It's not just you, I think that's a generally accepted sense of the difference between the two. People who disapprove of evangelizing refer to it dismissively as proselytizing. What exactly did the pope mean? In the context, it's not clear, as he suggests that he doesn't want to convince the atheist to stop being an atheist.

Sounds like it to me. Doesn't sound like proselytizing.

I think I may have an insight into what is going on. I believe that Pope Francis is in fact intentionally chiding certain sectors of the Church for lack of charity in the promotion of their otherwise laudable cause, and for forgetting the priority of mercy, esp. toward those particularly in dire straights. I also think that the chiding is deserved in some, if not most cases, including in myself.

Those who think the chiding is long overdue are saying, "Yay! Yay! Listen to him!" Those who are among the groups being chastised (whether they individually deserve it or not) are saying, "But, but..."

However, as I learned the hard way as a father, it is not a good idea to chastise your children in public so as to humiliate them. It is much better to address defects in a more private, individual, personal manner.

The jabs in the Pope's casual remarks are indeed real jabs, and in many cases quite deserved. That they are being made for the world to see causes others who are less paternal to mock and deride.

I wonder whether the pope's actions are not a violation of the personalist norm. I think the purpose and intent is good; I think the method is counterproductive. If he wants us to focus on the positive message, he needs to stop writing in the way so as to call attention to the negative parts. It is a bit like a woman wearing revealing clothing and then saying "look at my face!" (I'm obviously writing as a guy.)

This is a provisional speculation on my part. I look forward to seeing where the huge holes are in my argument.

I should point out that I'm not saying that a woman's "sexual values," as Pope John Paul II are her negative parts.

Couldn't figure out what you meant at first, as I didn't take it that way. I just took it as an analogy for drawing attention to something and then complaining about the attention.

I'm thinking I might just tune out now and not bother overmuch with reports of the Pope's speeches. I just loved Pope Benedict to bits (still do of course) but honestly, after the first few months of his papacy, I tended to spend less and less time reading about his remarks.

Also, when the proverbial hit the fan in our family a few years ago, I just lost all interest in so many things, and I discovered God walking even more closely with me day by day.

Somehow, the Church survived my lack of interest, which was very comforting. :D

Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the Bible and called it The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

Took out all the divinity parts, but kept the morals. How times change.

Some interesting thoughts by John Allen at National Catholic Reporter:

Journalists who covered Bergoglio in Argentina report that he shunned the spotlight, and on those rare occasions when he did have to appear in public, he often came off as formal and, some would say, a bit boring. As pope, he's become a rock star. As archbishop and as president of the bishops' conference in Argentina, Bergoglio was careful and measured in his public declarations, while as pope he's letting it all hang out.

Back in April, I interviewed his sister, Maria Elena Bergoglio, and even she told me that something was different about her brother since he took over the church's top job.

Recently, I spoke to one of the cardinals who elected Francis (not an American, by the way), who had been received by the pope in a private audience. The cardinal told me he had said point-blank to Francis, "You're not the same guy I knew in Argentina."

According to this cardinal, the pope's reply was more or less the following: "When I was elected, a great sense of inner peace and freedom came over me, and it's never left me."

In other words, Francis had a sort of mystical experience upon his election to the papacy that's apparently freed him up to be far more spontaneous, candid and bold than at any previous point in his career.

That mystical experience is the one Pope Francis talks about in the interview in La Repubblica:

"...when the conclave elected me Pope. Before I accepted I asked if I could spend a few minutes in the room next to the one with the balcony overlooking the square. My head was completely empty and I was seized by a great anxiety. To make it go way and relax I closed my eyes and made every thought disappear, even the thought of refusing to accept the position, as the liturgical procedure allows. I closed my eyes and I no longer had any anxiety or emotion. At a certain point I was filled with a great light. It lasted a moment, but to me it seemed very long. Then the light faded, I got up suddenly and walked into the room where the cardinals were waiting and the table on which was the act of acceptance. I signed it, the Cardinal Camerlengo countersigned it and then on the balcony there was the 'Habemus Papam'."

Could be. For my part I think I'll just stop wondering about it. I really don't think every little word a pope says should get this kind of scrutiny.

That's fascinating, Marianne. This is going to be an interesting time, apparently. In a good way, I hope.