As much as I’d like to move on from this topic, another followup is in order. Since a certain Catholic celebrity (I know the term seems like an oxymoron, but I can’t seem to find a better one) has now gotten hold of my comments and, as per his usual tactic, attempted to turn them into an easily lampooned caricature while avoiding any substantive rebuttal, I’d like to address a few things.
First, I’m not upset because the pope is “reaching out to people who aren’t me.” Really, Mr. Shea? That’s the conclusion you reached? I’m sure my wife, who came into the Church following a rather concerted effort on my part, would disagree with your assessment of my feelings toward “people who aren’t me.” So would pretty much every secular, anti-Catholic, or atheist coworker I’ve ever had, or the students I’ve taught in CCD or in Catholic school, or the people whose doors I’ve knocked on to talk to them about Catholicism, or the countless people I’ve reached in 20 years of writing about the faith online.
With the exceptions of those times when I was struggling with it myself, I have never shied away from discussing my faith with the people around me. I’ve fought to bring Catholicism to the people I encounter for so long it sometimes feels like I’ve never done much of anything else. I am really tired of hearing the accusation that the reason I don’t like what the pope is saying is because I’m either some sort of Donatist who doesn’t believe that people should be forgiven and come home, or because I’m opposed to outreach to non-Christians and sinners somehow. Give me a break.
Do I believe that Pope Francis has a certain level of disdain for Catholics of a traditional persuasion? Yes. Do I believe he will abandon Pope Benedict’s much needed reforms of the liturgy? Absolutely. And these are both issues that weigh on me. But my concerns with him go beyond that. Intentionally or not, he is leading the world to believe that the Church now thinks:
a) Conversion to Catholicism — even for atheists — is not important for salvation
b) The Church’s decades long and singular crusade to bring about a culture of life has devolved into an obsession detached from from the message of salvation and God’s love and should no longer be a priority
c) That the issues of poverty, unemployment, underemployment, just wages, and other social justice issues are the greatest challenges the Church must meet today, when in actuality the top priorities clearly include (but are not limited to): the ongoing abortion holocaust, the rapid increase in human trafficking, the use of contraceptives among Catholics, the battle for traditional morality, the support by the majority of Catholic voters for political candidates who campaign to increase access to intrinsic evils, the decimated belief in fundamental Catholic doctrines like the Real Presence, the ongoing vocational crisis, etc.
And since they all think WE all believe everything he does is infallible, they don’t get that he isn’t making these changes, and couldn’t even if he wanted to. The net effect is the same though: in the minds of many, these changes are already underway.
There’s more, but I would say that’s a good start to what my objections are.
Second, on the question of my stated intuition about Pope Francis.
I know it’s a weak argument, and maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned the feeling I had when I first saw Pope Francis step out to be announced, but it was incredibly strong, so I offered it simply for the consideration of those reading it.
I can’t say I had any expectations for this pope. I had honestly never heard of Cardinal Bergoglio before that moment. I had been telling friends that it seemed likely to me that Pope Benedict would only abdicate with good reason. It was possible that whoever came next would carry on what he started. Was I skeptical? Certainly. The Church hasn’t exactly been blessed recently with an abundance of impressive bishops from which to choose St. Peter’s next successor, but anything can happen. So the strength with which I felt that ominous feeling I have previously described was startling.
This feeling is the easiest part of my assessment of the pope to dismiss, and that’s fine. I really don’t expect anyone to take it as anything but my own deeply subjective opinion. And far from declaring that I “could just tell from his cold dead eyes that he is “dangerously close” to heresy within seconds of his appearance” — something I never said — I did have a sense of foreboding. (My comments about borderline heresy had only to do with statements he was making, just for the record.)
Have you ever tried to explain intuition to someone? It’s difficult to do. The minute you say, “I just have this feeling,” or “I have a hunch that…” people have a tendency to tune out.
And yet, in my personal experience, intuition is absolutely invaluable. When I’ve ignored it, I have regretted doing so more often than not. When I’ve listened to it, it’s been proven right time and again. I don’t have a strong intuition about every situation or every person, but when I do have one, the accuracy rate has always been very high.
What surprised me is that others have confirmed that they, too, had this feeling. My mention of it was sort of a throwaway aspect of my original post. I fully expected to be alone in my feelings, and almost didn’t include them for the obvious reason that they carry no weight at all except in my own mind. But the feeling had been so strong, I took the risk. In response, I got emails containing sentiments like these:
- “I felt the same feelings when I saw him. His smile is sickly sweet to me and makes my stomach tense.
- “Your initial thoughts of when you first saw him on the loggia is the way I felt too. I am being very cautious. However, I am doing my best to love him as a brother in Christ. “
- “I read the link, “New Pope Chosen” on my computer earlier this year. I immediately jumped up to watch the event unfold on my TV upstairs. En route to the TV, I stopped at the sink in my kitchen, where the Sacred Heart of Jesus was enthroned. I immediately heard the message broadcast to my soul, “This is a bad decision.” When I saw him, I felt just like you.”
- “I too had a similar feeling when Francis stepped out on the balcony for the first time. It is disturbing but I like many continue to look for satan’s influence on my thinking in regards to Francis.”
- “When Pope Francis came out on the loggia, my stomach did somersaults, I wanted to vomit — for hours. I had a sense of foreboding.”
Each of these emails was from a different person. Each was a person I have never interacted with before. You can see in these sentiments that those who felt this way did so unwillingly. No faithful Catholic wants to dislike the pope.
Yes, this is only five emails, and yes, it remains firmly in the realm of anecdote. But I cannot imagine it to be a common thing to have such a feeling about a man who has just been elected pope and about whom nothing is known. This should be a moment of hope for faithful Catholics, not a disturbing one.
Which brings me to the third thing. I did not address these concerns publicly in an attempt to be slanderous, dissident, or schismatic. My criticisms of the pope — other than those rooted in my subjective intuition, which formed the smallest part of my argument — are all based on the ways in which Pope Francis is creating a perception of departure from traditional Church teaching and making statements that can be (and ARE being) easily co-opted by the enemies of the Church.
This tends to make life harder for only one group of people: orthodox Catholics who have been living faithfully and slogging it out to give witness to the faith and support and build the culture of life. I know this not only because I fall in that camp, but because I have been contacted privately by a number of those who are deeply concerned. Many feel that they cannot be as vocal as I have been, either because they work for the Church directly or for one of its many affiliated institutions.
I am fully aware of my own propensity for error. I know that it’s possible that my criticisms may be off base. But the pre-emptive cult of papolatry that sprung up around this pope (no less hastily than my own negative intuition, I might add) has an “either you’re with us or against us” flavor, and when they close ranks, they form a very sharp and pointy perimeter. This should come as no surprise, I suppose, after the personality cults surrounding the previous two popes, manifested in a particularly concerning way in the “santo subito” movement around John Paul II, who as yet never did earn the title “the Great,” but I digress. I submit that loving the pope to the point of near fanatical devotion as a default position and before you really know what he’s about doesn’t strike me as the hallmark of prudent, discerning people.
Now, the extreme pope-o-philes and the concerned folks seem to all come from the same general subset of orthodox, rosary-praying, Mass-going Catholics. The fighting that went on between traditional Catholics and “conservative” Catholics is now happening in those same camps PLUS a whole bunch of new conservative-on-conservative brawling. It’s ugly, and it’s sad.
In the comment boxes here over the last few days, one concern caught my attention. Dale Price wrote:
As to unity…well, that’s the problem. The most visible fruit of the pontificate that I have personally witnessed is exceptionally bitter: watching good and intelligent Catholics who genuinely love the Church savagely turn on each other. That has been painful, and has left me speechless.
This division is real, and it is causing huge rifts. Far from reasoned discussion, or the presumption that Catholics concerned with the effect the pope is having on the Church come by it out of honest love for the Church, they seem instead convinced that we act out of malice. I have avoided sparring with them almost entirely. I don’t see what good will come of it.
This is not something new, it is something old laid bare. Pope Benedict’s objections to the contrary, the “hermeneutic of rupture” is real. As I’ve written elsewhere,
There is a deep and fundamental fracture within the Roman rite of the Church. A fracture over priorities, over liturgy, over semantics, over translation, over religious liberty, over economics, over subsidiarity, over social justice, over immigration, etc. The list goes on and on and on. Catholics who agree on the foundational principles of the Church often agree on almost nothing else.
What is the mission of the Church in the 21st century? What is her stance toward the necessity of conversion to Catholicism for salvation? Which are the means that will be most effective in accomplishing her ends?
The reason there is so much rancor happening right now is because these divisions are old wounds, torn open each time a new emphasis emerges from the Vatican and one faction feels vindicated by it.
Division like this is not healthy, but those of us who are concerned aren’t simply going to drop those concerns, throw our blinders on, and join the party. I would hope our opponents would not expect such a thing. It’s not honest, and not respectable.
I don’t take lightly my decision to engage in this debate at the level that I have. I have prayed that I would only do God’s will by discussing these things, and I prayed especially for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before speaking to the media. I wish to do no disservice to the papacy, the Church, or the faithful. But my concerns are real, they are deep, and the attempt to quiet all dissenting views about this papacy is something I find deeply troubling.
To be treated as though I am malicious because I have raised objections of this nature is something I have come to expect. Sadly, I expect it most from those who have made their names and their livings by being known for, writing about, and speaking about all things Catholic.
To say that I am “assisting the enemies of the faith at the NY Times to drive a wedge between the Church and the pope” is not entirely dissimilar to my assessment that the pope is assisting the enemies of the faith everywhere by giving them opportunities to co-opt his words and use them against us. The difference is this: I’m an occasional Catholic blogger with a minimal sphere of influence. The pope is the titular head of the largest Christian denomination in the world, the leader of one of the oldest and most respected religious bodies on earth, and possesses inherently a claim to infallibility that I will NEVER have.
My brief comments to a couple of news outlets in the hopes of provoking discussion are insignificant in comparison. These Catholics malign me, but they will find every excuse to give the pope cover.
I’ve been through this before, when I realized through my involvement with the Legionaries of Christ that something was deeply wrong with the marching orders coming from Fr. Maciel. I was attacked then too. I was accused of not being generous, authentic, faithful, committed, etc. They tried to turn my friends against me. I was made a pariah, and members of that movement were urged not to even talk to me. Even those closest to me within the movement, who were sympathetic to what I was saying, thought I was exaggerating the case. But it was clear to me: there was something very unsettling at work within the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi, and otherwise good people were being used by it.
We all know how that one turned out.
I cannot and would not presume to judge the heart of Pope Francis. I only know that I see the symptoms of something emerging that is not in line with tradition, or with the mission of the papacy. Something that is enervating orthodox Catholicism and energizing those who have hated the Church to see in her an ally.
I don’t want to make a habit of pointing this out. I would like to talk about it a good deal less than I currently am. I have better, more positive things to do. But my nature is what it is, and when I see something that I think needs saying, I say it. I’m not going to sit down and shut up. I expect disagreement, but I would appreciate at least the pretense that I am sincere in what I am doing, and that my goal is the betterment of the Church, not its undoing.
In before “You’re just like the pharisees…”
In before “You’re trying to place limits on God’s grace…”
I need a “like” button in these comments.
I thought I would save them the trouble of the inevitable comments.
Now that I got that part out of the way, I have to say that I had the exact same visceral reaction that you did when Pope Francis came out to be seen for the first time. I watched it live on EWTN. I had little to no expectations of what I should be feeling as I came into the Church during Benedict XVI’s pontificate and therefore this was my first Papal Conclave. When I saw him, having never heard his name or seen his face in the past, I was overcome with an incredible sense of foreboding.
It was worrisome enough that I had this feeling, as did another person in my family. That so many more did…it makes you wonder.
I know several others who felt exactly the same way. Its disturbing how many people I have spoken to had the exact same response.
