on Twitter) comes in at fourth, beating out terms like “drones”, “surveillance”, “deficit”, and “twerking”, and losing out only to “404”, “fail”, and “hashtag”.

Seemingly without even trying, and in spite of a Vatican media team that at times has been known for its comical inadequacies, Pope Francis simply can’t stay out of the news. With new pictures, statements, and stories going viral every week, it’s fully confirmed: Pope Francis is a mega-celebrity of the highest order.

He’s also a mega-celebrity of a different kind of order. While others are famous for lying, twerking, or their supposed good looks, Pope Francis seems to be uber-famous for the best of reasons. He’s the supreme leader of a 1.2 billion member religion, yet he goes out of his way to embrace a man with a disfigured face. He personally calls up an unwed mother and offers to baptize her child. When the world seems to be on the brink of war, he organizes and leads a world day of prayer for peace - and it works.

But should we be surprised?


“Jesus Christ’s Representative”

“It's not at all surprising that Pope Francis is the most talked about name on the Internet,” says Tim Drake, New Evangelization Coordinator with the Holdingford Area Catholic Community in the Diocese of St. Cloud, Minnesota. “He is, after all, Jesus Christ's representative, and the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and its more than one billion worldwide members.”

Drake compares Pope Francis to Jesus. “Some have said that Pope Francis is shaking things up, and this is why he's drawing so much attention. Again, Christ was an unconventional figure. He shook up the establishment of His time, and out of love embraced the lost, the forgotten, the broken, and those who needed healing. Pope Francis, as demonstrated through the many press reports and photos that show him reaching out to those in prison, the handicapped, the ill, and the disfigured, appears to be doing the same. He's not drawing the attention for himself, but to demonstrate Christ's love. Thus, he's being talked about for good reasons.”

“Like Mary, the mother of Christ, Pope Francis continually points to Christ. Therefore, any attention he is getting only serves to give attention to Christ. That is a great thing. Our world needs Christ more than ever.”

Fr. Roger Landry, an expert on the teachings of Pope Bl. John Paul II, also sees Jesus behind Pope Francis’ fame. “I think the fundamental reason has less to do with Pope Francis the man and much more with what, or better Whom, he represents. People are searching for God, hungering for signs of his presence, his mercy, his love, his goodness in the world. Pope Francis lives, acts, speaks and embraces in a way that not only doesn't contradict people's expectations for God but are fully consistent with them. The interest in him is fundamentally positive.”

Andrew Seeley, professor at Thomas Aquinas College and the Executive Director of the Institute for Catholic Liberal Education, thinks Pope Francis’ method of pastoring is similar to Jesus’. “From my vantage point, it looks as though Pope Francis wants to shepherd his flock as Our Lord did, not simply as Chief Teacher, but more intimately, through sharing his heart and soul with us.

“As hearing about Our Lord caused many to ask about Him, ‘Who is this man?’, so much of what hear about Pope Francis causes people to wonder about him. Many were content to judge Our Lord based on the reports about Him, but for some, like Nicodemus, the reports led them to seek Him out, to get to know Him more intimately. The interest that reports about Pope Francis has generated are having a similar effect. The social media possibilities today allow for us to get know Francis more intimately than ever. We should take advantage of them and not be content with what is simply reported to us. What we will find, I believe, is a heart aflame with the love for us inspired by Our Lord and His Church.”


“A Great Help for the New Evangelization”

Church historian Fr. C. John McCloskey sees Francis’ popularity as contributing to the work begun by his predecessors. “It is a sign that the world is indeed attracted to the Church and it's new leader. They are at least listening and watching. This is a great help for the New Evangelization that our last three popes have pushed during their pontificates.”

Ronald J. Rychlak, Butler Snow Lecturer and Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law, thinks Pope Francis is bringing to light long-standing Church teaching that wasn’t always well-known. “Pope Francis captures the fascination of the public because he has brought some emphasis to aspects of the Catholic faith that are often overlooked by the popular media.The teachings are no different, and Francis is quite orthodox when it comes to traditional Catholic social positions. With a new face and a new voice, however, people are finally seeing and hearing a message that has always been there. That is a very good thing, both for those who are hearing this message for the first time and for those who have a deep understanding of the Catholic faith.”

Msgr. Charles M. Mangan, Director of the Office of the Marian Apostolate Diocese of Sioux Falls, thinks Francis’ message of love is drawing spiritual seekers. "In a rather short time, Pope Francis has caught the attention of millions of persons. His gestures and words have encouraged many to look again at the Gospel of Christ and His Church. The Holy Spirit chose Pope Francis, as He did his Predecessors, to proclaim the message of Jesus. It is not surprising that we 'searchers,' in the midst of these perilous times, find in Pope Francis a much appreciated reassurance that God deeply loves us and cares for us."

