In Previous, I was lauding Antipope Bergoglio for one comment

Antipope Bergoglio : One Good, One Bad · In Previous, I was lauding Antipope Bergoglio for one comment

Give to the poor, don't worry about how they spend it. That was the resumé, and as far as it goes, it was good. But I read the context.

Now, here is a little comparison between C. S. Lewis and "Pope Francis" as revealed in the discourse.

The interview was published on the eve of Ash Wednesday, which for Catholics and other Christians is the start of Lent, a season of penance and almsgiving. Francis said giving to the needy must be a priority—and challenged those who make excuses against giving money to people on the streets.

People who worry about how the money might be spent should ask themselves what guilty pleasures they are secretly spending money on, Pope Francis said.

"There are many excuses" to justify why one does not lend a hand when asked by a person begging on the street, he said. Some may think, “‘I give money and he just spends it on a glass of wine!’” Francis said.

But, he joked, a “glass of wine is his only happiness in life!”

Giving something to someone in need "is always right," the pope said, adding that it should be done with respect and compassion because "tossing money and not looking in [their] eyes is not a Christian" way of behaving, he said.

Source, see my previous analysis. Or, I'll copy the link for you here:

America : Pope Francis says give to the homeless, don't worry about how they spend it, as Lent begins
Michael J. O’Loughlin February 28, 2017
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/02/28/pope-francis-says-give-homeless-dont-worry-about-how-they-spend-it-lent

J. R. R. Tolkien was once worried that C. S. Lewis had given a beggar a quid.

He told C. S. Lewis, "but he's only going to spend it on beer".

C. S. Lewis replied "so was I".

Where is the difference?

Well, I was when young convert talking to Catholics in generalities about fellow Swedes who (in certain touristic contexts) drink too much.

I got the reply "let them, their only joy is drink".

Yes, that is a good reply about someone known to drink too much. As in the context not a specified person, but a category defined by that fact and not any confusing other. I was obviously not denying other Swedes are moderate when drinking alcoholic beverages, including abroad.

It is not a good reply about a beggar, defined as precisely a beggar, because it paints that beggar (or beggars in general) as very likely to drink too much.

Tolkien (who unfortunately was raised partly among Methodist relatives) was insinuating not only that beer would be a likely consummation on part of the beggar, but that that consummation of beer was likely to be excessive. Lewis was not disputing a certain likelihood that beer could be on the to buy list, but reminded his friend that they too were fond of drinking beer. And not accusing each other of doing so excessively.

In other words, C. S. Lewis was reminding his friend of common humanity.

By contrast, Bergoglio was reminding his audience of what he would presumably call a real risk of excessive drink.

That is deviously basically asking people not to give beggars "too much".

As I am a beggar myself, sometimes do drink beer and wine, I do not quite relish the occasion of being compared to a drunk.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Vincent Ferrer
5.IV.2019

I may add, I am unpleasantly reminded that the antipope was once Bar Bouncer Bergoglio. One can read that as 888 with upper case B, or as 666 with lower case b./HGL

I may also add a hat tip to Mark Shea for linking to the article I linked to and quoted./HGL

Mark Shea gives a more accurate quote of the dialogue between the two Inklings than I did:



The following discussion is partly fairly correct.

Two problems:

The life verse for the disciplinarian Christian is from Paul’s second letter to the Republicans ‘If any one will not work, let him not eat.’ (2 Th 3:10).

But, in fact, Paul is talking to fellow Christians at Thessalonica, not to the world in general. He is addressing discipline in his Church, not talking about our duties to beggars in the street.

In a Catholic country, the beggar in the street would in fact be usually a Catholic, so, what is said on Church Discipline might in fact involve the beggar in the street. However, the real rationale is, if you don't know the beggar in the street you are not supposed to pass judgement on his willingness to work. As to myself, some semi-know me, they know I am not looking for work, but ignore I am working every day (nearly) as a writer and being not directly paid for that - or take it as an arrangement I chose to continue for the rest of my life rather than what I can at present get, while wanting more.

The other problem is here:

Indeed, the only qualification Christ puts on our giving is this: he commands us to make sure that the people to whom we give shall never ever ever be able to repay us. Worst. Republican. Financial. Advisor. EVER!

Just as Mark Shea misses a fine shade between a) "I was just going to spend it on drink" and b) "But, he joked, a 'glass of wine is his only happiness in life!'" - so also he misses a fine shade between making sure to give to those who can't repay (Our Lord's words, meaning reasonably, those who foreseeably can't repay) and - the way Mark put it - making sure those you give to won't be able to repay. The latter sounds like the kind of thing one would accuse a Talmudist of, if he were trying to apply Our Lord's words, but in the case of Mark Shea, the kippah seems somewhat absent. The latter sounds perhaps even more like making sure some who refuse to take a certain mark (!) can neither buy or sell./HGL