My first reaction was nonplus. Mere, but distinct, nonplus. I had no revulsion, but I certainly felt something was… off… about this shrugging pope. Seemed too inert, too cloying. Since then his papal pecadillos have just confirmed his Evangelical-megachurchy strategy, and thus have confirmed my nonplus. “Oh, goodie… a South American Evangelical in the See of Peter.”
Additionally, let me make what I think is an important logical point that is lost in all the truncheoning being done by the likes of… some well known blogger or bloggers.
Scorning negative reactions to Pope Francis as merely subjective proves too much for soft ultramontanists like… a well known blogger, since it also renders POSITIVE reactions to Francis equally irrelevant. IOW, if an assessment of Pope Francis is invalid *because* it stemmed from intuition, then the *vast majority* of positive reactions to him are invalid because they were equally *intuitive*. (Just listen to the intro sound pastiche for Al Kresta’s radio show [“You had me at hello”].)
I’m not sure if I’m making my point clear, but it’s basically that if a negative intuition is risible BECAUSE it was an intuition, then all positive reactions are equally risible.
Mr. Skojec:
Like I said earlier, don’t waste too much time on Shea. You will not get an honest debate from him. He works for Catholic (sic) mainstream, and like secular mainstream, it isn’t what it purports to be. It seems you’ve let some blood into the water with this posting and the feeding frenzy has started. I will pray the Pope Leo exorcism prayer for you.
As for the role of the Pope currently played by Bergoglio – once I heard he is a Jesuit with a South American liberation theology background I knew we were going from bad to worse. For me it isn’t so much the vacant look in his eyes but the bad acting – similar to the other part-time actor who played the role until 2005.
Catholic and Enjoying It! (sic!) used to be my first blog stop of the day. It was one of Mr. Shea’s 250-plus-reply trad-bashing posts which was my tipping point a few years back, and I can’t tell you how much inner peace I’ve derived from never having gone back there again.
I haven’t read it in a long time. I’ve tried often over the years to be conciliatory with him, even from the traditionalist perspective. But the level of trolling and baiting he engages in is hard to understand.
Cyrillist, do you mind if I ask if you used to comment at my blog? Name sounds very familiar, but maybe that’s because I think I’ve seen you at Feser’s blog. (Meanwhile, I would LUUURV to know Feser’s thoughts on Pope Francis.)
Codg(Cadg) – Nope, that wasn’t me, on your site or on Feser’s. I discovered FideCogitActio only fairly recently, via your comments on Dyspeptic. Good stuff – you may be hearing from me soon!
Don Paolo Farinella in his novel “Habemus Papam. The legend of Pope abolished the Vatican”(Gabrielli publishers).
Between history and theology of the book imagines a utopian papacy modeled on the figure of Francis of Assisi tells with passion and the dream of a revolution possible and desirable.
The author is convinced that Pope Francesco I is inevitable and inescapable. He lives in the belly of history waiting for an end to a way of being Church today: tired, inward-looking and full of himself, too interpreted as hierarchy and power … so that the whole Church is in accordance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the true Face of God
The plot: In the last conclave, tools unaware of the power of the Spirit, the cardinals elect a simple parish priest of the diocese of Genoa, which took the name of Francis. In the speech Urbi et Orbi before the world stunned and concerns ecclesiastical, in St. Peter’s Square, Francis I is stripped of all his possessions, in fact abolishes the Vatican to remain simply a man pilgrim on the way of the world that shows the way of the future: the return to Gospel sources and sources of humanity …. With a final twist.
Wow.
I was reading the synopsis for Windswept House on Wikipedia the other day after trying to explain it to someone (I never finished it.) It was:
“Windswept House describes a satanic ritual – the enthronement of Lucifer – taking place at Saint-Paul’s Chapel inside Vatican City, on June 29, 1963. The book gives a scary depiction of high ranking churchmen, cardinals, archbishops and prelates of the Roman curia, taking oaths signed with their own blood, plotting to destroy the Church from within. It tells the story of an international organized attempt by these Vatican insiders and secular internationalists to force a pope of the Catholic Church to abdicate, so that a successor may be chosen that will fundamentally change orthodox faith and establish a New World Order.”
Of course, these are just novels. But I’m not going to say I’m invulnerable to the occasional fiction-based chill up the old spine.
Malachi Martin gave a series of interviews in the 1990s to Bernard Janzen (triumphcommunications.net) which are available in CD format. Very interesting stuff about the end of the Church as we’ve known it. The transcripts of the interviews are available in book format from Triumph and other outlets like Amazon, etc.
Also, “The Plot Against the Church” by Maurice Pinay (written just months before Vatican II began) is very informative.
Shea went absolutely apoplectic when I suggested it to another commenter on his blog. Excerpts of the book are available at mauricpinay.blogspot.com. He called me some very uncomplimentary things merely for suggesting people read that book.
Also, Fr. Enrique Rueda’s book “The Homosexual Network, Private Lives and Public Policy” is important.
Mark me down as another ‘bed wetter’ who wrote the following in an email the night after the election…
My soul weeps for Christ and His Church.
Not one mention of Jesus Christ!
Not one sign of the cross blessing with the hands!
Cold….cold….cold…..my thirteen year old special needs daughter (without prompting) declared “he scares me”. Faithful Catholics must never forget the first impression that the Holy Spirit put on their hearts when the announcement was made….they must not try to explain it away – God was talking.
The wolves have won….now all the faithful know what that great sign of lightening hitting St. Peter’s was portending!
God bless and long live Pope Benedict XVI our suffering Pope in exile!
Brilliant! Thank you for your comments here and for your comment at my blog.
Could people please look at the new video posted online showing Pope Francis meeting a couple of altar boys. (I’m sorry I do not know how to post links, so do a Google search.)
What happens next is staggering.
One of the altar boys has his hands joined in front in the reverential prayer posture. The Pope separates the boy’s hands and appears to say something to him about why he was doing that!!
Whoa! What is wrong with this man?
It’s here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGmSauE50bQ
And while it’s true that maybe he was just trying to help out a kid nervous about meeting the pope, it struck me as odd the way he forced him to break decorum as well.
Steve, you could be correct that he was trying to put the boy at ease, but I have viewed the event again and he definitely pulls the boy’s hands apart and appears to be telling him not to hold them that way. Note that afterwards the boy is holding them differently.
The feeling I got watching that is much the same as going to confession and being told that what you confessed is not a sin, or those videos you see of people kneeling down for communion and being told to stand up.
It didn’t seem friendly to me. It seemed condescending, and even a little irritated. But there I go talking about feelings again…
Yup. It’s meant to come across as “personalist” and “grandfatherly” to a watching world, but comes across as spiritually abrasive and paternalistic to Pelagians like us. He knows when the cameras are running, and he knows how many viewers will react in what way.
What the… heck? Get a grip, Paul! He is Obviously being encouraging to the boy. He first holds his hands over the boy’s, pats him, and then lifts his hands up. How far can you stretch the truth?
Sheesh.
No, he breaks the boy’s hands apart. One translation I read said that he asked the boy if his hands were “glued” together.
It proves absolutely nothing, but it furthers the sense that the pope wants to do away with things formal and traditional, despite the fact that these exist to serve a purpose.
It looked to me like he was showing the boy the correct way to hold his hands- Pope Francis takes them apart, repositions them slightly, and puts them back together. It reminded my of a football coach making a slight adjustment to a player’s stance during practice.
wycoff, that is how I saw it as well.
I might add, I am getting rather tired of people telling me how loving and gentle the new Pope is and how that will bring so many people into the Church.
Try telling that to the little altar boy who was corrected publically for holding his hands in the traditional manner.
Try telling that to the tireless workers who are abused while standing outside abortion clinics and have now have had the rug pulled out from under them by this Pope.
Try telling that to those who have battled with trendy priests about the rules for who can have their feet washed at the Maundy Thursday Mass, only to have the Pope break the rules.
Try telling that to families whose sons or daughters have been going through periods of sexual confusion, being reassured by their families about what God’s designs are, only to have the Pope undermine their message.
“sexual confusion” is a lie, for many millions of those sons and daughters who are gay. Many of them are going through a period of sexual _certainty_ of who they are, which starts early in life and goes on for all the rest of it, just as it has for gay people over all the millenia of human existence, whether in gentle societies or societies that murder gay people.
For such people, the only thing “being reassured by their families about what God’s designs are” (according to the incredibly arrogant people who claim to know for a fact what God’s mind is as long as it’s written in the bible, even though you would have to be God to know that mind) accomplishes is to cause them incredible pain, often ending in suicide.
I am REAL tired of hypocrites who ignore chapter and verse of any other biblical verse they feel like ignoring, because it’s one THEY feel like breaking, turning around and claiming that driving gay kids to suicide by disowning them is somehow “loving” or “reassuring.” Shame.
If you are going to dominate this website with your pro homosexual ideology and squash any alternate opinion as you did in the previous post then I am wasting my time trying to post here.
You apparently dislike Catholic teaching so please give us break.
I merely asked questions you were incapable of answering. Don’t blame me for that (for the record, what I said elsewhere to Paul, which he was incapable of refuting except by lying about it, was that NO one is bothering to write blogs, or laws, or feeling anguish, about Leviticus 20:18, or a THOUSAND other laws which were not revoked by Jesus, but which aren’t about gay sex.
You are the ones who brought up gays on this thread, may I remind you? I am merely responding to your post. If you can’t face being disagreed with, then your faith is as weak as your reason. It’s not my fault that you aren’t making sense.
And you’ve gotta be KIDDING with this “he’s pulling the praying boy’s hands apart!”
Uh… yeah, Paul, the Pope is REALLY trying to keep little boys from praying. Give US a break. And don’t equate your evasion of simple questions that you’re incapable of answering with “Catholic teaching.” You aren’t the Catholic church, guy.
I should give up trying to continue any rational debate, because you are really becoming increasingly insulting. You accuse me of failing to answer your points because you don’t like my answer and now you accuse me of lying, again because you don’t like what I say.
But I’m not going to let your comments about homosexuality pass without correction. It has been proven by many studies that homosexuality is NOT a genetic state that a person is born with. The most telling of the studies are the twin studies where though one twin is homosexual the other is not.
Your homosexual lobby have now succeeded in getting psychiatric help for young people concerned about abnormal sexual leanings banned! They are being told there is nothing they can do about it because they were born that way.
This is a wicked form of child abuse. No wonder some of these kids commit suicide.
However, as I can see this going on forever, because you have shown that you don’t like anyone else having the last word, I will let you say what you like. Please don’t take my non reply as anything other than deciding we are going around in circles.
You’re correct that I’m a guy who likes to have the last word. Guilty as charged. So then:
You claim gay teens commit suicide because they DON’T get forced into conversion therapy?
Mm-hm.
And you KNOW you lie. You know perfectly well that YOU were the one who just brought up gay teens right here, and then pretended that I brought it up (though I see that Steve is trying to assist that lie). ronin did the same thing, on another post on this site, when he ignored 10 or 12 sentences in a post, my ENTIRE post, in order to focus on the one sentence about gays, and then claimed “you just want to focus on your gay thing.” You people lie. If you live by the lie, you do not follow the Prince of Truth. That’s how I see it.
You also evaded answering about why Catholics are all unconcerned (though I agree with them) about whether they follow Leviticus 20:18, and merely repeated that being gay is bad. When I asked again, you made some farcical claim that there was concern among Catholics to follow that law. Uh… yeah. NO blog I’ve ever seen has EVER discussed any such thing, but somehow, gay sex dominates the Church so unduly that the Pope has found it necessary to speak out about it. You object that we MUST do this, even though Jesus Himself spoke more about the poor than He EVER did about gays, or even sex full stop. And I think you know that’s true.
You are right, however–if you are committed to the lie, I cannot stop you. I wish the best for you in your life, and will pray for you (and I do mean that, not condescendingly, but sincerely, as I have prayed for Steve himself). I hope you have a good and joyful life.