Lawrence DiPaolo, Jr., Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Sacred Scripture at the University of St. Thomas, points out that Pope Francis isn’t simply in the news, but is in the news for positive reasons. “It is not surprising to me in the least that Pope Francis is the most talked about name on the internet. What is particularly noteworthy in the coverage is that it is almost without exception universally positive.”

“Whether it is Pope Francis embracing a child with cerebral palsy at St. Peter's Basilica, kissing a disfigured man or laughing as a child sits in his chair, the images show a very human Pontiff. Anytime a Pope becomes popular owing to his humility, charity and love for the people of God, that is indeed a good thing for the Church.”


“The Real Litmus Test”

Not everyone is convinced Pope Francis is famous for the right reasons, though. Fr. George Rutler is worried some his fame comes from an expectation among liberals he will fundamentally change the Church. “Many uninformed people are using Pope Francis as a sort of Rorschach inkblot test. What they see in him says more about themselves than about him.”

“His recent excommunication of an heretical Australian priest, and recent appointments of solid bishops are indications of his grasp of true reform. Those who have cast the Pope in the image of their own desires, will soon complain that he has not lived up to their expectations: rather like Blessed Pius IX and, in our own day, Blessed John Paul II.”

Writing for The Catholic Thing, Randall Smith, Professor of Theology at the University of St Thomas in Houston, says he likes Pope Francis but is worried his personality might be eclipsing his message in the media. “[A]lthough personally I enjoy Pope Francis, I also have a concern. Not because he says goofy things or does press conferences he probably shouldn’t. [...] No, what concerns me about Pope Francis’s current situation is a concern I think he would share if he became aware of the problem. My concern is that, increasingly, Francis is becoming the message. And if I understand Francis correctly, I think he would find that, not only odd, but practically intolerable.”

“Pope Francis isn’t exactly what most people would call ‘media savvy.’ The problem for a man of humility who has no real concern for the media is that he may not understand the degree to which his own personality and style has come to dominate the message. He has become ‘the story.’ It was similar for Pope John Paul II in his early days. But then he wrote Redemptor Hominis and Familiaris Consortio and defended Humanae Vitae with his ‘the theology of the body,’ and things started to change.”

Fr. Landry is tentative about whether Pope Francis’ celebrity is will turn out to be good for the Church. “In and of itself, his celebrity is a great opportunity, but whether it turns out to be a good or bad thing depends on whether people get beyond his celebrity status to ponder his words and example.”

“Many of those who are fascinated by Pope Francis readily say that the reason they ‘love’ him is because they don't think he judges them or is as interested as they believe most leaders of the Church are in getting them and the world to convert on those subjects where popular opinion and Church teaching aren't aligned.”

Fr. Landry thinks this confusion comes from a misreading of Francis. “But even a superficial following of Pope Francis reveals that the fundamental theme of his papacy is mercy. To talk about mercy implies the need for mercy. Pope Francis has called himself a sinner on whom the Lord has looked with mercy.”

“The real litmus test of whether his celebrity turns out to be a good or a bad thing for the Church is whether all of us will recognize that we, too, are sinners under the merciful glance of the Lord and called to come to receive his forgiveness and share it with others. It's not enough for people to like Pope Francis. It's far more important that people follow his Christian example. The Pope is interested not in winning popularity contests, but in saving people in the great field hospital of the Church.”


The following Aleteia Experts contribute to this article:

Lawrence DiPaolo, Jr. is Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Sacred Scripture at the University of St. Thomas.

Tim Drake is the New Evangelization Coordinator with the Holdingford Area Catholic Community in the Diocese of St. Cloud, Minnesota. He is an award-winning journalist, the author of six books on religion and culture, and a former radio host.

Fr. Roger Landry speaks widely on the thought of Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body, apologetics, and on contemporary issues in the Church.

Msgr. Charles M. Mangan is Director of the Office of the Marian Apostolate Diocese of Sioux Falls, the Vicar for Consecrated Life, and the Canonical Adviser to the Most Reverend Paul J. Swain, D.D., the Bishop of Sioux Falls.

Fr. C. John McCloskey is a Church historian and Research Fellow at the Faith and Reason Institute in Washington DC. His personal website is www.frmccloskey.com.

Fr. George Rutler is pastor of the Church of St. Michael and administrator of the Church of the Holy Innocents, both in Manhattan. He has made documentary films in the United States and England, contributes to numerous scholarly and popular journals and has published 16 books.

Ronald J. Rychlak is the Butler Snow Lecturer and Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law.

Andrew T. Seeley is a professor at Thomas Aquinas College and the Executive Director of the Institute for Catholic Liberal Education. He co-authored 'Declaration Statesmanship: A Course in American Government'.

Randall Smith is holds the Scanlan Chair in Theology at the University of St Thomas in Houston.

....

Taken from: http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/pope-francis-internet-mega-celebrity-13734001