Quoth the petulant pontiff:
“The third thing I take from what I said earlier, which I am slightly allergic to: ‘This is something authentically Christian’, ‘this is truly so’.”
Does anyone need a spiritual leader who speaks as reviewers of Goodreads type?
“We have fallen into the culture of adjectives and adverbs, and we have forgotten the strength of nouns.”
Hardly! This monoglot won’t assume trends pertaining to qualifiers in other tongues (be they those of preponderantly papal nations or otherwise), but Anglophones should apply nominal phrases comprehending legitimate attributives instead of qualifying nouns. In almost every instance — “lexical list” in lieu of “word list,” “electoral dates” for “election dates,” “cardiovascular disease” rather than “heart disease,” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera — the utilization of a proper modifier is always more accurate, efficient, instructive and aesthetically felicitous. We haven’t “forgotten the strength of nouns;” we’ve simply misused it!
“The communicator must make people understand the weight of the reality of nouns that reflect the reality of people. And this is a mission of communication: to communicate with reality, without sweetening with adjectives or adverbs.”
This is one pluperfect paralogism. Sincere, effective communication requires adjectives and adverbs to elegantly and succinctly preserve specificity. If Frankie actually reflected rationally on this matter, he might’ve instead denounced prolixity (esp. circumlocution) or magniloquence rather than indispensable parts of speech.
“‘This is a Christian thing’: why say authentically Christian? It is Christian!”
Whyever not, when the present pope is so readily disposed to preach bogus, circumstantial, politicized, contemporary “morality” in neglect of canonical virtues?
“The mere fact of the noun ‘Christian’, ‘I am of Christ’, is strong: it is an adjectival noun, yes, but it is a noun.”
This broaches the crucial question: is the present pope a simpleton?
“To pass from the culture of the adjective to the theology of the noun. And you must communicate in this way.”
Oh, must we? Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, et al. surely sleep easy.
“‘How, do you know that person?’ – Ah, that person is like this, like that…’: immediately the adjective. First the adjective, perhaps, then, afterwards, what the person is like. This culture of the adjective has entered the Church and we, all brothers, forget to be brothers, by saying that this is ‘this type of’ brother, that one is ‘the other’ brother: first the adjective.”
Here’s the implicit burden: “never judge, for only God may judge through me. Never discriminate, so to remain an intellectual, moral and ethical slave.”
“Your communication should be austere but beautiful:”
Any writer or orator who aims to exercise both precision and concision, whether florid or otherwise, needs qualifiers.
“beauty is not rococo art, beauty does not need these rococo things;”
Are we to accept that a substantial proportion of the finest Catholic painting, literature and architecture isn’t genuinely beautiful because a papal puppet seeks to propitiate and control his most benighted followers?
“beauty manifests itself from the noun itself, without strawberries on the cake! I think we need to learn this.”
Well, I dissent: when ably authored, austere and aureate prose or speech alike are beautiful, and necessary in discrete applications and spheres. By inveighing against requisite parts of speech, pope Frank opts for a very aberrant and asinine species of verbal, lingual, and lexical veganism.
“Communicating by witness, communicating by involving oneself in communication, communicating with the nouns of things, communicating as martyrs, that is, as witnesses of Christ, as martyrs. To learn the language of the martyrs, which is the language of the Apostles. How did the Apostles communicate? Let us read that jewel which is the Book of Acts of the Apostles,”
Which translation? Look out, Frankie: some of them are awfully purple!
“and we will see how it was communicated at that time,”
That’s not terribly likely.
“and how it is Christian communication.”
Since when was any prosaic style especially Christian? Isn’t this prescriptivism contrary to Francis’ nauseatingly incessant call for mindless inclusivity, irrespective of detrimental repercussions?
Look, I’m not oblivious; this harangue is essentially the retort of one pedantic prescriptivist against another. Obviously, the holy pappy is guilty of far worse, such as the prospective canonization of a fraudulent socialist despot, didactic tolerance of jihadist barbarity, promotion of globalist elites’ migratory and economic agenda, support for popular climatic pseudoscience, and consortium with an abusive, subhuman nabob (see below).
For the past six years, we’ve beheld the outrageous imprudence of Francis on a daily basis. Evidently, his word is no more tolerable than his acts.
Theodore Dalrymple has also addressed this subject with decidedly greater civility and consideration.