Give it a rest, Andrew. You’re crossing the line into trolling by making everything about homosexuality. I’m not a moral theologian, and I doubt anyone else here is either. I’m also not a Biblical exegete, and so I’m not going to take a lot of time researching how to reconcile apparent contradictions between old/new testament texts and or old/new covenant juridical proscriptions.
You have the Internet, so feel free to Google around. Check the catechism, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the references to Theology of the Body, the arguments from natural law, the blogs on Catholic Sexual Ethics, etc. For goodness sake, go look at http://www.stevegershom.com/ for the perspective of a gay Catholic who is not only accepting but positive about the teachings of the Church on this issue.
As I’ve already said, this blog is written from the perspective of a Catholic faithful to the teachings of the Church. I’ve spend ungodly amounts of time debating these things over the years, and I’ve grown tired of it. I’m not going to convince you, you’re not going to convince me, you won’t buy my natural law arguments and you won’t accept the authority of the Church on this issue so what. is. the. point?
I’m afraid that your Pope’s utterances ARE the teachings of the Church. Even when you disagree with him.
And for goodness’ sake: your anti-Francis posts were MADE in the first place for the sole reason that he was telling YOU to stop being obsessed with abortion and gay sex, and…
you refuse!
Are we through the looking glass here?
You’re right, though: I can’t convince someone who is that dishonest. You KNOW that what I just said is true, and you KNOW that I was simply replying to Paul’s post — HE was the one who brought up gay teens–and you know he did. It’s right above our posts, in black and white!
You lie. And you lie for the sake of your ego. Lying is not Christian.
No, Andrew. You’re flat out wrong. Just because the pope says something does not make it the teaching of the Church. I keep trying to explain that, but you don’t seem to be listening.
Hm–OK. So in other words, then, you agree with Pope Francis that you should stop focusing on gay sex as much as you have?
You either disagree with Pope Francis, or you yourself, not me, want to “make everything about homosexuality.” Which is it?
And by the way, you know perfectly well that I have had extended conversations on your blog where I didn’t discuss homosexuality, but abortion, because abortion was being discussed; proselytizing, because proselytizing was being discussed; and (though this was only one post, since no one bit) Veteran’s Day, because Veteran’s Day was being discussed.
I discussed homosexuality with Paul here because Paul brought it up here. If he, or you, doesn’t want to discuss it, then–maybe an idea is, you don’t have to bring it up? And definitely don’t turn around and lie and claim “give it a rest,” that I’m the one who keeps “making everything about homosexuality.” When the post proving otherwise is in black and white right above your head! And when you KNOW you just made a lengthy post on your blog based SOLELY on the Pope’s telling you to stop proselytizing, talking about abortion, and talking about gays. Your ability to avoid inconvenient truths amazes. Next time you feel like doing that, delete the inconvenient posts so that you can cover the truth up.
If that’s what you stand for. And since covering up the truth does seem to be what you, and a LOT of the people here, stand for, you are correct in saying that the right response to that is silence. I did pray for you to have a happy, harmonious marriage, however, so I still do wish that you can have a happy, harmonious life–be well.
Steve, you gotta be kidding–“attempting to quiet all dissent”? Yet you’ve been engaged throughout all this with a strenuous attempt to quiet all the dissent that the Pope is MAKING. All this talk about “oh no, disunity,” “unity” this and “unity” that–you’re plainly disturbed that people, and finally a Pope, are disagreeing with you about what you think is important.
Of course it’s natural that you may continue to feel that such-and-such a thing is more important (though I’m still reeling about the sneering way you dismissed “the fad of fawning over the poor to show you’re a good person while not reminding people that this only one tenet of Christianity that follows from orthopraxy,” without reminding people yourself that Christ said FAR more about helping the poor than He ever did about gay people, or even abortion). You have a perfect right to.
You’ve really got to be pulling our legs, though, when you claim that YOU are the one whose dissent is being quashed–your whole point, this whole time, is that people (and Pope Francis) should get back in line, and that HIS dissent (and other Catholics’) is unwelcome. Seriously, man!
He is the POPE. It is his job description to protect, preserve, and promulgate Catholic teaching, not dissent from it. (Though I do appreciate that you agree with me that what he is saying comes across as dissent.)
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: THE CHURCH IS BIGGER THAN THE POPE. Bigger than any specific pope, and definitely bigger than me. My criticisms, again, come from my knowledge of perennial Catholic teaching and the seeming departures (or the appearance of such) in the things that Pope Francis is saying.
I really don’t care if you like the Church or hate it, but it would be fantastic if you would respect it for what it is. It claims to be unchanging, and so, rather obviously, it should stay that way.
If that were true, then Jesus Christ would have said “stone the adulteress to death; that’s what we’ve always done.” And He would have toed the line with the religious hierarchy of His day. Therefore, the Church is NOT “unchanging.” Rather obviously.
But “the religious hierarchy of His day” wasn’t the Catholic Church.
Oh, it was the same people, though, all right. “What?? We’ve always done it this way! You claim it’s ‘cruel,’ and you want some namby-pamby ‘concern for the poor’? Oh, aren’t we trendy. I’m afraid that being squishy about the law is called _blasphemy!!!_ You’ll be damned to hell for that! All this doing works on the sabbath, blowing off dietary laws, and failing to stone the adulteress? Now GET IN LINE!” There’s always a Pharisee Joe Friday.
Heedless of the fact that Jesus was, in fact, a perfectly legitimate new leader of the religious community, and full of throat-clearing about how it’s all against the rules, and just not to be allowed.
Note, again, that I do NOT indict the Catholic community, who I think are GREAT people, nor all of its hierarchy, many of whom are great people and seem (allowing, again, for my own error, of which I’m certain) sensible in the rules that they focus on. I only find some OTHERS of the hierarchy to have said things that don’t make any sense to me, which is no more than what others here are saying about the present Pope, and all the people throughout history who have agreed with him that the Church should focus on the poor and suffering. Like Jesus, for example.
As a devout Catholic I find it distressing that you would have the gall to criticise the Holy Father and yet still call youself a Catholic. You are a heretic and anti-Catholic and from my understanding of Canon Law you have excommunicated yourself and by criticising the Holy Father you have dishonored yourself. To return to grace in the Church I pray you seek out the Sacrament of Reconciliation to confess your trespasses against Mother Church and God or suffer for your heresy by being denied sacraments and grace.
Robert,
The irony is thick, here. Andrew thinks I’m trying to constrain the pope too closely to Catholic teaching; you think I’m a heretic simply because I criticize the pope.
If your version of Catholicism were remotely correct, I’d happily separate myself from the Church. Fortunately, I know Catholicism fairly well, and you are clearly mistaken.
From the Catechism: “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”11 (CCC 2089)
So real quickly: I have denied no truth of the faith; in fact, I am arguing that the holy father is undermining these truths, which is the substance of my criticism. I have not repudiated my Christian faith, so apostasy is out. And I’m not refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff because he has made no declaration which requires my assent as a Catholic, so I am not in schism.
All the same, I’m glad you’re not in charge of the Inquisition.
Not true either–I find that the Pope is following the teachings of Jesus Christ (unless you disagree that His were at all part of Catholic teachings) more closely than most modern Popes, and I wish you wouldn’t dissuade him from it.
Those words are so funny coming from someone who likes Playboy.com on his Facebook page :p
Andrew, not sure if you’ve had a chance to read Randy Engel’s lengthy open letter to Francis requesting he launch a Papal Commission of Inquiry into Homosexuality, Pederasty and La Lobby Gay in The Catholic Church….interesting material, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/131110
Wows–well MAN, is Randy on a hair-trigger! The knife-edge parsing of “he said a gayspeak word! That’s a gayspeak word!” reminds me, in fact, of the paranoia above that suggests that Pope Francis is somehow trying to keep a little boy from praying because he adjusts his hands.
The concern for sodomy (and hopefully this won’t bring charges of “making everything about homosexuality,” for note that Randy leads the charge against heterosexual sodomy as well) misses several things. First, the fact that, I believe, most pedophiles are actually heterosexual (even in percentages of the population, not just absolute numbers), and, of course, the vast majority of homosexuals are NOT pedophiles, so equating homosexuality with pedophilia is simply a lie.
Further, as mentioned, there are the plain facts that 1) Jesus never said one word condemning sodomy; 2) His utterances, judging by the bible, are NOT invariably aimed at strict obedience to Scripture, rather the opposite (otherwise, He’d have simply toed the line, as long as the religious hierarchy of His day hewed strictly to stoning adulteresses and dietary laws and such); and 3) Paul (or the several people who are called “the apostle Paul” in the bible) obviously did, however, being a man, he is just as capable of being dead wrong about things as any other man, since Peter, too, was wrong about denying Christ, as the Pope points out, and Peter did this AFTER being anointed an apostle.
Therefore, unless one claims (and given the above facts about Jesus, I have yet to hear how this is possible) that Jesus came not to say “don’t bash away at strict Scriptural laws about what to do with your body, but Love one another and treat one another well instead and help the poor,” and unless one claims instead that He came to say “don’t worry about eating crab, bacon and ham, and no more stoning adulteresses, but all I wanted to say was just substitute a bunch of OTHER strict Scriptural laws about what to do with your body,” Jesus Christ’s utterances do not match Paul’s.
Occam’s Razor says Jesus wanted us to knock it off with micromanaging each other’s sexuality, unless it hurts someone (and I don’t mean “it hurts me when you don’t do everything we say,” I mean as in sure, adultery can hurt people emotionally in a deep way; hence, “go and sin no more,” in a way that two gay men or women fondling each other does NOT hurt a single soul on earth, and actually feels pleasurable, and in fact healthy). One can well disagree, and I know many do (though I have less sympathy for those who only believe so because they’ve been intimidated by men into believing so, and now want to intimidate and browbeat others). However, I do NOT think Jesus would bang on against gay sex in the way that Paul did; otherwise, he’d surely have said ONE word to that effect 2000 years ago, being a good prophet. He seems, judging by the New Testament, to have wanted people to stop blindly, hypocritically and strictly insisting on other people following Scripture.
And Randy lies like a demon about gay people equaling pedophiles. I have known many gay people, and this is simply nonsense.
tl;dr version:
– equating homosexuality with pedophilia is wishful thinking on Randy’s part, and a complete lie;
– Jesus never bashed at sodomy, hetero or homosexual;
– Paul DID bash at sodomy, but since Peter was wrong about things even after becoming an apostle, so could Paul be;
and
– Since Jesus’s words, as we hear them on the page, were much more to do with NOT following Scripture strictly than they were about following it (otherwise, he’d never have angered the religious hierarchy of his day by failing to follow dietary, stoning, and other scriptural laws), about sex or anything else, it does not make sense to claim “well Jesus merely meant we should substitute a new set of scriptural laws to follow strictly.”
– It makes much MORE sense, to me at least, that Jesus intended for us to stop being cruel to one another, and to HELP the afflicted (see under Good Samaritan) and the poor, and NOT to follow Scripture when it prevented this.
I think that Randy wants desperately for God to hate gays, or to get the creeps from gay sex, because SHE does. I think Paul did too. Paul is not infallible.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t most of the victims of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy been adolescents rather than prepubescents? In which case, we’re talking about ephebophilia rather than paedophilia proper.
Again, correct me if I’m wrong, haven’t most of the victims of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy been male adolescents? In which case, we’re talking about homosexual ephebophilia.
johnvmarsch, you may know about the statistics of abuse in the Church than I do. I did not say “in the Church,” for the only statistics I’ve seen have been for the population as a whole.
Also, the article that I was asked about specifically said “pedophilia” and “pederasty,” so that is what I was responding to, per the request above.
Can you direct us to any source for such statistics that contradicts my larger point, though, which is that smearing homosexuals as responsible for pedophilia is just that, a smear, and a false one, since heterosexuals are more often responsible for it, as a percentage as well as in absolute numbers (i.e., even taking into account that gays are far fewer in number than heterosexuals are)? I’m interested in finding that out if so.
Andrew –
My point was that statistics for the general population were not necessarily relevant to a discussion about patterns of sexual abuse by members of the Catholic clergy.
Forgive me, but that’s not quite right, is it? The article in question is very careful to distinguish between paedophilia and pederasty. Furthermore, the author specifically dissociates paedophilia and homosexuality.
Again, the article does not link homosexuality and paedophilia. It links homosexuality and pederasty (ie male ephebophilia).
Nobody’s suggesting that all male homosexuals are pederasts — just that it is not unreasonable to regard pederasty as a subset of homosexuality with a definite niche in homosexual culture. One cannot ignore the fact that a number of high-profile homosexual men have defended or spoken favourably of pederasty over the years — for example, Edmund White, Michel Foucault, Joe Orton, Stephen Fry and Peter Tatchell … or the fact that pederastic themes are prominent in the work of gay novelist William Burroughs and gay illustrator Oliver Frey … or the fact that NAMBLA emerged from the gay subculture and was supported by the gay subculture until it became too hot to handle.
Now it might seem unfair to specifically classify pederasts as “homosexuals”, given that one doesn’t ordinarily refer to men who sexually lust after teenage girls as “heterosexuals”. On the other hand, given that the overwhelming majority of the clerical sex abuse cases do seem — again, correct me if I’m wrong — to involve men abusing teenage boys, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to take note of this homosexual over-representation.
You’re wrong.
Yes it DOES seem unfair to specifically classify etc., given that etc. Do I classify Catholics as “torturing, murdering power-hungry sickos,” or say that “the Inquisition emerged from the Catholic subculture until it became too hot to handle”? No, I don’t.
It’s a cheap smear, that’s all. You want being gay to be bad, and it doesn’t stand on its own to say that, so you and this Randy person have to lard it up by invoking child rape.
That doesn’t, by the way, lend much credence to Steve’s claim that “why, we were just minding our own business, totally unconcerned about gay people until gay marriage started up.” It betrays a bit of that “animus against gays” that Justice Scalia pretends doesn’t exist.
I mean, please–you know that child abusers are a minority of heterosexuals, and you know that they’re a minority of homosexuals as well, so what is this business of pretending there’s “this homosexual over-representation”?
Whether a minority of homosexuals are child abusers isn’t the issue. Whether or not homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be child abusers isn’t the issue either. The issue is whether the majority of Catholic clergy responsible for the child sex abuse scandals can fairly be described as homosexual.
Todd’s claim to the contrary, my understanding is that there is indeed an “over-representation” here. If you or Todd can produce evidence that “most victims have been pre-adolescents”, I will of course retract that.
The Jay Study found the median age was 13.1 years. I’ve known girls as young as nine to have developed secondary sexual characteristics. I’ve known boys around age 15 to still seem very undeveloped in terms of voice and facial hair.
People argue about where to draw the line on adolescence, but the Jay Study didn’t differentiate victims by the onset of biological adolescence. Only by age.
About 40% of the victims were teenage boys. That’s what’s in the data.
Given the study went back to 1950, I suspect that predators’ victims were skewed to boys because of a number of factors not necessarily connected to same sex attraction: all-boys schools were common through the 70’s, altar servers were all-boy affairs through the early 70’s, and much later in some places, priests hanging around girls was more suspicious all through those years.
Most victims were boys younger than 13 or girls. By about a 3 to 2 margin.
Sexual predation of minors is a crime of opportunity, and of addiction. By necessity it involves grooming. It’s not a matter of mutual consent. Trying to pin it on gays is at best silly and uninformed, and at worst, gravely sinful scapegoating.
Thank you, Todd. And johnvmarsch, may I ask … WHY is that the issue for you? What do you think it proves?
You are wrong.
Most victims have been pre-adolescents. Victims are generally chosen by availability, not by sex. Rape and sexualization is a sin of power and control, mainly. Not so much a sexual preference of gender.
By your definition, I suppose masturbation would be considered homosexual, since the genital act is performed on a person of one’s own sex.
As far a clergy sexual abuse against children, the vast majority of victims of child sexual abuse are boys – prepubescent and older. This, whether people like or not, means it is a homosexual crime.
That is just silly. It’s as much a homosexual crime as masturbation is.
That said, the more serious crime is the cover-up of abuse and protection of the predators.
No. While the cover up is just as serious, it is nonsense to say that the cover up is worse than the crime of sexual abuse of a child.
And whether you and the lobby like it or not, as far as the clergy sex abuse crimes go the have been overwhelmingly of a homosexual type, so this makes it a homosexual crime. But there is no way on earth they are going to admit that.
The cover-up was more serious for a few reasons. First, sexual predators are everywhere, and mostly in families. That some priests were predators might give some pause who interpret being in Holy Orders as a more virtuous life. It’s not.
Covering up for known predators allowed further sexual abuse to happen, and it occurred on the watch of a significant number of bishops.
The worst number for a percentage of abusers in the clergy I’ve seen is 4 to 5%. The percentage of bishops covering up is unknown. But post-Charter, it is certainly greater. Pre-Charter, I suspect it might be most bishops.
I must also add, that in pointing out that the majority of clergy sexual abuse against children, (which by the way, is far lower than abuse found in the general population, just much better advertised), is of homosexual nature, this doesn’t lesson the pure evil of heterosexual child abuse. The point is that ANY use of our sexual nature in a way other than God intended is evil and has shocking consequences for all mankind.
Unfortunately, “use of our sexual nature in a way other than God intended” has been stretched elastically, usually to excuse one’s own sexual practices, and point fingers at another (if, indeed, the one throwing stones isn’t actually practicing the thing s/he condemns, which happens often).
I agree, of course, that either heterosexual or homosexual child abuse is evil.
It’s a stretch from here to pretending, however, that a married couple practicing sodomy (oral sex, for example) equates to these sorts of crimes; or that that same couple practicing anything other than the missionary position is a similar sort of crime; or that gay people, or people who break the dozens of other biblical sexual injunctions that somehow never show up in any public discourse, are guilty of terrible sex crimes for using their “sexual nature in a way other than God intended.” All of these things have been claimed as incontrovertible truths of God in the past, but people eventually decided they weren’t.
It is plain that it is PEOPLE, not God, who have decided throughout the years that all of the above are “other than God intended,” but then, with the passage of time, decided that God no longer cared quite so much. It outrages those who want to ensure that the Catholic Church keeps representing this sort of blue-law stuff, and ONLY this sort of stuff; but I believe that Jesus Christ represents much more than this.
(If anyone thinks that sexuality is ONLY “what God intended” when it’s a husband’s penis in a wife’s vagina, then they need to explain nocturnal emissions, which are involuntary, and seem designed by the same hand that made us, whatever that is.)
tl;dr: incontrovertible, absolutely-correct assertions of “what God intended” our sex lives to be sure do change according to what a bunch of PEOPLE say God wants.
And the people who are about to say “that’s precisely what we’re saying,” note that your own sexual practices were once forbidden on precisely the same grounds, by exactly the same voices.
Since both strictly religious and the irreligious weigh in constantly with such pronouncements of what God wants, and since it isn’t stopping, here’s mine: God seems to me to have intended lack of sex to make one irritable and tense, and for sex to be joyful, relaxing, pleasant, a climactic release, and to make one smile easily. If it were somehow natural that this should only occur in marriage, then there’d be no nocturnal emissions, or the strong, insistent desire to masturbate or have gay sex or have heterosexual sex outside of marriage, when marriage isn’t available to us yet.
An American bishop at the First Vatican Council wanted a canon saying that not everything a Pope said required assent. An Italian Cardinal derisively shot it down with something to the effect that “We are gathered here in a solemn Council of the Church. We don’t need to waste our time restating the obvious.”
Thus, Ultramontanism was repudiated at Vatican I, so you really don’t need to sound like an ultramontaine, Robert.
As to the substance, yes, I suppose that I am being rather short-sighted in seeing the infighting as something new, or even new-ish. There are always debates over the liturgy, how to respond to culture, and even how to respond to someone like Michael Voris.
Given that I semi-retired from blogging, and don’t have much interest in those fights (especially ones of the last type), I certainly have missed out on that.
But in my defense, I don’t think that holder of the Chair of Peter has ever been so divisive before. And let me clarify–divisive in effect. I’m not saying anything about *intent* here, so, non-Steve readers, do NOT read anything into my wording there.
Sure, I recall grumbling about discrete Petrine actions (the child rape scandals, liturgical choices, kissing the Koran, Hell is not/more than a place, praying in the Blue Mosque, un-excommunicating the SSPX bishops, and so forth). And more grumbling about Petrine *in*action. I participated in much of that myself.
But what seems to be different is that the very person of the Pope has created rifts, and that I would argue *is* new.
“I don’t think that holder of the Chair of Peter has ever been so divisive before.”
Seriously?
A slim minority of all Catholics, probably even a stark minority of conservative Catholics have a problem with Pope Francis. It does seem rather rich to blame the current Holy Father and not speak of the callous methods employed by his predecessor at the CDF.
By the very admission of most conservative Catholic bloggers, people had it in for B16 from the start. Funny how the blame shifts depending on the person with whom one agrees.
To my eyes, this is just front porch pouting behavior. No more.
Sauce for the gander: How many long-term fearlessly dissenting we-are-church truth-to-power speakers have suddenly become prim finger-wagging Ultramontanes over the past few months? (Okay, that’s a blatant tu quoque. But still.)
I become more and more convinced that the standard political liberal-conservative paradigm is excruciatingly inadequate and illegitimate when applied to the Church. And boy, does it ever get applied to the Church! Wake me when it’s over, I’m off to pray a couple thousand rosaries for the Holy Father. (Only I’m not going to mention them to him afterwards – that’s the trick.)
“I become more and more convinced that the standard political liberal-conservative paradigm is excruciatingly inadequate and illegitimate when applied to the Church.”
Oh, I agree absolutely. But it’s the conservatives who seem to be doing the most work defining people along those lines. They substitute “orthodox” or “faithful” for conservative, but the message is the same.
When my wife asked me if Cardinal Bergoglio was a liberal or conservative, I told her neither, and he’s something better. A Jesuit. And that we’re all in for a ride.
More to the point, there’s no question that within the Church and outside of it, Pope Benedict XVI was the most divisive of any pope of recent centuries. People who point to Francis’s supposed “inaccuracies” seem to forget numerous PR gaffes for which B16 was responsible. And he was no doubt the most well-known person ever to be named pope. He brought a huge negative image from his handling of the CDF to people who thought him inadequate in addressing bishops who covered up sexual abuse. And there were conservatives who chafed, then ignored his more even-keeled approach to economics, world peace, and other unpopular GOP topics.
Mark’s righteous incredulity about your reaction to Pope Francis’ eyes is a bit much considering he did the EXACT SAME THING to Michele Bachmann. He posted a picture of her, said she had crazy zealot eyes, and concluded that this alone was reason to be wary of her. The post is no longer on his site. Perhaps he pulled it down since he now seems to think that such judgements are beyond the pale; but if that’s his current position, I wonder why I didn’t find an apology either?
Heh!
You know, Todd, it’s just an observation. My personal perception. And I’ve admitted my perception is limited and skewed. You’ve managed to hammer home, in several comments and now a blog post, how blinkered, unworthy and immature you think my perception is.
I get it.
Acknowledged.
Message. Received.
I read this, and boy, am I glad I’m not Catholic!
My first reaction when Pope Francis came out on the loggia and stood their for some time surveying the crowd was one of palpable darkness and that a wolf was surveying the crowd to see how he could devour them. A chill came over my spirit that I had not felt in my life time.
Steve,
I note that on this blog I have been accused of refusing to answer questions, when I had, then of lying, when I don’t even know what I am supposed to have lied about, all because I dared to question the Pope’s confused message about homosexuality; and you have been consigned to the nether regions of Hell, because you dared to question the Pope at all.
It is interesting to note the type of “friends” that come out in support of Pope Francis- a couple of non Catholics who have no understanding of Biblical or Catholic theology and an apparent super conservative Catholic who takes Ultramontanism to an all time high.
The good thing about the Catholic Church is that it’s like one big family.
The bad thing about the Catholic Church is that it’s like one big family.
Wow Steve, and all this time I thought the biggest problem was just that people didn’t know Jesus…i.e have a personal relationship with him. To think that we could merely solve all the problems of the world and the church by just prioritizing everything else…amazing!
Well, I’m glad you’ve seen the errors of your ways!
Steve,
“Are you using your life for His glory, or are you using it for your own glory?”
The preoccupation with the Pope and his alleged failure to satisfy your expectations far out shines everything else that you discuss…
The greatest commandment is: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” (Mark 12:30)
Are you spending an hour a week in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass?
This says it all, or at least, says enough:
“I don’t take lightly my decision to engage in this debate at the level that I have. I have prayed that I would only do God’s will by discussing these things…. I wish to do no disservice to the papacy, the Church, or the faithful. But my concerns are real, they are deep, and the attempt to quiet all dissenting views about this papacy is something I find deeply troubling. [Yup.]
“To be treated as though I am malicious because I have raised objections of this nature is something I have come to expect. Sadly, I expect it most from those who have made their names and their livings by being known for, writing about, and speaking about all things Catholic. [Yup.]
“… I’m an occasional Catholic blogger with a minimal sphere of influence. The pope is the titular head of the largest Christian denomination in the world, the leader of one of the oldest and most respected religious bodies on earth, and possesses inherently a claim to infallibility that I will NEVER have. … [Some] Catholics malign me, but they will find every excuse to give the pope cover.”
Yup.
I’ve noticed the divide too, and it is painful and getting deeper. I would guess that you and Mark Shea would agree on 99% of moral issues. Instead of uniting to fight the greatest evils of our day (abortion, pseudo-marriage, etc.), orthodox Catholics are fighting each other. However, part of me thinks this fight is necessary because these issues have been a latent divide for decades- we need to have these discussions, as painful as they are. In someways I am thankful to Francis for bringing this all to a head.
My wife had the same reaction when Francis stepped out for the first time. A sinking feeling of foreboding. I don’t think you should dismiss your initial impression as totally intuitive. After all, his presentation on the Loggia was very different than his predecessors. As Dom Alcuin Reid noted:
On the evening of March 13th 2013 another Cardinal Protodeacon announced the election of
Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergolio SJ as pope. Pope Francis appeared on the loggia in just a white
cassock, in stark contrast to his predecessors. The Master of Apostolic Ceremonies at his side
carried a stole which the pope wore only for the blessing. . . . Pope Francis’ attire was noticed. It was a statement. It was clearly a personal decision, a rejection by the new pope of how popes had traditionally vested for the blessing Urbi et Orbi— which is, after all, a part of a liturgical rite, the Ordo Rituum Conclavis. The manner of his appearance was news. Whilst media filed facile reports about simplicity and humility, in some Catholic circles the champagne and stronger elixirs were sought once again, but this time who was drinking what was reversed.
Just keep this in mind: “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations” – Fr. Melchior Cano O.P., Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent.
That is an absolutely fantastic quote.
Though I had no foreboding feelings upon seeing Pope Francis, my father did express a sense of apprehension. I’m honestly not letting it weight on me very much, as whether the Pope is a saint or a charlatan, the Church will endure.
From what I’ve seen, plenty of his actions are admirable, but I do sometimes have to brace myself when he opens his mouth. His recent sermon denouncing the “spirit of curiosity” is another example that left me wishing he had chosen his words differently.
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/11/14/pope:_the_spirit_of_curiosity_distances_one_from_god_/en1-746498
As someone who spends time arguing with atheists, having to explain that the Catholic Church is not against curiosity (which could easily be construed as being against scientific pursuits) isn’t something that I look forward to.
Also, Buchanan just did a piece in line with your sentiments:
http://www.albanytribune.com/14112013-patrick-buchanan-papal-neutrality-culture-war-oped/
Wow, he even used some of the same examples. I’m going with the notion that he read what I wrote and totally borrowed from me. 😉
Andrew (starting a new thread again, since we seem to be testing the limits of nested comments),
You said:
“Hm–OK. So in other words, then, you agree with Pope Francis that you should stop focusing on gay sex as much as you have?”
I’m not focused on gay sex. In fact, I don’t think about it much at all, probably because I’m not gay.
But the Church teaches that it is intrinsically disordered, natural law bears that out, and the fact that Catholics in good standing have no option about believing whether or not it’s a sin all hold up the fact that we’re not going to back down on it when the topic arises.
The only reason we’re talking about it at all is because it’s been an issue forced on us here in the states as gay marriage bills get proposed or passed in state after state, or Christian business owners are sued out of existence for not wanting to participate in gay “marriages.”
Personally, I’d prefer not to talk about it at all. But as long as the issue is going to get forced, we don’t have much choice.
OK, then, but if you or your posters are the ones who bring it up, then don’t accuse me of being the one bringing it up here when I answer you. You are free to post about cooking or embroidery or AR-15s. That IS dishonest to say “give it a rest” when you guys are the ones who brought it up.
I do think if committed homosexuality, oral sex (prohibited, to the misery of many forced to eschew it, just as anal sex is, by sodomy laws), or simply (horreur) having sex for fun weren’t natural, then it wouldn’t have occurred before Jesus’s day, during Jesus’s day, and after it. Also, if you look closely on the gay marriage thing, the only lawsuits (at least the only ones I’ve seen) concern church-owned PROPERTY that’s also used for public events, not churches themselves. That bit of dishonesty is ginned up by many, but on closer inspection, no church is being forced to perform a gay marriage; therefore, they should not force gay-friendly churches not to. These are subjects of disagreement, but both kinds of churches should be allowed either to perform gay marriages, or not to; at the moment, we’ve had a tyranny that privileges only one type of church. That is wrong, and, in my opinion, immoral and indeed ungodly.
Andrew, new thread (again):
“And by the way, you know perfectly well that I have had extended conversations on your blog where I didn’t discuss homosexuality, but abortion, because abortion was being discussed; proselytizing, because proselytizing was being discussed; and (though this was only one post, since no one bit) Veteran’s Day, because Veteran’s Day was being discussed.”
No, I don’t know that. We’re somewhere near 200 comments on the original post, and I’m not paying close attention. I do know that every time I get an email with a new comment, though, and it’s about homosexuality or abortion, it’s either you or someone responding to you. You’re really hung up on Deuteronomy, and nobody cares. I don’t mean to be a jerk, but like I said: this is being written from the perspective of a faithful Catholic. If the Church says, “Hey guys, homosexual sex is a sin” then we’re going to play by those rules. If they don’t make a big deal about other proscriptions from Deuteronomy, that’s cool too. Because Jesus changed certain aspects of the law and retained others.
Are there scholars who could explain this? Probably. Am I intellectually dishonest for not pursuing detailed answers on this? No, because it doesn’t bother me. I’ll never cover 2,000 years of teaching. I do my best to stick to what I can know, and when something sticks in my craw, I go for the answers.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but nature is kind of cool about making certain things clear. Since an exit is not an entry, I know that sodomy is not real sex, in the sense that it can never be fecund and is thus no different than any masturbatory act. Gay sex produces no babies, ergo it is different from heterosexual sex not just in degree, but in *kind*.
We can go round robin on this all day, but what’s the point? You’re trying to out prooftext Catholics who are less interested in figuring out all the minute details of WHY the Church teaches homosexual sex is intrinsically disordered and thus sinful (because hey: self-evident truth is self evident) and more concerned about why the pope is acting like it’s not a BFD when most of us are seeing ballot initiatives changing the institution of marriage.
Now, I happen to be most libertarian than most US Catholics. I’d prefer to see government get out of the marriage business altogether if they aren’t going to hold up their end of the bargain and actually provide incentives for stable family units which create future citizens — the only reason I can think of why a government has anything to do with marriage in the first place. But the discussion continues, and we’re not backing down from the moral position even if we remove ourselves from the legal position. So you trying to draw us into a discussion of why the Church is wrong for teaching what it teaches because there’s a conflict in biblical exegesis, I just…it’s a distraction from the real point here and I don’t have the patience for it.
” And when you KNOW you just made a lengthy post on your blog based SOLELY on the Pope’s telling you to stop proselytizing, talking about abortion, and talking about gays.”
Again, there’s a lot more at work here. Abortion is a huge deal, and again, science is on our side. Proselytizing is a huge deal insofar as it’s one of the big biblical imperatives, and insofar as the Church has always been big on “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” If you love (agape) people, and you want them to get to heaven, you try to get them into the fold so they have the best chance possible. There’s a lot more at work here than just one or two issues, which you seem only concerned with insofar as you can throw objections in our path to trip us up in explaining “why does the Church say this” as opposed to recognizing the Church always HAS said this, and to stop saying it, or to give the impression that it’s not important anymore, is a big deal.
You’re really coming at this from, at least as I’m reading it, an outsider’s perspective. And then you harp on these things and keep demanding explanations, so no, people aren’t going to back down, but the whole thing is a big distraction from the issue at hand, which is: IS THE POPE CHANGING THE TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH ON THESE ISSUES OR AT THE VERY LEAST LEADING PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS, AND WHAT WILL THE EFFECT OF THAT BE ON CATHOLIC EVANGELIZATION?
Full stop. Seriously. These circular debates between people who can’t agree on first principles will go on forever, and that’s just not where I’m interested in focusing my time. I’ve spent too much of it over the years playing that game. That’s not dishonest. It’s not covering up the truth. It’s ACCEPTING what we already believe is true is, in fact, true, and seeking to defend that and go from there.
Thanks for your prayers. Like I said, I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but this isn’t my first rodeo. This is a sideshow.
From above, “I really don’t care if you like the Church or hate it,”
Since I haven’t made this clear yet: I LOVE Catholics, and even Catholicism. Of all the religions in the world, that is the one that I would gladly have joined, even given the molestation cases that were so horribly covered up (though I’d have had to speak out against that if I’d joined the Church, and I do speak against it here, and find hope that Pope Francis might break with that tradition of covering up horror and root it out). I have attended many Catholic masses, and found them so beautiful that even still, I would have gladly joined the Church. Yet their leaders have rejected my kind, and will not allow me, a Rosicrucian, to join.
I do NOT hate the Church, thanks for asking. Nor do I wish to be an outsider. However, just as you say you want to advise people of their error, I think the Church has erred grievously on matters of sexuality (of which homosexuality is only one part), for hundreds of years. Should I shut up and pretend I don’t see that, if you are free to advise people of what YOU see as their errors?
“And thenceforth our Trumpet shall publicly sound with a loud sound, and great noise, when namely the same (which at this present is shown by few, and is secretly, as a thing to come, declared in figures and pictures) shall be free and publicly proclaimed, and the whole world shall be filled withal. Even in such manner as heretofore, many godly people have secretly and altogether desperately pushed at the Pope’s tyranny, which afterwards, with great, earnest, and especial zeal in Germany, was thrown from his seat, and trodden underfoot, whose final fall is delayed, and kept for our times, when he also shall be scratched in pieces with nails, and an end be made of his ass’s cry, by a new voice.”
– Confessio Fraternitatis
So because you have sex without condoms and like the mass in Latin, that makes you more Catholic than the Pope? Self righteousness is a delusion, and it’s also a sin because the only person you keep from grace is yourself. Anyone whose passion for doctrine outpaces his/her love for fellow humans, and fellow Catholics does not love Christ all.
I understand the need to defend tradition, but if your argument is that the Catholic Church has not changed in 2000 years then the evidence is not on your side.
Andrew – document one church that has been prohibited from performing a same sex ceremony in the US.
You’re welcome to refute one single word I’ve spoken, cmatt–if you can.
I’m not sure whether you’re trying to pretend that no one has passed laws trying to make gay marriage illegal
http://americablog.com/2013/07/indiana-makes-crime-preacher-conduct-gay-marriage.html
or whether you’re trying to pretend that there are no gay-friendly churches trying to marry gay people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations
or whether you’re pretending that no church has been prohibited from performing a same-sex marriage in the US, which Proposition 8 certainly did:
http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2013/06/26/no-longer-second-class-citizens/
but whichever it is, I have no time for people who think they’re “liars for Christ.” If you’re going to pretend that gay people are free to marry, and that gay-friendly churches are completely free to marry them (or don’t exist), then you lie.
Knock it off, man.
Anyway, I’m not sure what moving the goalposts and switching the language to “ceremony” instead of “marriage” and hoping I wouldn’t notice (newsflash: I noticed immediately that you pulled that, einstein, that’s why I responded “knock it off”) was even supposed to accomplish. I, and everyone who either opposes or supports gay marriage, is talking precisely about whether the state should recognize it, and that’s ALL I talked about on this thread! I used the words “gay marriage” above for a reason. What was dishonestly changing the subject supposed to accomplish, anyway?
Should read: “that’s all I was talking about when I talked about gay marriage” (obviously, a lot of other things have been discussed).
Andrew – I have little time for people who can’t read. What I asked was for you to name one instance of a church prevented from perfoming a same sex CEREMONY. None of those examples prevent a church from having whatever type of ceremony floats their boat, which is what I asked. Those examples show that certain arrangements will not be recognized by the state as marriages – which is the state’s perogative and a different question.
Any church or group can “play marriage” all they want. Read before you start calling people liars, or you will just look stupid.
Yeah thanks for claiming I look stupid, pal. I’m perfectly well aware of the word games you were playing at, and I’m very happy to repeat: you are dishonest. You’re claiming with a straight face that gay-friendly churches are NOT prevented, by law, from conducting marriages, because “well it’s only the state that doesn’t recognize them as such”?
Uh… knock yourself out. Thanks, though, for getting to the point you were planning on taking several dozen evasive points to make. In response to that point:
The fact that the state doesn’t recognize gay marriages stinks to high heaven (and I mean “to high heaven” literally), and should not be countenanced. I’ve got a problem with that. I understand–of COURSE I understand–that you disagree.
Any other questions?
“you were planning on taking several dozen evasive POSTS to make” that point, that should read.
So, I am pretty close to wrapping things up here. To make things very clear, though, here is my position:
Many religious people seem to believe that sexual desires are like heroin: if you allow yourself the _slightest taste of enjoyment_ of them, your destruction is assured. Only under strictly controlled conditions, for specific, tightly defined purposes, and NEVER for enjoyment, may sex or opiates be indulged in.
Heroin is unnatural, though; sex and food are not. Sex is a natural appetite, like the one for food. Are gluttony and lust sins? Yes: but if your friend said “I’m ordering the clams–MAN, I’m salivating just thinking of it! Ohh…” would you snap “that’s not God’s purpose for food! The sin of gluttony damns you to hell! Food is fuel, and ONLY that–NOT for enjoyment”? I hope not. Now, sure, when someone cheats on their spouse and hurts them, that’s awful; and as to gluttony, eating until you puke and wasting food, while letting people starve, there’s your sin. Someone is HURT then. If no one’s hurt, there’s no need to freak out because someone’s enjoying their dinner, even if it’s chocolate (in moderation), which doesn’t nourish, and so is “against God’s intended purpose for food,” some would say (if they treated food like they treat sex).
Sure, sometimes people fast and do without food, or abstain from sex, as a spiritual exercise. Most cannot do so for long. And that is far from declaring “I’m never swallowing my saliva, for the rest of my life, unless I’m actually eating! I’m never going to think about food and how wonderful it’s going to taste, or go out to dinner with friends for fun instead of nourishment. God, please remove these gluttonous thoughts of the tempting taste and smell of food! Every time I salivate, I’m going to spit it out unless I’m eating, because God intended food to fuel the body, not to make me feel good!” Note, again, that Jesus ONLY referred to sexual matters very seldom, and adultery was one of those times; He NEVER referred to masturbation or homosexuality, which many declare are unnatural (even as most of them indulge in masturbation and other such “crimes” in secret).
As to what the Pope is declaring, and how it squares with this, that remains to be seen. However, for all the “you simply don’t understand how these things work” stuff, none has yet denied that these rules on sexuality are manmade, from declarations of councils of Catholic clergy over the centuries, and not from any of Jesus’s utterances (at best, from the Apostle Paul, and sorry to repeat, but if Peter made mistakes after being anointed, so could Paul). Rather than viewing the Pope’s statements on sexuality as being dictates, the Church should view them as an opening for a dialogue. After all, even if they’re not decided by a single Pope (though I never claimed they were), Church policy IS decided by councils of clergymen, and plainly, those clergymen are among the people the Pope is speaking to. A modest proposal from an “outsider,” as Steve likes to remind me I am: let’s see how the conversation goes.
If someone’s actually getting hurt, then I’m sure Jesus would have a problem with it. The local gay couple you see shopping, deciding what kind of scented candles or cowboy shirts to buy? I’m not God, but I sincerely doubt most of the gay people I’ve met are EVER going to any hell.
Your way of life has not been working. Every one of you who tries to abstain from masturbation or other of these banned practices, only to fail every few weeks like clockwork, can see that. Treating sex for fun as if it’s like heroin simply goes against the way we were made. We were MADE to want sex for fun, or thrills, or in any case, as a basic unconscious urge APART from marriage, if marriage isn’t available to us at the moment. If you disagree, then… are you claiming you never masturbate? Pardon me for doubting that. I hope the Pope does bring people to a more realistic view of sex, which will be quite in line with all of Jesus’s utterances, and I hope that all this “tradition” of pretending natural sexual desires can be wished away, that has nothing to do with anything Jesus ever taught, is recognized for what it is: simply false. I wish you all the best on your roads.
tl:dr: Many religious people have decided that sex must be treated like dangerous opiate drugs, to be had only under tightly-controlled and strictly-defined conditions.
However, such drugs are unnatural; it makes much more sense to think of sex as being like food. You COULD say “it’s just to fuel the body, NOT for pleasure”; however, that would be unnecessary, and in fact against the way we were made, by that same God. We were MADE to feel pleasure, release, thrills, and fun, from dining as well as sex. It’s in our design. Nothing Jesus said goes against this, and just as men decided to treat sex as intrinsically evil, men can also decide to treat it more sensibly, like the way we treat food. We don’t starve ourselves of it; we DO observe certain basic rules of decency as to not hurting others with our consumption of it, but apart from that, enjoy it! You’re SUPPOSED to enjoy it. That’s why your vows never to masturbate again never work out.
As to the Pope’s recent words, I think he’s merely saying “there’s more to the Church than abortion, proselytizing and gay marriage.” For those of his words that touch on sexuality (realizing, again, that there is room for reasonable people to disagree on when life begins and abortion), if he reduces this sort of hysterical equation of a natural, God-made bodily urge with demonic temptations, then I say that’s great (and so will MANY, many Catholics I know). You all be well; I hope you have a wonderful and profound and meaningful experience of your Church.
Shoot, that should read: “even as most of them indulge in masturbation, and SOME of them indulge in other such ‘crimes’ in secret.”
@Andrew
Let’s not be fastidious. Is God cool with fisting? Would Our Lord give the thumbs-up to the Folsom Street folks?
Seriously, do you think that no sexual activity — between consenting adults — can be reasonably regarded as sinful or degrading or psychically corrosive or socially undesirable?
Wow–you don’t read very carefully, then, because I just got done saying that adultery was all those things. I was pretty clear in saying that if it hurts people, as adultery does, then it is degrading and I advise avoiding it, but that if it hurts no one, then what’s the problem? You read that, correct? So you knew the answer to that already, correct?
As to what God thinks, the arrogance of all the people on this blog lecturing me “God thinks this and God thinks that” is absolutely breathtaking. I happen to hate talking like that, because that would be making myself God, like such people do without even thinking. Given, however, that you knew that I had already — repeatedly — mentioned that some kinds of sexual activity, even between consenting adults, is objectionable, I suspect that you are indulging in a similar attempt to gin up shock value, and don’t seriously wish a thoughtful exchange. Oh my gosh! The liberals condone fisting! How awful! It’s reminiscent of the earlier attempts to smear gays by associating them with child abuse.
Well guess what–if fisting provides pleasure to both consenting adult partners who practice it, and DOESN’T hurt anyone like adultery does, tell me what on earth is your problem with it? Is it merely the fact that it’s non-procreational, and are you one of those claiming that it’s a terrible sin to enjoy oral sex, manual sex (which includes fisting and the masturbation that virtually EVERY guy reading this indulges in regularly), anal sex, frottage, this, that, the other, or anything other than a penis into a vagina (only when a child can result, mind you, and never for fun, so if you’re barren, you better never have sex)? If so, then are you telling me you never masturbate? If you do, then you don’t live by the code you’re lecturing others to follow. You CAN’T follow it. It’s impossible. I mean, you can abstain from SOME of those forms of sex, but everyone reading this indulges in SOME form of sex for pleasure.
Food and sex can both be junk food and sex; they can both end in illness, even death; and they can both be indulged in ways that show unconcern for damaging people, which are bad things. However, do you plan to avoid enjoying and savoring Christmas dinner, just because it appeals to your senses, and isn’t primarily for the analogous “only reason God created it,” i.e., to fuel the body? Nonsense–you’ll take precautions, and then enjoy the sensory pleasure to the full. So to perpetuate this superstitious hysteria saying that sex’s equivalent sensory enjoyment is somehow evil is simply a lie–and lies are not Christian.
I live with sex by simply trying not to hurt myself, or anybody else, and I have a harmonious relationship with my partner, my community, and (as far as God lets me know) with God. I’m sure I’m not perfect, but that’s what seems sensible to me. If you choose another way, that’s fine–but if your way includes loudly preaching “no having fun, non-procreational sex for thrills!” in public, but then in private, begging “please God, take away the sensory pleasure I take from non-procreational sex, God!” and then finally giving in and doing whatever non-procreational sex you do (are you telling me you never masturbate, have oral sex, or have nocturnal emissions?), and then go through it all again every other week, then why should one listen to the lecture from someone who can’t even walk their own talk? And virtually NONE of you can. Sex was simply not designed to be without thrills and fun. It was designed to PROVIDE them. It’s part of the package. Your way doesn’t work.
Shorter answer: I don’t claim to be God, so you’ll have to–horror of horrors–embark upon a personal relationship and ask God yourself, to find out (through a glass, darkly) what God thinks, don’t ask me if you want to be sure.
However, no, I don’t think for one SECOND that Jesus Christ or God has any problem with people manually stimulating each others’ genitals for fun, in whatever way, as long as it’s consenting adults who aren’t being hurt. It would be very cruel to give every single man on earth a driving, insistent impulse to touch oneself from time to time, and then say “now don’t EVER do so! Or I’ll get very angry!” wouldn’t it?
“oneself or others,” should read.
My dear fellow, I assure you I do wish to have a serious exchange and I apologise if my facetious phrasing obscured what I was getting at. You consider adultery bad because it involves betrayal and deception and causes emotional distress to a third party, right? I was interested in knowing whether you thought there could be any grounds for condemning a purely consensual relationship that didn’t cause obvious hurt to a third party.
It may seem arrogant (though I don’t see how it’s any more so than categorical claims that “God has no problem with this”), but it ain’t necessarily so. All serious religions believe in a divinely revealed code of ethics — that God has opened up a channel of communication with humanity, whether through sacred texts or institutions or both. What good is a god who doesn’t communicate?
The problem is that it’s a perversion of the sexual impulse from its true end.
After procreation, sex is there to allay concupiscence and foster conjugal fidelity. Sex is for married couples and marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. One could say masturbation and same-sex practices differ from sex between an infertile married couple in that they are sterile in principle.
If I fail to practice what I preach that doesn’t necessarily make me a hypocrite. We all fall short in countless ways. And even if I were a hypocrite, that wouldn’t mean what I was saying wasn’t true. “Do as I say, not as I do” contains a lot of practical good sense. “All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”
No-one’s saying sensual pleasure is “evil”. The problem is we’re a fallen species that doesn’t always know what’s good for us; so “pleasure” cannot be the sole criterion of goodness. Your food analogy is all well and good — and gluttony is a grave sin, after all — but it seems to me that sexuality is both more central to human personhood and (therefore) more volatile and vulnerable to distortion, the effects of which are correspondingly more serious. Apart from anything else, questions of sexuality directly affect the family, and the family — not the individual — is the basic cell of society.
Sigh–poor Steve. I wish there were another blog we could remove this to, as Steve has had enough, and I’ve made something like five “Goodbye Cruel World” posts already.
I do want to clarify that I was NOT saying “I, on the other hand, DO know what God thinks”–I say “I believe” or “in my opinion” or “I sincerely doubt” to convey that “this is MY opinion, what I find true for myself.” You find something else true, and that’s fine–we shouldn’t pass laws requiring either of us to practice the other’s truth, as long as no one is hurt. I’d note, though, that when you narrow things to only “sacred texts or institutions or both” being sources of communication from God, you leave out one’s personal relationship with God (and if that doesn’t exist, then what is prayer?).
I think you’re quite wrong–MANY people are teaching that sensual pleasure from sex is evil. And I think we are going in circles, though, because I have mentioned several times, in so many words: non-procreational sex is no more a “perversion of the sexual impulse from its true end” than having good-tasting food is a “perversion from the true end” of taste, which is to get us fueled. It is a feature of the act. And you haven’t “failed” when you indulge in non-procreational sex–as nocturnal emissions prove, you are DESIGNED to do so. So when someone masturbates or likes oral sex, it’s not a “failing”–it’s impossible NOT to regularly have non-procreational sex. This is why this teaching must change.
And the Church is NOT unchanging, despite what people claim–it used to be tradition to torture people to death. They changed that. They can (and should) change this. We were less than 1/3 of a billion people when the Church was formed. We are now 7 billion, and facing MASSIVE problems because of it. We’re fouling our own earth, our own sources of food and water, because of our sheer numbers (not to mention how much harder poverty is when you multiply people, even as species of foodstuffs go extinct). It’s DESPERATELY necessary to encourage that most sex NOT end in childbirth. The Church has changed before, and should change again, for the sake of the very human race it serves.
(Again–for the sake of clarity, I know that the above can be misread as saying “aha–you say ‘don’t force me to believe what you believe,’ but then you say ‘this teaching must change’?” I want to make it very clear that I do NOT wish to accomplish such change by browbeating anyone into it, or ordering anyone to take my own tastes as their own, against their own conscience. My wish is to CONVINCE the Church through the logic of what I’m saying, along with the appeal to their flock and hierarchy to look into their own hearts–can this planet really take any more people? And is anyone really hurt when someone has consensual, adult sex that doesn’t produce children?)
I for one am grateful for our host’s forbearance in allowing this little diversion. So at the risk of testing his (and your) patience beyond endurance …
Who are these people? I can’t say it’s struck me as a conspicuous theme even among the most conservative of Christian commentators. But even if such a distorted view were common Christian currency, the world ain’t listening — if there’s one thing modern society isn’t suffering from it’s squeamishness about sex!
Except that deriving pleasure from the taste of food doesn’t lessen its nutritional value, whereas masturbation, oral sex, homosex and contraception divorce sex from procreation altogether. Moreover, you yourself acknowledge that legitimate enjoyment of food can degenerate into perverted forms. For example, someone who only eats foods that provide him with his favourite gustatory pleasure most likely isn’t going to have a particularly healthy diet.
That’s pretty tendentious. At most it proves that human males are designed to have involuntary nocturnal emissions — which in any case, being involuntary, are presumably sinless.
Even if we grant that questionable assertion, something isn’t right merely because “everybody does it” — and it certainly doesn’t follow that it’s in society’s best interest to normalise or celebrate it. People have lived happily for centuries under far more rigorous codes of sexual ethics than what currently prevails in the post-Christian West. Do you honestly believe modern Western society is the healthier and happier for its revolutionary relaxation of sexual manners and morals? Compare these two images. Who best exemplifies the ‘dignity of the human person’? For that matter, who looks sexier?
I think it would be more accurate to say the Church has at certain historical periods sanctioned the use of torture and the death penalty for certain offences. That quibble aside, if Church authorities have now rejected both sanctions (for good or ill), I wouldn’t say the underlying principles that were used to justify them in past ages have changed.
How exactly do you know “7 billion” is too many? What would the upper limit be?
Or because of industrialisation and the hedonistic mass consumer culture it makes possible …?
The Church exists to help humans get to heaven, not to indulge in utopian fantasies of building heaven on Earth.
“Who are these people?”
“Sex is not about fun. If you want to have fun, read a book.” – Jerome Corsi
I totally agree that such views certainly AREN’T listened to, or lived by, by MOST Christians–thank God. However, MANY, notably on this very blog, have insisted that sex must only be used for procreation. blech.
“Except that deriving pleasure from the taste of food doesn’t lessen its nutritional value, whereas masturbation, oral sex, homosex and contraception divorce sex from procreation altogether.”
You’re claiming that pudding, angel food cake, or Skittles have “nutritional value”? Yet you don’t forbid anyone to eat them. And yes, those acts do “divorce sex from procreation,” just as eating dessert “divorces” food from nutrition. Thank God for that. And yes, I said explicitly that it wouldn’t be healthful to have nothing but dessert, and I was making the point that basing your WHOLE life on sexual pleasure would be empty, if you had absolutely nothing else in your life, like Love. That does NOT mean that a life is “healthier” and “happier” when one eats no dessert ever, or never has pleasurable sex that has nothing to do with making babies. Gay people can and do have Love every day.
“It’s impossibly NOT to regularly have non-procreational sex.” “questionable assertion”
My dear friend, nocturnal emissions ARE non-procreational sex. And would you please provide evidence, since we talk of “questionable assertions,” that people lived “happily” under stricter anti-pleasure sexual regimens in the past?
And you’re… you’re telling me that the “underlying principles” behind the Inquisition–targeting “witches” as being responsible for crop failure, for instance–haven’t changed? Uh… uh… yeah. Gotta disagree again on that one.
As to the picture of the two women, it would be more accurate to show one picture of Miley Cyrus having sex with a man using a condom, and another picture of Donna Reed having sex with a man who is not using a condom. Neither picture would qualify as “dignified,” but I don’t think that would prove anything about anything.
“Do you honestly believe modern Western society is the healthier and happier for its revolutionary relaxation of sexual manners and morals?”
YES. Y-E-S. Do you honestly believe it was better when women regularly died from septic abortions? Or when gay people were regularly beaten into the hospital by the police, as they are in Russia, or thrown in jail for it (or, for that matter, when even straight married couples could be thrown in jail for having oral sex)? Or when married women had no choice but to have 10 children, even if it utterly destroyed their lives and health, because God forbid they should be allowed to wear a darned condom? Forget that. No thanks, friend. No thanks. Good riddance to ALL that. Gucch–what a HORRID vision you have for the world, if you miss that stuff.
And 7 billion people is _maybe_ too much because we’ve depleted almost ALL the cod, bluefin tuna, and several other staples from the ocean? And because the amount of environmental damage from that number of people regularly poisons other major food sources (such as the Gulf of Mexico, which used to be a clean place to get seafood, or likewise the Chesapeake, from which much of the east coast’s crab comes from, polluted to hell from fracking waste)? I suppose if you can claim with a straight face that “underlying principles” of witch-burning never change for the Church, or that it’s possible to live without having sex that can’t make babies, then you’ll believe anything, but I’m pretty sure that mass extinctions of important seafood sources that used to number in the multi-millions is a sign that we’ve reached our limit. Industrialization is destroying us precisely _because_ there are too many of us.
And copping out on that responsibility by saying the Church exists only to get people into Heaven, and not to “indulge in utopian fantasies of building heaven on earth” is a distortion of what I’m saying that really borders on outright lying. I am telling you that we are suffering as a species because of overpopulation. I can ALSO tell you that heterosexually-transmitted AIDS, and a whole host of other problems, rage merrily on and are made far worse because the Church refuses to hear a single word about condom use that would reduce such suffering. And you know that many married couples (as evidenced by the huge number of Catholics who use birth control) would suffer without birth control too. Are you claiming that the Catholic Church has no role in reducing suffering on earth, ecause that is “utopian fantasies of building heaven on earth”? If so, then forget that, and no thanks to that, either.
And real briefly: if you want to convince me, or anyone, that it’s a good idea to try to live without ever having non-procreational sex?
Then introduce me to ONE person who’s managed it.
ONE.
Wow. I can’t tell you how bored I am of this conversation. But hey: at least a conversation about the new pope’s doctrinal frivolity has devolved into a debate about fisting. At least we have that.
Hey, at least it gives you the opportunity to pretend that I was the one who brought it up.
Anyway, you’re right–that was a red herring. And so as not to bore anyone, I should have been more concise. So here it all is in a few sentences:
You don’t react to the sin of gluttony (though we can still err in certain ways by being gluttons) by freaking out every time someone gets into their food, or pretending it’s evil to enjoy it, just because their tastes are different, do you? So stop getting hysterical in the same way about sex, and acting as if it’s evil to enjoy THAT (though, again, it’s certainly possible to be destructive to someone with it). It’s enough to simply have sex in the way that brings you joy, and damages neither you nor others.
What, besides the fetishization of “tradition” (yet a tradition which absolutely need not be part of a beautiful Catholic faith) is so darned hard about that, anyway? The Pope is right to say “relax on the gay issue.”
Take care, Steve–sorry that my dissent annoyed you (and I’m still waiting, I have to say, to see evidence that you “enjoy having [your] views challenged), but thanks for hosting, and I do appreciate your patience, given the emotionally-wrought topics.
Dear Steve,
I’d like you to know that I, too, felt a kick in the stomach upon seeing our new Pope emerge at the loggia. He was not wearing a mozzetta? Umm, okay. He wore dark glasses in the dark? He calls himself only as “Bishop of Rome?” He raised one stiff arm to wave at us? Where’s the wide worldwide embrace?
And when he did not bless the people right away, when he failed to acknowledge the far-off crowd (and by extension those of us in the wide, wide world who were watching him on television), and instead, bent down to ask for blessing from those who were at his feet, I thought…What the…? I felt my heart slowly sink to my feet. I felt something was really strange.
I felt ashamed and guilty for feeling this way. And I haven’t recovered since. I’d like to think that although I can’t always carry a musical tune, my faith happens to be pitch-perfect. So why does the feeling get worst whenever I read of what he says? The question, “Is the Pope Catholic?” used to be a rhetorical question, but now it has become something to really think about.
I’m not exactly glad to learn that you and some people felt this way, too. But it’s a relief to know that I was not alone in my bad intuition.
Thank you for your blog.
Hey Steve –
I’m a youngling who has very recently come back to the Church, in large part thanks to the humility and enthusiasm of Pope Francis, and the fact that he has been addressing issues that seemed to have been ignored in previous years. So some people felt a sense of foreboding when they first saw him – I and many other young people have been converted thanks to his example (a priest at my university was recently quoted in an article stating that he has seen tons of conversions since the beginning of Pope Francis’s papacy). I don’t know how to reconcile those, or the fact that his papacy is causing such dissension, but a couple things come to mind, and I’d like to contribute based on my having one foot still kinda over the secular fence –
I’ll agree with you that the media is taking what he has been saying and is twisting it (the BBC’s headline about calls for “radical Vatican reform” come to mind). I noticed that before I even started going to Mass again, and I went to look at the interviews themselves, and at the things he was saying verbatim and taken in context. To be honest, I didn’t see anything that was out of line with what I’ve learned as a Catholic. The media has taken him on as a sort of symbol of unheard of liberalism, but I don’t see that in his intentions based on what he has said. I’m sure you’ve read what he’s said directly, and haven’t taken things second hand, so I’m curious to know what you’ve thought about his direct statements. It seems to me that his humility and his humanity are fully in line with the most important commandment, and I have a hard time understanding why it all needs to be so much more complicated than that. To me, that’s what he does. His view is a simple one, and that’s attractive. He’s gotten to the core of how we should interact as Christians and humans who love each other. It’s not that he’s not fighting the war against abortion or against homosexual practice, it’s just that he’s changed tactics; he’s loving people first, before condemning even what they do. Isn’t that what Jesus did? Jesus never told Zacheus he’d come over for dinner AFTER he quit taking taxes; Zacheus had a change of heart and changed his life of his own volition, after experiencing Jesus’ love.
I chatted with a class I was in last year around the time Pope Benedict resigned, and their number one comment as a class of majority non-Catholics was that they found the Vatican and the hierarchy and tradition of the Church alienating. The pomp and circumstance and philosophical language may be comforting to those who have already established a relationship with God, but for those who have grown up as atheists and in other religions, they only see the example of the people who act in the name of Jesus as representative of God’s love. And if they don’t see anything attractive, especially in the man that THEY assume to be the number one representative of the Church (as opposed to the idea that the Church is bigger than the Pope), they wont give him the time of day. An atheist I work with who is a second generation Buddhist loves Francis. He’s not looking to convert, as far as I know, but his heart is open because of the charity and goodness of this Pope. And I don’t see any evil there.
I’m not saying that Pope Francis isn’t speaking to you, as your…opponent? seems to have suggested (though I only got here through a BBC reference to your blog, so I know nothing about that), and I know this is a debate you don’t wanna have, and you probably already agree with most of what I’ve written here. But I think that he’s speaking to EVERYONE through his actions. As Catholics, we could all be better at loving instead of judging. The marginilized people of the world need to know they’re loved. Atheists need to know that as Catholics, we love before we start moralizing. I think he’s setting a fabulous example, and I think that the simplicity of his message – whatever the media decides to do with it – is something we could all learn from.
God Bless.
Maria,
1. “He has been addressing issues that seemed to have been ignored in previous years.”
Actually, issues that have been ignored in previous years, this Pope is ignoring even more. Issues like, “Love God above all things,” (proper worship of God in the Liturgy) is rendered only secondary to “Love of the poor.” (More examples below.)
2. “Seen tons of conversions since the beginning of Pope Francis’s papacy”
Numbers, please? And are they lasting conversions?
3. ” The media is taking what he has been saying and is twisting it ”
Not necessarily. He’s repeated certain questionable pronouncements at various times to various media. And you can read his interviews and letters IN HIS OWN WORDS that had been posted and gone all over the world before the Vatican site took them down.
4. “Jesus never told Zachaeus he’d come over for dinner AFTER he quit taking taxes.”
Jesus could read souls. Zacheus must have already heard about Jesus and His call for sinners to repent, that was why he went into the crowd to see Him. Zachaeus was a rich, proud man who had done evil things. It was courageous of him to get out into the crowd to see Jesus pass by. And with great humliation that in order to get a glimpse of Him, he had to climb up a tree, like a monkey. All points to the fact that Zachaeus might have already been at the point of repentance before Jesus singled him out and told him He’d come to his house.
In contrast, Pope Francis does not call atheists, practicing homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, other pagans, etc. to conversion and repentance. He preaches of neighborly love, but does not condemn sin. He preaches love of the poor but does not connect to people’s duty to believe and love God and His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, as “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
Okay, give him credit for talking about the reality of the devil, the goodness in the sacrament of confession, the fixed issue of not ordaining women, and the evils of abortion. Those are standard Papal teachings and was expected of him as Pope. Unfortunately, he does these condemnation of evil on occasions separate from his reaching out to the peripheries. He does not connect them.
Which gives the impression that he’s talking on both sides of his mouth, and not only on moral issues but on signs and symbols of the rapidly disappearing Catholic identity. Thus:
Proselytism is solemn nonsense, but Mission Sunday is great and we’re called to new evangelization.
Praying the Rosary is pelagian, but October is the month of the Rosary.
Homosexuality (the practice) is a sin, the practicing homosexual a sinner. We must love the sinner and condemn his sin, but who are we to judge? (Condemnation of sins IS just judgement.)
The joy of evangelization becomes the beauty of the Liturgy vs. the Liturgy itself IS evangelization. The Liturgy – not just its “beauty” – is the source and summit of our Christian lives; it is the heart, soul, and goal of evangelization, not just a sidebar
.
We must have a “personal relationship with Christ” but he does not point out at the same time that Holy Mass itself is the great event where we unite ourselves personally with Our Lord Jesus, by participating in His Sacrifice and receiving Him fully in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity – much, much. much, much more than the Protestant concept of having a “personal relationship.”
I also submit that this Pope trivializes doctrine and de-estabilizes it, as if it’s a hurdle to sanctification, or a symptom of some spiritual disease or something – like ideology, neo-pelagianism, restorationism, triumphalism, etc.
If he aims to leave the 99 faithful flock to chase after the one lost sheep, it appears he has left the door of the sheepfold open for wolves to enter or for the rest of the faithful flock to scatter.
5. “a class of majority non-Catholics was that they found the Vatican and the hierarchy and tradition of the Church alienating.”
As to be expected of “majority non-Catholics” and low-information Catholics.
6. “He’s not looking to convert, as far as I know…”
Ay, that’s the trouble.
Having Mark Shae as an antagonist is a badge of honor, Steve. The whole crowd at the Catholic Register, Shae, Akin et al, are just the worst sort of notoriety seeking egoists. Keep up the good work.
Just noted the facts that (1) Cardinal Burke has been purged from the Congregation on Bishops and that (2) no CDF representative has been appointed to the same Congregation, first time in 100 years! Talk about public humiliation – Burke had been a critic of Francis’, of course – and a sharp de-emphasis on doctrine as the way forward. All the hard work of the two previous Popes to right the direction of the Church since Vatican II and its about to be disemboweled. How sad and how pathetic this near sighted clown.
Mr Thalmann, I think it’s been pointed out elsewhere that Cardinal Wuerl remains a member of the CDF, and he indeed was named to Bishops this past week.
Cardinal Burke is indeed a critic, a critic of many things. Maybe we don’t need critics on Bishops. Maybe we need people who are better skilled in discernment–making sure the best bishop candidates are matched to dioceses that will be best served by their abilities.
Personally, I doubt that all the doctrine experts in the world serve on the CDF and only there. It makes sense from a personnel standpoint that the heads of Vatican dicasteries serve in their departments and only there–better to keep a razor focus on their area of expertise and not horn in on someone else’s responsibility.
Cardinal Burke may indeed be an expert in canon law, but he was a disaster as a bishop in two dioceses, leaving behind trails of enmity and messes for his successors to clean up. The man’s parting shot on EWTN was self-inflicted humiliation. It remains to be seen if he remains as head of the Apostolic Penitentiary. If he does, he should be grateful enough for that.
Just thought I’d add this for the record: my first reaction to Francis was a disappointment so deep I cried. At the time I chalked it up to the momentousness of the occasion as I’d converted under Benedict and had never experienced a “change-over”. But then an odd thing happened. The phone rang and an acquaintance who let’s just say gravitates more to the evil side on the good & evil scale (non-Catholic BTW) cackles into the phone, “SO, how do you like your new POPE?!” I said, “Uh I guess he’s ok, I don’t really know anything about him.” She squealed malevolently, “Well, I LOVE him!” At the time I thought this was just bizarre, truly the weirdest thing ever. Talk about inside information.
That is very strange indeed. Thanks for sharing your story.
The look in his eyes: “Truth is, the pope loves a joke. And his holiness has a devilish wit. You can see it in the eyes after the “gotcha” punch line.” | Pope Francis, part two video start about 9:06/13:05 | http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-60-minutes/
Steve, excuse my belated reply but I also shared an intense feeling of foreboding when he came out on the balcony. It was intense and unnerved me, especially as I didn’t know anything about the man.
Whew, it was tough getting past all those sad comments from the poor guy who has nothing better to do than to feel guilty about his sex life and preach about it in Catholic com boxes. Pobrecito… If he only knew that the peace he longs for is in living a holy (chaste) life for Christ.
Anyway, I, too, felt a deep sense of dread the second I laid eyes on the newly elected Holy Father. I came into the Church under Benedict. I thought everything would be coming up roses for the Church from here on out. It was a blow when he abdicated, but I picked myself up and jumped into the frenzy of the papal elections. My kids and I “adopted” cardinals and prayed like mad every day for our new pontiff. I just happened to turn on the tv the moment the white smoke went up. I shrieked with excitement and flew down the stairs shouting to my children and in-laws that we had a new pope. My (Catholic) in-laws looked at me like, “that’s nice dear.” But then they’ve been through this pope thing a few times before. They are pretty jaded.
My palms were sweaty and my heart was racing as I waited with millions of other Catholics for a glimpse of our new pope! I have rarely been so excited. The second I laid eyes on him, however, my stomach just dropped and I felt like I had been kicked in the gut. I had no idea who he was, but I had a really bad feeling about him. He looked so lost. I didn’t think he looked evil. I though he looked clueless. I wanted to cry. I was in Mexico and didn’t have internet, so I just heard the Mexican news that talked about how he liked to ride the bus and not look Ike a cardinal. Ironically, I had told my husband a few days earlier, “if the media hates the new pope, he is going to be great. But if the media loves him, we are in trouble.”
Since that dark day I feel like I’ve been in a spiritual free fall. I am clinging to ancient Catholic Tradition for dear life. But not adoring the holy father is rough. I used to be what I hear referred to as a “neo-Catholic.” I tried to read all the happy conservative blogs to try to see the bright side of this papacy. But I finally got tired of all the twisting, back-flipping, stand on your head and squint explanations of all the scandalous things Pope Francis was saying. So I went over to the “dark side” and started reading the blogs of the rebellious Traditionalists. (Wow, have I learned a lot!) I pray A LOT, I beg the Blessed Mother to help me, and I started teaching the Baltimore Chatechism to my children. (Thanks to this current crisis, I am finally realizing that my children have learned nothing about the Catholic Faith in CCD in 8 years of “religious” instruction.) I am now hell-bent (heaven-bent?) on learning the truth about what the Church teaches, as well as the truth about what has been happening in the past 50 years.
Thanks for speaking out on this. I mostly don’t talk about Pope Francis for fear of sounding like a bad Catholic. I have no idea what to say about him to my kids. I mostly say nothing. It is just very confusing and heart-breaking.
Not sure who you’re referring to, and I don’t want to assume anything, but on the off chance it was my comments, I happen to be every bit as faithful to my girlfriend as you are to your husband. However, you don’t sound like the sort of person who leaps to incorrect conclusions about someone and pronounces herself proudly correct, so you probably didn’t mean me.
Also, by the way, every single comment I’ve made here was simply answering something someone else brought up. So it is still odd to me that so many posters have pretended that I’ve posted out of nowhere (though that is easily explained by simple dishonesty from people who like thinking of themselves as the possessors of the truth and everyone who disagrees with them as wrong). I thought the point of a blog was “I’ll say something, and then you guys respond,” not “I’ll say something, and then freak out when anyone disagrees and pretend I didn’t say the first thing”? Maybe just me, though. Have fun congratulating yourself on your rightness, though, and pardon me for interrupting.